A Study of the Use and Appropriation of Multipurpose Technology-rich Spaces

A number of technology-rich spaces have been designed and created over the last few years with the purpose of supporting and enhancing learning, collaboration, community participation and a variety of everyday activities. Our research is concerned with how such spaces are used and whether they can support multiple uses. We report on an observational fieldwork study of a technology-rich multipurpose space based in a library. We examine its everyday use and discuss the tensions that were revealed in our analysis between anticipated and actual use. These are: (i) public versus private, (ii) play space versus meeting room and (iii) technology use versus non-use. Keywords Technology-rich spaces, multipurpose, ethnographic study. 1.INTRODUCTION In the last few years, many ‘technology-rich’ spaces have been proposed as examples of future places for learning, working and socialising e.g., (Oblinger, 2006; JISC, 2006). Learning and, teaching spaces, such as classrooms and auditoriums, have been embedded with a diversity of new technologies, such as tablet PCs, whiteboards (Razmov, 2006), plasma screens, videoconferencing (CILASS), personal response systems and IP video systems (LeBaronHall Auditorium). A main aim is to promote collaborative learning through encouraging more interactions between students and teachers. Workspaces such as laboratories, meeting rooms and offices have been embedded with shared technologies such as tabletops, whiteboards, and wirelessly interconnected monitors to enable people to collaborate using a diversity of digital content (Streitz et al., 1999), (Stanford Group Spaces), (London Metropolitan Science Centre). Multi-user interactive surfaces e.g. (Izadi et al., 2003), interactive plasma displays e.g., (Churchill et al., 2003) and laptops and touch screens e.g., (Glasgow Caledonian Learning Cafe) have been placed in social spaces. Here, the intention has been to reinforce mechanisms and interactions already in place to improve community participation. Another type of technology-rich space that is beginning to appear is one that is designed to be multi-purpose. A main idea is to make the space adaptable and flexible to people’s changing needs and activities (e.g., InQbate; Saltire Centre). An advantage is that the same space can be configured for a variety of work, social and learning activities and for different user groups. However, while the idea of multi-purpose spaces is very appealing little is known as to how they are used in practice. This paper reports on an observational fieldwork study of a technology-rich multipurpose environment, D-space, recently created as a new facility for visitors to a university library. The aim of the study was to observe how people used and appropriated the physical space, the technology embedded in it and each other. The study, carried out over a period of two months, revealed tensions between the anticipated and actual use. The paper discusses these in view of whether multi- purpose, technologically-embedded spaces can work. 2.THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to examine the reality of the everyday use of a multipurpose technology-rich space. The methodological approach was ethnographic (see, e.g., Fielding, 1993), involving participant observation of naturally occurring use and interaction together with semi-structured interviews with participants. The ethnographic approach ensured that the researcher attended to the taken-for-granted, accepted, and un- remarked aspects of use and interaction, considering all activities as 'strange' so as to prevent prior assumptions and background from affecting their observations. No preliminary hypotheses were formed beforehand and no particular feature of use or interaction was given a priori significance. The observations were carried out two to three days a week over a period of two months. The whole spectrum of daily activity was covered, with observing sessions in the morning, noon-early afternoon and late afternoon. Nevertheless, the majority of the data was gathered from the noon-early afternoon sessions, since the other two sessions revealed minimal activity. Activity and use was recorded by copious field notes. A schematic plan of the room was created to help capture any multiple interactions and movements through space and time. 29 © The Author 2007. Published by the British Computer Society The semi-structured interviews, involved one of the managers of the space, a regular user and several first-time users – individuals who had never been in the space before or had only been there once. The technology-rich space was situated in the library area of a University Campus. At the time of the study, it had been open for some 15 months, and its presence and availability was still strongly promoted around the University. As stated in a promotional leaflet, it is “a creative play area to experiment with and explore new ideas and share knowledge”, a space that “brings together new technologies and ideas on how they could be used for learning and teaching now or in the future”. The space measured 90m2 and was situated at the far end (from the entrance) of the ground floor of the library. Its door is the first in a line of office doors and requires a key card in order to gain access. A big U-shaped couch in the centre of the room faces a Figure 2. Schematic diagram of D-space: “C” stands for chairs, “LC” for lounge chairs, “T” for tables, “PS” for projector screen, “W” for whiteboard, “NB” for notice board, “L” for Lego’s, “B” for books, “S” for shelves, “AU” for audio devices and “LCD” for LCD screen. The peripheral bold lines indicate the entrance and the window. projector screen, a whiteboard and an LCD screen (see Figure 1). There is a large collection of current video games consoles (e.g., Wii, Xbox, PSP, Nintendo DS), a coffee machine, three desks with personal computers, books and magazines on education and technology, video games and other ‘fun’ technology objects such (e.g., iPod, a Nabaztag rabbit, a robot), as well as a collection of high-tech mobile phones. On the walls, and adjacent to each technology, there are labels and instructions describing how to use them. From the outside, the view into the space is obscured by a locked door, walls and a one-way window. There are, however, a few small ‘port-hole’ windows. The overall findings from the interviews and observational sessions revealed that the space was not used in the way anticipated. Users of the space had a preference for using it primarily as a private meeting room. Furthermore, the actual use of the technologies was limited. We present our analysis and findings as three themes between proposed use and actual use: i) public versus private, ii) play space versus meeting room, iii) technology use versus non-use. The themes are articulated in terms of tensions between the rhetoric (the stated hopes, ambitions and intentions) of the space and the observed reality of its day-to-day use. Public versus private space? Planned use: D-space was designed to be public: it is a drop-in space that has a non booking policy. It was created to encourage groups of people with different backgrounds to get in touch and communicate their interests or their work in a neutral but yet cosy environment. The library was chosen for this purpose because it is a common building that “shelters” people from all departmental affiliations and issues of status. The space, in theory, accommodates teamwork and collaboration. The furniture is multifunctional and flexible; users have the freedom in reconfiguring –at least partlythe physical environment (chairs, tables). Display technologies are available for large groups of people. Actual use: Was the space really public and did it support collocated action and collaboration? The observed use and activities that took place showed contradicting public versus private usage patterns of the space. Demonstrating its public nature, there were times when the room was shared unobtrusively by two different groups having separate casual meetings and by one individual working at a PC at the same time when a group of two or three people were having a meeting. But, on the other hand, facial expressions, annoyed looks, stares and body language were indicators that there were times where users were disturbed by the presence of others. In most of the occasions where two groups of people (it was also the same for the case of one individual and one group) were coexisting in the space at the same time, two behavioural patterns were observed: whispering and “creating corners”. Creating corners describes both the tendency of each group to be physically isolated in a corner of the room and also, when this was not possible, the tendency of groups to create corners where they did not exist, e.g., the couch. Even when the individuals/groups weren’t “creating corners”, they spoke in a low voice or whispered, suggesting that they didn’t want to disturb the other group/person or because they didn’t want to be heard. Moreover, there were occasions where people left the