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

A number of technology-rich spaces have been designed andcreated over the last few years with the purpose of supportingand enhancing learning, collaboration, community participationand a variety of everyday activities. Our research is concernedwith how such spaces are used and whether they can supportmultiple uses. We report on an observational fieldwork study ofa technology-rich multipurpose space based in a library. Weexamine its everyday use and discuss the tensions that wererevealed in our analysis between anticipated and actual use.These are: (i) public versus private, (ii) play space versusmeeting room and (iii) technology use versus non-use. KeywordsTechnology-rich spaces, multipurpose, ethnographic study. 1.INTRODUCTIONIn the last few years, many ‘technology-rich’ spaces have beenproposed as examples of future places for learning, working andsocialising e.g., (Oblinger, 2006; JISC, 2006). Learning and,teaching spaces, such as classrooms and auditoriums, have beenembedded with a diversity of new technologies, such as tabletPCs, whiteboards (Razmov, 2006), plasma screens,videoconferencing (CILASS), personal response systems and IPvideo systems (LeBaronHall Auditorium). A main aim is topromote collaborative learning through encouraging moreinteractions between students and teachers. Workspaces such aslaboratories, meeting rooms and offices have been embeddedwith shared technologies such as tabletops, whiteboards, andwirelessly interconnected monitors to enable people tocollaborate using a diversity of digital content (Streitz et al.,1999), (Stanford Group Spaces), (London Metropolitan ScienceCentre). Multi-user interactive surfaces e.g. (Izadi et al., 2003),interactive plasma displays e.g., (Churchill et al., 2003) andlaptops and touch screens e.g., (Glasgow Caledonian LearningCafe) have been placed in social spaces. Here, the intention hasbeen to reinforce mechanisms and interactions already in placeto improve community participation. Another type of technology-rich space that is beginning toappear is one that is designed to be multi-purpose. A main ideais to make the space adaptable and flexible to people’s changingneeds and activities (e.g., InQbate; Saltire Centre). Anadvantage is that the same space can be configured for a varietyof work, social and learning activities and for different usergroups. However, while the idea of multi-purpose spaces is veryappealing little is known as to how they are used in practice. This paper reports on an observational fieldwork study of atechnology-rich multipurpose environment, D-space, recentlycreated as a new facility for visitors to a university library. Theaim of the study was to observe how people used andappropriated the physical space, the technology embedded in itand each other. The study, carried out over a period of twomonths, revealed tensions between the anticipated and actualuse. The paper discusses these in view of whether multi-purpose, technologically-embedded spaces can work. 2.THE STUDYThe purpose of this study was to examine the reality of theeveryday use of a multipurpose technology-rich space. Themethodological approach was ethnographic (see, e.g., Fielding,1993), involving participant observation of naturally occurringuse and interaction together with semi-structured interviewswith participants. The ethnographic approach ensured that theresearcher attended to the taken-for-granted, accepted, and un-remarked aspects of use and interaction, considering allactivities as 'strange' so as to prevent prior assumptions andbackground from affecting their observations. No preliminaryhypotheses were formed beforehand and no particular feature ofuse or interaction was given a priori significance. The observations were carried out two to three days a weekover a period of two months. The whole spectrum of dailyactivity was covered, with observing sessions in the morning,noon-early afternoon and late afternoon. Nevertheless, themajority of the data was gathered from the noon-early afternoonsessions, since the other two sessions revealed minimal activity.Activity and use was recorded by copious field notes. Aschematic plan of the room was created to help capture anymultiple 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 managersof the space, a regular user and several first-time users –individuals who had never been in the space before or had onlybeen there once. The technology-rich space was situated in the library area of aUniversity Campus. At the time of the study, it had been openfor some 15 months, and its presence and availability was stillstrongly promoted around the University. As stated in apromotional leaflet, it is “a creative play area to experimentwith and explore new ideas and share knowledge”, a space that“brings together new technologies and ideas on how they couldbe used for learning and teaching now or in the future”. Thespace measured 90m2 and was situated at the far end (from theentrance) of the ground floor of the library. Its door is the firstin a line of office doors and requires a key card in order to gainaccess. 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 projectorscreen, “W” for whiteboard, “NB” for notice board, “L” for Lego’s, “B” for books, “S” for shelves, “AU” for audio devicesand “LCD” for LCD screen. The peripheral bold lines indicate the entrance and the window. projector screen, a whiteboard and an LCD screen (see Figure1). There is a large collection of current video games consoles(e.g., Wii, Xbox, PSP, Nintendo DS), a coffee machine, threedesks with personal computers, books and magazines oneducation 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 thewalls, and adjacent to each technology, there are labels andinstructions describing how to use them. From the outside, theview into the space is obscured by a locked door, walls and aone-way window. There are, however, a few small ‘port-hole’windows. The overall findings from the interviews and observationalsessions revealed that the space was not used in the wayanticipated. Users of the space had a preference for using itprimarily as a private meeting room. Furthermore, the actualuse of the technologies was limited. We present our analysisand findings as three themes between proposed use and actualuse: i) public versus private, ii) play space versus meetingroom, iii) technology use versus non-use. The themes arearticulated in terms of tensions between the rhetoric (the statedhopes, ambitions and intentions) of the space and the observedreality of its day-to-day use. Public versus private space? Planned use: D-space was designed to be public: it is a drop-inspace that has a non booking policy. It was created to encouragegroups of people with different backgrounds to get in touch andcommunicate their interests or their work in a neutral but yetcosy environment. The library was chosen for this purposebecause it is a common building that “shelters” people from alldepartmental affiliations and issues of status. The space, intheory, accommodates teamwork and collaboration. Thefurniture is multifunctional and flexible; users have the freedomin reconfiguring –at least partlythe physical environment(chairs, tables). Display technologies are available for largegroups of people. Actual use: Was the space really public and did it supportcollocated action and collaboration? The observed use andactivities that took place showed contradicting public versusprivate usage patterns of the space. Demonstrating its public nature, there were times when theroom was shared unobtrusively by two different groups havingseparate casual meetings and by one individual working at a PCat the same time when a group of two or three people werehaving a meeting. But, on the other hand, facial expressions,annoyed looks, stares and body language were indicators thatthere were times where users were disturbed by the presence ofothers. In most of the occasions where two groups of people (itwas also the same for the case of one individual and one group)were coexisting in the space at the same time, two behaviouralpatterns were observed: whispering and “creating corners”.Creating corners describes both the tendency of each group tobe physically isolated in a corner of the room and also, whenthis was not possible, the tendency of groups to create cornerswhere they did not exist, e.g., the couch. Even when theindividuals/groups weren’t “creating corners”, they spoke in alow voice or whispered, suggesting that they didn’t want todisturb the other group/person or because they didn’t want to beheard. Moreover, there were occasions where people left the