My initial plan (please refer to Ethics Approval Form) proposed a mixed method for collecting qualitative and quantitative data using questionnaires completed by students participating in the research, which would be followed up by a focus group to dig deeper. Both would provide qualitative data, which would be supplemented by quantitative data gathered from an attendance register to analyse students’ engagement with the on-site teaching. A Miro board with a set of questions was also initially proposed to be set up to gather my co-tutor’s response to allow for a conversational approach over an extended period. A set of questions over email would be sent to collaborators to gather their responses.

During the project, the students’ dissatisfaction with the on-site teaching required a different research methods to that proposed in my initial plan. The number of responses to the completion of the consent form and the questionnaire was very low. From a cohort of 19 students, I received just 2 responses. The focus group no longer seemed feasible in the context of wide dissatisfaction across the cohort. Also, my co-tutor had become significantly unconvinced by the approach, and so their participation in a reflective dialogue via Miro was difficult to obtain. I decided instead to interview tutors across design disciplines that have incorporated situated (on site) and socially engaged teaching into their pedagogical methodology.

The course leaders had become aware of the students’ dissatisfaction and two meetings were set up with me and my co-tutor to discuss the studio’s approach. There was an initial meeting which had focused on the student feedback, which could not be included in the research for confidentiality. However, the follow-up meeting which focused on what could be learned from the experience going forward was very insightful and with the consent of colleagues, the summary of discussion was included as data in my research.

Below is a Venn diagram which illustrates the different groups that contributed qualitative data to the research. Recurring themes mentioned by each group formed the basis of a thematic analysis and coding (Braun and Clarke, 2014). I used Microsoft Teams to conduct interviews with the design tutors. This approach, therefore, allowed me to also access transcripts of the discussions. Having listened to ‘The Tyranny of the Transcript’ (Harris, 2020), I decided to not only rely on the transcripts, but to also watch the video recordings again at the same time as analysing what each participant had said using the transcripts.

As originally planned, the register of attendance from the start of the semester through to the first two weeks in the second semester were compared to analyse student engagement on the days teaching was held on Broadwater Farm Estate and when it was at the university. Please see below.

References:

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2014) Thematic Analysis. Available at: https://study.sagepub.com/thematicanalysis (Accessed: 8 February 2024).

Harris, R. (2020) The Tyranny of the Transcript [Podcast]. 17 November. Available at: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5GPdL9Vo5sBwSMfu2f0eEH. (Accessed: 8 February 2024).