DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE ANNUAL PROJECT 2018 CAMPUS SPACE

AUTHORS 1

RATIONALE 2

AIMS 2

METHODOLOGY 3

OFF-CAMPUS SPACE 4 OFF CAMPUS CASE STUDY: LeSoCo 2016 - 2018 5 CONTEXT 5 PROBLEMS 5 POSITIVES 6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY FUTURE OFF CAMPUS EXPANSION 6

PRACTICE BASED SPACE ON CAMPUS 8 GENERAL ACCESS 8 EQUIPMENT AND AVAILABILITY 9 OTHER ARISING ISSUES/ RECURRING PROBLEMS 9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTISE BASED SPACES: 10

INNOVATION AND ACCESSIBILITY IN LEARNING AND TEACHING SPACES 11 General: 15 Expanding off-campus: 15 Practise based spaces: 15 Improving access to learning and teaching spaces: 15

Appendix 16

AUTHORS

Claire Wong: Undergraduate, Sociology ​ Lucy Cowling: Postgraduate, Art ​ Natasha Rowan: Undergraduate, ECL, American Literature ​ Nathaniel Okenwa: Undergraduate, Computing ​ Nikolaos Akritidis : Undergraduate, Media ​ Sahar Gerstel: Undergraduate, Design ​

1

RATIONALE

Campus Space has been a recurring topic in the Department Representative Annual Reports. As Department Representatives, we are invested in ensuring that spaces on campus are accessible and equipped to meet students’ needs, as a good allocation and maintenance of space is foundational for students to have a good experience whilst studying at Goldsmiths. Many previous reports placed an emphasis on an internal investigation of learning and teaching space. It therefore seemed useful to explore new areas, opening up debate around future potentials for Goldsmiths to grow and improve. It is for this reason that the 2018 report places its emphasis on off-campus expansion, both analysing current off-campus locations and suggesting possible future sites, practice based space on campus and a comparison between the accessibility of Goldsmiths’ learning and teaching spaces with that of other universities elsewhere in London.

AIMS

1. Investigate if there is student demand for off-campus teaching and study space. 2. Identifying flaws in communication between college, staff, and students in previous off-campus satellite locations, notably LeSoCo in Deptford. 3. Map inadequacies in practice-led (studio) spaces. 4. Determine what defines the most innovative and fully inclusive learning and teaching space, testing this definition against current locations on the Goldsmiths campus. 5. Provide recommendations of practical improvements to campus spaces and strategic improvements to communication between the college, staff, and students.

This report focuses on three key themes; off-campus study space, full accessibility in specific learning and teaching rooms, and practise based spaces on campus. These three areas were deemed most important as they address both the newer developments that have not yet been researched in previous reports, such as the current expansion of Estates to off-campus locations and new innovations in teaching space, but also continue to highlight issues that constantly need to be re-addressed in order to give Goldsmiths students’ the best experience whilst utilising campus space, such as accessibility and functional studios.

For off campus study space, we offer an explicit focus on key areas in South East London where students would like these spaces to be. LeSoCo is treated as a pilot of such off-campus expansion, and it is therefore important to analyse it as a case-study for successful and less successful implementation and communication. For accessibility in learning and teaching spaces, we will focus on the “ideal” accessible learning and teaching room; and seeing if Goldsmiths can follow suit of other London universities excelling in this area, such as Westminster University. In our section concerning practice based spaces on campus, we have focused specifically on what technical and electrical equipment students feel can be improved in those departments with practice-based programmes such as Photography, Media, Computational Arts, Design, Theatre and Performance, Music and Art.

2

METHODOLOGY

A range of qualitative and quantitative research methods have been employed to gather data. To identify our three focuses, we analysed the results of the Student Voice Survey 2018, being steered by significant peaks in respondents answers’ (ie. 48.79% said they would use off-campus study space) or anomalies in data (ie. 19.09% said they know there is study space available but they do not use it). This survey was answered by 1117 students. It also generated 1075 qualitative text comments to the specific questions regarding campus space, some of which have been included in data analysis and recommendations.

Additional research methods were used to be able to further analyse this initial data. Regarding the possibility of off campus spaces, a Facebook survey with multiple choice answers was put out to students, asking them to select locations they would consider going to to study off campus. Regarding LeSoCo as a case-study, three in-depth interviews were conducted with MFA Fine Art Alumni that graduated in 2017, as this was the year that was most affected by the move from the Laurie Grove Baths on campus to Deptford. This has been supplemented with numerous testimonies of students that currently have their studios there.

Regarding practise based spaces, ten open ended informal interviews were held with students, some individually, some in pairs and some in groups of three. Additionally, unstructured interviews have been conducted via email to key staff members. Specifically, Lynne Tucker (Chief Information Officer) and Professor Osita Okagbue (Department Head of Theatre & Performance). An unstructured interview with the Acting and Filmmaking Society also took place. The student interviews offered rich, qualitative findings, as they were the most efficient way for us to consider student priorities and responses to their practise based spaces.

For accessibility in specific learning and teaching areas, we have gathered testimonies of lived student experiences.

3

OFF-CAMPUS SPACE

When looking into off- campus study spaces, a survey was sent to students, giving six options for neighborhoods surrounding the campus, assuming these are the areas with higher populations of Goldsmiths students.

Peckham received the most votes, Greenwich come second and Camberwell and Brockley tied in third place.

Students prefer to have study space close to where they live, which they can use as self-directed space, instead of travelling all the way to the library or other spaces on campus.

Off-campus study space could be a hot desk space/common working space, where there are large tables and individual ones for students to use. With the same facilities as in the library: printers, small cantine, internet, desks.

4

OFF CAMPUS CASE STUDY: LeSoCo 2016 - 2018

CONTEXT Commencing in September 2016, the MFA Fine Art programme moved from the Laurie Grove Baths to the former gym and fitness buildings of Lewisham Southwark College (LeSoCo), situated between Deptford Creek and Deptford Bridge DLR station. This satellite campus on Deptford Church Street is located 0.7mile - a 15 minute walk - from the main campus.

In September 2017 all other students and teaching staff joined this off-campus location. Apart from the PhD students, the entire Postgraduate Art Department is located outside the ‘one campus college’ model. This equates to just under 200 students and staff, roughly 25% of the entire Goldsmiths Art Department.

The reason for this move is that the former Victorian baths that housed the MFA Fine Art and Curating studios, are currently being redeveloped into the Goldsmiths Centre for Contemporary Art (CCA). Repurposing former practice-led studio campus space to create a new public art institution, on a campus where lack of space is an ongoing problem, naturally presented itself as a contested issue. However, this large scale development of new studio practice and teaching spaces could also be an exciting pilot for further off-campus expansion. Therefore, it is important to analyse which aspects of the move worked well, from the communication to the implementation - as well as where improvements can be made when such situations will arise again in the future.

PROBLEMS Initial communication ❏ Throughout the 2015/2016 academic year it was known that a section of the studio spaces in the Laurie Grove Baths would be moved, but no further information about this was communicated with the affected students. ❏ The move to Deptford was not mentioned in the Student Staff Forum or Learning and Teaching Meetings earlier that year. ❏ The first mention of the Deptford site did not come until June 2016, communicated through email by a faculty staff member. This email also announced a meeting between students and staff the following week. ❏ Due to opaque communication, a general sentiment arose that faculty staff were ‘siding’ with management, against the best interest of the student body. Subsequent management of situation ❏ At the meeting between senior management, faculty staff, and students questions raised got “shouted down” by fellow students, with staff not being able to facilitate a ‘safe’ environment for those to adequately voice their concerns. ❏ Management was unable to provide the requested information, for instance only coming with initial floor plans of the new building, but no photos, indication of how space would be allocated, timeline of who would move when or knowledge of which facilities would be in place.

5

❏ The first walk-throughs of the space got planned outside of term time, in the summer holiday. As a result, many students were not able to attend. ❏ In the 2016/2017 academic year, only half the MFA Fine Art students were moved, as the facilities were not yet fit-for-purpose to host the full amount of students. This was disruptive. ❏ As the studios have been repurposed from a former fitness building and the rental from LeSoCo is only temporary, not all features of the building or subsequent refittings have made it fully fit for purpose. Some notable examples: - Still no (stair)lift for those with extra accessibility needs to reach the first floor. - All food was banned between September - December 2017 due to a mouse epidemic. - None of the taps supply decent drinking water. - There was a leak in the hot water system that caused there to be no heating for most of January 2018. - There is no ‘eduroam’ network, resulting in problems with clearance levels to access VPN protected internet content, such as certain academic journals. - Plumbing can not cope with painters/sculptors needing to clean their brushes and other material residue in the sinks.

POSITIVES ❏ During and after the meeting students formulated certain ‘wishes’ for the new studios, including a common room and longer opening hours. These two wishes have been implemented, and are well received. ❏ There is an increase in space, not only in m2 per Fine Art student, but also with the inclusion of the bigger seminar room, lounge area, and larger Curatorial studio. ❏ Moving the MFA Curating students to Deptford at the beginning of the 2017/2018 academic year has been experienced a good decision. Throughout the 2016/2017 year, students were also partly consulted on whether this was desirable. ❏ The satellite campus has helped foster a strong sense of community, partly due to greater levels of creative autonomy that comes with common areas, more bookable facilities and longer hours. It is also partly due to all years and programmes of the PG Art Department being back together in the same building.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY FUTURE OFF CAMPUS EXPANSION ❏ Transparent, open communication about plans regarding facilities and estates with students is needed from the offset of any expansion plans. ❏ Walk-throughs and consultation sessions with students from initial planning and negotiation stages onwards. ❏ Clearly indicate and communicate the division of roles and responsibilities of academic staff and College management. ❏ Signpost where students can voice concerns and follow up on these.

6

❏ Actively plan review and feedback sessions to make sure new facilities meet student needs. This is something that up until now has been student-led rather than staff-led, for instance through the Academic Representative system. ❏ Open self study space in Peckham and/or Greenwich area, as they were the most requested by students. ❏ The space should be as co-working spaces with the facilities of desks, internet, printers and some kind of canteen.

7

PRACTICE BASED SPACE ON CAMPUS

The largest respondent groups on the Annual Survey were students from the Psychology and Media Departments. This prompted an investigation into the wider user satisfaction of campus space for practice based learning.

‘Practice based spaces’ on campus are understood here as those spaces used by students in creative subjects who are not just assessed on theoretical written work and are supported in developing their own practice. These include computer suites, rehearsal rooms, and artistic studio space. We interviewed ten students from a range of departments including Media, Music, Art and Theatre from across all levels of study; Foundation, Undergraduate, Postgraduate, and PhD students. Alongside data drawn from the Student Voice Survey the following trends were identified:

GENERAL ACCESS ❏ Topics including access into buildings, use of facilities, and opening hours are generally viewed positively across all departments and levels of study. ❏ Complete closure of the Labs during the long Autumn, Christmas and Easter breaks is not well received, particularly the lack of access to the photography studios has been sign-posted as a problem. ❏ In the Art department there is late night access to studios. Security is effective over weekends, with a good sign-in and sign-out system, so there is a good transparency for who is in the building. ❏ Booking space for practice in the Music department (specifically classical music rooms with large instruments) is relatively straightforward, however these spaces are over-subscribed, so must be booked a couple of days in advance. ❏ In the Theatre and Performance department, students are frustrated by the closure of the theatre and studios due to ongoing refurbishments . There has been no access to rehearsal studios in the Autumn term of the 2017/2018 academic year. ❏ Theatre students also mentioned their frustration at having timetabled lectures held inside the theatre. As their access to rehearsal spaces is limited, these three hour slot should be used fors rehearsals and practical teaching, not sitting and taking lecture notes.

8

EQUIPMENT AND AVAILABILITY

❏ In Media, there is inconsistency and disputes in terms of what equipment is available to which students at different levels of study. In the Undergraduate Media and ​ Communications department, it seems certain programmes have priority access to certain film equipment. Students that were interviewed taking documentary filming modules felt the types of cameras available to them were limiting. They were able to use small documentary mobile cameras, such as Sony pbw 200, TAC 100, A100 type cameras. The more apt and cinematic Canon c300 cameras are oversubscribed and access to them is limited for students in this strand of the department. ❏ Digital Media students say there is not access to basic equipment: ie (slider and track) ​ -More colour grading suites needed (only two). ❏ Photography students can only print in black and white: colour grading costs in the darkroom. If students wish to develop work in colour, they must pay independently and print ​ outside of Goldsmiths. ❏ Media Students feel programming / editing programmes are slightly basic/ outdated. Want encouraging to use different programmes. ‘WordPress’ as a programme they are ​ instructed to use- student’s felt this is not the newest and most efficient model to be taught. Students feel being taught through this platform does not stretch their abilities- rather, they are encouraged to keep projects simple. ❏ Only two scanners: there are only two scanners in the scanning room- for very large ​ amounts of students (100+.) This means students are left queuing for long periods of time, and this delays their projects/ learning unreasonably. ❏ Soundproof music rooms in RHB need better sound proofing. Sound insulation is an ​ issue campus space have mentioned in previous year’s reports and must be improved urgently. Classical music students also reported that there are certain piano’s that are damaged beyond retuning, and would like to see their equipment improved/ more regularly checked. ❏ In the Theatre and Performance department, rehearsal rooms need to be consistent. ​ The theatre and rehearsal rooms are considered fantastic and fit for purpose. However, often students are expecting a rehearsal space and a seminar room is provided, which means valuable time is lost in rearranging furniture to make space to rehearse.

OTHER ARISING ISSUES/ RECURRING PROBLEMS ❏ Students need to know what equipment they can expect to use in what years - there seems to be a tension between years in terms of whose needs to equipment is greater. Clearly explaining what equipment can be used in programme overviews can solve this issue. ❏ At open days, students felt they were deceived by being shown state of the art equipment which they can in reality only access once or twice for the duration of their studies.

9

❏ Students feel frustrated in that they are not taught how to use what we do have - unless they have learnt previously or found help independently. For example: there are state of the art sound booths, software, cameras and lighting booths that students do not know how to use. The Acting and Film Society are happy to organise a basic teaching session at the beginning of the year in future to curb this problem.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTISE BASED SPACES:

❏ Clarity and transparency in media programme module outlines (and open days) must be improved, regarding exactly what equipment students can expect to use- in which year of study. ❏ More scanners needed for photography/ media students. ❏ Soundproof the music practise rooms across campus. ❏ Timetabling needs to be made aware of the inconsistency in space provided for theatre students’ rehearsals.

10

INNOVATION AND ACCESSIBILITY IN LEARNING AND TEACHING SPACES

Case study #1: “I’m a 3rd year Media & Sociology student who uses a wheelchair, and in all ​ three years of my time as a student here, I’ve never been able to use a desk in a lecture theatre. (Typically, students would have a flip-up desks available in all lecture halls) Initially, I had spoken to the Disability Team at Goldsmiths’ in charge of student support and assistance, and asked for a desk which could be made available in each of my lecture rooms, but instead of providing any real solution, the member of staff stated they were not able to supply any portable desks in lecture rooms as they were at risk of being moved or going missing. Instead I was ‘advised’ to ‘find some way of adapting my wheelchair so a portable desk might be attached to it’, and for me to supposedly ‘carry the desk around wherever I needed it’. Needless to say, I wasn’t provided with much assistance of how to proceed further and was left to my own devices since then.”

Case study #2: “Im a 2nd year student with visual and hearing impairments. I’ve struggled with ​ being able to make full use of the content provided during some of my lectures as the rooms are often not adapted well to cater for people that can’t hear or see as well; on occasion the microphone had malfunctioned/didn’t work and the lecturer at the time had to try to speak louder to compensate for that. Some of the lecturers also seemed unaware that there were students that may have required the aid of enlarged fonts on Powerpoint slides, and sometimes I’ve sat through entire lectures without having any visual cues as to what was being talked about.”

The purpose of including the two case studies are to highlight some of the current and recurring issues faced by existing Goldsmiths students. It appears rather important to note that, although the problems outlined in the statements above may appear quite trivial in isolation, the impact that this has upon each of the individuals can be the difference between excelling or falling behind in their studies. Moreover, it would be a grossly unfair disadvantage to the student if they are unable to have access to a similar quality of education as their peers.

Therefore, in order to improve on the level of accessibility of the Goldsmiths campus, we feel it might be useful to observe the approaches currently adopted by other educational institutions, to see if something similar could be emulated here.

The University of Westminster website currently has a ‘virtual open day’, which allows users to customise and select different options according to your own preferences and interests. A page is then generated specifically to their chosen subjects/fields and users can take a virtual tour via a Google Maps-style application. This can be hugely useful for someone with accessibility concerns as it would give them a better idea of what the place looks like, getting around the area/buildings. It’s also very helpful that the page generated is tailored specifically to the user’s subject selection, which takes them to the buildings in which they will be most likely be based - i.e. someone

11

interested in studying Media & Communications could be directed to the ‘street view’ inside and around the Professor Stuart Hall building.

Goldsmiths’ currently does have something very similar, however this could be improved in a number of ways (detailed below under “Recommendations”).

Goldsmiths’ current website

Images courtesy of: https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/goldsmiths-google-street-view/

12

Westminster University’s website

Images: https://yourvirtualopenday.westminster.ac.uk/

13

SOAS University of London website The University has a section of their website dedicated to Accessibility & Accommodation. One thing that stands out is their attention to detail in specific areas of their campus and all of the buildings occupied by SOAS. On one page, users are able to easily download and view PDF documents (or Word docs on request) of any buildings they wish to have more information about. Useful and in-depth details are included under simple and easy-reference headings.

For example, “Entrance - The building has 4 steps to the front entrance, there is no handrail or ramp. To the right of the steps there is a wheelchair accessible alternative entrance with a call button; the receptionist will open the door on receipt of the call. This entrance has a large, heavy door and this must be opened by the Reception / Security staff. To access the building either press the call button or call 0207 898 4915, which is the Brunei Gallery, and ask to be put through to Gordon Square reception to arrange for the security officer in the building to open the door. Once inside the door, there is a platform lift to access the ground floor (which is down one step). The carpeted floor is raked slightly towards the door into the part of the building used by the Doctoral School.”

Other factors such as Vertical Access, Emergency Refuge, Induction Loops, Toilets and general room accessibility are included.

Image courtesy of: https://www.soas.ac.uk/equalitydiversity/access-to-buildings/

14

CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS

General: ❏ All investments by Estates and improvements to existing campus spaces should carefully consider student needs and act in the best interest of the greater student body. ❏ Reallocations of (studio) space and repairs or refits to practice based spaces should be communicated to students transparently at the earliest possible time. ❏ Walk-throughs and consultation sessions should be planned with (affected) students from the planning and development stages onwards for any significant off-campus investments or reallocation of space on campus.

Expanding off-campus: ❏ Any off-campus expansion must remain in close proximity (no more than 1.8 miles) from the main site. ❏ A hot-desk/common work space in the vicinity of (Queens Road) Peckham would be well valued by students, particularly during moments in term when study space on campus is over subscribed.

Practise based spaces: ❏ Create a clear and accessible database stipulating which equipment is available to use for which module and year. This is particularly necessary for the different strands of study in the Media Department. ❏ Timetabling should not allocate lectures or other forms of teaching to rooms that can be booked as rehearsal space. ❏ Invest in soundproofing music rehearsal rooms and ensure damaged instruments are reported and replaced.

Improving access to learning and teaching spaces: ❏ Following the example set by SOAS, Goldsmiths should dedicate a section of their website to giving a full breakdown of the accessibility of each building it occupies and include a contact information for staff or students that need additional help or need to requests a relocation of services to a more accessible space. ❏ Following the University of Westminster, Goldsmiths could use their ‘virtual open day’ and Google Street View walk through of campus to signal to future and current students more clearly which buildings are used for which purpose ❏ The current Goldsmiths’ Google Street View app requires updating as most of the images pictured of the campus online differ to how it currently stands. ❏ The Street View section on the Goldsmiths’ website seems to be under-publicised to prospective and current students. A URL link prominently on the homepage or main accessibility page would solve this. ❏ Microphones are not always properly used and implemented, creating more ambient echo and secondary reverberant bounce-back, meaning those at the back of lecture theatres can not hear what is being said. Training staff on use of the PA system and installing speakers at the back of large lecture theatres can mitigate this problem.

15

Appendix

One of the questions in the survey asked students to comment about spaces around campus which they find inaccessibile, here are some of their comments:

Are there any specific buildings or areas on campus that you feel are inaccessible? Please give details

“All buildings where we have to swipe our cards to get in don't work because our cards don't work”.

“st. James studio hard to find the entry and exit”.

“The Design building next to the gym, it is hard to find the correct room number if you’re not familiar with the building”.

“Hatcham House is far away and if directly after a lecture is hard to get to quickly”.

“RHB - this building is like a maze and very difficult to navigate. The chairs provided with the fold down desks are difficult to use/uncomfortable, especially for left-handed people”.

“third Floor rhb for people with wheelchairs would be impossible”. ​

“The Hackspace is inaccessible to me given how all of the equipment is set up. I can't comfortably reach ​ machine interfaces”.

Fine art building not available to Art psychotherapy students but they have access to our ceramics studio

“Wormington Tower; only 1 lift for specific floors. Due to amount of floors, lifts are used by all students including able bodied which means a wheelchair bound or less able to walk individual will have to wait even longer than the standard long wait for an available lift in this building”.

“304 and 304a in RHB and the majority of spaces around that area. The signs are terrible! I have been lost ​ many times”.

“The design block. I think that students from other departments should be able to use some of the equipment ​ that other departments use, such as screen printing, photography studio etc. Just because you don't study design, it doesn't mean that you are not creative and want to create something. More access for other students. I know at London College of Communication, all areas are open for all student, no matter what you study, and it helps with your mental health and more to be able to do creative things while studying something else”.

“Pimlott Building, it's not easy to find and the student cards usually don't work”.

16