Ethnographic Analysis
How do materials, spaces, and cultural norms influence design practices?
Context
At Parsons School of Design, Rodolfo, Shreyans, and I set out to conduct an ethnographic analysis of Parson’s Wood Shop. Special thanks to Sam Mejias, our faculty and friend. Read the paper below, with the slides acting as a guide.
Abstract
This paper employs Actor-Network Theory to analyze the Parsons School of Design Wood Workshop, focusing on the interaction between human and non-human elements. Through observations and interviews, it uncovers how materials, spatial layout, and cultural norms influence design practices.
The study reveals a dynamic balance between rules and creativity facilitated by empathetic leadership, fostering innovation within the workshop environment.
Material Cultures and Creative Praxis
1.0. Introduction
This paper explores the emotional journey of students, the intuitiveness of space, and the
influence of material culture in the N2 college wood workshop at Parsons School of Design.
Utilizing Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as an analytical framework, this study examines how
human and non-human actors collaborate and interact within this creative educational setting.
The findings reveal the complex interplay between the physical environments, tools, cultural
norms, and individual emotions in shaping design practices and craft skills.
The wood workshop at Parsons School of Design provides a rich weaving of interactions
between students, tools, and the physical space, making it an ideal subject for an Actor-Network
Theory (ANT) analysis. ANT, as posited by Latour (2005), views all actors, whether human or
non-human, as equally influential in shaping socio-material realities.1 This paper examines how
students navigate their emotional journeys, adapt to the workshop's space, and engage with its
material culture.
1.1. Material as Actors
As Law (1992) states, "Materials, in their capacity as non-human actors, are not passive
entities but have agency."2 In the wood workshop, materials such as wood, tools, and machinery
are not just tools in the hands of the students; they are actors that influence and are influenced by
the students' interaction with them. This interaction is a two-way street: while students learn to
manipulate these materials, their design thinking and creative processes are simultaneously being
shaped by the materials' properties and affordances. This agency becomes evident as students
navigate the physical properties of wood, and adapt their designs to the limitations and
possibilities of the materials, and learn from the material's response to their craftsmanship.
It was evident from numerous interviews that students believe the more they interact with the material within the space, the better they understand its behavior. During the interviews, phrases like "how the material behaves" and "gradual evolution of the craft" were used. Furthermore, the
wood project done by the researchers made it clear that familiarity and a sense of ownership of
the space can be embodied through the use of tools and materials. This implies an almost
personified view of materials and a mutual understanding between the person using it and the
material itself.
1.2. Non-Human Actors as a Shaper of Practice The space appears raw yet organized, featuring an exposed ceiling, brick walls, cemented floors, and roll-down shutters at one entrance. Exposed vents and pipes add to the aesthetic. The place combines rawness with organized systems. The physical layout and environment of the
workshop itself are also integral actors within this network. The spatial arrangement, the
placement of tables, tools, and machinery, and even the ambient noise and atmosphere, all play
roles in how students engage with their craft and guide the students' movements and interactions.
The workshop's environment either affords or dis-affords certain types of work, directing the
flow of creative energy and focus or requiring students to adapt and develop new strategies for
navigation and utilization. As Latour (2005) notes, the agency of non-human actors (like the
spatial layout) significantly impacts human actions and decisions.3 This aspect aligns with
Callon’s (1986) perspective on the sociology of translation, where the environment translates the
students' intentions and actions into tangible outcomes.4
The particularity of the materials in the wood workshop serves both as an enabler and a constraint, as the student projects we observed typically involved multiple materials. While students showed awareness and concern for the potential lack of safety or harm to others and equipment that using varied materials could introduce, this situation often prevents them from venturing beyond wood in their projects, thus creating a barrier to their creative practice. Notably, there was a deep respect observed among individuals using the space towards their fellow cohabitants, as well as the tools and infrastructure.
Many students enter the workshop with a sense of anxiety and unfamiliarity. For instance,
one of the members of the team mentioned, “I felt quite out of place initially, not knowing
anyone and being older.” This initial discomfort is a typical emotional response to new
environments and challenges, aligning with ANT’s emphasis on the impact of new actors
entering an existing network (Latour, 2005). However, as students begin to engage with the space
and its tools, this anxiety often transforms into a sense of belonging and confidence.
1.3. Cultural Norms and Creative Expression
The workshop's culture, encompassing its rules, norms, and the informal knowledge
passed between peers and mentors, acts as a guiding force. This culture not only governs the use
of space and materials but also subtly influences the creative expression of the students. Students learn not only to craft with physical materials but also to navigate and incorporate these cultural elements into their creative praxis. In this way, the workshop's culture becomes a co-creator in the students' projects, embedding itself in the artifacts produced. One student reflected, “The rhythm of this place, its unwritten rules, they’re part of my design process now.” This sentiment echoes the deep integration of the workshop's ethos into the students' approach to their projects.
From respecting the communal nature of the space to adopting safety protocols as second nature, these norms have become an intrinsic part of their creative journey. Another student noted, “I’ve learned to plan my work around the busy times here, it’s like a dance we all silently agree to.”
This adaptability showcases their assimilation of the workshop’s temporal dynamics into their
planning and execution stages. Furthermore, the shared practice of meticulous cleanup and tool
maintenance, as one student mentioned, “It’s not just about respecting the space, it’s about
respecting each other’s craft,” illustrates the profound mutual respect that students have
developed, not only for the physical space but also for their fellow creators. These cultural
norms, ingrained in the students' practices, have transcended mere rules, evolving into a
collective ethos that shapes and enhances their creative expressions within the wood workshop.
1.4. The Emergence of Design Practices
As students progress through their projects, they constantly negotiate with these actors.
The choice of material, the selection of a particular tool, or the adoption of a specific technique
are all influenced by this ongoing interaction. This process exemplifies ANT’s core principle
where human and non-human actors are constantly shaping each other’s roles and identities
within the network (Latour, 2005).5 The result is a rich assembly of design practices that are as
much a product of the student's creativity as they are of the material culture and environment of
the workshop.
Students often learn intuitively through direct interaction with materials and tools. This
hands-on experience allows them to develop a tacit understanding of the workshop's dynamics,
which might not be immediately apparent through formal instruction alone. Law’s (1992)
concept of 'heterogeneous networks' illustrates how diverse elements (like tools, materials, and
human skills) intertwine to facilitate learning.6
The workshop also functions as a social space where peer learning and informal
mentorship occur. These social interactions are integral to how students adapt to and internalize
the workshop's culture. As students share tips, techniques, and experiences, they contribute to a
collective knowledge pool, demonstrating the ANT principle of networked learning and
knowledge creation.
1.5. The Balance Between Rules and Creativity
The workshop presents a dynamic balance between following established rules and
encouraging creative intuition. ANT helps to understand this balance as a continuous negotiation
within the network of actors – students, instructors, tools, materials, and the workshop
environment. While safety and procedure rules are non-negotiable, creative practices often invite
a more intuitive approach, reflecting Law’s (1992) idea of ‘strategy’ within networks.
In the context of balancing rules and creativity within the wood workshop, the role of power
dynamics emerges as a key facilitator for establishing best practices that consider the well-being
of both human and non-human actors. The exercise of power in the workshop stems from a place
of care and is tailored to be as relevant and understandable to the community as possible. This is
exemplified by the usage of memes to display important information, such as the “clean as you
go” rule.
This approach is critical in maintaining a safe and productive environment while also
keeping things light-hearted. The workshop managers, who are themselves full-time students,
bring a unique perspective to their roles. Their firsthand experience as users of the space enables
them to empathize deeply with fellow students, making them particularly effective in their
positions. They understand the fine line between adhering to necessary rules for safety and
operational efficiency and allowing the creative process to unfold naturally. This empathetic
approach ensures that the enforcement of rules does not stifle creativity, but rather supports it,
creating a harmonious balance where both structure and innovation can coexist and flourish in
the workshop environment.
Conclusion The Ethnographic analysis of the N2 woodshop revealed a rich, interconnected environment
where human and non-human actors interact in complex and meaningful ways. The woodshop
culture acts as an informal educational setting where peer learning and mentorship are key
components, and students learn not only through formal instruction but also through direct
material interaction and social exchanges.
In conclusion, the experience within N2 Woodshop was deeply insightful and rewarding
for us as researchers. The practice proved to be grounding and a means of pushing our
boundaries (and getting us out of our comfort zone), encouraging us to engage with individuals,
observe and practice, and patiently await the emergence of insights. By focusing on this specific
space and its occupants, we were able to extract more universal aspects of space interaction such as power dynamics, a sense of belonging, space ownership, and the negotiation of structure and freedom between rules and creativity. We'd like to stress that our perception and understanding evolved throughout the research process, which in turn influenced us, enhancing our confidence in our practice and our readiness to tackle new ethnographic challenges.
References
1 Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. HAL (Le Centre Pour La Communication Scientifique Directe), 2007. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02057191.
2 Law, John. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity.” Systems Practice 5, no. 4 (August 1, 1992): 379–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01059830.
3 Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. HAL (Le Centre Pour La Communication Scientifique Directe), 2007. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02057191
4 Callon, Michel. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherme of St Brieuc Bay.” The Sociological Review 32, no. 1_suppl (May 1, 1984): 196–233.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1984.tb00113.x.
5 Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. HAL (Le Centre Pour La Communication Scientifique Directe), 2007. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02057191.
6 Law, John. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity.” Systems Practice 5, no. 4 (August 1, 1992): 379–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01059830.