University College London/ETHNO-ISS (NASA)
HKS Architects
[/s2If] [s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level1)] [/s2If]
Since March 2020, many employees around the world have been forced to work from home due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) have experience in working in isolation and confinement. This paper focuses on a comparison of astronauts on the ISS and Earth-bound architects and interior designers restricted to working from home (i.e. their sofas) due to the pandemic. Isolation at work emerges as a complex phenomenon characterized by the measured and perceived distances between physical, social, and temporal spaces. By examining the scale-making activities of NASA and HKS, analogs provide a possible means for studying and predicting the complex dimensions of isolation. The work ecosystem is a useful tool in conceptualizing and operationalizing the employee experience to design the future of work and workspaces.
Article citation: 2020 EPIC Proceedings pp 338–355, ISSN 1559-8918, https://www.epicpeople.org/epic
Please sign in OR create a free account to access our library—the leading collection of peer-reviewed work on ethnographic practice. To access video, Become an EPIC Member.
In 2020, the global workforce has become distanced in ways that no one could have imagined. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, humans around the globe transitioned nearly overnight to working in isolation, confined to our homes, and conscious of the extreme (i.e. contagious) world outside. Leaders and employees in governments, businesses, universities, and organizations of every type are affected by the current pandemic. The sudden, worldwide shift to remote working has prompted many questions about the future of work (FOW) and the concept of work-from-home (WFH). Inspired by the messages from astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), we consider the 2020 employee experience in two seemingly different industries, space exploration and architecture. Our focus is on a comparison of astronauts on the ISS and Earth-bound employees restricted to working from home (i.e. their sofas) due to the pandemic. The employee experience of working in isolation is contextualized through examples of our respective ethnographic work on workplace design at NASA on the design of space habitats and with HKS Inc., a global architecture firm. From the space station to the sofa, we explore the usefulness of the ISS as an analog1 for the WFH experience and open up questions of scale, space, place, and time.
ASTRONAUTS AND ANTHROPOLOGISTS: IN THIS TOGETHER
“From up here, it is easy to see that we are truly all in this together. #EarthStrong,” astronaut Jessica Meir tweeted on March 16, 2020, from the ISS, shown in Figure 1. As COVID-19 spread across the globe, the first messages from astronauts focused on human solidarity. Astronauts are known to share Tweets and words of encouragement during natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other catastrophes that affect nations around the world. COVID-19 was no different. However, with the sudden shift to remote working occurring worldwide, astronauts began adding words of wisdom to their messages from outer space. Medical experts and government officials began directing the world on how to live during a global pandemic, and astronauts quickly began sharing their expert tips for working in isolation. On March 21st, days after Meir’s first Tweet, retired astronaut Scott Kelly (2020) published an opinion piece in The New York Times with the title “I Spent a Year in Space, and I Have Tips on Isolation to Share,” see Figure 2. NASA (2020) followed suit the following day (Figure 3) and published tips from astronaut Anne McClain on its website. Two days later, the National Geographic (2020) published an interview with astronaut Chris Cassidy “Stuck in a cramped space? This astronaut has some advice,” shown in Figure 4.
Figure 1. First astronaut Tweet regarding COVID-19
Figure 2. Retired astronaut Scott Kelly’s (2020) Tips for Working in Isolation
Figure 3. NASA (2020) posts astronaut’s tips for working in confined spaces
Figure 4. Astronaut Chris Cassidy shares tips for working in confinement (National Geographic 2020)
What started as texts between friends, we came together intrigued by the number of interviews, articles, podcasts, and social media posts of, by, or from astronauts and cosmonauts giving WFH tips. As intrigue grew towards intellectual curiosity, we began reflecting on anthropological notions of isolation, work, and scale. As two applied anthropologists from two different industries, we also drew on our respective work experiences and ethnographic research. From a space anthropologist’s perspective (Aiken), how does isolation at home compare to isolation in extreme environments? As a design anthropologist working in architecture (Ramer), how alike is the work-from-home employee experience to that of an astronaut? For both of us, as applied, design ethnographers, these questions converge on the subject of scale. How far down, or up, can you scale human experiences of work in isolation? In other words, how comparable are the astronauts’ work experiences in isolation to employees working at home during a global pandemic? How useful would such a comparison be? Can you measure, or scale, isolation and work experiences therein? How do these scales develop in the first place, and how useful are they when it comes to designing the future of work, in space and on Earth? The discussion that follows unpacks these questions and more.
ISOLATION AT WORK
At first glance, working in outer space seems very different than working from home on Earth; and at the same time, the astronauts’ tips for working in isolation during COVID-19 are worthy of international media attention. Isolation is the common element that connects these two environments of work in 2020 (i.e. the sofa and the ISS). Simply defined, isolation is the condition of being isolated or “set apart from others” (isolate, n.d.). Anthropologists, psychologists, and other related theorists offer insights on what it means to be “set apart” through discussions of space, place, and time (see Low and Lawrence-Zúñiga 2003). Aiming toward practical design application, isolation can be grouped into two categories, or dimensions: physical space and social space. One can be physically set apart from others as well as socially set apart. Applied, ethnographic workplace studies often address aspects of physical and social spaces (see Cefkin 2010 and Gunn, Otto, and Smith 2013). However, time is a dimension of isolation that is less discussed in anthropology and design research regarding work.
Physical Space in the Workplace
A practical, even mundane, view of physical space focuses on the visible, measurable distances between objects and people in enclosed environments. Physical space can be translated into the volume of a structure and/or the surface of an area. The physical environment and its boundaries are ultimately experienced and evaluated through the body’s senses. Bourdieu’s (1977) habitus suggests the body inhabits an environment that imposes structural constraints, forming dispositions or schemes of perception or thought. Workplace theorists have demonstrated that the perceptions of the physical environment, or office space, directly affects job attitude and performance (Kupritz 2000). Beginning with the first “modern” office space design in the early 19th century, American engineer Frank Taylor sought to maximize efficiency and productivity by designing workplaces based on the design of factories (Kupritz 1998, 2011). Taylorism evolved toward human relations and eventually toward more human-centered design practices in which workplace designs became more individualized and flexible. Over the years, trends in office design have fluctuated from private offices, to open floor plans, to cubicles, benching, assigned seats, hoteling, and hot desking. In outer space, workplace designs are much more limited. However, the design of the ISS also designates specific spaces for work activities that are physically separate from living quarters. As EPIC contributors Imai and Ban (2016) state and most workplace theorists agree, “the physical distance between workers has dramatic impact on productivity and collaboration.” The physical environment, then, is a crucial component of understanding the total employee work experience.
Social Space in the Workplace
Like astronauts, many 2020 WFH employees do not work in complete autonomy. Employees work as part of an organization, department, or team; they have co-workers and a boss. Following our simple view of physical space, social space can be described as the perceived distance between people in a given environment. However, unlike physical spaces such as private offices and open floor plans, social spaces are often invisible and immeasurable. As mentioned above, designers consider the physical spaces between members of an organization or team in designing office spaces that promote collaboration and productivity. In other words, physical spaces influence or create boundaries for functional social spaces in the workplace. We create social space, or separate ourselves, from others on the subway by wearing headphones and closing our eyes. The WFH employee appears isolated when his toddler is taking a nap, and no one else visibly or audibly makes a surprise appearance in the virtual meeting. Add in the ancillary layers of the digital realm and the added layer of time and we see an even more dynamic view of social space. The act of working outside of standard work hours is an example of creating social isolation, often at the excuse of needing privacy for more focused work. Increasingly, with the invention of the internet, social space has evolved to include virtual spaces that are not geographically based or digitally fixed in time (Miller and Slater 2000). Boellstorff (2015) has taught us to avoid framing the digital or virtual world as “unreal” in contrast to the physical world. Social space, then, exists on measurable scales of the physical as well as in the digital realm of connectedness. When considering the current COVID context, the varying states of social connection in terms of isolation comes to the forefront.
Temporal Space (or Space in Time) in the Workplace
Time is a complex phenomenon. Here, we refer to time as a point of existence measured in units (e.g. hours, minutes, seconds) relative to a given standard. The time in San Francisco is 9:30 AM in the Pacific Time Zone while the time in London is 6:30 PM according to the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) zone. For this discussion, we consider temporal space as the difference in time (as measured, perceived, or experienced) between people and events. At 9:30 AM Pacific, the architect in San Francisco has just begun her workday while, concurrently, the design researcher in London is preoccupied with preparing dinner. In this example, the architect and the design researcher can be engaged in the same virtual meeting, but their experience is different due to the measurable, temporal space between them. Time, though addressed with less frequency and less explicitly in applied workplace research, is a key contextual factor in working in isolation. Astronauts understand that their job requires working in isolation at some point in their careers – once assigned to a mission, they know the start date (i.e. time) their isolation begins. It is unlikely that many architects or designers knew a global pandemic would change their work environment before it happened in 2020. Isolation in spaceflight also has a confirmed end date. Space missions, like polar expeditions, are planned – astronauts know when they are going home. Antarctic scientists say that knowing the last day of the mission was sometimes what got them through the loneliness. In a 2013 habitat study, one NASA scientist shared with Aiken, “If for some reason, your ‘Going Home Day’ changes… some people lose their minds over a 3-day delay.” The scientist went on to emphasize that a change in the extraction date is just as meaningful and often more impactful on mental health than an extended duration. For many Earth-bound workers, at the time of this writing, it is still unknown when offices will resume normal operations. With no end date and no set duration, the total impact of working in isolation at home during COVID-19 remains unknown.
EXPLORING THE USE OF SCALES: ANALOGS OF ISOLATION
Space scientists and engineers as well as architects and interior designers create and use scales to address the physical, social, and temporal dimensions of workspaces. As seen through two work examples, HKS and NASA experts create and use scales to make tangible and design for the unknown. Tsing (2011:57) uses “scale-making” to refer to projects that create or transform the perception of a scale (i.e. the global) to see how it might work on another scale (i.e. the local). NASA engages in scale-making through the use of local (i.e. located on Earth) space analogs to imagine life on a larger, galactic scale (i.e. not located on Earth). Similarly, HKS views its local architects in a scale-making effort to understand the global WFH workforce – the 2020 sofa is, in a way, an analog for understanding the future workplace experience. NASA and HKS seek to understand and make sense of the dynamic nature of physical, social, and temporal spaces in an isolated workplace. An analysis of these analogs is crucial in assessing the possibility of scaling up the experience of the ISS astronaut to the global, isolated 2020 workforce.
Designing Habitats for Space Exploration
As an applied researcher internal to NASA, Jo Aiken conducted astronaut workplace studies from 2013 to 2018. The first project involved the design of habitats to be used for future missions to Mars. Habitat design is a unique, complex challenge for NASA’s engineers. As humans explore space beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) new habitability concerns emerge that influence the design of a habitat. Sending humans to work off-planet is costly, so the design requirements also take into account the cost of launching a heavy space habitat. When making critical decisions, space architects and engineers design space systems based on legitimate requirements and not what is simply “nice to have.” To assess habitat design considerations that are more than “nice to have,” Aiken gathered ethnographic evidence about perceptions and behaviors related to living in a Mars habitat. The study provided meaningful insights into previous assumptions made by engineers such as the importance of designing separate spaces for working, eating, sleeping, and exercise. The study also resulted in 25 key findings relating to privacy. Several of these findings provided strong evidence for designing private crew quarters larger than what is currently provided on the ISS – privacy is more than a “nice to have” even when living and working in an environment of isolation. NASA engineers continue to develop the design requirements for space habitats based, in part, on these findings.
NASA & The Space Analog
Since humans have yet to live on a celestial body other than Earth, it is difficult for engineers to contextualize interactions between astronauts and the technology that is required for living and working on another planet. Aiken, like other NASA researchers, used space analogs to study what it would be like to live in a Mars habitat. Space analogs include simulated missions to Mars as well as science research stations in Antarctica and submarine crews. They use space analogs to scale-back the level of difficulty in studying a future, off-world workplace. Space analogs are located on Earth, yet they mimic to some degree the experience of working in outer space. NASA engineers and scientists refer to the environment of space as Isolated, Confined, and Extreme, or simply “ICE.” NASA researchers use Earth-based analogs to study what it is like to live and work in an ICE environment. They study scientists wintering over in Antarctica to understand isolation and sensory deprivation. They learn about living in small, confined spaces from submarine crews. While nothing can exactly simulate living and working in space, space analogs and astronaut-like populations are characterized by their degree of similarity to the space ICE environment. For example, a simulated Mars mission on the Big Island of Hawai’i is a high-fidelity analog due to the isolated and confined conditions of the participants living in a small habitat. A group of scientists wintering over in Antarctica is a higher-fidelity analog because of the increased remoteness and extreme environment of the region. The ICE scale, on Earth as well as in space, is fluid and changes due to the weather, the sound of a tourist helicopter flying over Mauna Loa, or constant video monitoring by a simulated mission control. NASA uses the concept of ICE to study, predict, and plan for the dynamic nature of social spaces in outer space – ICE influences the construction of space structures, or physical space, as well as the social aspects of space exploration (NASA 2014).
NASA uses another scale to plan for habitat designs at a more micro level than the ICE scale affords. In 2013, NASA asked its scientists and researchers to determine the minimum Net Habitable Volume (NHV), or the minimum number of cubic meters/feet, necessary for supporting crew life on long-duration exploration missions. The NASA behavioral health scientists and human factors engineers recognize the complex, dynamic nature of habitable volume. NHV is what is left available to the space crew after accounting for elements that decrease the usability or functional volume of the spacecraft. For example, the stack of books left in the backseat of my Jeep decreases the NHV available to my passengers. On Earth, gravity reduces the available functional NHV in a given workplace. An interior designer cannot, without assistance and potential harm, work on his ceiling. Astronauts on the ISS can utilize all four walls, or boundaries, of their physical space. In this way, physical space is scaled down on Earth – our available, functional physical space is limited compared to that in outer space. However, NHV or physical space is also easier to scale up in an Earth-bound workplace. A biomedical scientist can go for a walk outside the lab to create physical distance for privacy. The trash is cleared regularly. In space, emptying the trash and creating physical space is more difficult.
Designing Workspaces for the Future of Work-From-Home (WFH)
Working as an in-house researcher for the global architecture firm, HKS, Angela Ramer works alongside architects and interior designers in the design of commercial workspaces on Earth. Projects seek to scale the human/machine elements to appropriately create the best, most functional built environment and employee experience. This scaling of space for function is known as programming in which critical needs are identified and outlined in order of magnitude (e.g. high-level components) or are more detailed (e.g. an itemized list of dimensions, spaces, etc.). Additional affordances are applied for things like assigned seating, meeting/collaboration seats, shared amenity capacities (e.g., cafeterias, auditoriums), as well as code-compliant affordances like parking spaces, distances to entrances/exits, and elevators. Scales, or measurements, can also relate to headcount and occupancy (e.g., building and room capacities) and seating assignments (e.g., individual desks/offices or shared workstations/offices). The most common spatial measurements include Gross Square Footage (GSF), Rentable Square Footage (RSF), and Useable Square Footage (USF). These are interdependent scales used to describe and determine the appropriate allocation of space the results of which are intertwined with facility operations, business goals, human experience, and organizational culture. Similar to NASA’s use of NHV, these scales are particularly used concerning function. COVID-19 presents the opportunity for a transformational change in the way architects and interior designers think through and engage with the scales in the post-COVID future workplace.