FREE ARTICLE: Please sign in or create a free account to access the leading collection of peer-reviewed work on ethnographic practice. To access video, Become an EPIC Member.
HKS & The Sofa Analog
As NASA uses space analogs on Earth to test and train for missions in outer space, HKS is in a way engaging the “sofa” (i.e. the home) as an analog to study the office of the future. This approach aims to generate insights to inform organizational operations, real estate, and employee work experience decisions in light of the COVID-19 era workplace. Since March 13th, Ramer has been supporting various HKS research initiatives to study the employee experience across the globe. HKS sends surveys at key intervals to track employee experiences regarding mental health, social connections, environmental conditions, work processes, and more (see HKS 2020b). Ramer and her colleagues tracked responses to a core set of questions over time (e.g., desire to continue working from home, activities best done in an office environment, work-life balance, fatigue, etc.). This data was augmented with timely, topical survey questions (e.g., satisfaction with return-to-work protocols, satisfaction with home-work environment). The data from the COVID-era surveys is triangulated with employee surveys collected pre-COVID. Through this continuing process, Ramer and her colleagues seek to identify the social and functional affordances of home-work environments and lifestyle factors previously considered irrelevant in relation work environments. The purpose is to uncover the role that home now plays in the employee experience and to what extent employers need to adapt their policies and spaces to support this fundamental shift in how work gets done.
Findings from the recent HKS studies highlight the significance of work activities within varying scales (i.e. measurements) of connectedness (i.e. isolation concerning social spaces) and the effects of the workplace on our overall health. A factor analysis of the survey data reveals that only two employee demographics are significant predictors of the overall WFH experience – employee age and housing type (e.g. single family home, apartment, etc.) (HKS 2020a). These individual attributes previously regarded as outside the realm of employer consideration are now at the forefront in considerations of organizational policy, culture, and real estate. These attributes have also been found to directly impact the ways and to what extent isolation is experienced in the WFH context. The HKS studies have found that a sense of connectedness is lower for those who live alone. Likewise, living alone is an indicator of a higher desire to return to the office (HKS 2020a).
In industry conversations, there are many terms related to and sometimes used interchangeably with social isolation: separation, segregation, seclusion, and insulation, and more recently social distancing, and quarantine. Architect and design researcher, Erin Peavy (2020) explores important differences:
Although loneliness and social isolation are often used in the same breath, the two are distinctly different. Loneliness is essentially the perception of social isolation, whereas social isolation is the absence of regular human interaction in one’s life. These phenomena are tied to belonging, trust, social cohesion (the strength of the bonds among members of a community) and social capital (the tangible and intangible benefits a person reaps from his or her social network) as components of our social health, defined as a critical aspect of overall health.
The effects of loneliness and social isolation on occupational health are exacerbated by the current COVID climate where many are still relegated to working from home while many are also living alone. More than 60% of home workspaces are not dedicated or designed as home offices. Employees work from sofas, kitchen tables, bedrooms often alongside their children attending school from home (HKS 2020a). HKS seeks to understand the complex variations of home-work environments, where employee needs are being met, and what is lacking so that employer-provided workspaces can be redesigned to create the best remote and co-located employee experience possible (HKS 2020a). To fully scale up the sofa analog, HKS intends to engage with clients in other industries, share initial insights, and expand data collection to inform the design of future workplaces for other office-based professionals.
Comparing Contexts: The Space Station and the Sofa
The functional differences between scales of physical space in the ISS workplace and the terrestrial workspace are largely driven by gravity and the harsh environment of outer space. While we are physically isolated, or separated, from others by the walls and doors of our homes and offices, a critical point of differentiation is the context in which these scales of isolation are being experienced. Living and working in microgravity is a complex practice that requires years of planning. For astronauts, working in isolation is their desirable end-goal achieved through years of training. Astronauts are not thrown into isolation, or microgravity, on their own. They are assigned to a mission crew, training as a team to minimize the risks of working in an isolated environment. In a 2015 NASA technical report, psychologists emphasized the continued use of training aimed at developing resilience to isolation in crewmembers (Vanhove et al. 2015). NASA provides isolation training through various means, one of which is by sending astronauts to its underwater analog, “NEEMO.” They start slowly – NEEMO expeditions last only up to three weeks. NASA also trains its non-astronaut employees. Less than a month before the nationwide stay-at-home orders due to COVID-19, NASA held a mock “stay-at-home day” for its employees. Unlike NASA employees, many 2020 stay-at-home workers did not have the opportunity to set up home offices before orders were in place. Few, if any, spent years of training for working in isolation. For most Earth-bound workers, WFH orders have been unexpected and in many cases undesired state with the little-to-no period of preparation or training. Table 1 shows a brief comparison of working in isolation during COVID-19, contextualizing the astronauts on the ISS and the WFH experience of architects and interior designers.
Table 1. Brief Comparison of Working in Isolation During COVID-19
| NASA Astronauts on ISS | Architects/Designers at Home | |
|---|---|---|
| PHYSICAL: Location of work |
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Space station habitat |
Earth-bound Personal homes |
| SOCIAL: Work + life |
Individual contributors Co-located crewmembers Remote Mission Control teamsRemote family, friends |
Individual contributors Remote small teams Remote large teams~Co-located family Remote family, friends |
| TIME: Zones, Scheduling of work + events |
Operates on GMT/UTC, Coordinates activities on any given Earth time zoneExperiences 15-16 sunsets every day |
Operates on time zone relative to individual location, Coordinates activities with selected co-workers in various time zonesExperiences 1 sunset every day |
| Type of Work | Scientific experiments/Research Station maintenance Public outreach |
Design work Analytical Administrative tasks |
| Skills/Training | Selected for STEM education and physical fitness 2 years (avg.) of Astronaut Candidate (ASCAN) training +6mo. Mission-specific training |
Hired based on architecture education and experience
Continued education for licensing |
| Tools | Highly specialized equipment designed for microgravity General hardware/software |
General hardware/software Assigned, general equipment |
| Duration (vs. Time, as denoted above) | Intensive, short term missions (currently 6months – 1 year) | WFH efforts, duration currently unknown |
ISOLATION AND SCALE IN THE FUTURE OF WORK
Although the ISS represents an extreme and unique case of isolation in the workplace, scales of isolation in the outer space workplace are useful in thinking through the socio-spatial challenges of working on Earth. Anthropologists and other social and behavioral theorists can contribute to a greater understanding of isolation at work. Designers with a deeper understanding of these notions can design better workspaces, in space and on Earth. As early as the 1980s, design researchers understood the importance of situating product use in its sociocultural context (Wasson 2000). Buchli (2013), through an anthropological view of architecture, explains architecture as something other than a static space – architectural spaces sustain, shape and re-shape, social relations. So, what sociocultural knowledge leads to a greater understanding of isolation in the context of work? Most importantly, how do we connect a greater understanding of social space, or social isolation, to a practical approach for designing physical workspaces?
Physical isolation, although fluid and dynamic, is considered by NASA and HKS as something visible and measured. Astronauts are physically separated, isolated a measurable distance away from Earth. During COVID-19, architects are physically separated from their peers, working in isolation from their homes. Social isolation, as an absence of human interaction, is much more complicated. Are we ever truly socially isolated? Strathern’s (2005) merographic connections, a way of knowledge-making that considers things as always part of something else, is particularly useful in exploring social isolation in the workplace. Stay-at-home COVID-19 workers are separated from traditional, face-to-face interactions with their co-workers. Astronauts onboard the ISS interact with their crewmembers, but they are isolated from interactions with the NASA workforce at large. These interactions, or perceptions of, are mediated through the use of technology. Mission control and Zoom meetings maintain a level of connectedness between the physically isolated workforce. According to Strathern’s idea of merographic connections, this dynamic nature of separate-yet-connected occurs simultaneously. Individuals appear separated, socially isolated, from one point of view. At the same time, they are also connected from another point of view. The separate-yet-connected worker is simultaneously part and whole. Therefore, isolation is a situated concept.
So how do we situate this complex concept of connectedness (vs. isolation) in a physical, workplace architecture? Theoretical physicist and feminist theorist Karen Barad offers additional insight into isolation beyond a simple absence of human interaction. Barad (2007) coined the term intra-action, as opposed to interaction, to describe the agency of people, nature, and ‘things.’ Interaction presumes that when two entities come together they maintain a level of independence. Intra-action, on the other hand, suggests that entities act in co-constitutive ways – their agency is not a preexisting given. In simpler terms, actions are a result of relationships. Following this school of thought, an individual working in complete social isolation is impossible because “individuals” or entities do not have agency outside a particular intra-action. Furthermore, entities that come together to intra-act do not have to be human. The lone artist intra-acts with paint, brushes, and a canvas to produce a work of art. COVID-19 is an intra-action between human and non-human actors; the global pandemic has agency because of these intra-actions. Astronauts work onboard the ISS because of their intra-actions with their Earth-bound co-workers. An employee cannot work in complete isolation, therefore, because actions are situated in relationships.
So far, we have explored well-respected, yet abstract theories to breakdown the concepts of isolation and work. From Strathern (2005), we learn that isolation is a situated concept. Barad goes further to explain that work, or actions, are situated in relationships and individuals cannot act in isolation. As we look to connect social isolation with the workplace environment, Edward Hall’s (1966) theory of proxemics provides a tangible, body-centric look at perceptions of space and workplace needs. The four types of distances people keep (intimate, personal, social, and public) are learned through observation. Developed over fifty years ago, Hall’s study of how humans use space within the context of culture is still useful in the design of built environments. Microsoft’s Caitlin E McDonald (2020), a digital anthropologist, noted in a recent article that “the communicative aspects of proxemics are very important as we consider the ongoing disruptions to working and living as a result of the pandemic.” Significant to the WFH worker, digital proxemics considers uses of physical and virtual spaces in connection with the uses of technology. McDonald (2020) suggests that organizations should consider replicating Hall’s proxemic zones when communicating virtually. Communication, then, is a result of the WFH intra-actions of people and technology. Virtual meetings as well as the physical office produce workplace relationships. In other words, relationships are facilitated through an environment.
As we move closer to connecting social isolation, or the lack thereof, to the workplace environment, it is important to take a step back and consider what we observed as practitioners at NASA and HKS. In the habitat study example as well as the WFH architect survey, designers in both fields rely on scales to make sense of the work environment. The scales they use are dynamic, suggesting the ever-present possibility of change. McCabe and Briody’s (2017) recent engagement of assemblage theory explicitly addresses the complex nature of change in organizations. Assemblage theory, first developed in the 1980s by Deleuze and Guattari (1987), provides a framework for analyzing social complexity as fluid and temporary. Assemblages are comprised of people, things, practices, discourses, organizations and institutions, and the complex nature of these components means that change is inevitable. Relationships are situated and facilitated in an environment of constant change.
In summary, isolation and work are actions that are situated and facilitated through relationships that exist in an environment of constant change. Viewing the workplace as an ecosystem, an emerging concept being developed from the HKS WFH studies, provides a means for grounding this complex notion in practical applications for designing the future of work.
THE WORK ECOSYSTEM FRAMEWORK
The work ecosystem framework (see Figure 1) brings together Gibson’s concept of affordances (1966) and McCabe and Briody’s assemblage theory (2017) to capture the more holistic picture of what WFH looks like in a COVID and post-COVID world. It reflects more fully on the work experience to include place and process with underlying layers of process, time, and technology. This framework prompts a paradigm shift away from independent employer and employee context into an integrated and interdependent relationship. This interdependent nature mirrors the more intense alignment between astronauts, their environments, and their mission-critical survival. Thus, it is less about where and when we work as disparate attributes but more about how we work that ensures success. For example, Earth-bound workers have shifted from work-from-home being an ad-hoc, office alternative environment- often unavailable due to organizational policy, workflow or position (e.g., only mid or senior level staff had approval), or an employee’s circumstances (e.g., lack of effective workspace, poor home internet bandwidth, etc.). The work ecosystem framework also taps into Hall’s notion of proxemics (1966), with the blurring of both physical distance and social space into scales of perception and experience; however, the work ecosystem acknowledges the interdependent but not necessarily nested attributes of space.
Figure 5: Work Ecosystem Framework (From HKS, pending HKS publication, used with permission)
In the current COVID climate, where home remains the primary work location, the reliance on a binary work system (e.g., home and office) serves as a distorted view of work. One life where they work and works where they live- a unique, integrated existence known well to those on the ISS. In considering the work ecosystem framework and the assemblage approach in a post-COVID time, organizations can value the role of multiple environments at varying scales for both the employee (spaces available to them) and employer (spaces offered). This has a substantial impact on organizational real estate (from consolidation/downsizing and campus planning to rethinking the need for single-tenant space and considering workspace alternatives more seriously, e.g., co-working memberships, subsidizing home office environments). Many of the astronaut-recommended adjustments appealed (and in many cases were accurate) for the initial adjustments to working from home (e.g., establish a routine, build in a mental commute, find/get a hobby). However, their real value was in offering a pragmatic crash course based on personal experiences to help with the short-term shock of WFH, especially WFH during a pandemic. They were quick fixes in an era of evolution. Six months later, while they fall short of formalizing the larger transformational changes that office work is looking for, they have provided perspective as organizations rethink and rebuild a framework for work. One with an expanded appreciation for affordances, with appropriate training and resources- giving office workers less of a do-it-yourself survival guide and more of a foundational set of work in isolation attributes that can then inform their decision to continue (or not) in a WFH setting.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 has served as an unavoidable catalyst for the evolution of work- one we could have never expected. This goes beyond another iterative of the decades’ long debate between topics of private or open offices, cubicles, hot desking or hoteling, standard business hours and flex work arrangements. WFH in COVID times has ushered in a fundamental paradigm shift in affordances (and acceptance) for where, when, and how work gets done. Employees and employers are now connected beyond paychecks for services rendered or physically populating real estate. They are interconnected ecosystems with elements operating at various scales. So, while astronauts were effective coaches in the initial transition to WFH, we’ve found that the nuances of isolation were best understood through the lens of intentionality. While romanticized and potentially limited in the civilian view of the role, astronauts know and accept the risks of their exploration-based employment- with its controlled projects, hyper-specific testing and retesting, simulations, and psychological support. The average office worker turned remote worker grapples with an entirely new work context with equally unexpected co-workers (e.g., spouses, children), little-to-no preparation, and every day feeling like it is all part of one big experiment with no end in sight.
The ‘future of work’ has been and will continue to be an ever-evolving state of being. Our reflective analysis serves as a snapshot of precedence and current context, seeking to inspire further dialogue during this transformational moment. Nuances between industries, geographies, and policies greatly impact organizations’ abilities to provide for such complex considerations, however, it would be naïve to suggest that one could plan for every possible permutation. Instead, organizations need to consider their work ecosystem relative to that of their staff to make informed decisions for policies, processes, and place-based experiences. These reflections and recommendations leave us with several questions for the EPIC community to carry forward in the discussion and further exploration as the COVID-19 context evolves:
- How will post-COVID work experience impact commercial real estate and the continuation of offices as workplaces?
- In what ways will organizations (re)consider home office support (e.g., stipends for Internet, office supply subscriptions) as an employee amenity or even a necessary extension of the office environment for work?
- How best can organizations maintain, adapt, and embody organizational culture through digital presence?
- In what ways will WFH policies impact the recruitment and retention of talent? How might this relate to a rethinking of ‘talent pools’? What could it mean for staffing?
- To what extent will the rethinking of work and workplace impact business and operating hours?
- How does an organization address technological competency in the current workforce as well as set expectations for future employees? What are the implications connected to higher education curricula?
Jo Aiken is an applied anthropologist with research interests and professional focused on the intersection of organizational culture, design futures, and innovation. Before joining UCL’s ETHNO-ISS project, Jo worked in healthcare, aviation, and aerospace. She has over 20-years of experience at NASA working in various roles from Mission Control to human factors engineering and executive leadership consulting. jonieaiken@gmail.com
Angela Ramer is a design anthropologist at HKS Architects specializing in strategy, with a focus on the human experience within designed environments. Her latest work focuses on strategizing new healthcare service offerings, future-casting the role and design of corporate work environments, and reimagining the community spaces for engagement and connection. aramer@hksinc.com
NOTES
Acknowledgments – We would like to thank all of our colleagues at HKS and the NASA Johnson Space Center for their support and collaboration in the projects presented in this paper. We owe special thanks to Erin Peavy (HKS), Elizabeth Briody (Cultural Keys), and Dawn Lehman (Pathways 21, Kids Korps USA) for selflessly sharing their time and intellectual guidance in review and discussion of this work. Sincere thanks to the ETHNO-ISS team at University College London (Victor Buchli, Giles Bunch, Timothy Carroll, Jenny Gorbanenko, David Jeevendrampillai, Adryon Kozel, Alica Okumura-Zimmerlin, and Aaron Parkhurst) for the inspiring conversations and shared intellectual curiosities that contributed to this paper. Finally, we would like to thank our EPIC curator, Tom Lee, for his truly helpful comments and support.
1. This paper uses the spelling of “analog”, “analogs” common within NASA.
2020 EPIC Proceedings, ISSN 1559-8918, https://www.epicpeople.org/epic
REFERENCES CITED
“isolate”
n.d. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolate.
Barad, Karen
2007 Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press.
Boellstorff, Tom
2015 Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Volume 16: Cambridge University Press.
Buchli, Victor
2013 An Anthropology of Architecture. Routledge.
Cefkin, Melissa, ed.
2010 Ethnography and the Corporate Encounter: Reflections on Research in and of Corporations. New York: Berghahn Books.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari
1987 A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gibson, J. J.
1966 The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gunn, Wendy, Ton Otto, and Rachel Charlotte Smith, eds.
2013 Design Anthropology: Theory and practice. A&C Black.
Low, Setha M., and Denise Lawrence-Zúñiga, eds.
2003 The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating culture. Blackwell.
Hall, Edward
1966 The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
HKS
2020a “From Temporary to Transformative: Work from Home Insights.”https://www.hksinc.com/how-we-think/research/from-temporary-to-transformative-work-from-home-insights, accessed 22 August 2020.
HKS
2020b Work Beyond the 4th Dimension. Publication pending.
Imai, Ryoko, and Masahide Ban
2016 “Disrupting Workspace: Designing an Office that Inspires Collaboration and Innovation.” In Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings 2016(1): 444-464. https://www.epicpeople.org/disrupting-workspace-designing-office/
Kelly, Scott
2020 “I Spent a Year in Space, and I Have Tips on Isolation to Share.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/opinion/scott-kelly-coronavirus-isolation.html, accessed 15 July 2020.
Kupritz, Virginia W.
1998 Privacy in the work place: the impact of building design. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18(4): 341-356.
Kupritz, Virginia W.
2000 Privacy management at work: A conceptual model. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research: 47-63.
Kupritz, Virginia W.
2011 Individual and Group Privacy Needs Across Job Types: Phase 1 Study. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research: 292-313.
McCabe, Maryann and Elizabeth Briody, eds.
2017 Cultural Change from a Business Anthropology Perspective. Lexington Books.
McDonald, Caitlin E.
2020 “Pandemic-Informed Proxemics: Working Environment Shifts Resulting from COVID-19.” https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2020/07/NFW-42-McDonald.pdf, accessed 20 July 2020.
Miller, Daniel and Don Slater
2000. Internet. Berg Publishers.
NASA
2014 Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). Revision 1. NASA/SP-2010-3407/REV1. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/human_integration_design_handbook_revision_1.pdf, accessed 15 July 2020.
NASA
2020 “An Astronaut’s Tips For Living in Space – Or Anywhere.” https://www.nasa.gov/feature/an-astronaut-s-tips-for-living-in-space-or-anywhere, accessed 15 July 2020.
National Geographic
2020 “Stuck in a cramped space? This astronaut has some advice.” Interview with NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy on March 24, 2020. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/space/2020/03, accessed 15 July 2020.
Peavy, Erin
2020 Connecting IRL: How the Built Environment Can Foster Social Health. March 23, 2020.
hksinc.com/how-we-think/research/connecting-irl-how-the-built-environment-can-foster-social-health, accessed 20 July 2020.
Strathern, Marilyn
2005 Partial connections. Rowman Altamira.
Tsing, Anna L.
2011 Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton University Press.
Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Harms, P. D., & Luthans, F.
2015 Resilience and growth in long-duration isolated, confined and extreme (ICE) missions. NASA/TM-2015–218566. https://ston .jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TM-2015-218566.pdf, accessed 30 July 2020.
Wasson, Christina
2000 Ethnography in the Field of Design. Human Organization 59(4):377-388.