Studio Identity Investigation Q&A
Bezemer & Schubad are external experts, appointed by DAE. Their investigation was carried out independently. The report identified some serious issues, which are now being directly addressed. DAE has shared information about this with the school community but is unable to publish the full results of the report for privacy reasons.
This Q&A attempts to answer questions that have arisen since the report was delivered to the Executive Board and explain what will happen next. If you have any further questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact the communications team: communications@designacademy.nl.
Why did Bezemer & Schubad investigate Studio Identity?
In December 2020, DAE asked Bezemer & Schubad to undertake two investigations at the school. The first was focused on the overall culture and environment at DAE, which is part of a broader project to update the school’s approach to education and culture. The second was less far-reaching and focussed on Studio Identity. The decision to launch this second investigation was taken after reports concerning the studio’s culture and allegations regarding the Studio Leader.
Bezemer & Schubad were selected following a discussion with two external specialists. They were chosen due to their independence and their significant expertise and experience in this area.
We cannot make any internal reports that led to this investigation public without compromising our commitment to confidentiality. This is important in ensuring the people within our community feel safe to report similar cases in the future (as much as we hope that there will not be a need for this, we must also acknowledge that it might happen). However, they were shared with the investigative team.
How long did the investigation last, how many people were involved and when were the results shared with DAE?
The investigation began in December 2020. On 15 December, the DAE Executive Board shared an invitation with students, staff and tutors to participate in the general investigation. Students, alumni, staff and tutors connected to Studio Identity were invited to participate in the Studio Identity investigation separately, but it is important to know that this did not prevent them from taking part in the general investigation.
During the course of the investigation, Bezemer & Schubad spoke to 41 people, including current students, alumni, teaching staff and people in a support role at DAE.
The findings of the Studio Identity investigation were shared with DAE’s Executive Board in February 2021. They were summarised and shared with the community via an email on 19 February, which was also posted on the DAE website in the Inclusivity & Culture section for transparency.
When DAE asked Bezemer & Schubad to investigate Studio Identity, the school pledged to not interfere with the investigation in any way.
Why can’t the Studio Identity report be shared with the community?
Protecting the identities of the participants is paramount. The independent external researchers destroyed any material that directly identified individuals to safeguard anonymity.
Studio Identity is a relatively small studio within a relatively small design school. This means that it might still be possible identify individuals based on their comments. This is one of the key reasons that we are unable to share the report.
We can not compromise the identity of those who came forward in any way. If this were to happen, it would undermine the efficacy of future investigations and be a failure in our obligations towards the safety of students, educators and staff.
What were the findings of the report?
Based on the interviews undertaken for the investigation, Bezemer & Schubad found no evidence to support anonymous allegations made against the Studio Leader of Studio Identity, which had been posted on the “calloutdutchartinstitutions” Instagram account.
However, it did identify other significant issues within the studio.
The key findings summarised by the Executive Board:
→ Studio Identity is known internally and externally as a department where students have to perform under high work pressure and where work is generally judged firmly. Since the studio is devoted to reflections on the individual and the work of students is an expression of their inner selves, they feel extremely vulnerable when it comes to the judgement of their work. This approach to teaching can strengthen the resolve of some but leaves many feeling crushed.
→ In recent years, a breakdown of trust has occurred between a significant (and increasing) proportion of Studio Identity’s student community and its leadership. Present and former students highlighted a culture they described with words such as “toxic”.
→ Although DAE has a system of student care (student counsellor, mentor, student psychologist, confidentiality counsellor)s, this system should be more visible to the students.
→ Both the students and the tutors feel that trust and respect need to be restored so that a safe and healthy learning and working environment can be created.
What actions will follow regarding Studio Identity?
There are several initiatives being put in place within the Academy that will be shaped by this experience, including a new Code of Conduct (which will be published in April) and Group Agreements between teaching staff and students. The latter is a result of the ongoing collaboration between the Executive Board, Student Council and Anti-Racism Committee.
Regarding Studio Identity specifically, following extensive consultations with Bezemer & Schubad, DAE’s Executive Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the students of Studio Identity that regular teaching be resumed under the leadership of the current Studio Leader. However, the Board has also stepped in to establish a direct dialogue with all parties, including students, teachers and leadership, to ensure that appropriate changes are made in order to guarantee an atmosphere of well-being and trust as teaching resumes. This is a strong and unusual step for the Executive Board to take and is indicative of the level of concern raised by the investigation.
Additionally, following concerns raised in the report, it has been decided that it is not suitable for the roles of coordinator and tutor to overlap, as it made it difficult for students to share their worries and concerns with their coordinator. The coordinator will no longer fill both roles. The current temporary coordinator will remain in the position until the end of this Academic year.
Both the Studio Leader and the Executive Board agree that more dialogue is needed between students, staff and tutors to unpick the issues within the studio and understand how it can respond while protecting the ability of students to study freely and tutors to teach with confidence. For this reason, the Studio Leader of Identity has committed to having an increased presence at DAE, including additional teaching.
What are the next steps?
The results of the investigation are the starting point, not the endpoint.
Studio Identity is a studio that focuses on the personal. To create work within this studio – and indeed many others at DAE – requires a level of vulnerability from students that must be respected. Tutors and staff have a responsibility to ensure students are safe within the studio environment.
The Studio Identity teaching environment will be closely observed over the coming months to ensure that progress is made towards the establishment of trust. This requires the close involvement of the Executive Board and HR, alongside regular check-ins with students.
Part of our duty towards students is helping them realise their potential. Sometimes, this means giving negative feedback and encouraging them to explore ideas outside of their comfort zone. Tutors must be able to do this. But they need to be able to do so with the confidence that they are not compromising student safety. The recent Teachers’ Week included discussions around this topic and various training sessions to support all DAE educators in their own development in this respect. More will follow.
Beyond these measures, the studio will be assessed like any other studio through tutor and student feedback, currently being formalised through an annual reporting system. If coordinators and counsellors receive negative reports about the studio, these will be handled internally according to the procedures outlined on this website. If this process flags serious issues, the investigation will be reopened.
Finally, it is important to point out that under the recently amended policies of the BA programme’s studio system, any student in any studio can switch to another studio if they would like to. This is to give students the freedom to discover the methods and approaches that work best for them. We aim to create an environment where students feel able to communicate concerns and report issues so that their decision making is based on what is best for the development of their interests and skills.
