Final Report

By Ruby Davis

This report details a three-month research study of dorm kitchen cooking safety among
University of Washington students. The research was completed in three components: field
observations, interviews, and an online survey. This report concludes with an overview of the
results and recommendations for future action.

Goal and Context

The goal of this research was to gain insight into the central design question: how can we
educate students about and encourage the execution of safer and more hygienic cooking
practices in University of Washington dorm kitchens?

More specifically, this research seeks insight on the following key research questions:
1. What kind of factors contribute most to risky cooking behaviors? What precautions do
students take, if any?
2. To what extent are students aware of safe cooking practices? Do they follow these
practices?
3. What level of familiarity and confidence do students have in the kitchen?

Young adults are more likely than other age groups to engage in “risky” eating behaviors
(Byrd-Bredbenner, 2008). When they move into a college dorm, many students are learning to
cook for the first time, and so are prone to contracting foodborne illnesses, eating contaminated
food, or causing cooking-related fires. A study in 2007 found that over half of college students
(53%) consumed foods like raw cookie dough, and over a quarter (29%) consumed raw sprouts.
Furthermore, multiple studies (Flynn, 2009; “Sociological Safety”, 1997) have found that
cooking-related activities are the most common cause of fires in on-campus dormitories,
fraternities, and sororities. The results of this research will be used to explore possible solutions
to these problems at this university. If we can improve cooking safety knowledge and habits
among college students living in University of Washington dorms, it is likely that food and
cooking-related risks could be reduced, resulting in healthier and safer campus living.

Method
The research in this report was conducted in three parts: a field study, a set of
interviews, and an online survey. For each part, a plan was created, edited, and
executed. The top three findings from each part was reported, and all findings were
used to inform the next segment of the study in order to further hone the design and
research questions.

Field Observations
The participants in the field observations were University of Washington students who
used communal dorm kitchens in West Campus dorm buildings. Only current UW
students were included, and students who only used the kitchen area to use the
microwave were excluded. The ideal participants were ones who spent more than 30
minutes in the kitchen and completed multistep cooking activities, because this allowed
for a more diverse array of observations of different cooking safety practices. I observed
all students who used the kitchen during four two-hour observation periods spread out
over the course of four days in order to maximize the chances of finding students to
observe.

Students were observed from a table within the kitchen area and notes were taken
using a laptop in order to increase the speed of note taking. Each observation was
approximately 30 minutes, and two students who fit the inclusion criteria were observed.
To analyze my data, I wrote different individual snippets from my observations onto sticky notes
and then organized those findings into categories. After several iterations, I settled on a
categorization that best represented the spread of data and explained the largest proportion of
the data. I used these categorizations to organize my findings and results.

Interviews
For my interviews, my interviewees were all University of Washington students who
lived or had recently lived in the University of Washington dorms. All participants cooked
at least once every two weeks, and interviewees who cooked less frequently were not
included so as to ensure that interviewees had enough experience to draw from.
Although former residents were included in this section of the study, the ideal
participants were ones who currently lived in the dorms, because they had no recall bias
when remembering their experiences. Interviewees were recruited using my own
network of classmates and friends for efficiency and security of scheduling.

Interviews were conducted either at my home or at a public location on campus. I typed

notes during interviews and also recorded the audio of our conversation to transcribe
afterwards so as to increase the accuracy of the information I was able to gather. To
analyse the data, I printed the transcripts of the interviews and coded them for key
themes, such as knife safety, hand washing, and awareness of safe cooking practices. I
then aggregated the results of the most widely reoccurring and impactful codes into key
findings that I then included in a final report.
Survey
Survey participants were University of Washington students who currently lived in UW
dorms and had access to a kitchen in their dorms. Participants were excluded from data
analysis if they used kitchens less than once every two months or had not used kitchens
in three months. These exclusions ensured that everyone included in my analysis had
adequate experience using dorm kitchens. In addition, I sought to decrease the risk of
recall bias. Ideal participants would have minimal risk of recall bias and would have
ample experience cooking in dorms on a regular basis. Participants were recruited both
via Facebook and in-person recruitment in order to increase the scope of people I was
able to access.

The survey was open for seven days. Google forms was found to be the most
straightforward and accessible survey platform, so I elected to distribute my survey that
way. Questions were created and iterated on with feedback from instructors as well as
classmates who completed the survey in test runs before it was officially released. Once
the survey was closed, I downloaded the data in a .csv file and performed exploratory
visualization analysis using Excel in order to become more familiar with my dataset.
After several different charts had been created and some interesting correlations were
found, I focused in on three particular findings and developed charts to display those
findings.

Key Findings and Recommendations

In my final analysis for this report, I looked closely at the collective set of nine key
findings I had gathered from my three research studies. Three findings were used from
each study type.

Field Study Interviews Survey

Key Finding 1 Convenient waste Amateur cooking Food handlers’

disposal is skills cards
necessary

Key Finding 2 High Partial awareness Frequent cooking

cross-contaminatio of safe cooking makes perfect
n risk practices

Key Finding 3 Poor hand-washing Concern for fire Access to kitchens

practices alarms
After looking for connections and triangulating my results, a few common themes
emerged. These common themes are detailed below.

Key Finding 1: Ease of Access May Improve Kitchen Safety

The research showed that when kitchen facilities and equipment were located conveniently,
students were more likely to use them in a safe way. During the field observations I conducted, I
observed students who disposed of waste properly and improperly with varying levels of
hygiene. When trash bins were located in the kitchen area next to a students' working space, I
observed him quickly throw away food scraps and continue working. However, when a different
student was cooking in a space where the waste bins were located on the opposite side of the
kitchen from her work station, she dragged a waste bin closer to her work station without
engaging in proper hand washing procedures afterwards.

In addition, students who responded to my survey who lived with kitchen access on their floor or
in their apartment area were more likely to have a higher degree of confidence in the safety of
the food they prepared. On a seven-point scale, students who lived in apartment-style housing
and students with access to kitchen facilities on their floor rated their confidence in the safety of
their food an average of 4.3 and 5.0 respectively. Students who did not have access to kitchen
facilities on their floor, but who had access to kitchen facilities in other parts of their building,
rated the safety of their food an average of 3.5. Please see Fig. 1 for details.

Fig. 1:​ Self-reported food safety versus dorm kitchen living situation. Obtained from survey data.

This finding is important because it provides possible areas of focus for further initiatives to
promote food safety. Students without access to kitchen facilities on their floor may benefit most
from food safety campaigns.
Key Finding 2: Awareness ≠ Behavior
Although some students exhibited awareness of safe cooking procedures, the same students
did not always necessarily abide by their own knowledge in dorm kitchens. During my
interviews, two students had taken food handler's card tests, which they both agreed increased
their knowledge of safe cooking procedures. However, students did not always retain the
knowledge they learned after taking the test. One student, while describing some of the things
they had learned from the test, said, "There’s also the different temperatures that you’re
supposed to cook meat at, that’s another thing that I forgot almost immediately." Another
student compared her food hygiene practices at home and at work, explaining that although she
tended to hold herself to rigid standards of food safety while on the job, she did not always
follow the same practices at home. "At home I’m cooking for myself, so I…. I don’t wanna say I
don’t care about myself as much but it’s… I’m fine with it." The student seemed to be content
with the risks of her behavior.

During my surveys, students who had taken food handler's card tests generally rated their
awareness of safe cooking practices higher than those who had not. However, there was no
significant difference between how food handler's test takers and non-test takers rated their
frequency of actually performing those safe practices (please reference Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). This
indicates that design solutions like the food handler's card test may be effective at raising
awareness, but they may not be enough to enact real change. To make real impact on users,
these results indicate that further measures will be necessary.

Fig. 2:​ Confidence in food safety knowledge for people who have and have not taken the food
handler’s card test. Obtained from survey data.
Fig. 3:​ Food safety precautions taken for people who have and have not taken the food
handler’s card test. Obtained from survey data.

Key Finding 3: Practice May Make Perfect

The more frequently students cooked, the more likely they were to practice safer cooking habits.
Among my interviewees, most considered their cooking skills to be amateur, and did not
typically attempt complex meals. However, there was one interviewee who was employed at
Local Point, an on-campus dining area. She reported consistently practicing more cooking
safety habits than the other two interviewees, and worked in Local Point kitchens regularly. The
only other interviewee who had experience working in on-campus dining no longer is employed
there and mostly worked in dish rooms.

In my survey, participants who cooked once a week or more were consistently more confident in
their knowledge of safe cooking practices. People who cook more frequently were also more
likely to take certain precautions, such as storing food safely, taking measures to prevent food
contamination, and washing their hands properly and consistently. However, they were not any
more or less likely to practice knife safety. All participants were adequately knowledgeable and
concerned with safe meat preparation. Please reference Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 for details.
Fig. 4:​ Confidence in food safety knowledge versus frequency of cooking. Obtained from survey
data.

Fig. 5:​ Food safety precautions taken versus cooking frequency. Obtained from survey data.

This is relevant to my user base because it indicates that food safety practices may be
encouraged with increased cooking experience. Consistent practice may be a very strong way
to educate students on kitchen safety. Those who cook less frequently may be more at risk, and
thus could be targeted for cooking safety training in UW dorms.
Recommendations
Design Recommendation 1
In future dorms built on UW campus, each floor should have clear access to a kitchen
area. Although having one kitchen area per dorm may be economical, both interviewees
and survey respondents indicated that an overcrowded kitchen discouraged them from
using the space. Because results indicate that easy kitchen access may correlate with
safer cooking practices, more kitchen spaces could be beneficial. In addition, the layout
of these kitchen spaces should ensure that students have quick and easy access to
waste bins. For example, a waste bin station could be placed at both ends of the
counters where students work.

Design Recommendation 2
Food handler’s card tests for UW students should include a practical component.
Although on a large scale it may not be realistic to include a practical portion of the test,
it may be implementable with the smaller scale of UW students seeking to work with
Housing and Food Services. This practical portion could take place in a dorm kitchen or
a UW food services kitchen. The test would ask students to demonstrate the knowledge
they had learned in their online food handler’s card test. My research showed that
although food handler’s card tests may raise awareness towards the existence of safer
cooking practices, they may not always complete these practices in their own kitchens.
Practical tests were recommended by my interviewees, and my research also indicates
that those who cook more are more likely to be safer in the kitchen. Therefore, this
recommendation may make a more long-term difference in students’ safety.

Design Recommendation 3
Dorm recreational organizations could provide regular cooking classes in dorm kitchens
to educate students on safe cooking practices and encourage students to cook more
frequently. These classes would cover both basic and slightly more complex meal
preparation, and would take place at least once every two weeks. My research also
suggested that it is necessary for students to have opportunities to regularly practice the
safety procedures they learn. These courses could provide a practical element to the
training. These courses may be especially useful to students who live in dorms with only
one shared cooking space, such as Alder Hall, as my research suggested that students
living in these conditions were less confident in the safety of their food.
Discussion
To understand these results, it is important that the context of these findings are also
understood. Only UW campus students and dorms were examined, and so these results may
not be able to be generalized to other universities.

These results are limited primarily by the range in participants who were able to be recruited.
For interviews and observations, all participants lived in West Campus housing with communal
kitchen spaces shared by either their floor or their building. Thus, students who lived in
apartment-style living were underrepresented. In addition, my observational research was
particularly limited due to the difficulty I faced finding people cooking in the dorms. My overall
limited number of participants may also lead to inaccurate results, and further studies are
necessary to gather more reliable results.

The interviews conducted in this research were a strong point and a source of a wide variety of
knowledge and possible future directions for research. All three of my participants had unique
perspectives and experiences in the dorms, and they brought up ideas that had been very
difficult to glean from the observations alone. For example, all three interviewees expressed
strong opinions on the UW fire alarms, and two interviewees suggested issues with dorm ovens
that could be causing a major fire safety hazard in dorm kitchens. These findings were both
novel and impactful, leading to what I consider to be a strong point in this research.

Next Steps
A more thorough investigation reusing each of my three research methods would
provide more accurate and thorough insight than I was able to obtain with the limited
time I had. After conducting more thorough research, I would like to develop a study that
provides free repeated in-person cooking classes in UW dorms. In addition to educating
students on cooking safety procedures, my research suggested that it is also necessary
for students to have opportunities to regularly practice those procedures. Participants in
the study would be interviewed before, during, and after the set of courses to observe
any changes in their cooking habits. In addition, because the field observations during
this report’s research were limited, a study of this style would provide more
opportunities to observe students cooking in their dorm environments.

Reflection
From this research, I learned that it is important to plan for low turnout and recruiting
difficulties. My particular research topic proved to be much more difficult to find
participants for than initially expected. Time must be allocated to understanding the
research group and finding the most effective ways to reach them.

While completing this project, I had the most success while completing the interviews.
Using my phone to record the interviews was effective, and transcribing them personally
allowed me to become much more familiar with my data than if I’d used voice
recognition software. In addition, I felt that the information I gained during interviews
was much more detailed and personal than any of the other data I obtained.

In a further iteration of this project, I would like to have more participants. I would spend
more time in the dorms themselves to understand the population and recruit
participants, and I’d spend more time in each stage of the research. In addition, I would
expand my research group to more consistently include past residents of UW dorms,
because although recall bias is a potential danger, their insight can still be valuable.

I would like to continue using user research in my future career because I value the
opportunity to gain insight from users and I enjoy feeling more connected with the
people I’m designing for. In the research I am doing currently with my Directed
Research Group, I’d like to conduct interviews like we completed in this class to
understand the nuances of these peoples’ experiences and gain more insight about
future directions for research. I would also like to conduct surveys, since our research
group exists in online communities and thus will be far more accessible via online
methods than any in-person attempts. Using the skills I gained in this class for this
research would be both insightful and great practice for my future career.

Appendices

References
Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol, et al. “Risky Eating Behaviors of Young Adults—Implications for Food
Safety Education.” ​Journal of the American Dietetic Association​, vol. 108, no. 3, 2008, pp.
549–552., doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.12.013.

Flynn, Jennifer D., “Structure Fire in Dormitories, Fraternities, Sororities and Barracks.” ​National
Fire Protection Association​, Quincy. MA., August 2009

“Sociological Safety Analysis of Urban Housing Developments.” ​Fire Safety Journal​, vol. 28, no.
4, 1997, p. 386., doi:10.1016/s0379-7112(97)88814-5.
Appendix 1. Planning materials

Field Study Plan

Ruby Davis | HCDE 313

Design Question
How can we support students to engage in safer cooking practices in University of Washington dorm
kitchens?

Young adults are more likely than other age groups to engage in “risky” eating behaviors
(Byrd-Bredbenner, 2008). When they move into a college dorm, many students are learning to cook for
the first time, and so are prone to contracting food-born illnesses, eating contaminated food, or causing
cooking-related fires. A study in 2007 found that over half of college students (53%) consumed foods like
raw cookie dough, and over a quarter (29%) consumed raw sprouts. Furthermore, multiple studies
(Flynn 2009;, “Sociological Safety”, 1997) have found that cooking-related activities are the most
common cause of fires in on-campus dormitories, fraternities, and sororities. If we can improve cooking
safety habits among college students living in University of Washington dorms, it is likely that food and
cooking-related risks could be reduced, resulting in healthier and safer campus living.

Research Questions
1. Who engages in risky cooking behaviors, and how often?
2. What types of food do students prepare?
3. Where do students put dirty cookingware and utensils?
4. When (if at all) do students leave their cooking food unattended?
5. How do students react to smoke in the kitchen?
6. What kind of cleaning occurs before and after cooking?
7. What pain points may be preventing students from engaging in safer cooking behaviors?

Participants
In this field study, I will be observing communal kitchen-users who are student residents of dorms on the
University of Washington campus. These students will likely be of multiple genders and between the
ages of 18 and 23. The racial demographics reported by University of Washington Seattle Undergraduate
Enrollment
(​https://www.washington.edu/omad/files/2017/10/2017-18_OMAD_FACTSHEET_final_10-17-17.pdf​)
indicate that students will most likely be Caucasian (40%) or of Asian descent (25%). Based on the
research conducted by [name], white men were found to be the group that was most likely to consume
risky foods, while nonwhite women were found to be the least likely. Because of these findings, I will be
taking note of race and gender presentation for all students I observe.

The majority of students will be pursuing bachelor degrees [HFS stats]. Although a variety of cooking
experience levels are to be expected, it is likely that most students will be inexperienced or novice cooks
(Mayar 2011). Some students may have food handling cards or have completed food safety classes, but
it is likely that the majority will not have completed this training (Mayar 2011).
Although I will observe all students who use the cooking station during my observation session, I will be
paying special attention to students who engage in risky cooking habits. This is because these students
would be the direct stakeholders to any design changes my research would result in. In addition, these
are the individuals I plan to interview. I will be seeking permission from the individuals directly in person
on the site of observation sessions.

One ethical concern with this research is the act of observing kitchen users without their informed
consent. Because people may act differently if they know they are being observed, some user research
in public spaces does not involve informing individuals that their actions are being watched. In the dorm
room common area—a semi-public space—I will be collecting anonymous observation data without
informing those I am observing. If an individual were told that I was monitoring their food safety
behaviors, they may pay more attention to or make a stronger effort to engage in safer cooking
practices than they might normally. That said, the lack of informed consent brings to light issues of
privacy. Users would face the potential harm of being observed when they do not wish to be observed.
Participants may also not want their actions being preserved through notes. To minimize these harms,
all data recorded will be anonymous, and observation data will not be displayed publicly.

Method: Areas of Focus

- Food and drinks
o I want to understand how food is being prepared in dorm kitchens, what foods are being
prepared, and what other activities a student may be engaging in while preparing their
food.
- Build Environment
o I want to understand how the kitchen space is laid out—particularly, where the waste
bins are located and where cleaning tools are located. I also want to understand how
people maneuver through this space.
- Possessions
o I want to observe what possessions students bring with them to the kitchen, how they
interact with these possessions in the kitchen, and what possessions they take with
them when they leave. I’m particularly interested in how they carry food items and
clean their own cooking tools.
- Tools and technology
o I’m interested in the technology present in the kitchen, such as the oven, microwave,
stovetop, timer, and other tools. I want to see how people interact with these tools and
the contexts in which they interact with them.
- Demographics
o I want to understand which demographics use the kitchen space and how the cooking
behavior of these demographics might differ.
- Traffic
o I want to understand the flow of motion throughout the kitchen space when there are
multiple students using the area. I am particularly interested in any crowding that may
be present on counter space.
- Information and communication access
o I want to learn what the signage or instructions exist in the kitchen space, and which of
them are most looked at by students.
 - Overall experience
o I want to get a better idea of the general emotional energy that surrounds the
individuals cooking in the kitchen. Are they excited to be there? Are they tired? Do they
seem to be enjoying the task of cooking, or are they just there to feed themselves?

Method: Overall Logic

I will be conducting three 30-minute observation sessions: one in Alder Hall, one in McMann Hall, and
one in Elm Hall. I am observing both west campus and north campus dormitories in order to get a
broader perspective of different environments. I will sit near the kitchen area and observe users of the
space.

Method: Specific Logic

Before the observation, I must remember to review the observation criteria I will be using. At the
location of my observation itself, I need to make sure I have a clear view of the kitchen. I will take a
quick inventory of all the objects that are in the kitchen to begin with, and observe any signage in the
kitchen area. When the observation session begins, I will keep track of what each individual does in the
kitchen so as to answer each of my research questions and address each of the focus areas. At the wrap
up of my session, I will take inventory of the kitchen again and observe the cleanliness change in the
area.

The following is my schedule for completing this before the deadline:

April 5: Revise Observation Plan

April 7: Complete 1​st​ Observation

April 10: Complete 2​nd​ Observation

April 13: Complete 3​rd​ Observation

April 15: Synthesize collected data

April 17: Draft Report

April 18: Finalize Report and Turn in Field Study Report

Data Collection
I will take notes on each individual’s actions. I will record when they enter the kitchen, what food they
bring with them, what food they prepare, if they wash their food before preparing it, how long they
spend cooking that food (if they cook the food), what they do with dirty utensils, and if any mishaps
occur during the cooking process.

References
Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol, et al. “Risky Eating Behaviors of Young Adults—Implications for Food Safety
Education.” ​Journal of the American Dietetic Association​, vol. 108, no. 3, 2008, pp. 549–552.,
doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.12.013.
Flynn, Jennifer D., “Structure Fire in Dormitories, Fraternities, Sororities and Barracks.” ​National Fire
Protection Association​, Quincy. MA., August 2009

Mayer, Ashley Bramlett, and Judy A. Harrison. “Safe Eats: An Evaluation of the Use of Social Media for
Food Safety Education.” ​Journal of Food Protection​, vol. 75, no. 8, 2012, pp. 1453–1463.,
doi:10.4315/0362-028x.11-551.

“Sociological Safety Analysis of Urban Housing Developments.” ​Fire Safety Journal​, vol. 28, no. 4, 1997,
p. 386., doi:10.1016/s0379-7112(97)88814-5.
Interview Plan
Ruby Davis

Goal
The goal of this research was to gain insight into the central design question: how we can
encourage students to engage in safer and more hygienic cooking practices in University of
Washington dorm kitchens?

To answer this question, I will be conducting interviews with users of dorm kitchens. This
research is motivated by three key findings gleaned from field observations: first, students may
have poor hand-washing habits; second, students run high cross-contamination risks with their
behaviors; and third, students will sacrifice hygiene for convenient waste disposal options. With
these interviews, I’d like to validate the food safety issues I uncovered and look into the intent
behind some of these behaviors. Are students aware of the potential safety risks associated
with their actions? Are they prioritizing something else over these risks?

Research Questions
1. Why might students engage in risky cooking behaviors? What kind of risky behaviors do
they engage in? What precautions do they take, if any?
2. To what extent are students aware of safe cooking practices?
3. What types of food do students prepare? What level of familiarity do they have preparing
these foods?
4. How do students handle waste? What factors affect how they handle waste?
5. What kind of cleaning and food handling occurs before, during, and after cooking?
6. What pain points may be preventing students from engaging in safer cooking behaviors?

Participants
For this interview, my ideal participants are students currently living in on-campus
housing who use dorm kitchens at least once a month. Students who use dorm kitchens
less than once every two months should be excluded, because less frequent users of
dorm kitchens may not have enough fresh experiences to answer questions. The
participants I interview may have varying levels of cooking proficiency; both experienced
and inexperienced cooks will provide me insight into possible unsafe cooking habits.
I plan to recruit participants via snowball sampling within my own in-person social
network as well as Facebook. When I completed research surveys and interviews in the
past, this was the most effective way to recruit students to participate. I will ask my
friends and acquaintances who live in on-campus housing about their use of dorm
kitchens, and will also ask them to pass my information along to others they know who
use dorm kitchens. In order to make sure participants meet my criteria, all possible
participants will complete a short qualification survey:

1) Are you a student who lives on campus?

2) Which dorm do you live in?
3) Do you use dorm kitchens at least once every two months?

Unless I know the study participant personally, I will carry out all interviews at public
locations on campus for safety and convenience. The locations I will suggest are the
Allen Library Research Commons, the Hub, Paccar Hall lobby, or the CS building
atrium. In order to facilitate planning, I will allow participants to select their preference
from the above list or suggest an additional interview location.

Method: Overall Approach

This semi-structured interview will yield important insight into the motivations behind
people’s actions that may otherwise be impossible to determine from surveys or
observations alone. The goal is to probe at the uncertainties or questions that arose
from other forms of user research. For example, during my field observations, I
observed a user eating food directly from a frying pan. At the time, I was unable to ask
the about the user's motivations. In an interview, I could ask questions about these
motivations to understand how better to design for those users. In addition,
semi-structured interviews can lend more insight into the greater context surrounding a
user's actions. I'm better able to understand how dorm cooking fits into the user's life.

The interview will start by asking easy-to-answer questions from my interview

participants. This is intended to make them more comfortable as I begin delving into
more detailed recall-based questions, where interviewees will be asked to remember
specific details about their actions. In addition, the simpler context-based questions
allow me to tailor the rest of the interview to the interviewees experiences. I conclude
the interview by thanking the interviewee for their time.

As an interviewer, I may be biased towards expecting less professional cooking

behavior because of the limited field research I was able to complete. I have attempted
to keep my questions from presuming any particular level of cooking experience.
The interview protocol includes your set of interview questions, possible follow-ups, and
the rationale for each question. The rational should clearly articulate how the interview
will address your research questions and inform the design space.

For example, if one of your research questions focuses on how users decide what is
compost and what is recyclable, you may ask in the interview “what do you compost at
the HUB?” The rational for this question is that you need to understand users’ strategy
for sorting compost from other material. Potential follow-up questions include “What
about napkins, how do you handle those? What about beverage cups, how do you
decide if those are compostable? What do you do if you aren’t sure?”

Method: Questions
Questions:

1. Can you describe the last time you used the dorm kitchen?
a. How often do you use the dorm kitchen?
b. What factors affect how often you cook in dorm kitchens?
c. What kinds of foods do you typically make in dorm kitchens? Why?

Rationale: I want to gain context for the circumstances around students using dorm
kitchens.

2. Do you do anything to prepare before cooking a meal?

a. What do you do to prepare?
b. How do you handle food before cooking a meal?
c. What does your cooking space look like before cooking a meal?
d. How conscious of food safety are you before starting to cook?
e. Have you ever had a food handlers license?
f. What do you know about food safety?

Rationale: This will help me understand participants’ intent when they partake in unsafe
cooking behaviors. I want to know if they’re actively thinking about food safety, if they
now about food safety, and how important they find food safety to be.

3. Do you take any hygiene or safety precautions while cooking?

a. What kind of precautions? Why?
b. How important is food safety to you?
Rationale: I want to validate my findings from the field observations about what kinds of
food safety behaviors students participate in. I also want to understand how much
students value food safety.

4. Are you ever concerned with hand washing if you’re cooking in the kitchen?
a. Why? Why not?
b. When do you wash your hands?
c. How often do you wash your hands?
d. Do you wash your hands before cooking? After cooking? While cooking?
e. Can you walk me through the way you wash your hands?
f. Are there any circumstances in which you would want to wash your hands,
or make sure you washed your hands?

I didn’t observe much hand washing in my field observations, so I want to validate that
observation while also understanding why people wash or don’t wash their hands.

5. Have you ever seen or experienced something that caused you to change your
behavior while cooking in dorm kitchens?
a. FUQs

Rationale: Since my research is focused on finding ways to improve food safety, I want
to understand why a student might not engage in safer cooking behavior so I can come
up with possible ways to rectify those circumstances.

6. How do you handle any waste produced while cooking?

a. Do you sort waste? Recycle, compost?
b. Walk me through the waste disposal process.
c. Do you ever cook eggs? What do you do with something like eggshells?
Walk me through that process.
7. What do you do when you’re finished cooking?
a. What do you do with any dirty utensils or dishes?
b. Can you walk me through how you clean your dirty equipment?
c. What about the kitchen space?

Work Back Schedule

April 25: Begin sending out Facebook recruiting posts & contacting friends for interviews

April 28: Have scheduled all three interviews

April 30: Interview 1 Completed

April 30: Transcribe Interview 1

April 30: *Scheduled backup interview (if necessary)

May 2: Interview 2 Completed

May 2: Transcribe Interview 2

May 4: Interview 3 Completed

May 4: Transcribe Interview 3

May 5: Synthesize and evaluate data

May 6: Goal, Contexts, Next Steps, Reflection

May 7: Results & Recommendations

May 8: Turn in final report

Data Collection
With permission, I will record the audio of each of the interviews and transcribe them after the
interview is complete. In addition, I will be taking physical handwritten notes of key points or
nonverbal actions during the interviews.
Survey Plan
Ruby Davis

Goal
The goal of this research was to gain insight into the central design question: how can we
educate students about and encourage the retention of safer and more hygienic cooking
practices in University of Washington dorm kitchens?

The field research I conducted revealed that students may share some unhygienic practices
while washing their hands, preparing their food, and disposing of waste. The subsequent
interviews I conducted supported these findings and showed that although students were aware
of safe cooking practices, students did not always remember, follow, or prioritize said practices
either because their training was too brief or because they did not believe the risk was great
enough. In this survey, I’d like to validate these results and explore the relative importance of
the different factors I found that affected student kitchen safety and usage.

Research Questions
1. What kind of factors contribute most to risky cooking behaviors? What precautions do
students take, if any?
2. To what extent are students aware of safe cooking practices? Do they follow these
practices?
3. What types of food do students prepare?
4. What level of familiarity and confidence do students have in the kitchen?
5. How often do students wash their hands?
6. What factors affect students’ use, or lack of use, of dorm kitchens?

Participants
My ideal survey participants are University of Washington students who have recent experience
using dorm kitchens in the University of Washington dorms. Students should have not used
dorm kitchens in over three months are not eligible for the survey. Students must have used
dorm kitchens an average of once every two months while living in dorms. Survey participants
will be recruited via my social media connections to students and RAs in UW dorms.
Methods
For the purpose of this survey, please consider the phrase “prepared food” to include activities
such as cooking on a stove, baking in an oven, or preparing dishes with multiple steps. Do not
include single-step food preparation or microwave food preparation.

1. On average, how often do you use dorm kitchens?

a. Once a week or more
b. Two or three times a month
c. Once a month
d. Once every two months
e. Less than once every two months
Rationale:​ This is a critical screening question to determine whether the survey participant is a
member of my research group. For this survey, I am only interested in students who use dorm
kitchens at least once every two months. The multiple choice response helps make analysis
easier without restricting survey participants’ ability to specify.
Analysis:​ Sort responses into three categories: frequent users, infrequent users, and users
whose responses will not be included in my analysis.
2. When was the last time you prepared food in dorm kitchens?
a. Less than three months ago
b. More than three months ago
Rationale:​ This is a critical screening question to determine whether the survey participant is a
member of my research group. For this survey, I am only interested in students who have used
dorm kitchens less than three months ago. By allowing just two options, I save survey takers
time by not asking for specific information if it is unnecessary. The multiple choice format also
helps with the ease of analysis.
Analysis:​ Split responses into two groups: participants in my research and students who do not
qualify.
3. Which dorm do you live in?
Rationale:​ This demographic question will give me context for survey participants’ answers.
Some dorms have communal kitchens on every floor, while others do not. In addition, some
dorms include apartment-style living where residents have access to a kitchen shared only be a
handful of other roommates. This influences the kitchen’s ease of access. I’m curious if students
who have easier access to kitchens cook more often or are more confident in their cooking
skills. This is a multiple choice question, which can help with ease of analysis.
Analysis:​ Group survey participants into three categories: users with minimal access to
communal kitchens (such as kitchen users with only one communal kitchen in their building),
users with fair access to communal kitchens (such as users with a kitchen on every floor of their
building), and users with easy access to communal kitchens (such as users living in
apartment-style housing).
4. Do you have a food handler’s card, or have you ever taken a food handler’s card test?
Rationale:​ This demographic question offers insight into the individual’s experience with and
knowledge of food safety. The simplicity of a yes or no question clears ambiguity for both the
survey participant and my analysis.
Analysis:​ Cross-reference with their other answers regarding kitchen confidence and food
safety knowledge to see if there is a correlation. Split dataset into two categories: those who
have taken the food handler’s card test and those who have not.
5. Please rate your confidence in a kitchen on a scale of one to ten.
Rationale:​ This question allows me to validate my findings from the interview. By having survey
participants self-report their confidence, I can see how their responses compare to their
reported knowledge of kitchen safety, as well as how frequently they use the kitchen. The scale
allows participants to concretely express their opinion in a way that is easier to analyze.
Analysis:​ See which is the most popular response based on adding up the numbers and
averaging. My interview findings will be validated if it leans mostly towards the lower end of the
scale. I can also see if there’s a correlation between users with high confidence and frequent
kitchen users, users with high knowledge of kitchen safety, or users who have taken the food
handler’s card test.
6. Please how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: the food I
prepare in dorm kitchens is generally safe to eat. (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, strongly agree, N/A)
Rationale: ​This question provides insight into students’ prioritization of food safety in practice.
This will help me validate and explore the finding from my interviews that some students do
believe their food is safe to eat, even if they do not follow certain food safety behaviors. The
scale allows participants to concretely express their opinion in a way that is easier to analyze.
Analysis:​ See which is the most popular response based on adding up the numbers and
averaging. My interview findings will be validated if it leans mostly towards “agree”. I can also
see if there’s a correlation between users with strong agreement and frequent kitchen users,
users with high knowledge of kitchen safety, or users who have taken the food handler’s card
test.
7. How often do you prepare each of the following in dorm kitchens, not using a
microwave? (Once a week or more, two or three times a month, once a month, never)
a. Red meats
b. Poultry
c. Fresh Vegetables
d. Eggs
Rationale:​ I’d like to gain an understanding of how often students cook certain more risky
foods. This aids in my understanding of the context of the students’ other answers. I want to
compare these results to students’ behaviors, confidence, and cooking frequency. Students who
prepare red meats frequently but have low confidence cooking meats, for example, show a
higher degree of risky cooking behavior.
Analysis:​ See if there’s a correlation between these results and the students’ answer to the
previous question. I can also compare it to students’ knowledge and prioritization of food safety
to gauge students’ tendency towards risky behavior.
 8. On a scale of one to five, how confident are you in your knowledge of the proper
methodology of the following?
a. Knife safety
b. Meat preparation
c. Hand washing
d. Safe food storage
e. Food contamination prevention
Rationale:​ This question, when compared to frequency, behavior, and confidence data, allows
me to compare perceived knowledge of food safety with actual behavior. This way I can either
validate the disconnect I found in my interview information or explore possible deviations from
those results.
Analysis:​ Take all the results for each of the options and average them. High scores for knife
safety and hand washing and lower scores for meat preparation, safe food storage, and food
contamination prevention would validate my findings. Also see if there’s a correlation between
this information, overall cooking confidence, and actual cooking behavior.
9. Which precautions do you consistently take while cooking? Please check all that apply.
a. Using different knives for meat and vegetables
b. Checking meat color while cooking to determine its safety
c. Washing hands after touching waste or waste disposal containers
d. Storing vegetables and meats in appropriate sections of fridge
e. Using proper cutting technique when using a knife to prepare food
Rationale: ​This question when compared to frequency, knowledge, and confidence data, allows
me to compare perceived knowledge of food safety with actual behavior. This way I can either
validate the disconnect I found in my interview information or explore possible deviations from
those results.
Analysis: ​Count number of precautions taken by each user. See if there’s a correlation
between whether or not a user follows more precautions and their overall cooking confidence
and cooking knowledge. Also see if there’s a correlation between answers to this question and
answers to previous question.
10. Think of instances when you had time to prepare food but chose not to. What factors
affected your decision not prepare food? Please rank the following in order of
importance.
a. Ease of access to kitchen
b. Lack of energy
c. Fear of setting off fire alarms
d. Access to cooking supplies
e. Cost of cooking own meals compared to alternatives
f. Level of cooking skills
g. Other
Rationale:​ If I can understand the potential barriers that prevent students from cooking, I can
better understand students’ pain points and how a lack of experience or fire alarms might factor
into a students’ desire to use dorm kitchens. This is also an opportunity to explore the relative
importance of the different factors I uncovered in interview data.
Analysis: ​Assign numerical values to each based on how high they were ranked. Average
numerical ranking for each and average them to find most important factors. See if there’s a
correlation between users with minimal access to dorm kitchens and their ranking of “ease of
access to kitchen”. Validate interview findings regarding fire alarms; if fear of fire alarms ranks
high for some, then my interview results are supported.

Survey Tool
The survey will be implemented with Google Forms, because I can create all the necessary
types of qualitative and quantitative question and easily send out survey links. Google Forms
also automatically export to a google sheet, which can then be used to analyse data directly or
can be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet for more in-depth statistical analysis. In addition, I
am more familiar with the nuances of Google Forms because I have used them on multiple
occasions in the past, and am thus more confident in my knowledge and ability.

Work Back Schedule

May 16: Create survey
May 17: Release survey on social media and send out via email
May 22: Close survey and begin data analysis
May 23: Complete data analysis
May 24: Goal & Context Slides
May 25: Results Slides
May 26: Recommendations Slides
May 27: Next Steps Slides
May 28: Record slides and audio of presentation
May 29: Complete any necessary video editing and turn in final assignment
Appendix 2. Survey Details and Questions
This survey is being conducted as a part of an undergraduate User Research course in the
department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the University of Washington. The
goal of the survey is to get a better understanding of student cooking practices and kitchen
safety knowledge in university dorms.

All responses to this survey will remain confidential. The responses will be aggregated and
analyzed as a single data set. You may choose to answer as many or as few questions as you
would like. Information and findings gathered from this survey will not be published, and will only
ever be seen by myself and my instructors.

The survey will take 3-6 minutes to complete.

Thank you so much for your time! If you have any questions or concerns, please email me at
rkdavis@uw.edu.

Please read the following clarifications.

For the purpose of this survey, please consider "preparing food” to include activities such as
cooking on a stove, baking in an oven, or preparing dishes with multiple steps. DO NOT include
single-step food preparation or microwave food preparation.

When the survey discusses "kitchen facilities", please only consider kitchen spaces that include
a stove, oven, sink, and fridge. DO NOT consider spaces with only a sink and a microwave.

1. On average, how often do you use dorm kitchens?

a. Once a week or more
b. Two or three times a month
c. Once a month
d. Once every two months
e. Less than once every two months
2. When was the last time you prepared food in dorm kitchens?
a. Within the last week
b. Between one week and one month ago
c. Between one month and three months ago
d. More than three months ago
3. Which of the following best describes your access to kitchen facilities in your dorm?
a. I share a kitchen space with a small group of roommates (apartment-style living).
b. I have access to kitchen facilities on my floor.
c. I have access to kitchen facilities in my building, but not on my floor.
d. I do not have access to kitchen facilities.
 e. Other
4. Do you have a food handler’s card, or have you ever taken a food handler’s card test?
a. Yes
b. No
5. Please rate your confidence in a kitchen on a scale of one to seven with one being “Not
confident at all” and seven being “Very confident”.
6. In your opinion, how safe to eat is the food you prepare in dorm kitchens? Please rate
your answer on a scale of one to five with one being “Not safe at all” and five being
“Extremely safe”.
7. How often do you prepare each of the following in dorm kitchens, not using a
microwave? (Once a week or more, two or three times a month, once a month, never)
a. Red meats
b. Poultry
c. Fresh Vegetables
d. Eggs
8. On a scale of one to five, how confident are you in your knowledge of the proper
methodology of the following?
a. Knife safety
b. Meat preparation
c. Hand washing
d. Safe food storage
e. Food contamination prevention
9. Which precautions do you consistently take while cooking? Please check all that apply.
a. Using different knives for meat and vegetables
b. Checking meat color while cooking to determine its safety
c. Washing hands after touching waste or waste disposal containers
d. Storing vegetables and meats in appropriate sections of fridge
e. Using proper cutting technique when using a knife to prepare food
10. Think of instances when you had time to prepare food but chose not to. What factors
affected your decision not prepare food? Please rank the following in order of
importance.
a. Ease of access to kitchen
b. Lack of energy
c. Fear of setting off fire alarms
d. Access to cooking supplies
e. Cost of cooking own meals compared to alternatives
f. Level of cooking skills
g. Other

plans of each (no need for the analyses or the reports),

final version of the survey

and any other material references that isn’t included inline in the doc. Graphs, figures, or images that are
discussed in the body of the report should be included inline with an appropriate​ figure number and caption
and referenced by figure number in the text.