Field Study Report: Dorm Kitchens

Ruby Davis

Goal and Context

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. 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.

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

Research Questions
1. Who engages in risky cooking behaviors, and how often? What kind of risky behaviors
do they engage in? What precautions do they take, if any?
2. What types of food do students prepare?
3. How do students use cookingware and utensils?
4. When (if at all) do students leave their cooking food unattended?
5. How do students handle waste?
6. What kind of cleaning occurs before, during, and after cooking?
7. What pain points may be preventing students from engaging in safer cooking behaviors?
8. How is food handled before, during, and after the cooking process?

Method
Between the hours of approximately 5 and 8 PM on Wednesday, April 11th, Friday, April 13th,
Saturday, April 14th, and Monday, April 16th, I spent a total of 7 hours in various West Campus
kitchen areas attempting to observe students utilizing the cooking area. I chose the observation
time I did to maximize the chance of observing people cooking dinner, since 5 to 8 PM
encompasses most typical dinner times. I held observations on both weekdays and weekends,
because I was unsure how a lack of classes would affect kitchen activity.
At the location of my observations, I sat nearby with a clear view of the kitchen and took notes
on my laptop. Taking notes on a laptop was both faster and less conspicuous in the space I was
observing in, because there were often other students in the lobby studying on laptops. I sat
where I did because I was close enough to observe details, but far enough away that my activity
did not seem to concern kitchen-users. I monitored every student who entered the kitchen
space and observed the time they began and completed their activities, what kitchen resources
they used, what food and tools they brought with them into the kitchen, their cleaning practices
any risky food preparation behaviors or precautions, and any other interesting, unusual, or
unexpected behaviors. My observations were centered around my research questions and my
focus areas, and all the data I recorded was intended to either shed light on these questions or
gain context and background about my participants’ activities. At the wrap up of my session, I
took inventory of the items remaining in the kitchen and observed the cleanliness change in the
area.

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 I thought made sense. I used these categorizations to organize my findings
and results.

Participants
In this field study, I observed communal kitchen-users who are student residents of dorms on
the University of Washington campus. These students were of multiple genders and between
the ages of 18 and 23. Both of my primary participants were white. It is likely that all students I
observed were inexperienced or novice cooks (Mayar 2011). Participants will be “recruited” as
they enter the kitchen area and begin cooking. Although I will observe all students who use the
cooking station during my observation session, my ideal participants are 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.

Where
My observations sessions were conducted in various dorms across West Campus, including
Alter Hall, Elm Hall, Terry Hall, and Maple Hall. In my initial plan, I had intended to observe
North Campus cooking habits as well, but was later informed that North Campus does not have
cooking amenities. Therefore, my observations were limited to West Campus. I observed in
multiple dorms in order to gain a broader perspective across the different dorm buildings.

All communal kitchens on West Campus share the same layout. The kitchens contain one large
counter space with two ovens and stovetops, one sink, and one set of garbage, recycling, and
compost bins. There is also a small refrigerator and microwave in the kitchen areas. In all
dorms, there are two long tables with chairs nearby. I sat at these tables to observe users in the
cooking space. The cooking space is open and visible from most sides as people enter the
lobby of the dorm building.
Results
Throughout the seven hours I spent observing, I was only able to catch and observe two
individuals cooking, each for thirty minutes. I also observed two people making microwave
meals. The two primary people I observed were a white female student in Elm Hall on Friday,
April 13th around 6:30 PM and a white male student in Alder Hall on Wednesday, April 11th
around 5:30 PM. The female student was sauteing leafy greens with various spices, while the
male student boiled hot dogs and warmed a can of beans.

Through my analysis of my observations, I grouped my data into seven subcategories: food

prepared, cleaning materials, utensils used, hand cleanliness, possessions brought, media &
technology, and waste. From these categorizations, I was able to draw the following key
findings.

Key Finding 1: Poor hand hygiene

Results:​​ Although individuals seem to make some attempts at hand hygiene, no individual I
was able to observe practiced appropriate hand-washing hygiene beyond the very beginning of
the cooking process.

Proof: ​Although the two primary individuals I observed did clean their hands at the beginning of
their cooking activities, they did not keep up this standard throughout the cooking process. The
woman used hand sanitizer before chopping her vegetables, but throughout her meal
preparations, she licked her hands, wiped her hands on her jeans, used her fingers frequently to
maneuver food from place to place, and moved a compost bin across the kitchen with her bare
hands. After moving the compost bin, she did rinse her hands briefly with water, but did not use
soap. This says that she was at least tangentially aware that her actions were unsanitary, but
did not know or care enough to properly clean her hands. The male participant only washed his
hands while cleaning dirty dishes. He used this fingers to touch the meat he was preparing at
various points in the cooking process and did not wash his hands between. Similar to the
woman, his actions reflect some awareness of the importance of clean hands, but does not
apply that knowledge throughout the cooking process.

Priority: ​This finding is ranked at the highest priority because it poses the highest risk to
students. Not only are the students cooking at risk, but these students may be at risk of
spreading harmful germs and bacteria to other students who use the kitchen. It has a
widespread impact beyond just food preparation. In addition, it is a feasible issue to fix.

Key Finding 2: High cross-contamination risks

Results: ​Participants’ behavior caused many opportunities for food to become contaminated
either from the participants’ own utensils or the surrounding environment.
Proof: ​Neither the male nor the female participant washed the counter they set their utensils
and other materials on. Prior to both cooking activities, the counter was observably not pristine.
The male participant used the same fork to touch his food before and after cooking without
washing it in between. The female student used just two utensils for the majority of her food
preparation, and did not wash either utensil thoroughly after she was finished cooking. She used
her fork to stir food during the cooking process and to eat directly from the pan after her food
was done. When she was finished cooking, she rinsed off her wooden spatula without soap and
returned it to her bag. In addition, the female student did not wash her vegetables before
cooking them, which is the riskiest food contamination behavior. She used the same knife to cut
all her uncooked vegetables, including her leafy greens, her green onions, and her garlic. When
she was finished, she put all her utensils—both thoroughly washed ones and unthoroughly
washed ones—into the same tote bag, thus contaminating the ones she’d washed.

Priority:​​ Although this issue is important, I ranked it lower than hand-washing, because it
mainly applies to cooking activities, while hand-washing can apply to many areas outside of just
cooking. However, I still believe that this observation reveals risks that are prominent in the
cooking style of many students. I observed these unsafe cooking behaviors in both of the two
primary students I observed.

Key Finding 3: Convenience waste disposal is a necessity

Results: ​Students utilize waste disposal receptacle frequently during the cooking process. If
waste bin convenience is not improved, this can become a hindrance and even a health hazard.

Proof: ​Both of the primary individuals I observed threw things away at various points in the
cooking process. The male participant opened a package of hot dogs and threw away the
packaging in a trash bin just a few feet away. He later threw canned food lids in the same trash
bin. When he rinsed out the cans to put in the recycling, he was delayed by someone else
throwing away a microwave meal container in the trash bin area. He had to wait for this person
to finish before throwing his cans away. The situation was awkward for both participants, both of
whom apologized to each other. The woman I observed made extensive use of the compost bin,
to the point that she moved the bin closer to her cooking area in order to have easier access.
Her actions spoke to a prioritization of the convenience of the bin over the sanitation issue of
touching the bin while cooking. The current placement or quantity of bins during my
observations led to inconvenient and even health-hazardous situations.

Priority:​​ This issue is ranked lower than the other two because although it did cause unsafe
cooking practices for one person I observed, it only caused inconvenience for the other. Waste
reciprocals do pose a possible health issue, but the issue is perhaps not as universal as the
other two key findings.
Recommendations
To address the three key takeaways I observed, I would recommend that UW Housing & Food
Services increase the signage in kitchen areas about food safety—especially hand washing
safety. If reminders to wash hands are placed prominently, students may be more likely to
remember to wash their hands throughout the cooking process rather than just at the beginning.
In addition, a poster or sign about general food safety tips and cross-contamination could raise
awareness about other dangers.

Another possibility is to give new students a short food safety course. It’s possible that many
students simply don’t know food safety details, and having a short run-down of the basics may
make a world of difference. This short course could be mobile based so that students can
reference it while they cook, as I noticed all four of the people I observed also used their mobile
phones at some point while in the kitchen area.

Finally, including strategically placed waste bins at both ends of the counters in dorm kitchens
would reduce the amount of traffic at each bin while also eliminating the need to move waste
bins from one end of the counter to the other.

Discussion & Reflection

To understand my results, it’s important to understand the scope of data I had available to draw
conclusion from. Because I was only able to observe two people performing extensive cooking
activities, my data is very limited. My understanding of student cooking behaviors may be
skewed by these two participants, and it is possible that their behaviors are outliers. That said,
they represent the only students who decided to cook during the time I spent observing. These
two individuals may make up a relatively large percentage of the people who cook in dorm
kitchens simply because the overall pool of students is small. To get more complete data, I
would need to spend more time doing more observations to see if the frequency of use I
observed was normal or unusual.

Although my small sample size is a limitation, the amount of time I was able to spend observing
each participant can be considered a strength. Because of the nature of this particular
observation setting, I was able to get a close look at a few specific individuals’ behaviors. I got
an in-depth understanding of their behaviors, rather than a cursory understanding of many
students’ behaviors.

Throughout my field observations, I was surprised by the lack of utilization of the cooking area.
The food the two main subjects prepared were also interesting to me, because they accounted
for two opposite sides of a spectrum. The male student prepared pre-packaged hot dogs and
beans, while the female student prepared nothing but leafy green vegetables. Neither meal
choice encompassed all the nutrition necessary for a healthy diet.
Next Steps
When I interview people, I will make sure to ask them how often they look at signage around the
kitchen area. If they never look at signage, then my first recommendation may not be effective. I
will also ask them how much they already know about food safety to see if the behavior I
observed may have been caused out of ignorance or out of a lack of commitment to food safety.
I will also ask them how frequently they use dorm kitchens, and how crowded those dorm
kitchens typically are.

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

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.

Appendix 1. Planning materials

Please reference the Field Study Plan.

Appendix 2. Field notes & images

Kitchen Images
All kitchens had the same amenities and more or less the same layout.

This is the Alder Hall Kitchen Area

Maple Hall’s Kitchen Areas:
Elm Hall’s Kitchen Area

Observation Data
[Redacted to preserve the privacy of those observed.]
Appendix 3. Images of Data Analysis
Initial Layout of Stickies
Revised Layout of Stickies with Category Labels
Close-ups of Sticky Categories