Copyright 1983. Carolyn S. Banning and James H. Banning

Cocooning: A Qualitative Analysis of The Ecology of College Housing Trends

Cocooning! Can Faith Popcorn's (1991) concept of cocooning made popular in her book The Popcorn Report provide a framework for understanding current campus housing trends? The purpose of this article is to answer this question. First, the concept of cocooning will be addressed followed by a look at current housing trends as reported in a Spring 1995 national survey. Finally, the survey results will be examined using "cocooning" as a possible descriptive framework.

Popcorn (1991) begins her discussion of cocooning by noting:

The last gasps of the eighties found Americans huddled in high-tech caves. Cocooning, the trend we first predicted in the late seventies, was in full spin. Everyone was looking for haven at home-drawing their shades, plumping their pillows, clutching their remotes. Hiding. It was full scale retreat into the last controllable (or sort of controllable) environment-your own digs. (p. 27)

Are residence hall rooms becoming high-tech caves?

Popcorn goes on to give the concept of cocooning further definition:

We defined it, (cocooning) when we named it, as the impulse to go inside when it just gets too tough and scary outside. To pull a shell of safety around yourself, so you're not at the mercy of a mean, unpredictable world-those harassments and assaults that run the gamut from rude waiters and noise pollution to crack-crime, recession, and AIDS. Cocooning is about insulation and avoidance, peace and protection, coziness and control-a sort of hyper-nesting. (p. 27, 28)

If anything, the early'90s have brought us into a time of heavy-duty Burrowing, digging in deeper, building ourselves a bunker-Cocooning for our lives. (p.29)

Are college and university students wanting to cocoon in their residence halls? Does the concept of cocooning provide a framework for campus housing trends? What are the trends in student housing?

In preparation for presentations for the Association of college and university Housing Officers and the Society for college and university Planning a survey was developed and distributed by Perry-Dean-Rogers &Partners: Architects of Boston to approximately 500 college and university housing offices. One of the purposes of the survey was together information on current trends in campus housing. One hundred and three surveys were returned. Despite the modest return rate, the completed surveys represented a wide range of campus types and sizes. Forty-three surveys(42%) represented private institutions and 60 (58%) of the surveys were returned by public institutions.

Institutional size ranged from 750 students to 55,000students. Forty-four percent of the surveys came from schools with enrollments less than 5,000 students; 29% of the surveys came from schools with student enrollments between 5,000 and 15,000; and 27% came from schools reporting enrollments over 15,000.

Given the number and the diversity in respondents, a qualitative analysis seeking themes regarding issues and trends should be quite trustworthy.

For the purposes of this article, three open-ended questions were coded using the software HYPER research to find the frequencies of recurring themes. The three questions were: (a) What are student concerns regarding their current living spaces, (b)What are student preferences regarding their living spaces, and (c) What are the amenities desired by students from their living spaces.

Table 1. summarizes the responses to the question asking the survey respondents to list the major concerns students raise about their living spaces.

The second open-ended question asked the respondents to briefly describe patterns or trends they saw in regard to what students prefer in their living spaces.

Table2. summarizes student preferences regarding their living spaces.

Table 3. summarizes the responses to the third question: As you think about the future, what additional amenities and/or services do you think students will desire from their living spaces?

The pattern is very clear. Students are seen as being concerned about the lack of privacy, noise and behavior of others, the restrictions associated with both room size and housing/food policies, the lack of maintenance and the lack of HAVC or the control of HAVC. In response to these concerns, students are viewed as preferring more privacy, more single rooms, less restrictive policies, apartments, more space, computer access, private bathrooms, more conveniences, and the opportunity to prepare their own food. These preferences basically form the list of amenities that students will be seeking in the future. How does this pattern of concerns, preferences, and desired amenities for the future fit the notion of cocooning?

The survey data supports the basic notion of student cocooning. Environmental stress for students (the tough and difficult outside) appears to include other students, not only their noise and behavior, but their presence-too many of them. "To pull a shell of safety around" themselves, students are seeking privacy through singles and private bathrooms. They want their cable TV, their computer hookups, their microwaves and micro fridges, and more space in their cocoon for all their "stuff." They also want the outside world of "restrictive policies regarding housing and foodservice "to go away in favor of the development of their own autonomy in their own cocoon.

How does the desire for apartments fit the cocoon framework? Certainly, in an apartment the number of students you have to deal with may be less, there are usually kitchen facilities, and individual control over HAVC is much more likely. In addition, Popcorn (1991) writes about social cocooning." Social cocooning is the notion of selectively inviting a few others to join you in your cocoon. It is the surrounding yourself with "soothing, congenial compatriots" - what Popcorn calls "Huddling and Cuddling." A small apartment would provide a good ecology for social cocooning.

Students of today appear to be seeking greater privacy, larger spaces, and increased autonomy-a cocoon. The designs and policies of the past can only marginally accommodate these preferences. A paradox is that the housing officers responding to the survey reported that designs to "foster community" were of major importance to them. The challenge will be to find designs and programs were the "cocooning" and "community" can be fostered-not a small challenge!

Editor's Note: Frank McGuire, AIA and Janet Stegman, AIA of Perry-Dean-Rogers & Partners: Architects of 177Milk Street, Boston, MA 02190 (617) 423-0 1 00) developed and distributed the survey noted in the above article during the Spring semester 1995. The Popcorn reference is as follows: Popcorn, F. (1991) The Popcorn Report. New York: Doubleday.

Popcorn (1991) suggests that cocooning has developed to the point that it has broken down into three different types: the Armored Cocoon, the Wandering Cocoon, and the Socialized Cocoon.

The notion of the armored cocoon is built on the major growth in small weapons being purchased for self-protection. Also noted in this trend by Popcorn is growth of home protection devices, home security systems, and the growth in home-watch programs. The notion of the armored cocoon is also becoming descriptive of the college and university residence hall. Security is an important issue for both staff and students. New and more elaborate security systems are being installed on campuses across the country.

The wandering cocoon is the cocoon that we need to travel in-our cars! Popcorn reports more people eating a greater number of their meals in cars. We now conduct business in our cars via our cellular phones, computers, and fax machines. Campuses have noted this phenomena for some time. A quick walk through a student parking lot will illustrate how many of the commuting students use their car as their study lounge, music hall, kitchen, and sleeping room and many cars have their own "beeper" security systems.

Popcorn sees the socialized cocoon as a new way of connecting with people. You do not go out, but you invite in. She refers to it as "Huddling and Cuddling." In socialized cocooning you bring your best friends into your hyper-nest. Trends noted by housing officers appear to be in concert with this socialized cocooning. The desire for apartment living may be reflective of this trend. The need for cable TV, VCRs, and small kitchenettes may also reflect the amenities needed to stock a "social nest."

Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Baum, A. & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and1social behavior: Psychological studies of density. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Blimling, G.S. (1988). The influence of college residence halls on students:

A meta-analysis of the empirical research, 19-66-1985. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Corbett, J.A. (1973) Student-built housing as an alternative to dormitories. Environment and Behavior, 5(4), 413-504.

Einhorn, S. (1988). Townhouses draw students. American School and University,   60,44h-48d.

Heilweil, M. (1973). The influence of dormitory architecture on resident   behavior. Environment and Behavior, 5(4), 377-409.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schroeder, C. C. (1994). Realizing the educational potential of residence halls. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Wilson, K.A. & Banning, J.H. (1993). From home to hall: An ecological   transition. Colorado State University Journal of Student Affairs, 3,(I).47-52

Winston, R.B. (1993). Student housing and residential life: A handbook for professionals committed to student development goals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

This material resides is maintained by Will Barratt. Please forward any problems and comments to him.