Shared Living in Student Housing - Essay Example

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ON SHARED LIVING IN HOUSING INTRODUCTION Background of the study Shared living is common in most learning institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities globally. Both the local and international schools embrace shared living. The huge numbers of students joining various schools, colleges and universities has brought with it a number of challenges to the management of these institutions worldwide. The main concern of the management of these institutions is housing hence forcing the students to share living. The students may share living in terms of cooking, housing, and facilities such as kitchen, library, toiletries, and bedrooms (University of South Wales 2015). It is a great experience living in a shared house with friends. Statement of the problem Students often share living in their institutions of learning resulting in a unique experience of life. The shared living makes the students learn from one another. It also makes them get a chance to support each other in the daily life activities that may include kitchen duties, cleaning and cost sharing on their daily expenses (Burrowes 2014). Purpose of the study The overall goal of this study is to examine the shared living in students. The study aims at identifying some of the reasons that make students to share the houses in their learning institutions, the advantages and disadvantages of shared living among the students themselves, and how to overcome those problems of living (The Thought and Expression Co. 2012). The objectives of the study The objectives of this study are to: Identify reasons for sharing among the students. Mention the pros and cons of shared housing for the students. Identify some of the rules guarding shared living in students. Describe the household finances for shared living in students. Identify the rooms and other places that the students share and those that are private Explain the things that are shared and also those that are kept private. Find out how much time the students spend with their housemates. Examine the students’ future housing plans. The Research hypothesis The higher the cost of living in the learning institutions, the more the students will prefer shared living amongst themselves. There are a lot of things students learn from one another when they are living together in the same house. The more the students live together the more they are able to support one another. The higher the number of students living in the same houses, the more the rules governing their living. The higher the number of students living in the same house, the more the more the things shared among them. The significance of the Research This research helps the students wishing to live together in their respective learning institutions to get more informed on the issues concerning shared living. It also enables the management of the institutions to effectively plan for the proper accommodation of their students (Group of Eight Australia 2015. The research also allows the students fraternity to compare individual living and shared living. It can also be used to determine the characteristics and behaviors of the students that share living. The limitations of the study It is difficult to get the students to interrogate yet they are the participants and the subjects under study because of the limited time they have. They are committed because most of the time they are busy attending lectures and during their free time, they perform the household chores. On several occasions, the students also feel too busy to be interviewed and sometimes deliberately refuse to be interviewed. They can only be met outside the lecture halls or along the streets while going back to their houses or hostels. Some of the participants do not answer all the questions in the questionnaires while others misplace the questionnaires having their responses. There is limited time for conducting the study because most of the participants only accept to be examined for a maximum of ten minutes. It is difficult to maintain the study sample throughout the study period and hence the success of follow up interviews is compromised (Kelly 2011). Therefore, I and my research assistants chose to study the first and second year students only. Secondly, I used questionnaires with very few questions (only 5) for the survey. I obtained the other data through the structured interviews. I used the students’ governing council to pass the information about the research two weeks prior to the date of the study. In addition, the participants were also given room to voluntarily participate in the study by responding to the research questions in the instruments (Kelly 2011). From a population of 600 students, I only involved 150 of them in the study. I engaged 15 research assistants and each of them targeting a minimum of 10 students to respond to the research questions. The percentage of the students who shared living was calculated. The items and facilities that were shared among students living together were listed in the questionnaires. The time spent by students living together was also recorded on the questionnaires Scope of the study The study focused on the students who were in the learning institution at that particular period only. The respondents were from one institution because they were had with similar behaviors, characteristics, and faced common problems of shared living (Noonan 2014). Non-students and those students who did not share houses or stayed individually were not examined. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Study design The quantitative technique was used in the study. It involved the identification of the research participants who were counted; the percentages and ratios of the observed characteristics were calculated and represented in tables (Bhattacherjee 2012). Often, with few questions for me to clarify, it is anticipated that most of the students that were engaged in the study would respond positively. Up to 150 interviews would be conducted. The methods of data collection The data was collected by the use of questionnaires and interviews. Each survey tool contained five questions only because of the limited time available. Interview schedules were also given to the respondents. The interviews were to be open-ended, informal and carried out in a conversational style (Kelly 2011). The research assistants wrote field notes in concurrently with the interviews, casual encounters with the students (participants), and observations. Study sample and the sampling criteria The student population was 600. About 150 of them who were in their first and second years, in particular, were randomly selected (Szeri 2015). The selection was based on informed consent (Bhattacherjee 2012). The subjects were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. The findings of the study The study sample adequately provided the expected results of the study. These results are shown in the following tables. Total population of students in the institution 600 Sample size under study 150 % of sample size under study 25 Number of students who completed the study 148 % of students who completed the study 98.67 Number of students with shared living 140 % of students with shared living 93.33 Number of students who did not complete study 02 % of students who did not complete study 1.33 Number of students who liked shared living 126 % of students who liked shared living 85.13 Number of students who did not like shared living 22 % of students who did not like shared living 14.87 Table 1: The participant’s engagement in the study Time spent with housemates in (hrs) in categories Number of students The percentages of students in each category of time spent 0-3 05 3.37 4-7 24 16.21 8-11 106 71.62 12-15 09 6.08 16-19 03 2.02 20-24 01 0.68 Table: The time spent by students with shared living in hours The above tables show how the participants were involved in the study. From the tables, it is evident that most of the students accepted to be part of the study sample with 148 out of a possible 150 participating in the research to the end. It was also realized that most of the students had 8-11 hours of sharing in their houses. The hours mainly comprised of their free time when they were not in lecture halls. The results in the table also indicate that most of the students preferred shared living, for instance, the 93.33% of students liked shared living. Furthermore, some of the responses were achieved from the questionnaires and the interviews. The questions answered from these tools included: The reasons for sharing among the students Most of the students in the universities and other institutions lived in shared quarters for most of their time. It is easier to live together. It is also fun to live with friends. The students also lived together thus helping them to save money, for instance, they shared the cost of meals and bills such as those of water, electricity and rent (University of South Wales 2015. Most of the students from poor families preferred shared living because it was cheaper and affordable for them. Pros of shared housing for the students The students who lived together built best friends. They enjoyed hanging out. They always get someone to talk to, hang out with, to share their struggles and life with. Shared living taught the students to be responsible. For instance, the students learnt to clean their rooms, wash their utensils and perform other household chores (Home Group 2015). Similarly, it was realized that rent was cheaper for those who lived together. They paid a little less when they divided up the living space. When the students lived together, they avoided being lazy. They do not just throw all manner of used things outside the windows. It was also safer to live with friends. Cons of shared housing for the students Frequently, the roommates do not have complete authority. When they shared, everything had to be agreed upon. The students living together did not have the liberty to make decisions at will. There was also the risk of financial burden because there were circumstances when one student could bear the whole burden due to irresponsibility or maybe they lacked the money. Again, it was realized that there was loss of personal space and privacy (Burrowes 2014). There was no time the shared rooms were completely private. The rules guarding shared living in students Living with a group of likeminded friends can be a great experience, but it is important not to forget that everyone also needs their own space. The majority of the students locked their doors especially when they were going to lectures (University of South Wales 2015). They did not want other people wandering into their rooms. It was also found that friends knocked the doors first to show courtesy and respect. The household finances for shared living in students Most of the student finances were contributed to add up to household finances. The rooms and other places that the students share and those that are private The bedroom, kitchen, toiletries and the dinning space was shared. However, almost nothing could be private. The things that are shared and also those that are kept private The students shared food, bathrooms, the toiletries, the kitchen space, and the bedrooms. The students’ future housing plans The students staying together always planned for their upcoming housing. They ensured that they entered into any agreement prior to the commencement of the new learning sessions, terms or semesters (Natukunda 2011). Proper planning allowed them to make informed decisions about whether to stay individually or to live together as a group. Bibliography Bhattacherjee, A 2012, Social Science Research, Principles, Methods, and Practices, University of South Florida. Burrowes, C 2014, Top 10 things that will annoy you in shared living, Milkround Viewed 20 April 2015 < http://advice.milkround.com/top-10-things-will-annoy-shared-living> Group of Eight Australia 2015, Student Accommodation Guide, The University of Adelaide Home Group 2015, Pros of shared ownership. Viewed 20 April 2015 < http://www.homegroup.org.uk/blog/Pages/pros-and-cons-of-shared-ownership.aspx> Kelly, A P 2011, Social Research Methods, Undergraduate Study in Economics, Management, Finance, and the Social Sciences, University of London. Natukunda, P 2011, Sharing a house is a two sided coin: The pros and cons. Daily Monitor. Viewed 20 April 2015< http://mobile.monitor.co.ug/-/691260/1149102/-/format/xhtml/-/vnfybr/-/index.html> Noonan, D 2014, Tricky Housemates and how to deal with them, Viewed 20 April 2015 < http://www.savethestudent.org/accommodation/how-to-deal-with-tricky-housemates.html> Scholarships.com 2015, Roommates and Communal Living. Viewed 20 April 2015 < https://www.scholarships.com/resources/campus-life/roommates-and-communal-living/> Szeri A J 2015, A Guide for New Graduate Students, Berkeley University of California The Thought and Expression Co. 2012, The Pros and Cons of Living with Roommates. Viewed 20 April 20, 2015 < http://thoughtcatalog.com/chelsea-fagan/2012/04/the-pros-and-cons-of-living-with-roommates/> University of South Wales 2015, Accommodation: Legal Matters. Viewed 20 April 2015 < https://unilife.southwales.ac.uk/pages/3230-accommodation-contracts-tenancy-agreements-rights-and-responsibilities> University of South Wales 2015, Accommodation: Tips for Shared Living. Viewed 20 April 2015 < https://unilife.southwales.ac.uk/pages/3231-accommodation-tips-for-shared-living> Read More