Managing Higher Education Architecture: A Case Study

Author(s):

Susan Harris-Huemmert(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 06 C, Development Strategies and Retention, Stress and Disengagement

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

15:30-17:00

Room:

K3.13

Chair:

Melanie Janzen

Contribution

A walk along Oxford's High Street will reveal a variety of different buildings built over the centuries for various academic purposes, some of which we may find inspirational. All buildings are essentially human inventions loaded with meaning and those constructed for higher education have frequently been designed to lift us somehow towards an institution’s academic ideals (Coulson et al., 2010; 2015). Buildings and the spaces in between them impact on our wellbeing and the extent to which we thrive, and this is relevant to those situated in the academic community (Marmot, in Temple (ed.) (2014)). Over time they become objects of “(re)interpretation, narration and representation […]” (Gieryn, 2002, p.35). They are occupied, altered, extended, or even redesigned. In his philosophical analysis of how architecture affects our wellbeing, Alain De Botton (2006/2014, p. 248) states that “bad architecture is in the end as much a failure of psychology as of design,” which echoes Vitruvius’ ancient words that architecture depends on a host of principles, not just design (Vitruvius, trans. Morgan 1914/1960, p. 13). Those who design and manage higher education architecture should ideally appreciate this. In academic environments we negotiate spaces provided by its infrastructure in order to discern, implicitly or explicitly, which of these may support our learning/ teaching best. The management and design of higher education architecture should therefore be of great importance to university governance. However, university leaders who are at the forefront of decision-making with regards to estate management (and structural design) are not necessarily specialists in architecture or design (cf. Corcorran in Scott-Webber et al, 2014, foreword), nor may they be psychologists or pedagogues with intimate knowledge of how the physical environment influences our ability to learn or work effectively (Weick, 1995). The same is true for estate staff.

Construction processes are complex, frequently very costly, usually lengthy, require the collaboration of different stakeholders, and they should ideally link in with what is known about teaching/ learning processes. If we reflect that university sites are usually long-term projects, then the money and effort involved in the creation and maintenance of buildings for academia should try to ensure that designs will work (Boys (2011) and Temple (2009 & 2014). However, some designs in the last century, and possibly also in the 21^st, reveal that designs have not always worked sufficiently, or even been found wanting to the extent that some more recently erected buildings have since been demolished to make way for new infrastructure (Grunewald, 2003).

Little research has been undertaken to explore the processes and ideas behind the creation and management of higher education estate (cf. Bligh, B. in P. Temple (ed.), 2014), and the case study presented here is the first in a larger, comparative, international study which aims to reveal how higher education architecture is managed in different countries. Using a phenomenological constructivist approach the case study reveals how estate is conceived and managed and it also explores the nexus between higher education architecture and the emotive experience of learning and teaching in so doing. It asks questions such as: how is university estate management organised? To what extent do planners and university leaders gain knowledge of the needs of users (students, teachers, administrative staff, researchers) in advance of construction? To what extent are users involved in modernization/redesign processes? How do users make sense of and utilise old, modernized and new university buildings? Do buildings mirror the Leitbild of the institution and faculty identities? And finally: how are buildings managed once constructed?

Method

The present case study from the University of Oxford (Yin, 2013) was selected as it represents a so-called ‘top of the pile’ institution (cf. Thoenig & Paradeise, 2016; Times Higher Education 2017), in which we might assume that the management of university space is conducted very well. Oxford is of particular research interest because of its conglomeration of century-old architecture, 20th and 21st century architecture (some of which is landmark). Central university estate management is continually challenged by managing and maintain ancient and more recent estate and providing new buildings for a growing campus with state of the art, frequently energy-efficient technology and equipment which will endure as well as previous university buildings and interiors have clearly done. At present, the university is undergoing great changes as various central university sites are being redeveloped or have already been expanded (e.g. Mathematics Wiley Building in the Radcliffe Observatory Area or the Biochemistry Building in the Science Area). In order to gain a deep understanding of past and present estate management throughout the University, including that of individual colleges, too, online research was first carried out to identify organisational structures, any estate strategy plans and specific ongoing projects. Following contact with university staff in September 2016, semi-structured interviews were held with key stakeholders in November-December 2016, including architects, Heads of College, college Bursars, administrative staff in the University's Estate Management Department, Department of Education staff and college archivists. Workshops were held with graduate students from two of the most recently-built colleges using a preliminary questionnaire which students completed before the discussions started. Further graduate student interviews were conducted, which also made use of the preliminary questionnaire. In both workshops and individual interviews students were asked to reflect upon how they had negotiated previous learning environments and how they now negotiated and experienced university space in Oxford, particularly in relation to their learning activities. Onsite visits were conducted and photographic evidence of sites, including architectural plans, gathered. Interviews were (where possible) digitally recorded, transcribed, coded in MaxQDa and then interpreted using qualitative content-analytical methods (Mayring, 2015, pp. 65-66). If recordings were not possible, detailed notes were taken. Archival research was carried out to examine architectural plans and the documentary evidence of the processes involved in the construction and subsequent development of two 20th century colleges.

Expected Outcomes

This research will hopefully augment our understanding of an under-researched area, namely that of higher education estate management. It will reveal how one major British university organises its central estate management; how strategic plans for its central sites are developed, employed, and which stakeholders are involved at strategic level; how existing sites are monitored and maintained; and which processes are involved in the planning of new estate or the redevelopment of the old. It will provide some understanding behind the processes of architectural and/ or philanthropic planning and interpret the extent to which this marries up with institutional/faculty ideals. In addition to central University estate administration, the study will also reveal how the colleges go about their site development and which processes and people are involved. It will go some way to describing the role and impact of philanthropy in the development of university architecture and will identify some of the tensions existing between central estate management and faculty requirements, revealing how space and the use of space is negotiated. The qualitative research with students will provide part of the proposed wider and international evidence of how graduate students from different disciplines engage with university sites and spaces, in particular about how they negotiate sites to support their learning. This will also reveal notions of value, care and identity and theorise on to the extent to which site maintenance or appearance impacts on how students perceive their own status within their institutions, an area which has been researched to date in the school context only (Tse et al., 2015). Results will therefore be of interest to university leaders, planners and architects and may provide international examples of best practice which may be of use to other institutions.

References

Bligh, B. (2014) Examining New Processes for Learning Space Design. In P. Temple (ed.) The Physical University. Contours of space and place in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Boys, J. (2011) Towards Creative Learning Spaces: Re-thinking the Architecture of Post-Compulsory Education. London & New York: Routledge. Boys, J. (2015) Building Better Universities. Strategies. Spaces. Technologies. New York & Abingdon: Routledge. Corcorran, S. (2014) Foreword. In L. Scott-Webber, J. Branch, P. Bartholomew & C. Nygaard (eds.) (2014) Learning Space Design in Higher Education. Faringdon: Libri Publishing. Coulson, J., Roberts, P. & Taylor, I. (2010) University and Planning Architecture. The Search for Perfection, 2nd Edition. Abingdon, Routledge. Coulson, J., Roberts, P. & Taylor, I. (2015) University Trends. Contemporary Campus Design. London & New York: Routledge. De Botton, A. (2006/2014) The Architecture of Happiness. London, New York, Toronto, Dublin, Auckland, Gauteng: Penguin. Gieryn, T.F. (2002) What buildings do. Theory and Society, Vol. 31(1), pp. 35-74. Accessed 18.01.2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/658136 Gruenewald, D. (2003) Foundations of place: a multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education, American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), pp. 619-54. Accessed 04.11.2015 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699447?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Marmot, A. (2014) Managing the Campus: Facility Management and Design, the Student Experience and University Effectiveness. In: P. Temple (ed.) The Physical University. Contours of space and place in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 58-71. Mayring, P. (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, 12th edition. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz. pp.65-66 Temple, P. (ed.) (2014) The Physical University. Contours of space and place in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge. Thoenig, J.-C., & Paradeise, C. (2016) Strategic Capacity and Organisational Capabilities: A Challenge for Universities. Minerva 54, p. 293-324. Times Higher Education (2017) World University Rankings 2016-2017. Accessed 18.01.2017. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats Tse, H.M., Learoyd-Smith, S. & Daniels, H. (2015) Continuity and conflict in school design: a case study from Building Schools for the Future. In. Intelligent Buildings International, Vol. 7 (2-3) Designing Intelligent School Buildings: What Do We Know. pp. 64-82. Vitruvius, trans. Morgan (1914/1969) The Ten Books on Architecture. New York: Dover Publications. Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage. Yin, R.K. (2013) Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 5th ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore & Washington: SAGE.

Author Information

Susan Harris-Huemmert (presenting / submitting)

German University of Administrative Science Speyer

Science Management

Speyer

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.