PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to create an overview of current literature and identify gaps in what is known about stimulating interaction through spaces and services provided on university campuses.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement methodology for systematic literature review. In total, 3,616 articles were screened, 31 articles were included. Facility Directors from 13 Dutch Universities were asked to define the search terms related to services.FindingsSpaces and services were mostly studied separately. The majority of papers (18/31) were based on perceptions (surveys or interviews). The following critical success factors were identified in the literature: geographic proximity, cognitive proximity, scale, transitional spaces, comfort and experience, shared facilities and events, local buzz and networks. These factors are interrelated. The authors present a new relational model, from spaces and services, through interaction to innovation, visualising how the identified papers are related.Research limitations/implicationsThe scope of possible findings may have been narrowed because prior relevant studies were rather limited and as a consequence of the search strategy designed to limit the number of unrelated hits. Some knowledge gaps may not have been identified, as only a few mainstream concepts related to the critical success factors were used for comparison. Nevertheless, the literature review provides a reliable overview of current academic knowledge regarding critical success factors for spaces and services that stimulate interaction on campuses.Originality/valueThis paper offers a novel perspective by emphasising the relational chain from interaction to innovation, visualising the large diversity in research fields and summarising the critical success factors in the literature.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate which critical success factors (CSFs) influence interaction on campuses as identified by the facility directors (FDs) of Dutch university campuses and to discuss how these compare with the literature. Design/methodology/approach: All 13 Dutch university campus FDs were interviewed (office and walking interview), focussing on CSFs relating to spaces and services that facilitate interaction. Open coding and thematic analysis resulted in empirically driven categories indicated by the respondents. Similarities and differences between the CSFs as previously identified in the literature are discussed. Findings: The following categories emerged: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. The campus is seen as a system containing subsystems and is itself part of a wider system (environment), forming a layered structure. Constraints and motivators are part of the environment but cannot be separated from the other four categories, as they influence their applicability. Research limitations/implications: This study was limited to interviews with FDs and related staff. The richness of the findings shows that this was a relevant and efficient data collection strategy for the purpose of this study. Practical implications: By viewing the campus as an open system, this study puts the practical applicability of CSFs into perspective yet provides a clear overview of CSFs related to campus interaction that may be included in future campus design policies. Social implications: This (more) complete overview of CSFs identified in both literature and practice will help FDs, policymakers and campus designers to apply these CSFs in their campus designs. This improved campus design would increase the number of knowledge sharing interactions, contributing to innovation and valorisation. This could create a significant impact in all research fields, such as health, technology or well-being, benefitting society as a whole. Originality/value: This study provides a comprehensive overview and comparison of CSFs from both literature and practice, allowing more effective application of CSFs in campus design policies. A framework for future studies on CSFs for interaction on campuses is provided.
DOCUMENT
Internationalization and global citizenship are increasingly becoming the emerging focus of higher education worldwide as universities seek to incorporate global learning in their policies, curricula and strategies. Global engagement, international collaborations, strategic alliances and operations are all on the increase with the aim of delivering future-proof graduates with a global mindset and inter-cultural competences. Additionally, it can be noted that hybridity in education is acutely present through the digitalisation of delivery modes as well as the introduction of new mobility formats, such as faculty-led study abroad programmes and transnational education at branch campuses. So not only do we see more activity, but also more delivery modes of international education. While both digital delivery and new mobility structures transcend traditional boundaries of space and locality, it is precisely this point that can pose serious challenges to the success of international education. Both involve a “relocation” of education; however, when the physical locality, where the students and lecturers are rooted in certain value and beliefs systems, is not considered, the risk is that the educational experience remains one-sided despite the multidimensional context of which it should be a part. Locality is the key to successful and meaningful internationalisation. After presenting the case that locality is of paramount importance, this chapter will outline the conceptual model of intercultureality, which allows education programs to foster and nurture intercultural competence development of students in their own unique landscape from the ground up. Using the metaphor of a landscape, intercultureality provides tools to create an intercultural reality by utilising the unique hybrid of the physical locality, the disciplinary context, the dynamics of the (virtual) classroom as well as the infrastructures in place. The underlying idea is that programmes and institutions can grow any kind of landscape that works for their context, building on the soil of their own previously defined intercultural competence goals. This soil will be enriched by means of five features: the formal curriculum, the pedagogy, the student experience, the informal curriculum, and the organisational and strategic frameworks. The model is further elaborated upon and illustrated with examples of practices of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS), where the authors work.
DOCUMENT
This paper explores knowledge-based urban development related to higher education and campuses. It also provides an introduction to design thinking, which has been used as a user-friendly tool for fulfilling the ideals of urban campus development in the project ‘Live Baltic Campus– Campus Areas as Labs for Participative Urban Design’.The project aimed at developing campuses as innovation hubs where different stakeholders, residents as well as businesses, are being taken into account; rejecting the prevailing campus discourses. As a takeaway message, the result of the project can be summarised as a formulation of the core themes of urban campus development.
DOCUMENT
Campuses are increasingly positioning themselves as attractive locations forbusinesses. This research studies how this plays out in Amsterdam. We conclude that there is currently much fragmentation in efforts to position the campus landscape as business location, and provide some policy recommendations.
DOCUMENT
This handbook offers specific tools for campuses and innovationdistricts to better connect them with the city. It is based on real-life examples and outreach interventions in Amsterdam, collected through interviews and a workshop.These examples show the many ways in which outreach by innovation districts can have an impact.
MULTIFILE
Background and aim – In practice, phone pods and office booths, hereafter referred to as pods, have proven their added value and popularity in open-plan offices. How would that work in another context, such as in higher education? This study explores use and user perceptions of these pods in an atrium on a Dutch university campus.Methods / Methodology – After placing nine pods, the effects were studied through document analysis, guest journey, direct observation (behaviour, indoor climate, bacteria, fungus), interview, and survey.Results – Students use the pods mainly for seven activities: meeting, project work, noise-free work, study, phone call, relaxation, or hang out. Students report a positive general experience of the pod, a very positive experience when entering the pod, and hardly any negative experiences. They feel at ease and the pods ensure better concentration. Finally, pod users reported to be a little less nervous than other atrium users.Originality – The studied pods are mostly applied in open-plan offices. By placing them in an atrium at a Dutch university campus the pods are exposed to different users, generating new user-related findings.Practical or social implications – In order to perform well, students need a variety of places on campus. An atrium is normally crowded, loud, and noisy. Pods provide an extra option, a space within a space, that students use and appreciate. By adding these tiny spaces to their repertoire, universities seem to be better aligned with user needs. Facility managers and researchers could consider experimenting with pods in other lively contexts.
LINK
With campuses opening up and stimulating interactions among different campus users more and more, we aim to identify the characteristics of successful meeting places (locations) on campus. These can help practitioners such as campus managers and directors to further optimize their campus to facilitate unplanned or serendipitous meetings between academic staff and companies. A survey on three Dutch campuses, including questions on both services and locations, was analyzed both spatially and statistically using principal component (PC) and regression analysis. Four PCs were found for services (Relax, Network, Proximity and Availability) and three PCs were found for locations (Aesthetics, Cleaned and Indoor Environment). Personal characteristics as explanatory variables were not significant or only had very small effect sizes, indicating that a campus’ design does not need to be tailored to certain user groups but can be effective for all. The pattern of successful locations is discussed, including the variables in each PC. These PCs provide a framework for practitioners who want to improve their campus’ design to further facilitate unplanned meetings, thus contributing to cooperation between campus users, hopefully leading to further innovation.
DOCUMENT
This book focuses on one particular way to promote the urban knowledge economy: the creation of knowledge ‘hotspots’.
DOCUMENT
