If you’ve not already done so, I’d recommend digging out the latest copy of the Times Higher, which includes a really interesting feature on the evolution of academic workspace – http://bit.ly/byxFtT . This rather neatly captures the different perspectives in the ongoing debate about academic office environments (with the exception of the student voice, which is notably absent) and the tensions between promoting communication and collaboration versus maintaining privacy and autonomy. Based on discussions at our AcademicWorkspace forum events, and elsewhere, this debate does have an unhelpful tendency to be dichotomised as open plan versus individual, cellular offices - with estates professionals and senior managers tending to be the chief proponents of the former. A key issue that wasn’t explicitly addressed, but which we would argue underpins a large proportion of the ‘unintended consequences’ of transitions to shared and more open environments noted by contributors such as Rachel Hurdley and Mary Evans, and the reluctance of many academics to relinquish their individual offices, is the existing reward system. Although there is, as Mathew Reisz points out, an increasing emphasis on collaborative research within HEIs, the academic reward system is still individualised (e.g. in the RAE, a collaborative paper can only be returned for one of the authors). In terms of shared, team goals - for academics in a department, these are likely to be only high-level. As Peter Lennox describes in his article, in a shared office, occupants are likely to working independently of colleagues - and as a result, co-location actually inhibits interaction – something that we’ve observed time and again in our research. Similarly, given that in terms of research output at least, academics are rewarded for product not process, Mary Evans isn’t alone in having to resort to working from home in a bid to find a suitable workspace - arguments such as ‘it was too noisy to get any work done’ don’t help to secure a professorship. As authors such as Krampschroer, Heerwagen and Powell (2007) remind us, space can enable change, but alone it's unlikely to compel it. As we point out in our recent guidance document ( downloadable from this website ), it’s high time the sector engaged in a spot of double-loop learning. There’s also a real need to engage academics in a meaningful discussion about the cost of space. Our case study of the Paul O’Gorman building, home to the world-leading Northern Institute for Cancer Research at Newcastle University, perhaps serves as a useful illustration of the impact that user engagement in decision-making can have on subsequent satisfaction. Feedback from the academics during consultation was that the lab space, rather than the office accommodation, should be the priority for spending. As a result, the office accommodation for all but one member of staff is particularly cramped, open plan. Yet, although the office space is tight, this is not interpreted by users as reflecting their work as being neither understood nor valued - as often happens with moves to more open environments (again, see our latest report for a further discussion of this). Such an approach could be taken a step further, with users being asked to prioritise spending on accommodation relative to a raft of other commodities, such as mobile technology. For some, a reasonable trade-off for less ‘owned’ space at work might be a decent laptop, and a paid-for home phone line and broad-band connection. And at least there’d be an element of choice...
Have just watched the recent HEFCE film - ReVision, which considers current trends and future challenges in the HE sector and their implication for university estates. Pleased to see our very own Simon Austin makes an appearance! If you've got a spare 10 mins, it's well worth a watch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azwGDHK9KlI
I really enjoyed yesterday's Thinking Allowed on BBC Radio 4, in which Rachel Hurdley talked about her research on the power of corridors. Definately worth a listen if you didn't catch it.... The project even got a brief mention! Hear it at http://bit.ly/crTvU5 ... I'd also recommend Rachel's latest paper - Hurdley, R. (2010) The power of corridors: Connecting doors, mobilising materials, plotting openness, Sociological Review, 58 (1), 45-64.
