Revisiting the Role of Architecture for 'Surviving’ Development. 53rd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2019, Avlokita Agrawal and Rajat Gupta (eds), pp. 87–96. © 2019 and published by the Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA).

Rethink: Interdisciplinary evaluation of academic workspaces

Sarah Backhouse1, Clare Newton2, Kenn Fisher3, Benjamin Cleveland4 and Lucio Naccarella5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

{sarah.backhouse, c.newton, fisherk, benjamin.cleveland, l.naccarella }@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract: Academic workspace remains an emotive topic. It is bound tightly with each academic’s identity, purpose and status. As universities increasingly focus on cross-disciplinary collaboration to produce new knowledge, the sanctuary of the individual office is under challenge. Inspired by precedents in the commercial world, universities are experimenting with more open workspace environments with a desire to promote collaboration and increase space utilisation. However, there is resistance within the academic community. Given this context, there is a surprising paucity of research into the design and occupation of academic workspaces. This research begins to fill that gap through a scoping literature review specific to the academic workspace and a new approach to academic workspace evaluation (AWE). The AWE approach focuses on the alignment of people, purpose and place, differentiating itself from the predominant post-occupancy evaluation foci of budget, time, environmental performance and user satisfaction. A key finding of the research has been that change management – as an integral aspect of the project design process – is as important to the success of future-focused academic workspace projects as their spatial design.

Keywords: Academic workspace; faculty workspace; workspace design; post-occupancy evaluation.

1. Introduction

In the competitive research and teaching environment of the higher education sector, universities are seeking to provide the best quality, innovative spaces. The contemporary higher education campus offers a curated set of experiences for individuals and collectives. In recent decades, the spatial transformation of universities has responded to a range of disruptive sectoral changes. Ubiquitous technology is combining with learner demand to make online teaching more mainstream; therefore the spatial design of a campus plays a vital role in supporting ‘encounter management’ for mutually beneficial interactions (Temple, 2018). The ‘sticky’ campus is one where students (and staff) wish to linger: it requires the increased provision of informal learning settings for collaboration, relaxation and socialisation. Students are increasingly encouraged and sometimes required to take non-cognate subjects in addition to their primary study direction. Research centres for collaboration support cross-disciplinary research to solve wicked problems. The spatial and experiential transformation of universities to support collaboration and convergence is evident, yet the academic workspace has changed little over the past century. Individual cellular offices remain the norm in many institutions, reinforced by a binary view of enclosed offices versus open plan.

88 S. Backhouse, C. Newton, K. Fisher, B. Cleveland and L. Naccarella

Examples of open, innovative academic workspaces are emerging in higher education. Controversial media article headings, for example, ‘A room of one’s own in academia? No, more like a desk in a call centre’ (Wolff, 2015), epitomise the backlash against this change. Despite the controversy, there is a lack of research into these emerging spaces as evidenced by the small set of scholarly peer-reviewed papers on the topic. Our multidisciplinary research team comprises members from the disciplines of architecture, education, psychology and health evaluation to explore the wicked problem of the changing academic workspace. Our largely qualitative post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach focuses on the alignment of people, purpose and place to complement the typically quantitative approach of POEs. This approach builds on a decade of post-occupancy and workforce evaluation in the school and health sectors by the authors and introduces a qualitative overlay to examine both the process design and lived experience of emerging academic workspaces. As researchers, we seek to understand how academic and research workspaces differ from other workspaces in the health, education, and commercial sector; creation of an evidence-base about what is working, what is not, and why, will be of practical relevance to university management, facilities teams, design teams and academic teams and individuals.

This paper begins with a scoping review of literature specific to the academic workspace, which we define as the physical, measurable location of work. Second, the paper considers theoretical frameworks that embrace the user experience in the built environment. The concept of the workplace extends the physical workspace to include the elaborated cultural meanings people attach to where they work. Third, the paper reflects on a qualitative POE approach that complements the more traditional quantitative POE measures of time, cost, indoor environment quality (IEQ) and design relative to the brief. The paper concludes with a discussion about the practical applications of the approach and proposed next steps in research.

2. The changing academic workspace

There is a growing body of literature that looks at the changing nature of workspace (e.g. Babapour, Karlsson, & Osvalder, 2018; Candido et al., 2019). However, as noted by Gorgievski and colleagues (2010), surprisingly little research examines the academic’s experience of emerging workspace models. Our wide-reaching study revealed a literature set of 28 items specific to the academic workspace, of which 21 are peer-reviewed articles, and seven are grey literature, such as reports dated between 2006 and early-2019. We used the following Boolean search terms to capture literature from a range of disciplinary perspectives: "workspace*” AND "universit*"; "office*” AND "universit*"; "open*” AND "universit*"; "faculty *” AND "open*"; "faculty *” AND "office*"; "academic*" AND "open”; “academic* AND office*”; “research* AND office*”; and “activity-based AND "universit*". The reference lists within the articles revealed further articles. The literature confirmed the traditional academic office as multivalent, supporting activities including solitary research, lecture preparation, peer meetings, student supervision, administration and tutorials. The literature also highlights that this model is under challenge as policy, technologies and economics drive changes in research and teaching foci and approaches.

2.1. Policy and Facility Drivers

The academic workspace literature identifies a desire for increased knowledge sharing as one of two primary drivers for this transformation. In the highly competitive realm of teaching and research, institutions are recognising the need to nurture innovation through more cohesive, knowledge-sharing teams and increased collaboration between academic communities of practice (Doshi & Clay, 2017;

89

Rethink: Interdisciplinary evaluation of academic workspaces

Kang, Ou, & Mak, 2017; Lansdale, Parkin, Austin, & Baguley, 2011; Van Marrewijk & Van den Ende, 2018). Suckley and Dobson (2014) note that this recognition stems from studies (e.g. Dunbar, 1995) that highlight the critical role of incidental team discussions in major research breakthroughs. Therefore, arguments in favour of a transition to more open academic workspaces often refer to the role that the physical environment plays in supporting collaborative working and innovation (Parkin, Austin, Pinder, Baguley, & Allenby, 2011). Temple (2018) suggests that university management need to focus on how physical space can enhance the intellectual activities of the academic staff community. Increasingly these are virtual collaborations as well as face-to-face interactions.

Cost is the other primary driver identified in the literature associated with workspace transformation. In countries such as Australia and the UK, declining government funding has placed significant pressure on universities to increase revenue and reduce costs (Baldry & Barnes, 2012). Revenue is increased through growing student numbers and greater industry collaboration. Costs are reduced through a range of initiatives, with physical space being a significant budget item. The adaptability of workspace over time is a key consideration for a facilities team as they respond to changing staff numbers and team configurations (Van Marrewijk & Van den Ende, 2018). Responding to these changes, also known as churn, can become a costly exercise. As a result, the literature reveals a strong theme of seeking greater performance from less space, while improving the quality of both provision and experience to meet contemporary and future needs (e.g. Marmot, 2013; Sheahan, 2014).

There are also other concurrent policy influences. As universities seek to increase their collaboration with industry, they look to innovative workspace trends globally across the knowledge economy (Berthelsen, Muhonen, & Toivanen, 2018). Younger academic staff have different expectations of how and where they work with mobile technology (Sheahan & King, 2016). Selingo (2018) estimates that fewer than one-third of academic staff are on track for tenure. Numerous researchers posit that the 16th century spatial model of individual academic offices is no longer appropriate for 21st-century knowledge work (e.g. Parrish & Parks, 2018; Samson, 2013). With many academics arguing for individual offices (e.g. Wilhoit et al., 2016), this is an interesting moment to examine the emerging alternatives.

2.2. Academic workspace typologies

Figure 1: Academic workspace typologies – informed by Cairns and Harrison (2008)

90 S. Backhouse, C. Newton, K. Fisher, B. Cleveland and L. Naccarella

Baldry and Barnes (2012) adopt the terminology of ‘open plan academic offices’. This language presents the open plan academic office as a homogenous typology, yet the literature identifies a diverse range of spatial typologies. Numerous research studies differentiate between cell offices and open plan offices, using terms such as individual offices, shared offices, open plan, hot-desking, combi-office layouts, activity-based offices and flex-offices (Berthelsen et al., 2018; Lansdale et al., 2011; Parkin et al., 2011; Suckley & Dobson, 2014; Van Marrewijk & Van den Ende, 2018). Although this wide range of terms can be confusing, Cairns and Harrison (2008) provide a useful set of definitions that our research team has illustrated in Figure 1. Various space ownership approaches are possible, with the terms ‘agile and ‘flex’ generally referring to non-territorial space allocation. Each academic community of practice, or discipline, has specific needs, and appropriate workspace solutions will likely be a hybrid of these, with the additional considerations of proximity to laboratory space, teaching space and other specialist amenities.

2.3. Post-occupancy evaluation

The literature identifies a range of POE approaches that span the quantitative to the qualitative. IEQ’s measurable factors of layout, air quality, thermal performance, lighting and acoustic environment have been a cornerstone of academic workspace POE approaches (Kang et al., 2017; Lou & Ou, 2019). Andargie and Azar (2019) posit that layout, noise and natural light are the key factors to positive user experience. However, these IEQ approaches only capture aspects of the user experience. Capturing data on work practices, values and cultures across a university, faculty, department or staff cohort require mixed-methods approaches (Wilhoit et al., 2016).

Van Marrewijk and Van den Ende (2018) conducted an ethnographic study of lived experiences and daily practices through expert observations, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and reflective diaries, both before and after the move to new workspace. Their evaluation method focused on behaviours and attitudes, highlighting a cultural resistance to change. Other researchers have adopted similar social and space syntax approaches of structured behavioural observation, on-line occupant questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (Lansdale et al., 2011; Suckley & Dobson, 2014; Toker & Gray, 2008; Yusof, Hashim, & Kian, 2016). Berthelsen et al. (2018) used an online survey to track staff wellbeing in a new ABW workspace before and after the move. Gastelaars (2010) takes a reflective walkthrough approach, observing the psychosocial and material relationships between users and buildings. The most comprehensive POE approach in the academic workspace literature is proposed by Tookaloo and Smith (2015), collecting both subjective and objective data through quantitative and qualitative methods. Their approach includes plan analysis, IEQ monitoring, on-line user satisfaction questionnaires, structured walkthroughs and expert observations, semi-structured and structured interviews with building’ users, and focus groups.

2.4. Relationships between people, purpose, place and process design

Baldry and Barnes (2012) discuss the personal academic office and its role in contributing to and sustaining professional identities, positing that the introduction of open plan academic offices is a challenge to academic autonomy and identity. Wilhoit et al. (2016) describe the tensions of moving out of individual offices despite the possibilities of increased informal collaboration. Samson (2013) counterbalances these views by suggesting that activity-based working (ABW) is a logical step to support the various tasks that comprise academic work, academe’s desired degree of autonomy, and the availability of ubiquitous, mobile technology. Yusof et al. (2016) provide a noteworthy cultural

91

Rethink: Interdisciplinary evaluation of academic workspaces

perspective, observing that in Islamic cultures, open offices are preferable to shared offices as they avoid placing men and women in awkward spatial collisions. These examples position space as both a catalyst and support for organisational change. They also highlight that there is no single approach or solution.

The research suggests that universities need to invest more time explaining and negotiating the wider context and rationale for transforming work practices that are deeply rooted in academic culture. Multiple narratives explain that academic staff feel that they have little influence over the development of new workspace models; that new academic work practices are imposed on them (e.g. Gorgievski et al., 2010; Wilhoit et al., 2016). The lack of influence is a common theme, highlighting the tensions between institutions and an academic workforce that values its autonomy (Berthelsen et al., 2018). Van Marrewijk and Van den Ende (2018) found that hierarchy prevailed in ABW settings. People became static despite project intent, and senior staff claimed ownership of the best physical locations. Berthelsen et al. (2018) also observed academics following their move to an ABW workspace. Despite extensive pre-design consultation that highlighted staff resistance to ABW, the institution overruled staff wishes. The lived experience is that 86% of staff sit at the same desk; social connections have declined as people prefer working from home. Stakeholder engagement that asks for user input and then ignores users’ views is a high-risk activity.

Other research shows that positive and sustainable change is possible when academic staff influence or initiate the briefing and design process. Medical researchers Doshi and Clay (2017) described how their multi-disciplinary teams wanted to encourage more serendipitous encounters, so they developed a collaborative project brief informed by a design thinking process across four phases: hear, understand, create and deliver. Their POE assessment showed that teamwork improved with implementation of a new range of settings, which comprised open office areas with access to adjacent collaboration areas and quiet spaces. Other research highlights the importance of workspace pilots to explore the alignment of new workspace, behaviours and practices before a broader rollout, followed by transparent POE processes that identify both workspace strengths and areas for improvement (Parrish & Parks, 2018; Pinder et al., 2009). Pilot projects allow academics to test new spaces and behaviours before introducing larger-scale change.

From the literature, our research team highlights the critical role of inclusive process design in the success of innovative academic workspace projects. By process design, we are referring to the user experience of all the phases of a workspace project, from conception to design to occupancy, as well as all associated communications and change management activities.

3. Evaluating the academic workspace

Vischer and Fischer (2005) described two major methodological categories for workspace evaluation; the POE which focuses on measurable factors such as IEQ and cost, and the Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) which attempts to match user satisfaction with these POE measures. Together, these evaluation approaches inform various workspace evaluation methodologies such as the Building Occupants Survey System Australia – BOSSA (Candido, Kim, de Dear, & Thomas, 2015).

The literature reveals that a holistic approach to the evaluation of academic workspace is needed, an approach that complements the BPE approach with the alignment of place, people and purpose.

92 S. Backhouse, C. Newton, K. Fisher, B. Cleveland and L. Naccarella

3.1. Theoretical perspectives

There is a tradition of evaluative methods that seek to align user experience, behaviour, values and workspace. Friedmann, Zimring, and Zube (1978) articulated a simple method for organising four interdependent factors of evaluation information. First, the organisation context of culture, goals, practices and functioning. Second, the user characteristics, attributes, perceptions, behaviours, and values, be it an individual or a collective. Third, the environmental context such as the social, physical and ambient qualities of the environment. And fourth, the design process and the process design, such as the values of the various actors and their role in design-related decisions. For academic workspace, the contexts of social, economic, historical and technological trends shape our views of these four factors.

The user-centred theory of the built environment (UCT) builds upon these traditions (Vischer, 2008) and proposes that a user’s experience of and interaction with the built environment becomes a measure of workspace effectiveness. UCT provides an analytic framework for assessing the user’s experience of workspace through three lenses; functional comfort, physical comfort and psychological comfort. Physical comfort refers to safety, hygiene and accessibility, as covered by building codes and standards. Functional comfort is how well the built environment supports users in their various tasks and activities. Psychological comfort includes feelings of belonging and connection, choice and control over the workspace. A range of external influences affects how users feel about and use space, including shared values, expectations and memories.

Through the lens of psychology, self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that autonomy, competence and relatedness are basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy is the need to self-regulate experiences, actions and have some sense of control. Competence is the need for a sense of mastery and achievement in tasks. Relatedness is the need for social connection and mutual reliance on others. The level to which the workplace meets these needs can determine the level of employee motivation, productivity and wellbeing.

A final theoretical perspective is that of change management. Of the various change frameworks, the McKinsey 7-S Framework (Figure 2) examines change through seven lenses: skills, staff, style, strategy, structure, systems, and shared values (Hayes, 2014). The 7-S approach proposes that all seven components need to be aligned and mutually supportive in an effective organisation; it, therefore, provides a useful change lens for the academic workspace.

3.2. Drawing on an existing evaluation approach focused on the user experience

Development of the academic workspace evaluation (AWE) approach brings together strategies developed and applied by the authors over the past decade for learning space evaluation with complementary expertise brought by a health evaluation expert. Drawing together the themes of design for learning, design for wellbeing and user experience is timely and appropriate given the increasing complexity of academic work, academic employment and funding contexts. Drawing on our existing POE approach for learning environments, our focus is on the alignment of people, purpose and place, identifying areas for improvement and guiding future development. Pivotal to the methodology is the recognition that the values and beliefs of a community should inform evaluation; that the value of a setting relates to intended use rather than a general set of values and beliefs. Adopting a relational framing of evaluation to include a high degree of stakeholder engagement (Davidson, 2012), we create an inclusive process design that is appropriate to the academic workspace. A robust evaluation

93

Rethink: Interdisciplinary evaluation of academic workspaces

framework for the user experience of the academic workspace emerges when combined with parameters informed by UCT and SDT.

3.2. The evaluation method

The AWE method involves three phases of fieldwork. Phase 1 focuses on user-voice and begins with high-level strategic interviews of team leaders, facilities managers and consultants involved in the development of the space under study. These interviews explore project vision and values. Academic staff occupying the space are then invited to respond to an online survey that comprises positively framed multiple-choice questions covering issues around physical, functional and psychological comfort. These questions also explore process involvement and invite respondents to match current and preferred work settings against a visual-spatial taxonomy informed by Cairns and Harrison’s (2008) workplace definitions. Some short answer questions invite open-ended, reflective responses.

Phase 2 involves an observational walkthrough, where an ‘outside’ expert is invited to evaluate specific spaces within a location for physical, functional and psychological comfort – aligned with the questions asked of users in Phase 1. A small interdisciplinary team conducts the walkthrough. While the expert number and disciplines can be adjusted to suit the surveyed spaces, a ‘user expert’, a ‘design expert’ and a ‘facility management expert’ is included as a minimum. Findings from the interviews, online survey and observational walkthrough collectively gather perceptions of alignment and gaps between people, purpose and place.

Phase 3 of the fieldwork brings participating staff, team leaders, facilities managers and consultants to a focus group. Phase 1 and Phase 2 findings are grouped into overarching themes and presented to focus group participants in the form of themed word clouds and other visual representations for further interrogation. Focus group participants respond to targeted questions emerging from the data, with a focus on how the workspace enables or constrains work activities, while also exploring future opportunities for refinement. Finally, an integrated report evaluates the setting under review with comparable settings.

Figure 2: 7-S Framework, adapted from Hayes (2014); Figure 3: AWE approach

94 S. Backhouse, C. Newton, K. Fisher, B. Cleveland and L. Naccarella

3.3. Evaluation within an iterative process

The AWE approach generates multiple data sets covering people, purpose and place. The place data set captures observations related to the physical environment, including spatial typologies, spatial qualities and building performance of completed workspace projects. The people data set captures the alignment of physical comfort, functional comfort and psychological comfort. The purpose data set captures an understanding of skills, staff, style, strategy, structure, systems, and shared values. These three data sets from completed projects inform the process design of subsequent projects and contribute to an iterative feedback loop (Figure 3). The AWE approach is intended to be of practical value to universities and academics, and research value by addressing a gap in this area of research.

Through the development of the AWE approach, the research team seeks to collect data from a multitude of recent academic workspace projects. This robust data set can guide university management, facilities teams, design teams and academic teams in their approach to process design and workspace design. Understanding the factors contributing to successful projects will ultimately inform practical guidelines and recommendations. The term ‘success’ is likely to have a different meaning in different contexts, and the growing data set will highlight a range of measures of success.

4. Discussion

Through the lens of our multidisciplinary research team, the following reflections on the AWE are notable. Firstly, as revealed in the scoping review of the literature, the traditional nature of academic workspaces is changing, and challenged, by a range of policy, technological and economic drivers. In this paper we have focused on the workspace for academics, as one identifiable group within a complex organisational and spatial system that also comprises professional staff and students; including PhD students who are the academics of the future. Academic workspaces are not closed-systems; they can be conceptualised as dynamic contexts, with high levels of uncertainty and interdependencies. Academic workspace qualities present challenges to traditional evaluation approaches. The mixed-methods AWE approach provides an alternate way of ‘evaluative thinking’ that is aligned with Preiser and Nasar’s (2008) assertion that consumer-oriented democratic approaches to building evaluation are needed to sustain adaptation and continuous improvement.

Secondly, the AWE approach enables multiple evaluative purposes to be realised (Ovretveit, 2002). The AWE is a formative evaluation approach that seeks to articulate underlying issues, identify needs, and then inform the design of supportive interventions. It is a process evaluation approach that seeks to document if interventions are implemented as intended. It is also a summative evaluative approach that seeks to identify the effects, benefits or unintended consequences of the intervention.

Thirdly, the AWE approach aligns conceptually with the four independent factors of evaluation information proposed by Friedmann et al. (1978), these being; the organisation context, the user characteristics, the environmental context, and the design process or process design.

The complexity of the AWE approach matches the complexity of issues related to the changing academic workspace. As researchers, we are now undertaking three case studies in engineering faculty workspaces as proof of concept. This focus on engineering spaces will allow us to review our findings against those in the literature (Lansdale et al., 2011; Parkin et al., 2011; Toker, 2006; Toker & Gray, 2008).

95

Rethink: Interdisciplinary evaluation of academic workspaces

5. Conclusion

Given the wealth of research data available for activity-based workspaces and flexible office spaces in the commercial sector, we were surprised by the small amount of research data on the academic workspace. This paper highlighted salient issues from the limited literature available and proposed an alternative approach to the evaluation of academic workspace. The key theme emerging from the scoping review was that process design is as important to the success of new workspace designs as the design of the workspace itself. The inclusion of the user voice within the process design has been a consistent message. Our ongoing research seeks to provide both theoretical and practical evaluative approaches to guide university management, facilities teams, design teams and academic teams in developing workspaces that achieve a ‘better fit’. Over time, we envisage the AWE approach to contribute a compelling evidence-base to inform nuanced, inclusive conversations about the future academic workspace in support of scholarly endeavour in a rapidly changing world.

References Andargie, M., & Azar, E. (2019). An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor office environmental factors

on occupants’ comfort and working conditions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46, 101447. Babapour, M., Karlsson, M., & Osvalder, A.-L. (2018). Appropriation of an Activity-based Flexible Office in Daily

Work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 8(S3), 71-94. Baldry, C., & Barnes, A. (2012). The open-plan academy: space, control and the undermining of professional

identity. Work, Employment & Society, 26(2), 228-245. Berthelsen, H., Muhonen, T., & Toivanen, S. (2018). What happens to the physical and psychosocial work

environment when activity-based offices are introduced into academia? Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 20(4), 230-243.

Cairns, A., & Harrison, A. (2008). The Changing Academic Workplace. Retrieved from https://ipddirectedstudies.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-changing-academic-workplace-degw-27-10-08.pdf

Candido, C., Kim, J., de Dear, R., & Thomas, L. (2015). BOSSA: a multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation tool. Building Research & Information, 44(2), 214-228.

Davidson, E. J. (2012). Evaluation Methodology Basics: The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Evaluation(Electronic ed.). Doshi, A., & Clay, C. (2017). Rethink space: (Re)designing a workspace using human-centered design to support

flexibility, collaboration, and engagement among clinical and translational research support services. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(3), 160.

Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of Insight. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Friedmann, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, E. H. (1978). Environmental design evaluation: Plenum Press. Gastelaars, M. (2010). What do Buildings do? How Buildings-in-use Affect Organizations. In Organizational Spaces:

Rematerializing the Workaday World. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gorgievski, M., van der Voordt, T. M., van Herpen, S. A., & van Akkeren, S. (2010). After the fire: New ways of

working in an academic setting. Facilities, 28(3/4), 206-224. Hayes, J. (2014). The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Kang, S., Ou, D., & Mak, C. M. (2017). The impact of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in university

open-plan research offices. Building and Environment, 124, 78-89. Lansdale, M., Parkin, J., Austin, S., & Baguley, T. (2011). Designing for interaction in research environments: A case

study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 407-420. Lou, H., & Ou, D. (2019). A comparative field study of indoor environmental quality in two types of open-plan

offices. Building and Environment, 148, 394-404. Marmot, A. (2013). Reimaging Academic Workspace. Retrieved from http://aleximarmot.com/userfiles/raw.pdf

96 S. Backhouse, C. Newton, K. Fisher, B. Cleveland and L. Naccarella

Ovretveit, J. (2002). Action Evaluation of Health Programmes and Changes: A Handbook for a User-Focused Approach: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Parkin, J. K., Austin, S. A., Pinder, J. A., Baguley, T. S., & Allenby, S. N. (2011). Balancing collaboration and privacy in academic workspaces. Facilities, 29(1/2), 31-49.

Parrish, J., & Parks, R. (2018). Workspace: The Final Frontier. College and University, 93(1), 41. Pinder, J. A., Parkin, J., Austin, S., Duggan, F., Lansdale, M., Demian, P., . . . Allenby, S. N. (2009). The case for new

academic workspace. Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/6037 Preiser, W. F. E., & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing building performance: Its evolution from post-occupancy

evaluation. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 84–99. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social

development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Samson, D. (2013). From the Ivory Tower to Activity Based Workspaces. International Journal of Information and

Education Technology, 3(6), 624-626. Selingo, J. (2018). The Future of the Faculty Office. Retrieved from

https://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2018/04/Future_of_Faculty_Office.pdf Sheahan, M. (2014). The Future Academic Workspace: A literature review. Retrieved from

https://www.hassellstudio.com/docs/140221_academicworkplacelitreview-(2).pdf Sheahan, M., & King, T. (2016). What if academics at your university interacted as much as the students? A review of

current academic workspace design. Retrieved from https://www.hassellstudio.com/docs/academic-workplace-stage2_final.pdf

Suckley, L., & Dobson, S. (2014). Measuring Social and Spatial Relations in an Office Move. In L. M. Aiello & D. McFarland (Eds.), Social Informatics: 6th International Conference, SocInfo 2014, Barcelona, Spain, November 11-13, 2014. Proceedings (pp. 478-492). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Temple, P. (2018). Space, Place and Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education. Policy reviews in higher education, 2(2), 133.

Toker, U. (2006). Workspaces for Knowledge Generation: Facilitating Innovation in University Research Centres. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 23(3), 181-199.

Toker, U., & Gray, D. O. (2008). Innovation spaces: Workspace planning and innovation in U.S. university research centers. Research Policy, 37(2), 309-329.

Tookaloo, A., & Smith, R. (2015). Post Occupancy Evaluation in Higher Education. Procedia Engineering, 118, 515-521.

Van Marrewijk, A., & Van den Ende, L. (2018). Changing academic work places: the introduction of open-plan offices in universities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(5), 1119-1137.

Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 231-240.

Vischer, J. C., & Fischer, G.-N. (2005). User evaluation of the work environment: a diagnostic approach. [User Evaluation of the Work Environment: An Analytical Approach]. Le travail humain, 68(1), 73-96.

Wilhoit, E. D., Gettings, P., Malik, P., Hearit, L. B., Buzzanell, P. M., & Ludwig, B. (2016). STEM faculty response to proposed workspace changes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(5), 804-815.

Wolff, J. (2015). A room of one’s own in academia? No, more like a desk in a call centre. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/24/open-plan-academia-university-staff-office

Yusof, N., Hashim, R. A., & Kian, C. K. (2016). Investigating Learning Space for Research Workspaces in Higher Education in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 201-226.

There is a section break below, please do not delete it. There is a section break above, please do not delete it.