SEE Team 3: Plants and People
Dr. Michelle Nilson, Dr. David Patterson, Matthew Menzies
Introduction
Sustainability in higher education has been an implicit concern in international policy
since 1972 (Wright, 2002) and has been an explicit concern since The Tbilisi Declaration in
1977. The Tbilisi Declaration resulted from the Tbilisi Conference, held by the United Nations
Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in cooperation with the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP), and was the first international declaration that recognized the
importance of environmental education in both formal and non-formal educational systems. The
Declaration provided guidelines for each of the levels responsible for environmental education—
local, regional, national, and international.
Since that time, environmental concerns and scholarship in education have developed in
three main ways. First has been an increased interest in the subject of sustainability-- either
directly or indirectly through curriculum. Most notably, the field of sustainability has reached a
point where the notion of a canon for sustainability has been suggested for the undergraduate
curriculum in sustainability (Sherren, 2007). Second has been an increase in the study of the
impact of the enterprise of education. An example of this is in the range of studies presented by
the SEE Collaboration, Group 4 is examining the differential impact on resource use of on-line
versus on-campus courses. This is an elaboration of several previous studies that have sought to
determine the resources and environmental impact of higher education.
Many of the American Association for Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
supported studies provide frameworks for these types of resource use analyses (see also Cole,
2003). Third has been an increase in the examination of sustainable governance of processes.
These types of studies argue for sustainable leadership and education that focuses on the cultural
and social aspects of educational processes. These three areas can have implications for other
aspects of organizational functioning and are not entirely independent areas for study. For
example, in 2000, the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) argued
that aging infrastructure is becoming a significant concern for universities, suggesting that
“aging and deteriorating facilities will have a negative impact on the ability of universities to
fulfill their missions in teaching and research” (CAUBO, 2000, p. 47).
A conceptual framework that was developed and tested by Cole (2003) presents the
various factors that played a role in sustainability in higher education. The model was a
modification of a Wellbeing Assessment that was developed earlier by Prescott-Allen in 2001.
This study focuses on the People level of analysis and is specifically looking at Community and
Governance issues.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
2
Ecosystem
Land
Materials
Water
People
Energy
Air
Knowledge
Community
Health &
Wellness
Governance
Economy &
Wealth
Figure 1: Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (Cole, 2003)
Sackney (2007) argues that, “We can no longer operate from a mechanistic model where
students are viewed as deficits. Instead, we need to view the educational system fundamentally
as an ecological place of and for connections, relationships, reciprocity, and mutuality” (p. 2).
Given the deterioration of these buildings, campus administrations are making decisions about
building survival and future sustainability. But, what is not well understood is how these
decisions are being made, who is involved in the decision-making process, and what happens
with stakeholder input. Are there connections, relationships, and reciprocity that are currently
extended, as well as being planned for in the future incarnation of the space? What are the
environmental factors that community members identify as being important components of
where they work and learn? And, how can administrators and those in charge of facilities work
with the community to provide a sustainable environment, where the organization is as Sackney
describes?
The purpose of this study is to explore these questions and to understand the perceptions
of four stakeholder groups within one Faculty at a large urban Canadian university about their
current working and learning environments, and how they came to be where they are. We sought
to explore how the values of sustainability manifest in the culture of an academic Faculty, as
specifically manifest in the decision-making processes, and relationships between stakeholders
and the facilities they used. We specifically focus on how culture both influences and is
influenced both by community members’ perceptions of Faculty spaces, as well as by their
perceptions of decision-making processes relating to the use of space. By exploring these
relationships, we can gain insight into how the Faculty’s culture has been constructed and
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
3
interpreted by community members and their interactions, and may infer ways by which
decisions can be better aligned with community members’ values towards a sustainable
educational ecology. Positive engagement in working and learning spaces sustains educational
organizations and suggests “how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising
the development of others in the surrounding environment now and in the future” (Hargreaves &
Fink, p. 17).
Sustainability
The primary purpose of universities is the production, application, or transformation of
knowledge; their success depends largely on human relationships and creativity. While most
studies of higher education sustainability focus on environmental resources and economic
impacts on institutional operations, there are few studies that address the critical social indicators
of sustainability (Link, 2007). In an article outlining the misconceptions of sustainability in
higher education, Filho (2000) articulates four definitions of sustainable development that can be
inferred to the definitions of sustainability that have emerged since the 1970s. The first is “the
systematic, long-term use of natural resources” (p. 9), which is consistent with conservation
movements that seek to ensure the availability of resources for those locally and nationally. The
second is related to a national view of resources, “the modality of development that enables
countries to progress, economically and socially, without destroying their environmental
resources” (p. 10). The third sustainability is “socially just, ethically acceptable, morally fair and
economically sound (here referring to the social ramifications of development)” and
sustainability (p. 10); and fourth, “where environmental indicators are as important as economic
indicators (here referring to the close links it bears with economic growth).”
Consistent with previous work on leadership and sustainability in education (see for
example, Hargreaves and Fink, 2005; and Fullan, 2005), the definition of sustainability used in
this study is best characterized in Filho’s third description, where relationships and social aspects
are taken into consideration. Fullan (2005) describes sustainability as, “the capacity of a system
to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human
purpose” (iv). An educational organization and building that is sustainable must take into
consideration the social indicators and relationships that foster a culture and organizational
environment of sustainability that encourages the development of all of the participants in the
community.
Space and Decision Making
Meusburger (2008) notes, “both in traditional and modern societies, authority structures,
representations of power, distinctiveness, and differences in rank or status are to a large degree
exhibited through ordering, positioning, demarcation, exclusion, and elevation” (p. 46). Day-today habits of decision-making form a reciprocal relationship with an institution’s culture, both
contributing to and produced by its dynamic development. Spaces often carry symbolic
significance within an institution’s culture; it is generally accepted that people often develop a
strong relationship with their workspace (Cavenagh, 2005; Kuntz, 2009; Vischer, 2005). This
has been described in different ways, from “a means of constructing one’s identity within a
larger world” (Kuntz, 2009, p. 382) to a “non-rational attachment” (Vischer, 2005, p. 20). In a
university environment that involves both working and learning spaces, many of which are
shared or transient in their purpose, these spaces and what they represent to different people can
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
4
have significant effects on the overall workplace environment. Further, one’s workplace can be
“a symbol of a [social] contractual agreement between employers and their employees that is
implicitly understood and rarely questioned” (Vischer, 2005, p. 5). Cavenagh (2005) writes that
“We don’t often talk about the symbolic values of spaces on campuses, and yet these values exist
and have impact, as they influence the lives of students, faculty, and many others” (p. 2611).
Perceptions of bias and unfairness in decision-making consequently have a detrimental effect on
both individuals and the institution’s culture as a whole (Kickul, 2001). It is therefore important
for decision-makers to understand the culture of the institution they are a part of. Further,
Meusburger notes that “categorizing, organizing, and commanding space and controlling the
spatial arrangement of persons, objects, resources, and relations are very effective devices for
governing social systems and manipulating people” (p. 46); and,
One should always bear in mind that the significance of the built environment and
architecture “reveals itself only in combination with people and their agency”
(Maran, 2006, p. 13) and, as I would like to add, in combination with their prior
knowledge, experience, motives, and expectations. (p. 51)
This emphasis on the interplay between governance, human agency, and (literal) structure
is the primary reason that we chose to examine the decision-making processes surrounding space
allocation and resources. One area in which academic institutions have to make important
decisions is with respect to the shared and in-demand resource of space. Academic institutions,
which are currently experiencing the effects of aging infrastructure (CAUBO, 2000) and
increasing population (Schofer & Meyer, 2005), are an especially relevant context for developing
understanding about space allocation decisions. Schofer and Meyer (2005) observe that the
number of people associated with higher education institutions for either working or learning has
grown significantly in recent decades, leading to space being termed as an “increasingly precious
commodity” (Burke & Varley, 1998, p. 20). This is certainly a characteristic of the institutional
subject of this case study, where more than one-third of the faculty was hired in the past five
years, creating a space crunch.
Method
In order to investigate these process-based questions about space allocation and
participant’s perceptions, we used an inductive research approach, drawing on case study
methods. The case was selected based on convenience and more specifically, because there was
funding provided to explore Sustainability in Education at this institution.
The research team consisted of a Research Assistant, who was a Master’s level graduate
student from outside the province, an Associate Dean who has been with the institution for
several years and who has space allocation in his portfolio, and an Assistant Professor, who was
hired three years prior to this study and was from outside the province as well. Due to the
potential (and obvious) conflicts of interest, the team determined that the best person to conduct
the interviews would be the Research Assistant. Further, the team determined that as the person
who was responsible for allocating space, the Associate Dean would have to take on the role of
participant as well as researcher.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
5
The Research Assistant conducted a series of 12, forty-five minute interviews over the
period of a year. Using a stratified purposeful sampling method, we sought insights from four
stakeholder groups: students, staff, faculty, and administrators. We did not seek to draw any
conclusions about the specific group’s experiences, but rather hoped that by investigating the
process, we would learn more about the status of the current context and to explore the vision for
how the future process might look.
Delimitations
Case studies are bound by space, time, and individuals (Creswell, 2008). This case was
bound to one academic Faculty (of seven) located within one campus of a large urban Canadian
university. There are four campuses in the region. Based on discussions with potential
participants at the campuses, we determined that, because the experiences across each of the
campuses were distinctly different, we should delimit this study to one campus-- the main one.
We recognize that this delimitation is also a limitation, in that the notion of a university is fluid
and is not contained to one campus—or even to a physical manifestation of a campus. In the
future, we hope to explore the similarities and differences in the experiences and perceptions of
the people at several campuses. Further, while there are many spaces that might be relevant to
the culture of the Faculty community (even on the same campus), not all of these spaces have
relevance to Faculty level administrators who are making decisions. Because our research
questions focus on these decisions, we bounded our study by the space that the Faculty has
control over.
We sampled for maximal variation, interviewing members of the faculty community that
are involved a variety of roles (including students, staff, administrators, and faculty) with the
understanding that they are all part of the social construction of its culture. Each constituent’s
past experiences are considered to be relevant to how the community member interacts within
the community and thus is relevant to culture (Tierney, 1988a). For this reason, our study is not
bound by time.
Research Design
As it will “serv[e] the purpose of illuminating a particular issue,” the ethnographic study
we conducted can be further defined as an “instrumental” case study (Creswell, 2008, p. 476).
Specifically, we explored the relationship between space, including decisions about space, and a
Faculty’s culture. Our goal is to provide a lens through which an administrator might inform
decisions about how spaces controlled by the Faculty are used.
Data collection methods initially focused on interviews with community members in a
variety of roles in the Faculty. This included note-taking by the interviewer, as well as audio
recording of what was said during the interview. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and
coded using inductive coding methods, and were organized into relevant themes, which are
reported below.
Data collection procedures
Masland (1985) suggests that a more complete picture be captured by an investigation
into organizational culture through the inclusion of “members of various campus constituencies
such as faculty, students, administrators, and staff” in the interview sample of a study into
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
6
organizational culture (p. 163). His sentiments are reinforced by Tierney (1988a), who states
that “it is possible for all organizational participants to influence and be influenced by an
organization’s culture” (p. 10).
Participants were enlisted on a volunteer basis, and were recruited in person at staff
meetings, and via poster, flyer, and email notification. We interviewed a diverse sample of
constituents, selecting the sample purposefully based on the differing characteristic of
individuals’ respective roles within the Faculty. We interviewed 12 participants, allowing for
both depth and breadth of data collection and interpretation. Adhering to Tierney’s (1991)
guidelines, interviews were 45 minutes in length. They were semi-structured in order to allow
for open-ended responses, while relying on a framework that focuses on developing the themes
of space and decision-making that we are interested in. We also relied on other documents such
as the maps of the Faculty building. We allowed for the fact that a wide variety of artifacts can
emerge during interactions with Faculty community members, and left open the possibility for
their collection and analysis.
Instrument
Chaffee and Tierney explored the cultures of several campus cultures in 1988,
establishing their authority in the ‘academic ethnography’ research field. As a follow-up to this
exploration, Tierney (1991) outlined a number of guidelines for researchers conducting
ethnographic interviews in academic institutions. We adhered to his following suggestions in
conducting interviews for this study:
•
•
•
•
•
Participants were met “on their turf,” preferably an office or similarly private
space, in order to ensure that they were comfortable during the interview and that
confidentiality was being attended to (Tierney, 1991, p. 12).
A mix of recording methods, including digital audio recording and notes written
both during and after the interview, were be used.
We employed flexible interviewing techniques, tailored to each participant and
context.
We constructed targeted questions relating to “experience, opinion, feeling,
knowledge, sensory, and background in order to elicit relevant information”
(Tierney, 1991, p. 15).
For trustworthiness, member checking was done during the interview, by
summarizing what has been said and moving toward a conclusion.
Tierney (1991) emphasizes that the key to the ethnographic interview process is in
allowing the interviewee’s knowledge and experience to emerge, noting that “instead of
manipulating the research process to fit categories already outlines, the inquirer tries to
understand the participants’ worldviews” (p. 10).
Research instruments
To demonstrate how the interview process unfolded, the following represents types of
questions that were asked, as well as potential follow-up questions. In order to allow for rich
conversations that delve into participants’ relevant experiences, interviews followed this line of
questioning.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
7
Example question 1: What spaces do you use within the Faculty?
Example question 2: How would you describe [a particular space]?
Example question 3: How would you describe your feelings with respect to the process
that led to you being allocated this space?
Example question 4: How well does your space facilitate the activities you use it for?
Participant’s answers were followed with questions and responses that encouraged
discussion about feelings related to the space, interactions in spaces, and decisions leading to the
community member’s use of that space. Specific follow-up questions and responses were
dependent on the unique answers that were given by participants, and skill on the part of the
interviewer will be required in order to effectively probe the aforementioned themes. As Tierney
(1991) concisely states, “the interviewers’ adaptability and spontaneity allow for the collection
of data that otherwise would be lost” (p. 10).
Results
Qualities of Concern: How Community Members Relate with their Spaces
Physical qualities of spaces in this institution that community members are concerned
about have been revealed in this study. Through forty-five minute to hour-long interviews,
participants have shared their individual perspectives on what works, and what doesn’t, with
respect to the spaces that they use. Among the students, staff, administrators, and faculty
members interviewed, certain themes have emerged as particularly salient, which are explored in
this section.
Proximity to Colleagues and Resources
Participating faculty members, and administrators in particular, expressed a sense of
value towards their physical proximity to colleagues, resources, and also between main and
satellite campuses. A faculty member, for instance, noted that he made arrangements to move
his office because of a sense of isolation from colleagues and technical support. An
administrator, referring to the effects of splitting members of a special programs unit between
two campuses, suggests that “one of the ways mythologies happen is that if people who are
involved in them can’t actually talk together, and then they start circulating.” Interviewees
expressed concern about the availability of resources in the spaces they use, one suggesting that
he is “more likely to book a space that has more equipment [than needed] on a given day” to
avoid the hassle of having to “drag all the equipment in and tear it down again.” A graduate
student who uses a shared office in her role as a sessional instructor enjoys the location of the
space “in the hub of the same hallway as Undergraduate Programs, you know, just up the road
from [a communal educational technology and lounge space]...and next to the bathroom, that’s
nice too.” A faculty member who is situated on a satellite campus expresses a common
perception in these interviews that “splitting the same faculty is a bit nuts” for a variety of
reasons, including the fact that students and instructors have to move between campuses for
classes; that paper documents requiring review or a signature also require a trip across town; and
that important meetings tend to take place on the main campus, thus inconveniencing community
members not located there.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
8
Privacy is valued in this institution, as noted by community members who desire private
spaces for confidential meetings, storage of confidential information, performing work without
interruption, and even to simply disconnect from the environment. One current faculty member
recalls that “if you had a student crying” in a former sessional instructor office space, “they were
crying in front of all these people.” She continues to suggest that this issue has not been
resolved, as “[while] you can close your door, it’s a glass door...also, the walls are like tissue
paper here.” A staff member also expressed her desire to have her own door. Another faculty
member notes his desire to hold on to a research assistant office space in part for the purpose of
securely storing sensitive materials because “on all of your ethics paperwork you have to have a
place to store these data and my data tend to take the form of graphs of surveys and videotapes.”
He also expresses his perception that other colleagues “are very intentional about staying away
from campus when they’re working on tasks that require what [he] would describe as obsessive
attention” in order to avoid being interrupted in their office. The ability to have a private space
to get work done was expressed in particular by a PhD student who noted that her current office
space, though not particularly large or inviting, is “perfect, because it’s very, like, nothing here
except me and my work.” As well, another master’s student valued the ability to eat meals and
rest, even nap, in his office space.
Balancing Privacy and Community
Interestingly, community members often expressed ideas about community that might be
seen as conflicting with the desire for privacy indicated above. They wanted communal spaces
to meet people and form relationships. In this institution, there exists a large educational
technology and lounge space that is referred as a “point of gathering” and a “town square” by a
graduate student and a faculty member, respectively. Many have expressed concerns about
recent renovations that converted part of this space into offices due to its unique purpose as a
community-supporting space.
Community members also expressed a desire for spaces that support learning and sharing
of ideas. A PhD student, for example, discussed a shared teaching assistant space as “[giving
him] a chance to actually just engage with the other TAs...and as you get to know people you get
more comfortable just spinning around in your chair and going ‘hey, have you thought about
this?’” Similarly, an administrator, reflecting on effective work spaces, noted that “math
[referring to the mathematics education PhD cohort] basically has a...shared space where
students have the opportunity to collaborate and work together on projects.”
Participants want an infrastructure that supports learning - with peers, and also with
faculty members. A common sentiment among all participant groups was that learning is not
restricted to formal coursework and classroom spaces. A staff member noted that “when I run
into people in the hallways, you learn so much from them,” and a PhD student shared that he
spends “most of my time on my feet in order for the social interactions I engage in and want to
engage in, as I see them as learning.” He expressed value in “getting a chance to one, learn from
a modeled behaviour...and two, then to be the person that others ask.” To facilitate this kind of
interaction, another PhD student recommended having more open spaces as opposed to
continuing to increase the number of offices.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
9
The effects of spaces that do not support these kinds of opportunities are reflected in a
master’s student’s revelations that “I don’t feel much like a person in this space...I feel very
much like an object walking by other objects,” particularly in reference to his observations that
beyond the utilitarian, there aren’t “great spaces for friendship, great spaces for dialogue, great
spaces for discussion.” A faculty member also noted that “the hallways are not - and I’m sure
you’ve heard this - very conducive to collegial talk,” a sentiment shared by a PhD student who
added “it’s a transitory space...people walk past it, but not through it...I’ve seen these types of
dead spaces around, and they don’t allow for my type of learning.” A staff member mentioned
experiences of isolation, saying, “people aren’t really here,” “no one ever sees me,” and that “the
space in this building doesn’t really encourage interaction.”
A faculty member notes the unique location of a satellite campus that facilitates
university outreach to the surrounding community, noting that she thinks “there’s potential for
growth in the Education Faculty over there, and to become an even more prominent part of the
community.” She goes on to add that:
The university makes intentional, um, outreach type moves to the high
schools and there are designated scholarships for [students born in the local
community] to come to [the local campus] so they can, they’re really trying to,
because, my sense is that the demographics are such that there are a lot of, um,
students in [the local community] who come from families where no one maybe
has any post-secondary education, and so they’re trying to increase the possibility
of those seeing themselves as someone who would come to university.
The Ability to do One’s Job
In addition to being near colleagues and resources, as well as having opportunities for
both privacy and collaboration, participants in this study have expressed needs specific to the
ability to do their respective jobs effectively in their spaces. Faculty members, as well as a PhD
student who works as a sessional instructor, suggested that flexibility within a space was of great
value to them. One faculty member noted that he likes the faculty’s instructional lab “because
it’s a very flexible space...it works well because I can transition rapidly from a one-to-one
computer activity and then have people circle their chairs without having to move from one room
to another.” Another described the fact that “the furniture allows for flexibility in teaching
models and styles” as “wonderful.” Referring to the spaces he uses when teaching, the graduate
student remarked that:
The fact that here we are in a Faculty of Education and we don’t have
fixed desks, is a beautiful way for me to use particular metaphors in regard to
what is in a design when I’m teaching. So I’ll have students move shit around all
the time, and just point out ‘well, how do you feel now, being in rows looking at
me? Let’s move into a U-shape. Things like that, and so I quite like the access to
resources such as tables, chairs, and things that aren’t fixed.”
The ineffectiveness of some spaces for teaching is often related to obstructions in the
classroom. The same faculty member that appreciates the instructional lab’s flexibility notes that
“with this architecture there are these pillars to support the concrete roof...so I’ve always faced
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
10
the issue of how to arrange the furniture around the pillars so you can have line of sight to all
your students and so those are minimally obstructive as they can be during discussions.”
Another faculty member makes a similar observation, noting, “they haven’t found storage space
for [surplus furniture]...get that stuff out of there so that I can circle the chairs!” Other barriers in
the classroom are less obvious. Reflecting on his teaching experiences, a PhD student poses the
question “can I be an effective teacher if my students are uncomfortable in the room, or
uncomfortable in the school? Because that then creates an extra barrier as a teacher that I have to
now overcome.”
The ability to meet effectively with others was expressed by several participants, often
(but not exclusively) in reference to those in administrative roles. Often involved in meetings
with other community members, one administrator noted that without a meeting space he would
have to “just sort of huddle around that desk [indicates], which I think would be a bit
uncomfortable and hard to be able to be hospitable.” One PhD student noted an attempt by a
former director to relinquish her private office out of generosity; in the end, another office had to
be found, simply because of the need for private conversation. Another PhD student, who also
serves as a teaching assistant, shared that while “the students come to [her office] for the office
hours, [it is] not very important to have a very big, or nice office.”
Physical Characteristics of Spaces
More general physical characteristics of spaces such as light, sound, air quality, and
general maintenance also represent a common thread among participants’ interview responses.
Light
Natural light and windows with a view were consistently expressed as desired
commodities across interviews, with participants using terms such as “fresh” and “bright,” and
mentioning “natural light flooding in,” when describing spaces that they found to be most
welcoming and functional. One PhD student described how another institution “made the
majority of the grad [graduate student] spaces along the outside wall of the third floor so
basically all along the windows, and they did that specifically to give them the benefit of natural
light.” A staff member supports this value in her suggestion that “it would be nice if there was a
way to design the space so that everyone got to see the outside” A faculty member shared that,
during Faculty meetings, “I sort of always try to rush out the back or windows, you know, where
you can get a little bit of a glimpse of what the sky is looking like.” One PhD student reflected
this sentiment in the context of a graduate student office, where he observed, “individual grad
students start kind of moving stuff, to get closer to the light.”
Unfortunately, while the consensus seems to reflect a desire for natural light, many
participants did not seem to have access to quality light sources. A staff member noted that in
general, “this is a dark, dark faculty, like physically.” A master’s student expressed a desire for
“real light, not fluorescent light...[which] is kinda cold and clinical.” A PhD student recognized
that “natural lighting may not [always] be an option,” but suggested that “there are subtle ways
of lighting it up in such a way that people want to be, want to reside there for awhile.” Such
techniques, he says, may involve channeling large amounts of light that come in through doors at
the ends of hallways through the hallways themselves, as well as the replacement of spotlighttype lamps that project light directly downwards with more diffuse backlighting.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
11
Sound
Community members at this institution also held quiet and private spaces in high regard.
A staff member noted that “the way I work, if I need to focus I need it to be quiet.” She goes on
to explain, however, that “the walls are paper-thin,” and that “for all intents and purposes when it
comes to having a private conversation there is no such thing.” This sentiment was echoed by a
faculty member who shared that “it was certainly my experience that there is no such thing as a
private phone conversation.” Sound is not only a problem between rooms, but also within
particular spaces. A PhD student described the pervasive noise emitted by the HVAC system in
rooms throughout this academic institution in saying “you’ll be sitting in a room, you can’t hear
someone five feet away from you in a seminar. But then 7:30 when they shut off, ‘hey, I can
hear you, but we’ve already been through three hours of this.’” He notes that, as a teacher, “I’m
fighting the lights and the ventilation.”
The conditions of shared spaces
The institution that is subject of this case study is over 40 years old, and is showing signs
of its age in the physical conditions of spaces. Air quality is one concern that has been expressed
by both students and administrators, with one PhD student stating that “we have the dust issue in
all of the rooms...I mean, above here, you know if you go above there [indicating the ceiling],
it’s a sea of dust of there,” and an administrator expressing that the common gathering space
“was becoming a very dusty, a very kind of dingy, stale space.” This administrator continued by
sharing efforts that were being made to mitigate this particular problem, referring to recent
renovations as “bring[ing] in fresh air,” and “blow[ing] the centre out of [the space].” (Here, the
participant is referring to the recent renovations, which removed all of the walls that were
blocking air flow in this space.) Other concerns about the physical state of spaces include stories
from Faculty members about water leaking during rainfall, rodents, and ants. A PhD student
noted that carpeting has deteriorated to the point where “you take your students and you want to
go sit on the floor in a circle...yeah, sometimes you don’t want to.”
Discussion
The kind of broad transformation that will be necessary to change the course of higher
education has implications for the entire community. Decision-making processes do not take
place in a vacuum; they take place in a complex environment where individuals and resources
need to be considered. For example, there are community norms and ways of being that inform
how decisions in a given circumstance should proceed, who should be involved or consulted, the
use of information, and the timing or flow of the release of the decisions taken. In his article
arguing for the critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future, Cortese suggests
that:
Planners must focus as much on the education and research being done in higher
education as on the physical, operational, and external community functions of
the university and do so in an integrated, independent manner. This is profound. I
believe that a college or university that models sustainability in all its operational
functions and actions to collaborate with local and regional communities but does
not involve the faculty and students as an integral part of the educational process
will lose 75 percent of the value of its efforts and cannot fulfill its role in society.
(p. 22)
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
12
Implications for Pedagogy
There are several groups of students, administrators, staff, and faculty that will be able to
use the findings of this study. To begin, sustainable leadership is a prerequisite for sustainable
education. Students and faculty in architecture, planning, higher education leadership, or
development should note that in any planned architectural renovation or design of an institution,
the feedback and input of those who will or do teach, work, and learn in those spaces is a vital
component of the process. In this study, there were several examples of participants making
direct comments about the impact of the physical environment encroaching on or enabling
pedagogical practices. For example, flexibility to manipulate the working, teaching, and learning
spaces (e.g. control over lighting, sound, climate, configuration of furniture) had a positive
relationship with the level of satisfaction with the spaces. Participants expressed great value in
having the room or a variety of spaces available to accommodate their pedagogical and working
needs rather than having the pedagogy be determined by the spatial limitations.
While the physical spaces are important, it is also important to note that participants
expressed that teaching and learning was not limited to the classroom. This is an important point
and should be acknowledged and fostered in the planning of physical architecture of educational
institutions. For example, in the present study, Participant 9 indicated that much of his learning
takes place in conversations with others; and that these conversations tend to take place in spaces
where he is comfortable. Several participants reported that informal hallway conversations were
an important part of the development of community and their sense of well-being in the place
where they worked and studied. Pedagogically, this is important to note, as the culture of an
organization appears to have the potential to have a significant impact on students’ pedagogical
experiences. This connection has been explored in other studies that look at the connection
between campus environments and student engagement (see Kuh (2006), for example).
Institutional spaces serve to create opportunities, to structure social interactions, and by
doing so, educate community members about the organization’s culture. This idea should be
recognized and explored amongst an institution’s community members, and to as great extent as
possible, be considered in the design of an institution and institutional spaces. Several
participants noted a need for a balance between offering spaces where quiet work that required
intense concentration and those offering opportunities for social engagement and the sharing of
ideas and interdisciplinary work.
Questions for general Survey Instrument for Educational Sustainability
A community that has citizens who are engaged has a much better chance of being successful in
coordinating efforts and making progress towards its goals. These questions seek to determine
the level of engagement with the working and learning spaces as well as the alignment between
the function and form of the classroom and working environments.
1. To what extent do the spaces you use in your institution seem appropriate to the way you use
them? Rate in terms of alignment between the space you use and what you do there.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
13
1----------------------------2------------------------3------------------------4----------------------------5
Great alignment
some alignment
little/no alignment
2. On the spectrum below, how would you rate the decision-making process that led to the
allocation of spaces you use?
1----------------------------2-------------------------3------------------------4----------------------------5
Fully transparent
Somewhat transparent
opaque
3. How would you rate your overall experience with the process of space allocation at your
educational institution?
1----------------------------2-------------------------3------------------------4----------------------------5
Very satisfied
Neutral
Not at all satisfied
4. How would you rate the flexibility of spaces to accommodate your learning or teaching
functions? Rate from fixed to flexible:
1----------------------------2-------------------------3------------------------4----------------------------5
Space is very flexible
some accommodation possible
space is fixed
References
Burke, E., & Varley, D. (1998). Space allocation: An analysis of higher education requirements
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055879
Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO). (2000). A point of no return:
The urgent need for infrastructure renewal at Canadian universities. Canada: CAUBO.
Cavenagh, R. (2005). The faculty office revisited. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005, 26112616.
Cole, L. (2003). Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: Development of a
campus sustainability assessment framework. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from the
Library and Archives Canada Electronic Theses Repository.
Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future.
Planning for Higher Education, March-May.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Filho, W.L. (2000). Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 9-19.
SEE Group 3 Report, Plants and People
14
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2005). Sustainable leadership. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Kickul, J. (2001). When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to unfair
processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4, Special Issue on Work), 289-307.
Link, T. (2007). Social Indicators of Sustainable Progress for Higher Education. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 134. DOI: 10.1002/ir.214
Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. The Review of
Higher Education, 8(2), 157-168.
Meusburger, P. (2008). The nexus of knowledge and space. In Meusburger et al. (Eds.),
Clashes of Knowledge.
Sackney, L. (2007). Systemic Reform for Sustainability. Government of Saskatchewan Report,
ID 12184. Retrieved from http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/details.cfm?p=12184
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the
twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898-920.
Sherren, K. (2007). Is there a sustainability canon? An exploration and aggregation of expert
opinions. Environmentalist, 27, pp. 341-347.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Dimensions of culture: Analyzing educational institutions. Unpublished
manuscript.
Tierney, W. G. (1991). Utilizing ethnographic interviews to enhance academic decision making.
New Directions for Institutional Research, (72), 7-22.
Vischer, J. C. (2005). Space meets status: Designing workplace performance. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Wright, T. S.A. (2002) Definitions and Frameworks for Environmental Sustainability in Higher
Education. Higher Education Policy, 15(2), pp. 105-120.