impact on space of future changes in higher education - · pdf fileimpact on space of future...

UK Higher Education Space Management Project

Impact on space of futurechanges in higher education

March 2006

2006/10

Impact on space of future changes in higher education

ContentsPage

Foreword 3

Executive summary 4

1 Terms of reference and introduction 5

2 Methodology 5

3 Space and the HEI’s role 6

4 Factors affecting space demand 8

5 Trends in space management 10

6 Teaching space and learning space 11

7 Academic offices 13

8 Administrative space 13

9 Research and disciplinary change 14

10 Changing patterns of student demand 15

11 e-Learning 16

12 Other novel modes of delivery 16

13 Modelling changing space demands 16

14 Space and the HEI in 2015 17

15 Conclusions 18

References 20

Impact on space of future changes in higher education 2006/10 1

2 Impact on space of future changes in higher education 2006/10

Foreword

One of the largest challenges facing each highereducation institution is that of working out howmuch space it will need in the future. Estatesinfrastructure decisions are far-reaching, both asto their costs and the long-lasting nature of theiroutcomes. This report, produced by ProfessorRonald Barnett and Dr Paul Temple of theInstitute of Education, is the result of a survey ofchanges in institutions’ current space usage andtheir likely future space needs. It wascommissioned by the Space Management Groupas a contribution to research in this area. Ourhope is that it will act as a stimulus to furtherdebate across the sector.

Professor David ChiddickChair of the UK HE Space Management GroupVice-Chancellor of the University of Lincoln


Executive summary

This report to the UK-wide Space ManagementGroup, by the Institute of Education, is intendedto stimulate debate about the use of space inhigher education institutions (HEIs). Itapproaches space use from the perspective ofhow academic activity might change in themedium term. The report will be of interest toacademics and managers who are seeking a fitbetween their changing operations and thephysical infrastructure.

Our main findings, as set out below, are basedon a research methodology focused on interviewswith academics and managers in a cross-sectionof English HEIs.

HEIs are complex organisations, performing avariety of tasks for a range of stakeholders, bothof which change over time. Space is animportant input into the institution’s productionprocess: but institutional managements have toconsider it as one of a number of inputs to beblended to optimise the desired mix of outputs.Maximising space usage, as an end in itself, isnot a rational objective for an HEI: space needsto be considered as part of its overall resourceplanning process.

The UK higher education system is becomingincreasingly diverse: it is almost impossible toclaim that any set of policy prescriptions(whether about academic priorities, students andstaff, or resource acquisition and use) can applyacross the sector. This increasing diversity isalready leading to diverging approaches to theuse of space, particularly between teaching-ledand research-led universities. This divergence islikely to increase.

However, for differing reasons, no institution islikely to experience a significant reduction inoverall space needs in the foreseeable future.Reductions in one area will be offset by newdemands elsewhere. Across the sector as a whole,we predict that a modest increase in space usewill be observed over the coming decade.

Space will be subject increasingly to remodellingfor new needs or to meet new standards. Withimaginative design, space can be deployedflexibly to meet multiple uses. Even so,constraints on capital budgets will probably limitthe benefits to be obtained from this process.

We believe that ‘learning space’ will be seen asone of these new needs, with more provisionbeing made for student-led and ‘blended’learning (a mixture of face-to-face plus IT-mediated learning). This will demand morerelatively small and adaptable spaces. ITdevelopments are enabling more intensive use ofspace for teaching and learning, but will notpermit significant reductions in overall space use.

Research activities will require a small netincrease in space, concentrated in a smallnumber of institutions.

The quality of an institution’s physical facilitieswill increasingly be seen as an importantmarketing asset and will accordingly attractmore resources and management attention.

The Space Management Group recommends thatthis report be circulated widely in HEIs and thatthe issues raised should be considered byacademics, managers and governors as they planthe continuing development of their institutions.


1 Terms of reference andintroduction1.1 Our terms of reference for this study were:

To assess the impact of future changes inhigher education on space requirements.This should include known trends indemand for courses, methods of teachingand learning, the impact of wideningparticipation, and possible changes inresearch activity. The project should alsolook at the impact of distance learning, e-learning and self-directed learning.

1.2 We interpreted these terms of reference asasking us to look forward across something likea ten-year timeframe: shorter than this, and thecontext is largely already set; much beyond this,and the unknowables can begin to outweighintelligent guesswork.

1.3 The study addresses non-residential spaceneeds in accordance with the remit of the UKHigher Education Space Management Project.We agreed that our study should omitconsideration of space needs for medicaleducation, as this is generally bound up withhospital space.

2 Methodology2.1 Our approach has been to undertake aseries of semi-structured interviews withacademic and administrative staff, and to seevarious types of space use, in a broadlyrepresentative group of higher educationinstitutions (HEIs). These institutions were:

• University College London: a long-established, research-intensive institution,with a wide mix of building types in centralLondon

• University of Leicester: a civic university ina provincial city/suburban setting

• University of Sussex: a 1960s campusuniversity on a greenfield site

• University of Hertfordshire: a teaching-oriented post-1992 university in a suburbansetting

• University of the Arts London: a specialistart and design-related institution, dispersedon a number of sites in central and innerLondon

• Cass Business School, City University: abusiness school in new purpose-designedpremises in the City of London

• School of Pharmacy, University of London:a science-based professional college incentral London.

2.2 We consider that our discussions with staffin this group of institutions provided us withviews which reflect both the educationalvariation, in most key dimensions, found in UKhigher education today, and the physical settingsin which this education takes place. But ourpurpose, of course, was to look forward, notsimply to report on current patterns of use.

2.3 We are most grateful to colleagues in theinstitutions mentioned who generously gave uptheir time to talk to us.

2.4 We were assisted in our field studies byJohn Farrant of Universitas Higher EducationManagement Consultants.

2.5 Our approach was to enquire about spaceuse by reference to categories of potential change(decrease, change within the current envelope,and increase) and the factors which might beaffecting these changes. Our initial ideas on whatmight be driving these changes are summarisedin Figure 1.

2.6 In addition, we undertook a literaturereview, in which we were assisted by ourcolleague Dr Kaori Okumoto, and consideredthe implications of the other studies conductedand reports produced as part of the SpaceManagement Project.

2.7 There is little work of any great weight,analytical or descriptive, in the literature whichdirectly relates to our research question. Wehope that this report might go some way tofilling this apparent gap in understanding.


2.8 We have not attempted to predict the futuresize of the higher education system or its estate,in terms of either student numbers or researchoutput, or their space demands. Rather, we havetried to identify how the drivers of spacedemands for any given number of students andquantity of research work are changing, andmight change further. Nevertheless, the majorchanges which have affected the highereducation system over the last decade or so mustcolour any views of the future – notably the endof the division between universities andpolytechnics, the rapid growth in studentnumbers towards a 50% participation rate, areduced unit of resource for teaching, efficiencygains, and greater research selectivity. We havetried not simply to reflect views expressed aboutthe current situation (though naturally this waswhat tended to preoccupy many of ourrespondents), but to look to the future.

3 Space and the HEI’s role3.1 Over the next decade, higher education willcome to occupy an even more prominent place inthe national life of this country, and of otheradvanced countries, than it does now.Developments in ‘the knowledge society’ will

make higher education’s role in the production,understanding, application and transmission ofknowledge of all kinds fundamental to mostelements of social and economic activity. Somecommentators have suggested that highereducation will become one of the largest globalindustries in the early decades of the 21stcentury (Duderstadt, 1999).

3.2 Might this enhanced role for the HEI mean,though, that physically it becomes moredispersed and varied, its location less relevant?Or at least, that the traditional campus becomesa minor part of its total ‘virtual estate’? Mightthe HEI become embedded in a range of otherpublic and private institutions – workplaces,shopping centres, cultural venues – takingadvantage of far more flexible and powerful ITdevices: a face-to-face but virtual university, infact? (Agre, 2002). This is what one study seemsto have in mind when it predicts that‘increasingly organisations [such as universities]will move outside of the physical container oftheir own buildings’ (Harrison and Dugdale,2004).

3.3 We expect that this will happen to a certainextent; but one of the university’s most


Figure 1: Potential drivers for change in space usage

Reduced space use Changed use within envelope Increased space use

Increased efficiency in space use Increased student and staff numbers

Increased use of distance learning/IT New teaching methods Research needs

(including IT use)

‘Portfolio’ staff, not working in Lifelong learning, causing new Enhanced community use

institution space mix of facilities

Increased student-staff Move to higher-value activities New health and safety or

ratios leading to unit space savings access demands

Workplace-based learning Changed approaches to library use Better student facilities

(for international students)

Space redesign/restructuring of functionsNew central infrastructure

demands (marketing, quality)

Changed subject requirements

remarkable features is its durability as a coherentorganisational and physical form. Clark Kerr,formerly President of the University ofCalifornia, has claimed that, of the 75 or soinstitutions in the Western world establishedbefore 1520 and still existing today in arecognisably similar form, 60 are universities inthe traditional sense of the term. The design anduse of an HEI’s physical spaces may, in turn,indicate much about the enduring culture of theuniversity. This organisational and even culturalstability reflects paradoxically, we suggest, HEIs’evolved skill at handling change: an apparentlyunchanging exterior masks constant interiorturmoil.

3.4 Without pursuing this theoreticalconsideration, our empirical work hasemphasised the integrated nature of most of theinstitutions we have observed. Their strengthsderive from internal trans-disciplinary contacts,from the connection of teaching with research,from the connection of the academic with thesocial, from the relatively non-hierarchicalconnection of senior academic staff with juniorcolleagues, and so on. (It is the preservation anddevelopment of this integrated form whichprovides many of the management challenges inhigher education.) As well as enhancedeffectiveness in terms of learning and researchoutputs, these integrations produce economies ofscale and reduced transaction costs. For HEIs,the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

3.5 We suggest that HEIs’ more or less coherentand continuing physical presence is, to animportant extent, what allows these integratedfeatures to operate, and so to make themdynamic and resilient organisations. (This needfor physical coherence may also help to explainwhy the ‘branch campus’ approach – on the faceof it a sensible way to spread the benefits ofacademic excellence more widely – is usuallyproblematic in practice: there are no importantglobal universities.) The importance of acontinuing physical presence partly explains why,as Kerr observes, so many of the pre-1520universities are on their original sites, some stillusing their original buildings. It is why effectiveinstitutions will not move towards giving up

large parts of their core space and insteadpurchasing ‘space…on demand, on an hourly,daily, or monthly basis’ (Harrison and Dugdale,2004). A further practical reason is thatrelatively little commercially-available space isimmediately suitable or available for teachinguse. Nor have we seen any signs of theprediction by these writers that HEIs will beconcerned about how to manage their ‘long-termspace surpluses’. Instead, institutions generallyappear to be attempting to balance theimmediate demands of working with space thatis at least partly out-dated, and planning forlonger-term restructuring.

3.6 The physical form of the HEI, then, isrelated to its academic effectiveness, though inways which are not fully understood, and whichare often overlooked when making planningdecisions. One recent study of the design of HEIsmade this point neatly by quoting WinstonChurchill to the effect that ‘we shape ourbuildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’(Jamieson et al, 2000). By contrast, Harrison andDugdale’s (2004) assertion that what is needed is‘a fundamental re-evaluation of the way thatacademic institutions function’ because changesin space use are ‘challenging traditional academicpractice’ seems to put things back-to-front, byimplying that space issues should provide thebasis on which educational objectives aredetermined.

3.7 Rather than HEIs becoming physicallydispersed, we suggest it is more likely that otherorganisations of all types will wish to clusterround them, both physically and conceptually.The growth in UK university science parks, andwhat has been called ‘the Cambridgephenomenon’ (SQW, 2000), where firms spun-off from the HEI remain in its locality andthrough network effects attract others(something which the Government’s new ‘sciencecities’ initiative hopes to repeat), are localexamples of a global trend. Demand andplanning constraints will mean that the value ofspace within, and close to, significant researchinstitutions will tend to increase in the long run.This will apply not only in science andtechnology (as with most current science parks),


but increasingly in the social sciences and insubjects allied to the creative industries.

3.8 Interconnections with an HEI’s regionalbusiness community are being promoted by awide range of agencies. In addition to HEFCE’sHigher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF),Regional Development Agencies, the NHS andnumerous other agencies have injected significantcapital into HEIs. These new relationshipsbetween institutions and their wider communitiesare associated with new forms of knowledgeproduction and new conceptions of knowledgeitself, as it takes on more of a problem-solvingcharacter (Gibbons et al, 2004). In turn, thereare not just novel uses of space on campus butoften a blurring of the ways in which an HEI’sphysical facilities are used, across teaching,research and ‘third-stream’ activities withbusiness and the community.

3.9 There is undoubtedly an element here of‘branding’ – other organisations wishing toassociate themselves with an HEI’s goodreputation – on which the Harrison and Dugdalestudy sets such store. But the more powerfuldriver of links and clustering is likely to be thenetwork effect, which has been studiedempirically in various settings and industries butis especially important for knowledge-basedfirms (Maskell, 2000). These firms contribute to,and draw from, a shared pool of knowledge,which usually has quite limited physicalparameters: California’s Silicon Valley is perhapsthe most-studied example of this phenomenon(Cohen and Fields, 2000). ‘Location, location,location’ is the mantra for the knowledgeindustry as much as for the property industry.

3.10 It has been argued until quite recently thate-learning at a distance will become so pervasiveas to halt, or at least to slow, the physicaldevelopment of campuses. ‘New educationalsystems will be created by technology-basedteaching. They will eliminate geographical andjurisdictional boundaries…[it will be] a world inwhich traditional [methods of] higher educationwill no longer work’ (Daniel, 1998). A similarview is that ‘the impact of informationtechnology…[is] challenging the historic models

of what a university is’ (Harrison and Dugdale,2004). We could cite much else in the same vein,mostly written at the height of the dot.comboom. We discuss e-learning issues affectingspace later. We shall suggest that claims of thekind made here are generally unfounded, andthat new technologies for teaching and learningwill have only a limited impact on institutions’space needs (although they may, ultimately, havesignificant pedagogic impacts).

4 Factors affecting spacedemand4.1 Space requirements in higher education aredetermined by exogenous factors (thoseoriginating beyond the HEI), covering relationswith the wider society, student demand,government policies, and so on; and endogenousfactors (those emerging from within academia,broadly defined), covering changes withinacademic disciplines, new pedagogic methods,organisational changes, and other internal issues.The two sets of factors may interact: changes ingovernment policies, for example, may affectorganisational structures.

4.2 Exogenous factors are extremely hard topredict beyond the short term of a year or two.Current government policies for increasing andwidening participation in higher education, forexample, have had major impacts on spaceplanning, as exemplified by the new buildingseen at many institutions, new and old. Politicalchange could halt or even reverse these policies,though various social forces make the latterhighly unlikely (Wolf, 2002). The impact thatsuch changes would have on actual space usewould in turn depend on a range ofunpredictable variables, such as the financialsituations of the institutions concerned, andconditions elsewhere in the world highereducation market.

4.3 Space demands are of course affected by theinstitution’s mix of on-campus students (full-timeas compared to part-time, and the disciplinarymix); and the extent to which it uses distancelearning of various kinds. It is estimated thatdemand for undergraduate places in the UK


(total headcount, ie, not simply new entrants) to2010-11 will increase by between 160,000 and240,000, driven by a mixture of demographicgrowth and improved A-level results (Aston,2004). The increase in the 18-20 year-old cohortlevels off after 2008-09. While this projectedgrowth in demand is significant, it has to be setagainst a current comparable student numbertotal of some 1.7 million undergraduates, out ofa total UK higher education student populationof 2.3 million. The projected increase is thereforein the range of 6-10% of the total. (TheSecretary of State’s December 2004 grant letterto HEFCE plans for an increase in total studentnumbers of 5.6% by 2007-08, which isconsistent with these estimates.) Part of thegrowth in undergraduate student numbers willtake place outside HEIs, mainly in furthereducation colleges, and some will be for two-year programmes, with a correspondinglyreduced demand for space. Most of the rest ofthe increase will probably take place in teaching-led HEIs, where it will have a slight impact onspace demands. (Admittedly, conjectures aboutfuture demand for student places have to betreated cautiously until the effect can be seen ofthe introduction of variable fees in 2006.)

4.4 Growth in home/EU and overseaspostgraduate student numbers, mainly on taughtmasters programmes, has been rapid in recentyears, driven particularly by growth in overseasnumbers. There has been a slight fall in numberson doctoral programmes, and a larger fall indemand for diploma and certificate courses,other than the postgraduate certificate ineducation. A recent estimate (Sastry, 2004)suggests that a further 10% growth inpostgraduate numbers – about 50,000 students –might take place during the current decade. Afurther increase in postgraduate numbers mayhave an impact on the configuration of space usewithin HEIs, as we discuss below, and willprobably lead to demands for marginal increasesin space overall, driven by the needs of thehumanities and social sciences. But, ininstitutional terms, postgraduate numbers arerelatively concentrated, particularly for researchdegrees: half of all institutions have virtually noresearch postgraduates.

4.5 In 2002-03 overseas students comprisedabout 8% of all students, split roughly equallybetween undergraduates and postgraduates.Overseas numbers are subject to considerablefluctuations for economic and political reasons:compared with five years previously (1997-98)numbers fell slightly both in absolute andpercentage terms, with decreases inundergraduate numbers being offset to someextent by an increase in postgraduates. We donot anticipate overseas student numbers as suchto have a significant impact on future spacedemands, although this market is likely tocontinue to be volatile.

4.6 A further exogenous consideration is that ofchanging student preferences, exemplified by thecurrent swing in demand away from science andtechnology and foreign languages. We considerthis point later. We note, however, that theGovernment is now expressing concern thatfalling demand may have damaging long-termnational consequences for provision of thesesubjects. We therefore expect that space forcurrently undersubscribed subjects will continueto be provided, although possibly in slightlyreduced quantities, as it is has long been for‘minority’ subjects, mostly languages, that areconsidered to be nationally important.

4.7 The Open University has some 160,000mainly part-time students undertaking distancelearning. There are no data available on distancelearning activities of other HEIs, but we believethem to be small in terms of overall studentnumbers. We know of no evidence, as distinctfrom assertions, that this activity is likely togrow significantly in the foreseeable future(Slater, 2005). Indeed, so far as UK students areconcerned, national policy appears to be to makenew or improved physical provision (such as theUHI Millennium Institute in Scotland, anddevelopments in Cumbria and Cornwall), usingdistance learning in support – ‘blended learning’– rather than to rely on distance learningdelivered in these regions by existing HEIs, aswould have been entirely possible. Given thisapproach, it seems unlikely that institutions willin future be providing a significantly higherproportion of their UK-based teaching output by


distance techniques than they do now. Growth indistance learning for overseas students will nodoubt continue, but will have minimal impact onspace demands. We consider these studentnumber-related issues further below.

4.8 So far as endogenous factors are concerned,three broad sets of factors will affect highereducation’s demand for space during the nextdecade or so. One will be changes in the natureof academic disciplines, causing them to needeither more or less space to undertake the samequantity of teaching and research as now.Another will be changed pedagogic approaches,affecting the size of student groups, thefrequency with which they meet, and the type ofspace they need. The third set of factors ismanagerial, covering issues of institutionalorganisation, structure and methods. Here weinclude changes to the length of the teaching dayor year, space allocation methods, andtechnological changes (in IT, particularly). Theimpact of these factors on space use will comeabout through organisational changes of variouskinds.

4.9 Of these endogenous factors, we considerthat the managerial ones will have the greatesteffect. We discuss the factors in more detail inthe next section.

5 Trends in space management5.1 The relationship between an institution’steaching and research goals and its use of spaceis a complex one. HE managers will have a viewof existing and likely future space availabilitywhen making strategic choices, and there isinevitably an interaction between academic,financial, space and other considerations in thedecision process. HEIs arrange the production ofteaching and learning, and research, in differentways: existing space will be one factor affectingthe choice, or a decision to undertake certainteaching or research may lead to the provision ofnew space. ‘Inefficient’ use of space in a narrowsense may lead to larger efficiencies in theinstitution’s total outputs. From a strategicmanagement perspective, it makes little sense to

consider space use in isolation from otherinstitutional goals.

5.2 HEIs have, however, become more efficientin their use of space, teaching much largernumbers of students since the late 1980s withouta proportionate increase in accommodation. Thishas reduced average gross non-residential spaceper full-time equivalent student in the periodfrom 1992 to 2001 by 42%, from 14.7 m2 to8.5 m2 (AUDE, 2003). Since 2000, the area ofteaching space has remained fairly constant,despite a further increase in taught full-timeequivalent students of 8.2% over this period(HEFCE, 2004). Space for research has increasedby some 9% since 2000, driven by increasedfunding through research grants and contractsrather than by student numbers. This is not tosay, however, that individual spaces arenecessarily used more intensively (though wethink that most are): other ways of managingstudent learning have been devised.

5.3 To cope with these changes, all the HEIs westudied now operate centralised timetabling androom-booking services for all except small roomsand specialised teaching spaces, although in largeinstitutions these functions may, for practicalreasons, be centralised at campus or facultyrather than HEI level. These developments haveallowed institutions to operate more complexmodular degree structures and to make spaceavailable for new academic functions.

5.4 Individual departments or units have mostlylost control of ‘their’ space, except when it ishighly specialised. While this has improved theutilisation of space overall, some academic staffpoint to a loss in the quality of the studentexperience. This may arise from reducedteaching time, as students spend more timemoving from one teaching session to anotheracross the campus, rather than staying within thedepartment; a reduced ability to conductinformal teaching, for example, providing furtherexplanation of difficult points immediately aftera lecture or seminar; and reduced staff/studentsocial contacts. In other words, efficiency gainsmeasured in the amount of space per student


have been bought, it seems to many, at the priceof some diminution in learning and of thestudent experience more broadly. Good practicein space management may be able to offset thesedifficulties, for example by zoning to co-locateactivities and thereby reduce student movement,but there will necessarily be a balance to bestruck between these two pressures.

5.5 Most HEIs have also aimed to improvespace use by extending the teaching day, and/orweek, and/or year. We found, for example, thatwhere the teaching day had traditionally beenfrom 0930 to 1730 hrs, it now ran from 0830 to1830 hrs. These two extra hours a day – theequivalent of nearly one and a half extra daysper week – should have had a major impact onspace utilisation. But reluctance by staff and, inparticular, full-time students to attend early andlate sessions, for a variety of reasons (includingchild care and travel issues), usually limits thespace savings which should otherwise occur.Even so, one institution we visited now had 15%of its teaching undertaken after 1700 hrs, usingspace which would otherwise be largely unused.We expect that, over time, the extended teachingday will become more acceptable, allowing thesegains to be extended. But insofar as studentscome to see themselves more as payingcustomers, as they may increasingly do with thenew fee arrangements from 2006, they mayexpect classes to be provided at times convenientto them, rather than at times which allowinstitutions to maximise space usage.

5.6 Similarly, attempts to extend the teachingweek or year have created tensions withacademic staff under pressure from differentmanagerial imperatives, for example toundertake research or third stream activities. Inone case, space efficiency has been deliberatelysacrificed by concentrating teaching into the firsttwo terms (though with only partial success), tomake more time for research between April andSeptember.

5.7 This highlights the point that, in managingan HEI, space is only one of several productionfactors which need to be managed in order tomaximise a defined set of outputs. The HEFCE

Good Management Practice study of spacemanagement concluded that institutions wouldadopt differing approaches to space useaccording to their differing missions:‘effectiveness must be considered alongsideefficiency’ (University of Newcastle upon Tyne,2002). It may be perfectly rational to plan for asuperficially inefficient use of space (for example,leaving teaching space unused for long periods) ifother high-value outcomes are thereby achieved,such as a high RAE score or a high-qualitylearning experience. This finding shows that thefuture demand for space needs will not dependon relatively simple drivers such as student orstaff numbers, but on a set of complex factorsrelated to institutional missions and aspirations.

6 Teaching space and learningspace6.1 Most studies of teaching and learning inhigher education (such as Light and Cox, 2001)focus on the cognitive and sociological aspects ofthe process, rather taking for granted thephysical environment in which these processestake place. A recent paper draws attention to thesimilar lack of consideration of the connectionsbetween the physical environment and learningin schools (McGregor, 2004). The challenges ofmanaging an enlarged higher education systemshould mean that, in future, space issues form amore central component of such studies, and ofmanagement concerns related to teaching andlearning.

6.2 A notable recent trend has been arecognition of the need to provide learningspace, as distinct from teaching space. We cancategorise the use of such space for student-ledlearning in terms of formal (timetabled) orinformal use, and individual or group use. Thistrend is particularly observable in library orlearning centre planning, where space isincreasingly being provided for students to workby themselves, either in groups or individually.We were struck by the tendency inlibraries/learning centres to relax prohibitions onnoise to allow for group project work. This isapparent in research-intensive institutions as wellas in teaching-led ones, though the trend is more


marked in the latter. In these environments, noisemanagement becomes an increasingly importantissue.

6.3 The design of generic teaching space in newbuildings is also taking account of the need formore flexible provision, to allow for different-sized groups working in different ways, perhapsoutside already extended working hours. Thismay have access and even catering implications(Jamieson et al, 2000). Such a learner-centreddesign philosophy points to greater adaptabilityin the design of space of all kinds, which willhave more digital facilities built-in: ‘spatial,human and digital connections must beoptimised within the building’, as one group ofuniversity designers puts it (Kopp et al, 2004).The most modern higher education buildingsnow provide much more of their space in unitswhich can be reconfigured, and in small roomsdesigned for group learning. We anticipate thatthese developments will continue, withinstitutions providing more space forunstructured/ad hoc self-directed learning andpeer-teaching among students.

6.4 Little consideration, however, seems to begiven to whether such provision will occupymore, or less, or the same space as traditionalfacilities. We may hypothesise that greaterflexibility and adaptability should reduce presentdistinctions between space types, and so allowmore intensive use. This greater intensity of usemight lead to a reduced overall demand forspace. Any such reduction is likely to be small,however.

6.5 More intensive use is being seen in longerlibrary opening hours: 24 hour opening duringthe working week is becoming more common,especially where many students are part-time,possibly working shifts. Self-service book issuemachines have facilitated this trend. This isanother way of maximising space use, though atthe cost of increased spending on staff,technology and facilities management.

6.6 Learning space is also sometimes providedin the form of rooms with banks of PCs, printersand so on, available for general student use, orsometimes for informal teaching. Connections to

the HEI’s network in student residences, and theintroduction of wireless systems throughout thecampus, allied with virtual learning environment(VLE) systems, are leading to the situation wherealmost any space can be used by someone with asuitably configured laptop – for writing, studyinglecture materials, or communications. There wasno suggestion, however, that VLEs would ofthemselves lead to space savings as distinct fromefficiency gains for staff and students; rather, theimplication is for increased flexibility in spacedesign. Nor does it seem likely within theimmediate future that the demand for fixed PCs,and their peripherals, will diminish noticeably;there is likely to be a convenience factorassociated with them for some time to come.

6.7 Learning space merges with aspects of moregeneral amenity space, including common roomareas and cafeterias. Student demand forfacilities of these kinds with standardscomparable to good commercial provision hasled to constant upgrading across the sector. Moreon-campus provision is also being made forshops, banks and other facilities. Taken together,these facilities may be seen as part of making theinstitution into a more balanced community.This implies an enlarged estate, though one witha compensating income stream from users.

6.8 The demise of the formal lecture has longbeen predicted, based on empirical findings as toits general ineffectiveness as a means of learning.Nothing that we have heard or seen, however,suggests that this will happen in the foreseeablefuture. The lecture is still seen, particularly in thefirst year or so of the undergraduate course, as ameans of inducting students into the discipline.Students themselves are said to have objected toplanned reductions in the number of formallectures. In fact some HEIs are now building newlecture theatres, as increased student numbersmean that existing lecture theatres are too small.

6.9 More creative design of lecture theatres(with horseshoe-shaped layouts and better eyecontact, for example), and easier-to-usetechnology, means that lecturers are able topresent material in a variety of formats, and todemonstrate processes, in ways that once would


have been impractical. These improvements maypartly account for the lecture’s continuedpopularity.

6.10 At postgraduate level in the humanitiesand social sciences, there is a move towardsproviding the equivalent to a laboratoryenvironment. This would be an area wherestudents could work both privately and on jointtasks, with access to advanced computing andfacilities such as virtual reality environments. Itis likely that such facilities will attract researchpartners from outside the HEI to work on jointprojects. There will thus be an increased load tobe managed.

6.11 These changes are leading to demands formore flexible and highly-serviced spaces, and theblurring of the boundary between academic andsocial areas, but seem unlikely to diminish theoverall net demand for space. Increased studentload is likely to require more small-group work,and therefore more small rooms, for groups of10-25 people.

7 Academic offices7.1 The provision of academic officeaccommodation is a sensitive topic probably inevery HEI. As AUDE has observed (2003),individual academic offices in most pre-1992universities were provided on the assumptionthat they would be used for tutorial teaching ofperhaps two to four students at a time. Theacademic office was therefore a complex workenvironment: a private study space, a semi-publicteaching space, a room for small staff meetings,and a space for the reception of professionalvisitors.

7.2 However, tutorial groups are now oftenwhat would once have been considered seminar-sized – say eight to ten students – and academicoffices are too small for teaching them. ManyHEIs are accordingly seeing a demand for moresmall and medium-sized seminar rooms. It isoften then considered by managements thatoffices are too large for one member of staff; butrigidities in building layouts often preventremodelling (other than at excessive cost in

relation to benefits) to extract the space savingsthat might otherwise be possible.

7.3 In many institutions, the need for allacademic staff to have their own office, withspace for their own books, is seen as animportant aspect of academic life. In suchinstitutions, growth in the size of teachinggroups will therefore normally lead to anincrease in the number of teaching rooms, inexcess of that strictly called for by studentnumbers, as new seminar rooms are provided inplace of office space. This may not necessarilymean an increase in overall floorspace, as newteaching space may be obtained by taking spacefrom non-teaching functions, or by reconfiguringlaboratories or workshops to provide moregeneral teaching space. However, the likelihoodis that there will be some net expansion.

7.4 Where new building or major remodellingtakes place, the individual academic office maybe replaced with a shared office for perhapsthree to six staff. There then needs to be a set ofconveniently-located small and medium-sizedrooms, which can be used for meetings andsmall-group teaching. This arrangement may beparticularly appropriate when academic staff areout of their offices a great deal, for examplebecause of high class-contact hours, visits tostudents on work placements, professionalpractice of various kinds, or specialist facility-based research work. The acceptance of sharedoffices may be further enhanced if goodcommon-room facilities are provided as part ofthe restructuring. A reception area withsecretarial staff and other facilities may also bepart of this redesign. One would expect thisarrangement to produce some net space savings,although if adequate teaching, meeting andsupport service space is also provided, thesavings will normally be modest.

8 Administrative space8.1 Demands for administrative space in highereducation have grown. Examination of statisticsfrom the Universities Statistical Record and theHigher Education Statistics Agency suggests thatexpenditure on administration and central


services has grown from about 6% of totalhigher education spending in the early 1980s toabout 13% today. This reflects the creation ofessentially new functions such as qualityassurance, marketing and external fundraising,and widening participation work; and theprovision of more extensive and sophisticatedservices in established areas such as finance,research administration, and student support ofvarious kinds.

8.2 It is likely that there will be further growthin demand for administrative space. Students arebecoming more demanding users ofadministrative services, a trend that, as we haveobserved, may become more noticeable whenvariable tuition fees are introduced from 2006.Other administrative services related to moremarket-oriented higher education organisationswill also demand more space.

8.3 New buildings offer an opportunity to co-locate administrative functions in ways thatimprove efficiency, offer an enhanced service toacademic staff and students, and save space. Inone case, a space reduction of about one-thirdwas reported when a range of administrativefunctions were relocated from dispersed smalloffices to a single, large, open-plan office with anadjoining ‘one-stop shop’ for students.

8.4 The HEFCE Good Management Practicereport on space management (University ofNewcastle upon Tyne, 2002) noted that, incontrast typically to academic spacemanagement, administrative space was notsubject to detailed review in order to createefficiency gains. There are, therefore, someefficiencies to be obtained from better use ofadministrative space, but these savings are likelyto be offset by new administrative functions. Theoverall picture is likely to be one of slowexpansion of administrative space.

9 Research and disciplinarychange 9.1 The conclusion that we draw from ourdiscussions with academic researchers from awide range of disciplines is that major changes inrecent decades in the intellectual content of

disciplines, and associated technological change,have led to little net change in spacerequirements per unit of activity, once generalteaching space (related to increased studentnumbers) is removed from the equation. Mostresearchers, on the basis of past experience, tookthe view that changes in disciplinary knowledgewere unlikely to lead to major changes in netfloorspace, plus or minus, in the foreseeablefuture. That the volume of space for research hasrecently grown, and will continue to grow, ismore a function of the growth of research per se,and is linked with changes in the relationshipbetween HEIs and the emerging knowledgeeconomy, as we discuss in paragraph 3.8.

9.2 In science and engineering research andadvanced teaching, the general picture overrecent decades has been one of equipment usingexisting technologies shrinking in size, having awider range of applications, and becoming moreeasily portable; while equipment using newtechnologies tends to be, at first, much largerand immobile. This means that net unit spacedemands tend to stay roughly constant, thoughoften with efficiency gains as more staff andstudents become able to use the smaller pieces ofequipment. This may happen when scientificadvance means that previously highly-specialisedequipment becomes of use to researchersworking on a wider range of problems, andbetter equipment enables faster results to beobtained: the application of crystallography wasone example given of this process. (In somecases, though, the equipment becomes so cheapthat more units of it are acquired.) In one case,as a result of changes in equipment design andtechnology, and new space configuration, wewere told that 135 academic staff are nowworking in an area used in the 1970s by 46 staff,in the same physical science research field. Newlaboratory design is also able to provide spaceefficiencies, partly by providing shared writing-up space. The erosion of the distinction betweenteaching and research spaces has also allowedbetter space use.

9.3 Some comparable developments may beseen in art and design, where remodelling ofspace has led to more intensive use. Computers


have to a large extent replaced printingmachines, for example, although craft skills arestill taught and valued; while more flexible roomlayouts, modelled on professional workplaces,have allowed more students to use the samearea.

9.4 The replacement of laboratory, workshop orstudio-based experimental or design work bycomputer modelling throughout science, designand technology has also led to space savings,although some laboratory space is still required,and space is obviously needed for the computerwork. At the same time, computerisedinstrumentation of equipment that may itself bequite small has increased space demands.

9.5 In the humanities and social sciences,however, there are signs of a trend in theopposite direction, with moves to a clearerdifferentiation of teaching and research space.Two London institutions, for example, haverecently established a joint ‘knowledge lab’ in aseparate building to respond to challenges inunderstanding the changing relationshipsbetween learning, knowledge, media andtechnology. Its research is both social andtechnical in nature, drawing on a multi-disciplinary team from the two parentinstitutions. We may expect to see more large-scale research initiatives of this type, with moretemporary research staff, and calls for morehighly-serviced space than was usual in the pastfor non-science work. These developments willprobably result in a small net increase in spacedemands.

9.6 An exception to the general picture of spacesaving in the natural sciences throughtechnological progress is where radically newscience and technology is concerned. A historicalexample would have been when nuclear scienceand engineering began in HEIs, and nuclearreactors and other highly-specialised andexpensive facilities had to be provided. Thecurrent example often mentioned isnanotechnology, which demands buildings orparts of them to be separate, and purpose-designed to prevent external vibration, as well ashighly-specialised equipment. Although this field

is attracting large amounts of research funding,the costs of the work are so high that it is likelyto lead to only small net space demands acrossthe sector. On this model, it is perhaps likely thatfuture radical scientific and technologicaldevelopments will be so expensive that they willneed to be concentrated at a small number ofnational or international centres, to whichresearchers will travel, with a small impact onspace across the sector. (The currentinternational collaboration on fusion research,where the costs are too great even for EU-levelfunding to be feasible, is perhaps an extremecase in point.)

10 Changing patterns of studentdemand10.1 Changes in the pattern of student demandfor higher education courses will have an impacton space needs, although in overall net terms thisis likely to be small, and will probably bemasked by other changes. The current swingaway from science, mathematics, engineering andmodern languages is likely to have only a smallimpact on overall space demands. (Theintroduction of variable fees in 2006 may havesome effect but that is difficult to estimate now:for example, there may be scope for HEIs tosupport under-recruiting subjects throughscholarships.) Where student numbers declinebut a department continues its work, it maysimply use its space less efficiently, or lose someto other uses, or both. Where a departmentcloses completely, its space then becomesavailable for other uses and is likely to bereallocated to growing (or at least, overcrowded)areas of provision within the institution.Depending on the subject, this may or may notlead to economies in the use of space per FTEstudent. In one case we examined, a contractingchemistry department surrendered one of its twolaboratory buildings to the archaeologydepartment, which had increasing studentnumbers who needed laboratory space to allowmore science-based work. But the net impact onspace use across the institution was minimal.

10.2 Changing patterns of demand, in teachingand research, are significant risk factors for


HEIs. The ability of institutional managementsto reallocate space is an important means ofmanaging such risks. This may imply accepting asub-optimal use of space as a means of dealingwith future changes in demand.

11 e-Learning11.1 We have indicated that, across the sectorgenerally, we do not expect e-learning at adistance to supplant face-to-face teaching in asignificant way. The costs of introducing e-learning in higher education were initiallyunderestimated, and its attractiveness in thestudent market overestimated (Rich, 2001).Moreover, where there are significant e-learningactivities, space is still needed for both academicand administrative staff. We have noted that thetrend within the UK is to extend face-to-faceteaching to areas not well served by existinginstitutions, rather than to develop e-learningprogrammes to meet the needs of these areas.Internationally, developments in e-learning willcontinue: although we note that in East Asia, forexample, Western HEIs appear to see the futurein terms of new physical campuses, rather thanthe virtual ones that writers such as Daniel(1998) predicted.

11.2 Campus-based e-learning (VLEs) willcontinue to develop, and should improve theefficiency of space use, by allowing students towork more flexibly, on and off the campus. Wesaw one example where studio space, althoughon the face of it inadequate for the studentnumbers involved, worked well because at anyone time many students were working elsewhereon their projects, using their laptops linked tothe campus wireless network. This flexibility islikely to increase, leading to better use of (and soreduced provision of) specialised space – thoughtotal space demand will probably be largelyunaffected.

12 Other novel modes ofdelivery12.1 Workplace-based learning is already asignificant activity in further education, and maybe expected to increase. It offers educationaladvantages in terms of creating ‘communities of

practice’ and recognising the importance of tacitknowledge, for example (Evans, 2001); as wellas more efficiency in terms of time and travelcosts for students. Some HEIs are likely tobecome more involved in this work, particularlyat foundation degree level, allowing them toincrease their student load with minimal increasein space demand. There are also examples ofmasters courses being tailor-made for particularorganisations, and delivered on their premises.

12.2 Activities of this type still of courserequire the HEI to provide space for academicand administrative staff, together with library, ITand other support services. The saving is onclassroom or similar space. We found noevidence to suggest that off-campus deliverywould remain anything other than a minoraspect of higher education activity.

12.3 We have noted the suggestions that theHEI will somehow merge into its surroundingphysical, economic and cultural environment. Webelieve that this view misunderstands howinstitutions work, and is unlikely to occur to asignificant extent. But in some fields, notably artand design, staff and students are said to bebecoming more itinerant, making more use ofcities’ cultural infrastructures, practitionerworkplaces, and so on. This may allow the samespace in the institution to serve slightly morestudents, but, because of the contingent nature ofthe activity, will not allow any reductions in corespace. Moreover, as partnership arrangementsare often involved, the institution may have to beprepared, at some point, to import as well as toexport people. It is hard to imaginedevelopments of this kind leading to netreductions in space demand.

13 Modelling changing spacedemands13.1 Future space demands in higher educationwill be affected by a range of space drivers,related to the institution’s mission, as shown inFigure 2. The space drivers will affect demandsfor different kinds of space in the institution: asthe driver changes in scope or intensity, so it willimpact upon different types of space use.


14 Space and the HEI in 201514.1 We speculate here on the shape of the HEIof 2015 in terms of its space needs.

14.2 The separation of HEIs into twocategories, research-intensive and teaching-led,already apparent in 2005, has become morecomplex, following some further expansion instudent numbers (including more EU studentsopting for an English-language based education),continued pressure for widening access, and theincreased costs of advanced research in thenatural sciences and (increasingly) the socialsciences.

14.3 At the risk of doing an injustice to anincreasingly diverse sector, with institutionshaving a complex portfolio of elements in their‘missions’, we suggest that three models of spaceutilisation can be observed: research-led,teaching-led and ‘middle of the road’institutions. In 2015 the members of this lastgroup have found themselves unable to competein a EU-wide market for research, and haveeither turned to the mass student market (wherethey have a marketing advantage in many EUstates), or have followed the US model and havebecome liberal arts-type colleges, offering a high-quality student experience, with good staff-student ratios and attractive campus facilities,with correspondingly high tuition fees. Tuition

fees now cover about half the cost of the medianfirst degree.

14.4 These three different types of institutionexhibit different patterns of space use, though onsome points similar approaches will be taken.

14.5 The teaching-led institution needs bothlarge lecture theatres and large seminar-stylerooms (for 30-40 people). These latter spaces areincreasingly multi-functional, with a range ofdigital technologies allowing teachers andlearners to produce and manipulate images anddata of all kinds. Laboratory and workshopspace have reduced substantially in area, withgreater reliance on computer modelling anddigital representation, and the same spaceincreasingly serves the needs of differentdisciplines. Most learning materials are availabledigitally, and the library has few traditionalbooks or journals. Social spaces have tended tomerge with informal working areas and thelearning centre, as students carry with them mostof the learning materials they need in light, easy-to-read digital form. They access additionalmaterial from the HEI’s own VLE and from theweb wherever they are.

14.6 The liberal arts institution shows a use ofspace familiar from the 1960s, with a limitednumber of modest-sized lecture theatres andmore room for small-group teaching. Academic


Figure 2: Summary of space drivers

Effect on space for work involving:

ThirdPossible space drivers: Teaching Research stream Admin Social

Subject mix ✓ ✓

Institutional mission ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Student numbers ✓ ✓ ✓

Students by mode ✓ ✓

Staff numbers ✓ ✓ ✓

Non-funding council income ✓ ✓

Community activities ✓ ✓

offices have regained their original purpose andare used for tutorial teaching. There is arelatively traditional library. Only basiclaboratory space remains, as most scienceteaching can use digital methods.

14.7 The research-led institution shows somesimilarities with the teaching-led HEI, with moremulti-use spaces and small rooms for studentgroup work. Despite a far greater proportion ofresearch resources being available digitally, theresearch team working together physicallyremains the dominant way of doing research.Laboratories tend to be more specialised, thoughthey have adjacent work areas with specialisedcomputing facilities. These institutions have asmany postgraduates as undergraduates,sometimes more, and need to provide separate,higher-quality space for their needs. These spacesmay partly take the form of humanities andsocial science ‘labs’, with both privateworkspaces and computing and digitalequipment. The library remains at the heart ofthe institution, with a large stock of traditionalbooks, and with specialist collections which playa part in institutional branding. But it is also theplace from where the digital learningenvironment is managed. The higher feescharged by these institutions will be reflected inbetter standards of furnishings and equipment.

15 Conclusions15.1 Returning to Figure 1 in section 2, whichset our approach to the study, we draw thefollowing conclusions as summarised in Figure 3.

15.2 We think that the future of HEIs over thecoming decade is one of continuity and change.Continuity, in that the HEI (more or less in itscurrent physical and organisational form) willcontinue to be the dominant producer andtransmitter of advanced knowledge. And change,in that the higher education system will have tocope with an increased range of social, economicand disciplinary pressures, leading to increasedinstitutional diversity.

15.3 We have identified pressures pointingtowards higher education making increasedspace demands, and others pointing in the

opposite direction. The last decade has seengreatly improved efficiency in the use of spaceacross the sector in terms of the amount of spaceper student FTE, but these gains are at (or closeto) an end: further ‘efficiency gains’ are, in ourview, likely to seriously compromise learning andresearch effectiveness. We therefore expect theitems listed under ‘reduced space use’ in Figure 3to have only limited effects.

15.4 On the other hand, we do not expect thatthe ‘increased space use’ items will have a majorimpact either, other than if large increases instudent numbers occur (which seemsimprobable). Across the sector, we think it likelythat increased demand in one institution will beoffset, at least to some extent, by reductions inanother. But the net effect is likely to be a smallexpansion.

15.5 What we expect to happen is that HEIs ofall sorts will need to remodel their existingspace, or to redevelop parts of their estatescompletely, to provide for new teaching andlearning methods, new research approaches, newtechnologies, and new social expectations. Theextent to which they can do this will obviouslybe constrained by the capital funds available tothem and institutional choices of various kinds.It is by these routes that we expect to see highereducation making most of its adjustments tochanged demands on it, rather than by majorincreases or decreases in the size of its estate.

15.6 We conclude with these key observations:

• the UK higher education system is becomingincreasingly diverse – it is almost impossibleto claim that a set of policy prescriptionscan apply across the sector

• for differing reasons, no institution is likelyto experience a significant reduction inoverall space needs in the foreseeable future

• space will, however, be subject increasinglyto remodelling for new needs or to meetnew standards

• ‘learning space’ will be seen as one of theseneeds, with more provision being made forstudent-led and ‘blended’ learning (face-to-face plus IT-mediated)


• a relatively small increase in research-specific space (for research funded by theResearch Councils) will require a small netincrease in space, concentrated in a smallnumber of institutions. However, many ifnot most institutions will want to expandtheir physical space to accommodate newmodes of knowledge production funded bya range of agencies, in which the boundary

between research and third stream activitieswill be blurred; and they will need capital toachieve this change in the configuration oftheir estates

• the quality of the institution’s physicalfacilities will increasingly be seen as amarketing asset and will attract moreresources and more management attention.


Figure 3: Summary of conclusions

Driver Reduced space use Changed use within envelope Increased space use

Institutional planning & Changed teaching/research mixmanagement

Extended teaching More space for taught postgraduate and research students

day/week/year

Staff working Increased community use of New central away from institution facilities infrastructure functions

Better space management Higher standard/more techniques extensive student

facilities

Increased student-staff ratios, leading to unit space savings

Remodelling and better design of new space

Changes to Workplace-based and Changed approaches to Partnerships withteaching itinerant learning library use other institutionsand learning

New mix of teaching space sizes

IT use leading to more flexible space use

Increased social/group work space for student-led learning

Disciplinary Size reductions and Changed equipment needs New research fields changes improvements to equipment requiring specialist

facilities

Specialist space for social science and humanities work

References

Agre, P. E. (2002), ‘Commodity and Community:Institutional Design for the NetworkedUniversity’. In K. Robins and F. Webster (eds),The Virtual University? Knowledge, Markets,and Management. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Aston, L. (2004), Higher Education Supply andDemand to 2010 – an update. Oxford: HigherEducation Policy Institute.

AUDE. (2003), Response to Government WhitePaper ‘The Future of Higher Education’:Association of University Directors of Estates.

Cohen, S. S. and Fields, G. (2000), ‘SocialCapital and Capital Gains in Silicon Valley(reprinted from California Management Review,41, 1999)’. In E. L. Lesser (ed.), Knowledge andSocial Capital: Foundations and Applications.Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Daniel, J. S. (1998), Mega-Universities andKnowledge Media: Technology Strategies forHigher Education. London: Kogan Page.

Duderstadt, J. J. (1999), ‘The Twenty-firstCentury University’. In W. Z. Hirsch and L. E.Weber (eds), Challenges Facing HigherEducation at the Millennium. Oxford: IAUPress/Pergamon.

Evans, K. (2001), Situating Learning: thesignificance of workplace learning for a ‘learningsociety’. Paper presented at the 4th InternationalConference on Vocational Education andTraining Research, Wolverhampton.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H.,Schwarzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (2004),The New Producation of Knowledge: thedynamics of science and research incontemporary societies. London: Sage.

Harrison, A. and Dugdale, S. (2004), ‘The SANEresearch project: Its implications for highereducation’. Planning for Higher Education, 31,33-42.

HEFCE. (2004), Estates Management Statistics:Annual Report 2004. Bristol:HEFCE/SHEFC/HEFCW.

Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P. G.and Trevitt, A. C. F. (2000), ‘Place and Space inthe Design of New Learning Environments’.Higher Education Research and Development,19, 221-236.

Kopp, S. J., Stanford, L. S., Rohlfing, K. andKendall, J. P. (2004), ‘Creating AdaptiveLearning Environments’. Planning for HigherEducation, 32, 12-33.

Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001), Learning andTeaching in Higher Education: The ReflectiveProfessional. London: SAGE Publications.

Maskell, P. (2000), ‘Social Capital, Innovationand Competitiveness’. In S. Baron, J. Field and T.Schuller (eds), Social Capital: CriticalPerspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McGregor, J. (2004), ‘Space and Schools’.Forum: for promoting 3-19 comprehensiveeducation, 46, 2-5.

Rich, T. (2001), ‘E-learning futures: Report of anAUA Study Group’. Perspectives: Policy andPractice in Higher Education, 5, 68-77.

Sastry, T. (2004), Postgraduate Education in theUK. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.

Slater, J. (2005), Spent force or revolution inprogress?: eLearning after the eUniversity.Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.

SQW. (2000), The Cambridge PhenomenonRevisited. Cambridge: Segal Quince Wicksteed.

University of Newcastle upon Tyne. (2002),HEFCE Good Management Practice Report:Space Management in Higher Education.Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastleupon Tyne.

Wolf, A. (2002), Does Education Matter? Mythsabout Education and Economic Growth.London: Penguin Books.


impact on space of future changes in higher education - · pdf fileimpact on space of future...

Documents