Downloaded From: Usage Rights: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Deriva- Tive Works 4.0
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Whitton, Peter David (2018)The new university: space, place and identity. Doctoral thesis (PhD), Manchester Metropolitan University. Downloaded from: http://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/620806/ Usage rights: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Deriva- tive Works 4.0 Please cite the published version https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk THE NEW UNIVERSITY: SPACE, PLACE AND IDENTITY P D WHITTON PhD 2018 THE NEW UNIVERSITY: SPACE, PLACE AND IDENTITY PETER DAVID WHITTON Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education and Social Research Institute Manchester Metropolitan University 2018 i Abstract Over the last two decades, campus redevelopment in the UK and worldwide has accelerated. University building activity is frequently justified by architects and managers as responding to ‘market forces’. These claims are reflected in institutional discourses about campus redesign and a growing academic and media interest in the organisational space of universities. Discourses often emphasise the positive transformative effects of redevelopment without considering the wider impact on the everyday life of the university. This thesis explores the relationship between institutional space and the construction of individual, social and professional identities, using a case study describing a ten-year campus transformation project at Manchester Metropolitan University. Over this period, the university aimed to: consolidate the number of individual campuses from seven to two; provide new ‘world-class’ facilities for staff and students; create opportunities for ‘improved’ teaching and research activity; and develop the university brand. In real terms, this meant closing existing campus locations and relocating staff and students to an ‘iconic’ new building containing open plan academic offices and flexible student pods. The management discourse around this ambitious building project revealed a deterministic stance, predicting a variety of ‘improvements’ to academic working practices, student satisfaction and efficiency as a result of these environmental changes. Viewed as a whole, these spatial manipulations were intended to influence internal and external perceptions of identity and act as an indicator of successful change management. Three interpretive approaches are used to examine the social production of a new university space: thematic; visual; and dispositive analysis. The analysis uses the work of Lefebvre, Foucault, and de Certeau to argue that specific discursive, non-discursive and material/spatial techniques are bound together in the imaginations of university management. These techniques are then employed to dismantle ‘outdated’ working practices in an attempt to ‘spatially fix’ particular new conceptions of academic labour and professional identity that fit with the neo-liberal university project. ii Lefebvre’s spatial triad is used to structure the discussion around three research questions that focus on the creation of identities via the conceived space of institutional designers, the perceived space of work activities and the emotionally lived space of university life in the new building. The research revealed a conceptual void apparent in the design of university buildings where spatial aesthetics are appropriated from other sectors to ‘fix’ the problems inherent in academic capitalism. The data show how particular spatial arrangements are used to discipline academic labour and encourage particular managerially sanctioned working practices. The thesis also demonstrates the lack of recognition given to physical artefacts and personalisation of space in the design of academic offices and the detrimental effect that this has on staff identity. iii Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Michael Gallagher and Cathy Lewin for their insightful comments, morale boosting chats, sage advice and detailed feedback. Thanks also to Rachel Holmes and Danni White for their support and encouragement in the early part of the research process. I am grateful to my colleagues at Manchester Metropolitan University, particularly those who gave up time to be interviewed as part of this project and shared their experiences of the Brooks Building so candidly. I am particularly indebted to my teaching and learning technology buddy Cheryl Dunleavy, for all her practical support, friendship and for doing all those late night sessions in Crewe. I am indebted to Sue Beasley for her splendid copy editing skills and working above and beyond the call duty. Big hugs to my excellent (not so little) girls who have grown up with Dad’s PhD over the last four and a half years. Thank you for giving me the time and space to complete this work, especially over the last five months of writing up. Sorry I couldn’t spend more time with you… I did want to! Last but not least, none of this would have been possible without the love and support of Nickie. You encouraged me to start a PhD, believed that I could complete it (even when I wasn’t so sure) and provided sound practical advice throughout the process. iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................ v List of figures ....................................................................................................... x List of tables ...................................................................................................... xii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research rationale ......................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 The current university ‘building boom’ .................................................. 5 1.1.2 Appropriateness of new university buildings ........................................ 7 1.1.3 Institutional space as a current area of interest .................................... 7 1.2 Context of the research ................................................................................. 8 1.3 Research aim and questions .......................................................................... 9 1.3.1 RQ1: conceived space and constructed identity.................................. 10 1.3.2 RQ2: perceived space: productivity, wellbeing and identity ............... 10 1.3.3 RQ3: lived space: personalisation of workspace ................................. 11 1.4 Key findings ................................................................................................. 11 1.5 Organisation of the thesis ........................................................................... 12 2 Space, Place and Identity ............................................................................ 16 2.1 Space............................................................................................................ 17 2.1.1 The social production of space ............................................................ 18 2.1.2 Space and power .................................................................................. 21 2.1.3 Space and the practice of everyday life ............................................... 24 2.1.4 Organisational Space ............................................................................ 25 2.2 Place ............................................................................................................ 29 v 2.3 Identity ........................................................................................................ 32 2.3.1 Academic Identity ................................................................................ 34 2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 38 3 University Space and Campus Design .......................................................... 40 3.1 The idea of the university ............................................................................ 41 3.2 University building, drivers for change ....................................................... 50 3.2.1 The university campus and institutional identity ................................ 51 3.2.2 The university campus as ‘brand’ ........................................................ 52 3.2.3 The university campus and recruitment and retention ....................... 55 3.3 Types of university space ............................................................................ 56 3.3.1 Spaces for research, management and administration ....................... 56 3.3.2 Formal spaces for teaching and learning ............................................. 63 3.3.3 Informal social learning spaces ............................................................ 69 3.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 72 4 Case Study: The Brooks Building .................................................................. 74 4.1 MMU history and background .................................................................... 75 4.2 The campus masterplan: a ten-year project ............................................... 78 4.3 Developing the Birley Fields Campus .........................................................