DESIGN WITH

DISTINCTION
THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING
DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

CABE is the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the
Government’s champion for design quality in the built environment. It is funded
by both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Its board members are appointed by the
Secretary of State. CABE will shortly be established as a statutory body but in
the meantime has been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee.

Published March 2005.

ISBN 1-84633-001-7

The Tower Building T 020 7960 2400

11 York Road F 020 7960 2444
London E enquiries@[Link]
SE1 7NX W [Link]
 THE VALUE OF DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

Measuring the impact of

architecture and design on
the performance of higher
education institutions.
4 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

In Memory
This study is dedicated to the memory of Richard Feilden in recognition
of his contribution to community architecture, environmental awareness
and passion for achieving better buildings.

Richard was a member of the steering group responsible for this report,
but was tragically killed a few weeks before the research study was completed.

He was the founding partner of Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects of London

and Bath. He won Building Design magazine’s Architect of the Year Award
in 2004; sat on the RIBA Council for a number of years; was the driving force
behind the establishment of the Higher Education Design Quality Forum, and
a founding commissioner of CABE. Richard lobbied tirelessly for better standards
of contemporary design and showed great empathy for the needs of the
RICHARD FEILDEN OBE
(1950 - 2005) building users. He was particularly concerned that PFI funding of educational
projects was undermining the quality of school design. He gave his time
generously to debate such issues in many public meetings across the
country, and was a great ambassador for the architectural profession.

Richard touched so many lives. We have lost a good friend, the community
has lost one of its noble champions, and the RIBA has lost perhaps the best
president it never had. His influence will not be forgotten, however, and his
spirit lives on.
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

Methodology 7
Summary of findings 7
Implications of the research 9

I CASE STUDY PROFILES 10

II INTRODUCTION 16
Terms of reference 16
Structure of report 17

III METHODOLOGY 18
Selection of case study buildings 18
Overview of methodology 18
Literature Review 18
Qualitative research 19
Quantitative research 19
Profile of survey respondents 19

IV RECRUITMENT 21
Overview of existing literature 21
Overall influence of buildings upon recruitment 23
Influence of buildings upon recruitment of staff 26
Impact of buildings upon recruitment of students 27
Aspects of design that influence recruitment 27

V RETENTION 30
Overview of existing literature 30
Overall satisfaction with choice of university and design of the buildings 31
Design aspects that influence the feelings and behaviour of staff & students 33
General views on being ‘in’ the buildings 36

VI PERFORMANCE 38
Overview of existing literature 38
Impact of buildings upon performance 39
Aspects of design that influence performance 42

VII CONCLUSIONS 44
Summary of key findings 48
Implications of the research 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY 49
6 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

PORTLAND BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

Executive
Summary
Over recent years, there has been a marked • Surveys with staff and students in the
increase in the number of new building projects five higher education buildings, collecting
in the higher education sector, and in the primary data on a range of features of the
complexity and importance of estates provision and building design
management for such schemes. However, despite
this, there appears to be a distinct lack of ‘value of The case study buildings were selected in
design’ research carried out in this area. Work in collaboration with CABE and were deemed
the past on measuring the impact of architecture examples of good higher education design.
and design on the performance of organisations
occupying buildings has examined all manner of ‘the existence of well-
sectors: health, children’s education, offices retail
and house-building. Higher education, though,
designed buildings on a
has been neglected. Until now. campus is a significant
In July 2003, CABE commissioned a research
factor in the recruitment of
study aimed at assessing the value of design in staff and of students’
higher education. This study was funded jointly
by the UK HE funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
HEFCW and DELNI) and supported by the
Association of Directors of Estates (AUDE). The RECRUITMENT
research was designed and data collected by the
University of the West of England (UWE), while The research findings suggest that the existence of
PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted subsequent well-designed buildings on a campus is a significant
analysis and reporting. Its aim was to ‘assess factor in the recruitment of staff and of students.
whether links exist between new, well-designed
buildings and the recruitment and retention of • Approximately 60 per cent of students and staff
students, staff and quality of teaching, research indicated that the quality of the building design
and other outcomes’. had a positive impact on their decision to study or
work at their chosen university

METHODOLOGY • Among staff, the quality of the buildings had

the most positive impact on the recruitment of
The study involved three main strands of research: academic staff (65 per cent). Among students,
the most positive impact was on the recruitment
• Literature review of more than 50 research of postgraduate students (72 per cent)
articles, identifying key themes and related
issues covering a wide range of qualitative and • When asked to identify specific features of
quantitative studies on the impact of design on buildings that would most influence their decision
the recruitment and retention of students to work in a particular institution, just over half
and staff of all staff identified cosmetic and environmental
features as being most influential. These included
• Qualitative interviews and focus groups with cleanliness, a feeling of space and bright working
students and staff in four higher education areas. Most students identified structural/
buildings in England and one in Wales functional features, including the quality of the
facilities, the library, sports centre, atriums and
lecture rooms
8 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

• Only a very small number of either staff or in the way they feel and behave whilst at work.
students (around 10 per cent) pinpointed However, students did not share this view
situational features (i.e. where the building was
located) as being influential in their decision to • Overall, most staff identified situational features,
take up work or study at their institution. such as the external views and surroundings
as having the most positive impact on how they
feel and behave whilst at work, whereas most
RETENTION students identified structural/functional features,
such as teaching rooms, on the location
The research suggests that the way people feel and of stairs.
behave while studying or working within buildings
is linked to their overall satisfaction rates and level
of happiness. This will clearly have an impact upon PERFORMANCE
retention rates.
The majority of staff (80 per cent) was of the opinion
that the buildings they worked in impacted positively
‘the way people feel upon their performance. However, this was only the
case for half of the students we surveyed.
and behave while
studying or working within • The research showed that the buildings had the
most positive impact upon the performance of
buildings is linked to their research students (83 per cent) and the least
overall satisfaction rates and impact upon the performance of undergraduate
students (51 per cent)
level of happiness’
• In general, students indicated that the features
of the buildings they studied in affected their
• The functions and facilities of buildings had the performance in three main ways:
most positive impact upon how the staff and
students feel and behave whilst they are working - helping to motivate students in their work
or studying (more than 7 out of 10 students - facilitating inspiration amongst students
and staff). Staff also indicated that their office - providing key facilities critical to the
and workspace, and the size, proportion and course content
openness of the building they worked in were
positive contributing factors to the way they feel • Staff indicated that academic factors associated
and behave with their job and facilities they had access to
have an equal impact upon their performance.
• The majority of staff and students (more than These factors included interest in the type of
60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic and work and the quality of their office and
environmental features that impact most upon the support facilities
way they feel and behave were the decoration,
furnishings and furniture within the buildings • Students indicated that the facilities within
their institution impacted most upon their
• Staff and students in the focus groups identified performance. These included the teaching,
some negative influences on their feelings campus and research facilities
and behaviour associated with cosmetic and
environmental factors. These included problems • Staff and students also stated that particular
with the heating and ventilation, as well as social features influenced their performance,
acoustics and noise including the locality of the university and the
level of inclusion and participation they enjoyed.
• A majority of staff (more than 60 per cent)
indicated that the external views and
surroundings also played a significant part
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH However, whilst the findings of the research provide
useful insights, there are a number of areas which
This research breaks new ground by providing would benefit from additional research, including:
evidence on the links between building design
and recruitment, retention and performance of • The measurement of the design quality in
staff and students in the higher education sector. higher education buildings

• An assessment of the impact of building design

‘good quality higher upon the local community

education requires good • A wider sample of institutions to include those

quality environments’ not deemed to display good design quality

• An examination into the negative impact which

can result from design inadequacy
It provides evidence to support the belief that
good quality higher education requires good • The relationship between good design on
quality environments. It also reinforces the campus and the award of research grants.
need for further capital investment to modernise
and upgrade buildings and equipment.
10 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

DESIGN WITH
DISTINCTION
CASE STUDY
PROFILES
UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
David Goldman Informatics Centre

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
Jubilee Campus

UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Portland Building

UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR

Adeilad Brigantia Building

UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Oxstalls Campus
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

01
UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
David Goldman Informatics Centre
School of Computing and Technology
St Peter’s Campus

ARCHITECT: BDP
OPENED: PHASE 1 – 1994,
PHASE 2 – 1996
AREA: 8,000M2
USAGE: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
AWARDS: SUNDAY TIMES/ RFAC
BUILDING OF THE YEAR 1995,
CIVIC TRUST AWARD 1998

DESIGN PROFILE
The David Goldman Informatics Centre is the
most radical building on the innovative St Peter’s
Campus. The multi-level ground floor and
balconied first floor areas are enclosed with a
vast vaulted space reminiscent of a cathedral.
The main computer teaching is carried on in
open ‘terraces’ on the ground floor, divided into
pens. Bridges link the upper balconies and the
upper floor teaching rooms seem to hang over
the central space. Staff offices are located on
the perimeter of the building and comprise a
mix of conventional offices often shared by three
members of staff and ‘pods’, which are clusters
of offices off a central social space. The building
was designed on ecological principles, as
reflected in the external cladding and the
heating/ventilation system.

BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To improve undergraduate and postgraduate
IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
recruitment by counteracting the negative
image of Sunderland.
12 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

02
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
Jubilee Campus
School of Education

DESIGN PROFILE
The Jubilee Campus was designed as a single
entity with a ‘wall’ of educational buildings facing
onto a lake, away from the adjacent industrial
buildings, and with the residential halls sitting
behind. The conical library building provides
a central focus.

Sustainability is the very visible theme of the

campus, influencing the overall design, with its
prominent ventilation towers and the materials
used, both inside and out. The individual
educational buildings are of a standardised
design and are linked by glazed atria that house
central functions, such as the refectory.

BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To establish the new campus as a credible and
desirable alternative to University Park and to
give three key departments room to expand.

ARCHITECT: MICHAEL
HOPKINS & PARTNERS
OPENED: 1999
AREA: 6,481M2
USAGE: SCHOOL OF BUSINESS,
COMPUTING AND EDUCATION
AWARDS: ROYAL INSTITUTE
OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS
RIBA AWARD FOR
ARCHITECTURE 2001

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

03
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Portland Building
School of the Environment

ARCHITECT: SIR COLIN

STANSFIELD-SMITH
OPENED: 1996
AREA: 6,200M2
USAGE: FACULTY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
AWARDS: CIVIC TRUST AWARD
1997, PORTSMOUTH SOCIETY
BEST NEW BUILDING 1997

DESIGN PROFILE
The Portland building was opened in 1996 and
houses the School of Architecture and the Built
Environment. The University increasingly uses it
as a conference centre. The three-storey building
is designed around a central atrium or forum
that provides direct access to the refectory, main
lecture theatre and the learning resource centre.
Sustainability was used as the key design principle
and manifested itself in the form of the heating,
cooling and ventilation system. The service towers
are a prominent feature of the design, while
the building as a whole was designed to be the
centrepiece of a new campus development that
in turn was a catalyst for the regeneration of one
of the poorest parts of Portsmouth.

BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To improve undergraduate recruitment by
counteracting the negative impressions of
Portsmouth, and to act as the catalyst for the
IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
development of a new campus.
14 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

04
UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR
Adeilad Brigantia Building
Department of Psychology

DESIGN PROFILE
The building is planned around the research
needs of the staff, with individual cellular offices
and small ‘break-out’ spaces for research
groups to interact informally. The reception and
central circulation spaces are generous, though
undergraduate teaching is not catered for in the
first phase of the building. The building takes
advantage of its elevated position to dominate the
campus and its white elevations and sharp lines
emphasise its contemporary credentials.
The interior, meanwhile, capitalises on external
views across the town. The upper corridors are
naturally-lit by high-level roof lights.

BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To attract international-quality academic staff
to improve the research performance of the
school to the highest levels – and thereby to
attract better quality students.

ARCHITECT: NICHOLAS
HARE ARCHITECTS
OPENED: 2000
AREA: 2,200M2
USAGE: DEPARTMENT
OF PSYCHOLOGY

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR

 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15

05
UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Oxstalls Campus
School of Sports Science

ARCHITECT: FEILDEN CLEGG

BRADLEY ARCHITECTS
OPENED: 2001
AREA: 2771M2
USAGE: SCHOOL OF
SPORTS SCIENCE
AWARDS: THE CIVIC TRUST’S
SUSTAINABILITY AWARD 2003,
THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF
BRITISH ARCHITECTS AWARD
FOR OUTSTANDING
ARCHITECTURE 2003

DESIGN PROFILE
The Oxstalls Campus was designed as an integrated
educational unit with the School of Sports Science,
a Learning Resource Centre (LRC), refectory and
students residences and an incomplete facility that
would need to be integrated with the city’s sports
facilities to work effectively. The design is light and
open, using high levels of glazing to bring natural
light into the building, and light timber finishes. A
lofty, glazed corridor links the teaching areas to the
LRC and provides an attractive entrance and design
feature. The use of water unifies the two parts of
the building externally. Sustainability features in the
design in the form of solar panels. The LRC is the
social hub of the building and has been designed
not just for quiet study but also for team learning
and interaction.

BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To establish a credible, high quality presence
in Gloucester and the poorer west of the county
IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
to counteract the university’s perceived bias
towards Cheltenham.
16 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Introduction
In January 2003, the UK Government published a Furthermore. in the foreword to a report by the
White Paper called ‘The Future of Higher Education’ Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
which identified the stresses under which higher entitled ‘Better Public Buildings’, Tony Blair stressed
education in the UK is operating1. One pressing the need for architects to consider more than cost
issue it highlighted was the need ‘to maintain the and pure function when reviewing the quality of
infrastructure for research and teaching’. The report designs (Department of Culture, Media and Sport,
found an estimated £8 billion backlog in teaching October 2000). According to Jon Rouse, the then
and research facilities. Chief Executive of CABE, ‘there is a growing danger,
in the midst of modern procurement processes,
An earlier study focused in particular on the that the delight factor in architecture is being
infrastructure within higher education buildings2. suffocated by measurement methods that favour
The 2002 report, ‘Investment in Infrastructure only tangible impacts.’
for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education’,
suggested several billion pounds of investment
was needed to repair, replace and modernise the TERMS OF REFERENCE
buildings, services, IT networks and libraries of UK
higher education buildings. It also highlighted that Despite the number of new building projects in
many post-war buildings used throughout the UK’s the higher education sector over the last number
universities were reaching the end of their design of years, and the complexity and importance of
life and stressed that the university sector was estates provision and management within this
experiencing a climate of chronic under-funding. sector, there appears to be a distinct absence of
The report noted, too, that it is in this environment ‘Value of Design’ studies in this area. The work
that there has been a rapid growth in the size of the that has been done to measure the impact of
student population, the introduction of new subjects architecture and design on the performance of
and changes in pedagogic methods. However, not organisations occupying buildings has examined
all of these developments have been matched by an sectors such as health, children’s education,
equivalent expansion in higher education estates. offices, retail and house-building.

To fill this gap, in July 2003, CABE, in partnership

with the UK Higher Education Funding Councils
‘What is of concern to all universities is ensuring – the funding bodies for the research – and the
that our students, whatever their background, have Association of University Directors of Estates
a high quality experience. That requires university (AUDE), commissioned a research study. The
teaching to be informed by research, provided by subject material was the impact of design standards
high quality and motivated staff, in buildings fit for in recently completed higher education buildings
purpose and using modern equipment.’ on the recruitment, retention and performance of
(DIANA WARWICK, 2003: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNIVERSITIES UK) staff and students. It is anticipated that partners in
the higher education sector will use the research
to promote higher standards of building design.
The research was designed and data collected
‘Tony Blair stressed the need by the University of Western England (UWE).
Subsequent analysis and reporting was conducted
for architects to consider by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
more than cost and pure
function when reviewing the
quality of designs’ 1
Department for Education and Skills, The Future of Higher
Education (2003), Norwich: HMSO
2
Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE (2002)
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 17

FIGURE 1.1 - OVERALL AIMS OF STUDY

A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN DIMENSIONS AND FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH.

OVERALL AIM OF STUDY:

To assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and
the recruitment, retention and performance of students and staff

ASPECTS OF THE USER GROUP FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH

• STAFF WITH EXPERIENCE OF • QUALITY, IMPACT AND FUNCTION

DIFFERENT USAGE OF BUILDINGS OF BUILDINGS

• STAFF AT DIFFERENT STAGES • SITUATIONAL, STRUCTURAL AND

OF THEIR CAREER COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
FEATURES OF BUILDINGS.
• MATURE AND YOUNGER STUDENTS;
AND POSTGRADUATE,
UNDERGRADUATE AND
RESEARCH STUDENTS.

The overall aim of the study was to ‘assess whether • Are there variations in the views of respondents
links exist between new, well-designed buildings and within and between staff and student groups, and
the recruitment and retention of students, staff and between higher education sites?
quality of teaching, research and other outcomes’.
In addressing the aim of the study, a number of • What quality improvements could be made to
key research questions were posed, namely: improve the performance of staff and students?

• In what ways do buildings influence the

recruitment, retention and performance of STRUCTURE OF REPORT
students and staff in the higher education sector?
This report outlines the main findings
• What features of buildings influence recruitment, of the study. Its structure is as follows:
morale and retention and performance of staff
and students? • Section II – Methodology

• Are staff and students satisfied with the quality • Section III – Recruitment
and functionality of their buildings and associated
facilities, and do they equate good quality with • Section IV – Retention
better performance?
• Section V – Performance

• Section VI – Conclusions.
18 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

FIGURE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

Methodology AN OVERVIEW OF OUR APPROACH

This section provides an overview of the LITERATURE

methodology used in the study. The research REVIEW
involved three main strands of work: a literature
review, a quantitative survey with staff and
students, and a qualitative strand comprising RESEARCH
focus groups with students and interviews with DESIGN
staff. The qualitative and quantitative fieldwork
was conducted across five case study sites.
QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE
Whilst the findings provide useful insights into RESEARCH RESEARCH
the experiences of two of the most important
stakeholders - staff and students - the research
does not attempt to measure the quality of ANALYSIS &
the design. REPORTING

SELECTION OF CASE STUDY INSTITUTIONS

The selection of the case study buildings was LITERATURE REVIEW

made in collaboration with the project Steering
Group. While the buildings selected were deemed A general review of the literature was conducted in
examples of good design, a number of additional relation to the design of educational environments3.
selection criteria were used in the selection process: Over 50 articles and journals were reviewed and a
bibliography is attached to the report. The literature
• The inclusion of buildings that were reasonably review had three dimensions:
contemporary (a cut-off date of 1996
was applied) • To define the strategic context within which
the study is placed
• The inclusion of buildings that had been long
enough in occupation to establish some pattern • To identify key themes and related issues
of usage
• To identify areas of good practice.
• Ensuring that good design was reinforced
by some external indicator of merit related
to an award

• Ensuring that the diversity of the higher education

sector, in terms of building and institution type,
was reflected.

The sample included campus locations and

inner-city locations, as well as different types of
departments and university.

JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 19

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

A range of qualitative evidence was collected across A total of 103 members of staff (69% response rate)
the five case study institutions. Table 2.1 provides a and 287 students (57% response rate) took part in
summary of the types and nature of data collected. the research across the five buildings.

Statistical analysis was performed primarily

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH at two levels:

During the visits to each of the five case study sites, • Descriptive analysis of individual responses
questionnaires were administered to staff (academic, to survey questions
research and administration) and students
(undergraduate, postgraduate and research). • Cross-tabulations between the background
A total of 150 staff and 500 students were targeted characteristics of each institution and the
across the buildings (30 staff and 100 students importance of individual factors on staff and
in each institution). student recruitment, retention and performance.

TABLE 2.1:
OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED
DETAILS
Key informant Interviews with key members of HE staff including lecturers, tutors,
interviews head of faculty/school, pro vice chancellors, state managers etc.
Focus groups Held with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students
Observations Research team spent time in each building noting interactions
that were taking place
Photographs and On completion of focus groups the research team was asked to take photographs
images of those aspects of the building which appealed most to its members. Plans of the
building were also examined

Table 2.2 provides an overview of the content of the

respective questionnaires. They were administered
by post to all institutions.

TABLE 2.2:
OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TOPIC
Staff • Profile information on the background of the respondent
• Reasons for choosing employment in the university
• Impact of building on respondents’ choice of employment
• Impact of building on current satisfaction and performance
• Quality improvements to building

Student • Profile information on the background of the respondent

• Reasons for choosing to study at the university
• Impact of building on respondents’ decision to choose to study
at the university
• Impact of building on current satisfaction and performance
• Quality improvements to building

3
It should be noted that, whilst most of the literature in this area
relates to school buildings, specific efforts were made to obtain
and review literature that focused upon higher education.
20 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Tables 2.3 and 2.4 provide profiles of the staff and

student respondents in terms of their background
characteristics at each of the buildings.

TABLE 2.3:
PROFILE OF STAFF RESPONDENTS
PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS HE 01 HE 02 HE 03 HE 04 HE 05 ALL HE
GENDER
Male 58% 61% 40% 42% 27% 48%
Female 42% 39% 60% 58% 73% 52%
AGE
Under 21-30 33% 5% 0% 25% 8% 16%
31-50 58% 64% 55% 58% 42% 57%
50+ 9% 31% 45% 17% 50% 27%
EMPLOYMENT
Full-time 96% 89% 82% 96% 92% 92%
Part-time 4% 11% 18% 4% 8% 8%
EMPLOYMENT TYPE
Academic 48% 78% 52% 52% 50% 57%
Research 26% 0% 11% 9% 0% 10%
Administration 26% 22% 37% 39% 50% 33%
YEAR IN INSTITUTION
1-2 58% 4% 16% 39% 8% 27%
3-5 34% 35% 21% 17% 0% 24%
5+ 8% 61% 63% 44% 92% 49%
Number of respondents 24 23 20 24 12 103

TABLE 2.4:
PROFILE OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS
PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS HE 01 HE 02 HE 03 HE 04 HE 05 ALL HE
GENDER
Male 31% 79% 38% 63% 69% 58%
Female 69% 21% 62% 37% 31% 42%
AGE
Under 21-30 64% 49% 0% 40% 43% 42%
31-50 29% 42% 73% 47% 53% 47%
50+ 7% 9% 27% 13% 4% 11%
EMPLOYMENT
Full-time 100% 100% 97% 93% 100% 98%
Part-time 0% 0% 3% 7% 0% 2%
EMPLOYMENT TYPE
Academic 96% 66% 0% 93% 81% 72%
Research 4% 33% 85% 6% 19% 25%
Administration 0% 1% 15% 1% 0% 3%
Number of respondents 59 68 40 68 52 287
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 21

Recruitment ‘the number of overseas

students wanting to attend
This section provides a summary of current
UK universities could triple
international literature on the impact of building to more than 870,000 by
design on recruitment. It also presents the
main findings of the issues surrounding the
2020. Whilst this could be
recruitment of both staff and students, taken from worth £13bn to the
the quantitative surveys with staff and students,
together with the qualitative focus groups with
UK economy, the British
students, and the interviews with staff. Council has warned of
competition from abroad,
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE including the US’
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel While UK universities have become increasingly
and Development (CIPD), recruitment difficulties concerned to maximise research income in the
in general will continue in the first quarter of 2005, past decade, conventional, government- and
as overall levels of employment continue to rise student-funded undergraduate teaching remains
([Link], 2005). Speaking in the a significant, and for many institutions still a
House of Lords, Diana Warwick, Chief Executive dominant, proportion of income (Price et al,
of Universities UK, stated that there are growing 2003). For this reason, it is crucial for universities
problems recruiting and retaining staff in UK to recruit students successfully.
universities. Furthermore, research by Universities
UK and its employers’ organisation (UKEA) showed Furthermore, a study commissioned by the
that one-fifth of all universities and higher education HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK in 2001 found
institutions were experiencing recruitment that universities throughout the UK were facing
difficulties (Universities UK, 5.02.2003). difficulties recruiting staff4. It discovered that pay
is the major underlying factor in the difficulties
Recruitment of students is also an important issue facing universities. The majority of research on
for higher education institutions worldwide. For recruitment has focused on students, rather
example, it has been stated that global competition than staff choices. For that reason, the following
between universities to attract international students discussion is confined to students. It appears from
is getting fiercer, with ‘big money at stake’ (Mike the literature that building design does not tend to
Baker, BBC News, 24.01.2005). And, according be the prime factor of influence when choosing a
to a report by the British Council, the number of university. But it is a significant variable.
overseas students wanting to attend UK universities
could triple to more than 870,000 by 2020. Whilst Research undertaken by the Institute of
this could be worth £13bn to the UK economy, the Employment Studies (Price et al, 2003) included
British Council has warned of competition from 20,000 students who applied to full-time
abroad, including the US (BBC News, 20.04.2004). undergraduate courses in universities throughout
the UK in 1998. They found that the course content
According to Smith (1998), ‘the primary goal was the most important factor influencing the
of recruitment programmes and activities is university chosen. Additionally, students stated
to influence the behaviour of prospective students, that cost was a significant factor in their choice of
their parents and significant others in the university location. Whilst they were often forced
college admission process.’ Commenting on the
importance of campus image in American
universities, Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001) state
that there has been a move to design, add to,
or renovate traditional student centres in order
to appeal to their ‘consumers’. 4
Recruitment and Retention of Staff in UK Higher Education, 2001
22 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

to consider a university closer to their parents’ ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING

home due to financial constraints, students cited
‘overall image of the university’ as having an
influence on their decision.

An ongoing UNITE/MORI study echoes these

mixed findings (MORI, 2001, 2002). The 2001
study found that ‘course’ was the first feature that
influenced this decision, while ‘location’ and ‘social
facilities in town/city’ comprised the second and
third most popular influence.

It appears, therefore, that while building design

does not tend to be the primary force driving
the recruitment process at universities, there
is evidence to show that it is a factor in the
decisions students make.

SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT

AFFECT RECRUITMENT

It is clear from the literature that the situation (or

location) of a higher education building is a critical to university as mature students. They analysed
one in terms of campus planning. For example, four different types of college throughout Scotland:
planning for the campus of the University of an ancient university; a post-1992 university;
California took over a decade. The team evaluated a college of further education; and a ‘Robbins’
more than 85 sites in the area (Lund and Kriken, university. By far the most commonly reported
2004). It appears that location is also an important motivation for choosing a given institution was its
issue for prospective students. A National Student geographical location – being close to where the
Outlook (NSO) study in 2003 found that, of the students live or work. This factor was rated as one
2000 responses obtained from students at five of the five most important reasons for institutional
locations, three factors had a significant role in choice by 87 per cent of respondents. Female
the students final selection of a college – the students cited it more often than males.
academics available there, the location of the
college, and the college’s reputation.
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES
THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT
‘where universities The second category of features that may influence
possessed a particularly recruitment to universities relates to structural
distinctive campus (and/or and functional issues. These refer to the physical,
architectural design of the university buildings and
location), the survey results the extent to which the design is fit for purpose.
clearly indicated that this Research conducted by Price et al (2003) focused
was a marketing lever’ upon the importance of facilities management in
the success of universities’ recruitment campaigns.
They found that availability of desired course was
Other studies substantiate the notion that the universally rated as the most important recruiting
situational aspect of a college is important when factor in every institution examined. Notably
recruiting students. Osborne et al (2001) examined though, where universities possessed a particularly
the motivations behind those who choose to return distinctive campus (and/or location), the survey
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 23

results clearly indicated that this was a marketing OVERALL INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS
lever. They found that issues such as computer ON RECRUITMENT
outlets in accommodation and the availability
of quality computers were important issues for In most of the case study sites, staff agreed
prospective students, alongside concerns with that the buildings had produced a good initial
library facilities and the availability of quiet areas for impression on potential employees. With regard to
study. Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001), commenting the recruitment of students, it was generally noted
on the importance of campus image in American that the quality of the buildings stood out amongst
universities, noted that there had been a move competing universities, and in some cases, there
to design, add to, or renovate traditional student was anecdotal evidence to suggest that students
centres in order to appeal to their consumers. had turned down ‘renowned’ buildings due to poor
facilities and accommodation.

COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ‘...when I came down it was the summer
THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT and this building was stunning–
walking around – it was great!’ (student)
Cosmetic features such as colours and furniture,
and environmental features, such as heating,
lighting and sound are often evident when students ‘... we invite all of our potential students to come
visit universities for the first time, and can make an for open days ...it is quite an open space and
immediate impression. Price et al (2003) also found so it’s not made up of lots of cellular spaces.
that cleanliness of the accommodation So, straight away you can see what is going on and
was important to a number of students, and it is quite transparent... it has a very positive effect.’
the availability of quiet areas for study was also (member of staff)
ranked as being an important factor. In general,
Price et al (2003) found that higher quality
environments did seem to have an impact, and they ‘...I came for the interview and was very
noted that this may lead to problems of expectation impressed by the building... the first time
if impressions gained during recruitment are not you see it, it is impressive!’ (student)
matched by subsequent reality.

‘I saw the terraces and the computers in

the brochure and I have lived in [the location]
all my life. I knew the university was here, but
DID YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A STAFF (no.75) I did not know just how spectacular it was
‘WOW FACTOR’ ON YOUR FIRST VISIT? STUDENTS (no.284) until I got here. I didn’t know that it was going
100
to be an up-to-date university.’ (student)
90
80
70 ‘I was really shocked how new everything
60 was. I made my decision there and then
50 that I wanted to come here...’ (student)
40
30
20 ‘...the place sells itself; I don’t have to do
10 any selling.’ (member of staff)
%
YES NO Figure 3.1 illustrates most staff and students
surveyed indicated a ‘wow factor’ was evident
TABLE 3.1:
on their first visit to their building. The comments
‘WOW FACTOR’
above illustrate the positive impact of the ‘wow
factor’ upon staff and students at various buildings.
24 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

On closer examination of the results, it was found Their collective responses are
that there were some variations between the views illustrated below
of staff and students within some of the case study
sites, as detailed in Table 3.1. For example, in one
institution, whilst 87 per cent of staff indicated that, DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING STAFF (no.75)
in their view, the building had the ‘wow factor’, DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON STUDENTS (no.284)
only 38 per cent of students shared this view. One YOUR DECISION TO WORK /STUDY HERE?

explanation for the lower positive responses from 100

students might be because this building did not 90
have all of its sports facilities on site. Moreover, 80
during the focus groups with students at this 70
institution, it was noted that, during the open 60
days, the building was not completed. 50
40
Conversely, in another institution, 81 per cent of 30
students thought that the building in question had 20
the ‘wow factor’, whereas this was the view of only 10
55 per cent of staff. One possible reason for this %
might be the dissatisfaction expressed by some YES NO
staff with regard to their office space. Moreover,
FIGURE 3.2:
some staff felt that the building might exert a more
THE IMPACT OF QUALITY OF BUILDING DESIGN
positive influence upon younger
teaching professionals.

TABLE 3.1:
DO YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A WOW FACTOR ON YOUR FIRST VISIT?
CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 94 STAFF 283 STUDENTS
YES NO YES NO
Institution 1 57% 43% 36% 64%
Institution 2 86% 14% 71% 29%
Institution 3 56% 44% 58% 42%
Institution 4 87% 13% 38% 62%
Institution 5 55% 45% 81% 19%
Total 70% 30% 56% 44%

There was consensus among staff across all of From these responses, it can be seen that the
the case study sites that the buildings had been majority of students (63 per cent) indicated that the
used extensively in marketing materials and there quality of the building design had a positive impact
was a common view that the buildings had added on their decision to study at the university. This was
value. Staff and students were asked to indicate also the case for 61 per cent of staff.
if the overall quality of the buildings had had a
positive impact on their decision to work,
or study, at their chosen university.
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 25

The following comments illustrate the ways in ‘I went to an open day at another university and
which the buildings had a positive effect on the to compare this – it was a brand new building and
recruitment of staff and students. everything was clean and tidy... It was clean and
modern and new and that has a definite impact.
I went to [another institution] on an open day
‘My view is that whenever we bring someone to and... it was grotty, dirty and dark.’
this building, they are pretty gob-smacked when (student)
you show them around and it is a real plus for
visitors... and then once people come here and
word of mouth gets back and they go back and tell The results show that the majority of students
their friends to come... the numbers are growing...’ surveyed (75 per cent) in one institution
(member of staff) indicated that the quality of the building design
had not had a positive impact on their decision
to study at the university. It should be noted,
‘...but there is something about watching however, that the building in question was
people’s reaction to it when we are recruiting used for research purposes, and the respondents
staff, when we are trying to impress people... were largely undergraduate students who
when we are wanting to say this is a very were, therefore, unfamiliar with the building.
high quality organisation - the building
helps us to say that.’ Similarly, over half of the staff surveyed at
(member of staff) one institution indicated that the buildings
had not had a positive impact on their decision
to work there.

TABLE 3.2:
DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK / STUDY HERE?
CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 75 STAFF 284 STUDENTS
YES NO YES NO
Institution 1 67% 33% 25% 75%
Institution 2 52% 48% 61% 39%
Institution 3 47% 53% 75% 25%
Institution 4 62% 39% 80% 20%
Institution 5 100% 0% 79% 21%
Total 60% 40% 63% 37%

Conversely, 75 per cent of students at the same

institution stated that the building had a positive
effect on their decision to study there.

Table 3.2 above details the responses of staff

and students within each of the five case
study sites.
26 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS ON

RECRUITMENT OF STAFF RECRUITMENT OF STUDENTS

Recruitment of good quality staff is an ongoing It is important that higher education buildings are
concern for most employers. In a report produced designed to suit the diverse needs of their users,
by IRS Research (Recruitment and Retention of and these needs may vary according to age.
Academic Staff in UK Education, 2001), it was When the survey results were analysed by the
noted that there are recruitment difficulties for students’ age, it was found that the quality of the
both academic and support staff in UK Higher buildings had least impact on the recruitment of
Education institutions and that these have students aged over 30, with 50 per cent of these
continued to get worse, year-on-year, since 1998. respondents indicating this to be the case,
as illustrated in Figure 3.4.
When the staff responses to the questionnaires
were analysed by employment type, it was found
that the quality of the buildings had the most DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN YES
positive impact upon the recruitment of academic HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO NO
staff, as illustrated in Figure 3.3. STUDY HERE?

100

DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN YES 90

HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO NO 80
WORK HERE?
70
100 60
90 50
80 40
70 30
60 20
50 10
40 %
30 UNDER 21 21-30 31+

20
FIGURE 3.4:
10
QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282)
%
ACADEMIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

FIGURE 3.3:
QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 74)

The following comment from a member of the

academic staff in one institution illustrates the
importance some employers place upon the
buildings in terms of recruitment of appropriate
research staff.

‘I think the building does now play a big part in our

recruitment process... it was very difficult when
we had major recruitment exercises... you could
see people coming through the door thinking, ‘you
are a world-class research operation and the paint
is peeling off’. It looks shabby and you can see
them having a bit of a struggle. Now people come
through the door and go, ‘Oh yes!’. You can see
JUBILEE CAMPUS,
them thinking more positively... because they have UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
come to the new building.’
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 27

EFFECT OF BUILDINGS UPON RECRUITMENT It should be noted that this was an

OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUDENTS open-ended question.

The impact of buildings may also vary in The specific features identified by staff and
accordance with the specific academic students as having an influence over their choice
requirements of different types of students. of study and work environment were placed within
Figure 3.5 illustrates that, whilst the quality of one of three categories:
buildings had impacted positively upon a high
percentage of each category of student (i.e. • Structural and functional features
undergraduate, postgraduate and research), they
had generally impacted most positively upon the • Cosmetic and environmental features
recruitment of postgraduate students, with over 70
per cent of respondents indicating this to be so. • Situational features.

Figure 3.6 illustrates their responses. It is

interesting to note that the responses of staff
DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN YES
HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO NO and students were broadly similar in terms of the
STUDY HERE? features identified. In general, situational features
100 appeared to be less influential for both staff and
90 students. However, this may have been because
80 the questionnaire was primarily concerned with
70 issues specific to the features of buildings, as
60 opposed to their location. Students placed slightly
50 more importance upon structural and functional
40 features in terms of influence, whereas for staff,
30 cosmetic and environmental features of buildings
20 were slightly more influential in terms of their
10 decision to work in a particular institution.
%
UNDERGRADUATE POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH

CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE THREE MAIN FACTORS THAT YES

FIGURE 3.5:
INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO WORK HERE? NO
QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282)

60
50
ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT 40
INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT 30
20
According to Fleming and Storr (1999), university 10
facilities can be an essential component of %
attracting key research personnel, provide STRUCTURAL & SITUATIONAL COSMETIC &
FUNCTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
environments for faster knowledge, and influence
student perceptions of their academic experience
FIGURE 3.6:
(Fleming and Storr, 1999, cited by Price et
QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282)
al, 2003).

In an effort to explore more specifically in what

ways particular features of buildings might
influence individuals in their choice of university,
survey respondents were asked to identify the
characteristics of the building that had made an
immediate impression, and that had ultimately
affected their decision to work or study there.
28 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

STAFF – ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS THAT During the interviews, some staff stated that,
INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT for them, the buildings were not an important
factor when making a decision to work at a
From the figure above, it can be seen that 51 per particular institution:
cent of the features identified as being influential
in recruiting staff could be classified as cosmetic
and environmental. These included cleanliness, ‘I was in another faculty before, and there
a feeling of space, having a well-lit foyer and were five reasons why I joined - nothing to
reception area, a minimalist appearance, or light do with the building. (It was the) climate
and bright working areas. and promotion... and they had clinical
facilities that I wanted in the department.’
In addition, 40 per cent of the features identified
by staff as potentially influencing their choice
of university could be classified as structural or ‘I think the buildings help, but it is less of a
functional. These included lecturing and teaching factor than maybe you would like me to say.’
rooms, automatic doors, computer terraces, internal
layout and design, whether or not the building was
aesthetically pleasing, and the overall shape and In addition, some staff identified features that
structure of the building. might have a negative influence on their choice of
employment. These included a bad use of space,
The remaining nine per cent of the features noisy buildings, and buildings that look unattractive.
identified by staff were classified as situational.
These related to the proximity of the building to
the city centre, and the proximity to other major
university buildings, as well as accessibility to main
transport routes and links. The following comments
from staff further illustrate the importance placed
upon specific features of buildings when people
are choosing a place of employment.

‘...from the admin side, when we

actually employ new people, and we have
interviews... everyone says they want to come
here and work – architecturally.... when they
come for open days, we are told they are very
pleasantly surprised by what they see and the
facilities... they are obviously going round different
institutions, comparing what is on offer.’

‘I’m sure the building impacts upon

staff recruitment because there is a good
feeling and the space is good. It has
an invigorating feeling to work here.’

‘For me, the location... (of my last job) was

more convenient. It had a big impact on my
choice of employment. Now the location is more
inconvenient for me, but the environment is nicer.’

ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING

 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 29

STUDENTS – ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS

THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT

From the same figure on page 27 (Fig 3.6), it can

be seen that 52 per cent of the features identified
by students could be classified as structural or
functional. These included the size and layout of
the building, the open plan and modern design,
the choice of materials used, and the quality of the
facilities, e.g. terraces, library, sports centre, atrium,
café and lecture rooms.

Forty per cent of the features identified by students

were cosmetic and environmental. These included
being environmentally-friendly, having a welcoming
atmosphere, the water features, e.g. fountains, and
having a light and airy working environment.

A small percentage (four per cent) of the features

identified by students could be classified as
situational. These included being easily accessible,
and having a good transport link. Students that
participated in the focus groups also identified
features of the buildings that had influenced their
decision to come to the university.

‘I think you look out and see modern ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING
buildings and you think it is a new building,
loads of new facilities, and that is the first
thing that came to my head. You saw the
design of the building and the shape. You
knew it was brand new by looking at it
and then you thought – and I know I did –
“we are going to have up-to-date computers”, However, some students expressed
which in some cases they did.’ disappointment with some of the features.

‘I changed my view about the library –

‘Personally, when looking at universities, I loved it when I first came here but now there
this one had the best facilities and in is nowhere to work. No study area, and now there
particular the new building shows that they are are two desks between bookshelves, and,
spending money. The fact that everything is because people are walking round they could do
in one building had a big influence on with a silent floor. There is nowhere to work
what university I chose.’ in it, which irritates me...’

‘...the building did not improve the

How the building looks, it would make you canteen or library.’
want to come – I like to come here early and
wait and get a car park space – it is comfy,
no cold atmosphere – it is inviting...’
30 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Retention
This section provides a summary of likely to improve productivity and staff retention,
international literature on the impact of building and reduce sick leave.
design on retention. It also presents the main
findings of the issues surrounding the retention After the expansion of the higher education sector
of both staff and students taken from the in the early 1990s, anecdotal evidence suggested
quantitative surveys with staff and students, that an increasing number of undergraduates were
together with the qualitative focus groups with not completing their courses. In 1996, HEFCE
students, and the interviews with staff5. commissioned two teams to provide more
robust research into why this was happening.
The research found that non-completion rates
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE were between four to five per cent per year.
However, by 1997, more research commissioned
The retention of both staff and students is an by HEFCE suggested that these figures may,
important issue for all higher education institutions. in fact, be as high as eight to 10 per cent
Retention from the students’ perspective can (HEFCE, 1997).
be defined as ‘the maintenance of students’
satisfactory progress toward their educational The literature in relation to the impact of higher
objectives until the objectives are attained’ education buildings upon retention is discussed,
(Dollence, 1998. Issues regarding student retention as previously, under identified headings.
have been receiving increasing attention in recent
years. Research by Mantz Yorke of Liverpool’s John
Moores University identified eight possible factors SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT
that can influence a student to withdraw. Notably, INFLUENCE RETENTION
two of the eight relate to the location and the
facilities of their institution (Yorke, 1998, cited by Research has found location to be a significant
Scottish Centre for Research in Education, 2001). factor in students’ decisions not to complete
university courses. Research undertaken by
Yorke on behalf of HEFCE (1997) examined
‘a more pleasant and healthy undergraduate non-completion in England.

internal environment is more The report identified 36 possible influences on

likely to improve productivity the decision to withdraw, which were clustered
down to eight possible factors. ‘Unhappiness
and staff retention, and with the locality of the institution’ was cited as
reduce sick leave’ the second of these possible factors influencing
the decision to leave.

Retention of staff is also an issue for employers STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL

in higher education institutions. In a study by FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION
Gullickson and Tressler (2001) they suggest,
amongst other things, that a more pleasant As was found with recruitment, the literature in
and healthy internal environment is more the area of retention is mixed. Some research
indicates that the structural layout of buildings has
little impact on users’ decisions to stay on in the
5
It is important to state that the majority of the findings presented environment, while other literature suggests that
here relate to the level of satisfaction with the building. For the the structural design of a building may directly
purposes of this study, a link has therefore been made between
influence users’ wellbeing and subsequently result
the level of satisfaction of staff and students with the buildings
and their likelihood to remain at the institution. in either retention or ‘exit’.
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 31

For example, research reviewed in a report by OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE OF

the SCRE Centre found that course content and UNIVERSITY AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS
personal or financial reasons are the dominant
explanations for students leave a course without In the surveys conducted with staff and students,
completing it6. Similarly, in the study which Yorke respondents were asked to indicate if they were
undertook for HEFCE (1997), mentioned above, satisfied with their choice of university or with their
Yorke concluded that dissatisfaction with aspects of place of employment and, as Figure 4.1 illustrates,
institutional provision was ‘of minimal importance’ the vast majority of staff and students stated that
to an individual’s decision to withdraw from higher they were satisfied with both.
education. He found that issues that were more
significant included disenchantment with the
course content, financial difficulties, family or ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE STAFF (no.96)
work commitments, or university life in general. OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT? STUDENTS (no.207)

100
COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 90
THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION 80
70
Again, the literature here is limited in relation to 60
higher education buildings. However, Kennedy 50
(2002), whilst focusing upon schools, argued that 40
cosmetic quality contributes to overall quality. 30
20
Griffin (1990) introduced person-environment 10
interaction theory, which investigates the impact %
of a variety of physical attributes upon people’s YES NO
behaviour. Whilst Griffin’s work was confined to the
FIGURE 4.1:
classroom, he found that a number of significant
SATISFACTION
physical environmental factors affect human
behaviour. Griffin argued that spatial arrangements
and physical design were significant factors. He
found that, in general, less crowded spaces which
offer each person more room produced less stress. When these results were analysed by institution,
He also found that colour tended to impact upon there was a consistently high level of satisfaction
people’s behaviour. In particular, pleasure has been across each of the buildings, as illustrated in
found to be heightened by brightness (especially Table 4.1, below.
warm colours).

TABLE 4.1:
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT?
CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 96 STAFF 207 STUDENTS
YES NO YES NO
Institution 1 96% 4% 93% 7%
Institution 2 74% 26% 97% 3%
Institution 3 100% 0% 100% 0%
Institution 4 100% 0% 95% 5%
Institution 5 90% 10% 96% 4%
Total 92% 8% 96% 4%

6
See [Link]/scot-resarch/wastage/[Link]
32 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Staff and students were also asked to indicate Interviews with staff within these buildings
if, in their view, the building was generally well uncovered some possible reasons for
designed. Figure 4.2 below illustrates that almost these responses.
90 per cent of students indicated that they felt
it was, and just over 70 per cent of staff also
thought this to be the case.
‘...my feeling is that I work better here than
where I was before because the environment
is much pleasanter, polite and it is a pleasant
IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED STAFF (no.101)
environment to be in... But there are two sides
AS BEING WELL DESIGNED? STUDENTS (no.282) to that. Within the corridors, there is much more
interaction than there used to be, but across the
100 whole building it has become divisive.’
90
80
70 ‘...the constant fight and fighting all the time,
60 the constant day-to-day management having to
50 deal with too little space for people it is a constant
40 struggle. But the irony is, with very minor things
30 being done - most of them are on the management
20 side - this building would be a dream...’
10
%
YES NO

FIGURE 4.2:
REGARDED AS WELL DESIGNED

TABLE 4.2:
IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED AS BEING WELL DESIGNED?
CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 101 STAFF 282 STUDENTS
YES NO YES NO
Institution 1 96% 4% 97% 3%
Institution 2 65% 35% 92% 8%
Institution 3 47% 53% 74% 26%
Institution 4 82% 18% 85% 15%
Institution 5 50% 50% 93% 7%
Total 71% 29% 96% 4%

Table 4.2 above details the variations across the The above comments from staff illustrate that
case study sites. From this table it can be seen there are a set of related factors governing the
that whilst students consistently indicated that their impact that buildings have upon mediating the
buildings were well designed, in two of the buildings relationships between people. In this respect,
surveyed, a lower percentage of staff (47 per cent some staff made positive comments about
and 50 per cent) indicated this to be the case. the buildings.
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 33

ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE THE FEELINGS

AND BEHAVIOUR OF STAFF AND STUDENTS

‘I like the joined-up-ness of the buildings. In a review of the literature by Griffin (1990) which
We are all part of a diverse group, and investigated the impact of a variety of physical
the unity of the campus suits our purpose. attributes upon people’s behaviour, it was found
The university is bigger than all of us, and that spatial arrangements/physical design are
we are happy to show and express that.’ significant in terms of their effect upon human
behaviour. For example, Griffin found that less
crowded spaces, which offer each person more
room, produce less stress.

Staff and students were asked to choose from a

range of building characteristics to uncover those
that influenced the way they feel and behave. The
way people feel and behave is an indicator of their
overall level of happiness, which will undoubtedly
influence their decision to remain at an institution.

TABLE 4.3A:
FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION
CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE STAFF % POSITIVE
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL Function/Facilities 76%
Office and work space 70%
Size/proportion/openness 60%
Lighting 58%
Stimulating character 55%
Accessibility/entrance 53%
Materials 52%
Teaching rooms 52%
Flexible spaces 49%
Research facilities 37%
Acoustics 31%
All features 54%
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL Decoration/Furnishings 64%
WOW factor 62%
Health/Safety/Security 58%
Staff rooms 49%
Air quality/Ventilation 32%
Heating/Cooling 25%
All features 48%
SITUATIONAL External views 61%
External surroundings 60%
All features 60%
34 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Tables 4.3a and 4.3b illustrate the extent to which ‘We have plenty of options with sizes of
the feelings and behaviour of staff and students rooms... possibilities of extending, shortening
were positively influenced by specific structural rooms. So there is that sort of thing
and functional, cosmetic and environmental in the design, and we are very fortunate.’
and situational characteristics of the buildings
they frequented in the course of their
day-to-day activities.

In order to identify which of the categories of

features most influenced the retention of staff and
students, the total percentage of very positive/
positive responses was calculated for each
feature, as presented in these tables.

TABLE 4.3B:
FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION
CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE STUDENT % POSITIVE
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL Function/Facilities 71%
Teaching Rooms 66%
Size/proportion/openness 66%
Lighting 61%
Stimulating character 59%
Research facilities 58%
Flexible spaces 56%
Accessibility/entrance 53%
Acoustics 43%
Materials 52%
Office and work space N/A
All features 60%
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL Decoration/Furnishings 60%
Air quality/Ventilation 54%
Heating/Cooling 54%
WOW factor 54%
Health/Safety/Security 46%
Staff rooms N/A
All features 54%
SITUATIONAL External surroundings 53%
External views 53%
All features 52%
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 35

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES

Analysis of Table 4.3A and Table 4.3B reveals that ‘I agree with what people are saying. It is a lovely
the functions and facilities of the buildings had the place... and it is quiet... The downside being open
most positive impact upon how both staff (76 per plan - it is noisy and there is nowhere to sit and
cent) and students (71 per cent) feel and behave. read... main desks have a computer, but where do
Staff also indicated that the office and workspace you just sit and read?’
(70 per cent) and the size, proportion, and
openness of the building were positive contributing
factors to how they feel and behave whilst at
work. This view was shared by around two-thirds
of students, who also indicated that the teaching COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
rooms had a positive influence on their feelings
and behaviour.

During the interviews and focus groups, staff and

‘The buildings’ ‘wow factor’
students were given the opportunity to highlight was nominated by 62 per
specific problems with the structural features of
their building. Some of these comments were
cent of staff as having a
positive, others negative, as illustrated below. positive impact on the way
‘South-facing glass panels make working in
they feel and behave’
the offices in the summer impossible.’

A majority of staff (64 per cent) and students

‘The acoustics of the place - you can make (60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic factors
one noise and it carries over. Even the teaching that most influenced the way they feel and behave
rooms on level 2 - they have halls on top. were the decoration, furnishings and furniture
As you pass, you can hear what each within the building. In terms of environmental
individual lecturer is saying. So it coincides features, it was interesting to note that a relatively
and affects people’s concentrations.’ small percentage of staff identified these features
as having a positive impact upon their feelings and
behaviour: heating and cooling was indicated by
‘For people who don’t know the building, 25 per cent of staff, and air quality and ventilation
it is constantly difficult to find their way around. by 32 per cent of staff. However, conversely, 54
It is difficult to access the building and to find per cent of students indicated that these same
the staircase, as well as the toilets.’ environmental features had a positive impact on
their feelings and behaviour. The buildings’
‘wow factor’ was nominated by 62 per cent of
‘There was an initial concept/solution for unisex staff as having a positive impact on the way they
toilets which was not going to work. So they were feel and behave, and this view was shared by 54
relocated and are now on different floors.’ per cent of students.

‘It all looks very nice on the outside. What I do

not like is the stairs. People are coming out of
one lecture and, while people are waiting to go in,
they are queuing on the outside and they have to
wait. One day, someone is going to have a terrible
accident. And the second thing that they did not
think about is that they are professionals and they
can hear everything that is happening next door
– one to one – it is really off-putting.’
36 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

The following comments illustrate the positive SITUATIONAL FEATURES

and negative influences staff attributed to the
cosmetic or environmental features of the buildings. While students generally did not feel that the
They also highlight some suggestions of areas situational features of the building had a positive/
for improvement. very positive impact on how they feel and behave,
around three-fifths of staff indicated that both the
external views (61 per cent) and surroundings (60
per cent) played an important, positive role in how
they felt and behaved during their working day.
‘It is a very nice working environment, even on a
grey day, and the fact that it has light space and
that you can come into this space is quite uplifting.
So coming to work is an experience... it does have
an effect on people wanting to stay, whether it
‘overall, for 60 per cent of
is a student or a member of staff. If you have a staff, situational features
nice working environment, it makes a difference.’
(member of staff)
exerted the most positive
influence in terms of their
‘In relation to the temperature, the heating
is not the best. There are sometimes
feelings and behaviour on a
real temperature extremes, which cause real day-to-day basis’
discomfort, especially in hot summers.’
(student)

‘The ventilation doesn’t work well. Windows An examination of the categories in the table
can be either closed or wide open. It is above and the features within them, reveals that,
sometimes difficult to work here.’ overall, for 60 per cent of staff, situational features
(member of staff) exerted the most positive influence in terms of
their feelings and behaviour on a day-to-day basis.
‘Acoustics is another issue. It allows no For 60 per cent of students, meanwhile, it was the
privacy and is disruptive for concentration work.’ structural and functional features of the buildings
(member of staff) that had the most positive impact upon how they
feel and behave.
‘Noise and smell is difficult.’
(member of staff)
GENERAL VIEWS ON BEING ‘IN’ THE BUILDINGS
‘Generally, there is a noise problem in the
building as well as a circulation problem.’ During the interviews and focus groups with
(staff) staff and students, they were given the opportunity
to give their overall views on the quality of the
‘Heating in the building - they use a sensor buildings. The following comments illustrate
reader in big areas and they put all the sensors the range of views expressed.
in strange places. So it is freezing in the building.’
(student)
‘I lived on the old campus for two years... I think
‘As impressive as the terraces are, they are this is a beautiful campus. It has a style to it.
a waste of space – they are covered with I found the other campus small... this library to
computers and there is everything above it and me is so much better, more beautiful, and more
nothing below it. You could have expanded the pleasant to work in, in terms of the lighting and
floors and you would have had loads and loads of warmth. In the other one, there was always a cold
space. It would appeal to students.’ breeze... and now it is lovely. It has a different feel.’
(student) (student)
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 37

‘It appears that the issue of space is not a ‘This feels like a place of education. In my opinion,
problem in this building. They share it with other this is what it should look like - professional, a
departments, with community groups, and with bit like a school, narrow corridors, big rooms and
members of the community. The building you feel grown up to come here – all day.’
seems to facilitate this shared space, which is (student)
perhaps key to architecture.’
(member of staff)
....personally, I would like to see a gym onsite and it
is really lacking a swimming pool – a gym I cannot
‘It is a pleasant building and I enjoy working see as expensive... it definitely would benefit.’
in it, with reservations about a few things, (student)
and I think it is an adaptable building.’
(member of staff)

‘This building was never built with

educational purposes in mind. It is too open-plan.
It does not work as an educational building.’
(member of staff)
38 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Performance
This section provides a summary of international STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL
literature on the impact of building design on FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE
performance. It also presents the main findings of
the issues surrounding the performance of both Several studies have examined the influence that
staff and students taken from quantitative surveys open-space classrooms have on teacher and
with them, together with the qualitative focus student attitudes. Lewis (1976) looked at this
groups with students, and the interviews relationship and found that teachers housed in
with staff. open-space classrooms showed attitudes that are
more positive. Similarly, Jones (1974) found that
teachers’ attitudes towards their students in open-
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE space classrooms improved significantly. Mills
(1972) also concluded that teachers in open-space
Despite a wide review of literature, searching areas exhibited behaviours that allowed greater
for the impact of buildings on organisational pupil freedom and self-direction7.
performance, not a great deal of information
was uncovered. However, the literature that Ikpa (1992) found a significant negative
was unearthed in relation to performance is relationship between the age of school buildings
discussed within the three identified categories. and achievement. The data gathered indicated that,
It should be noted that most of the literature is as the age of the school building increased, the
taken from research conducted in schools rather achievement test scores tended to decrease.
in universities. However, the findings bear clear
relevance to this study.
COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE
SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT
AFFECT PERFORMANCE The discussion here is limited to the impact of
environmental features. According to Lackney
The relationship between educational performance (2003), thermal comfort has been shown to
and situational factors is under-researched. influence task performance, attention spans and
According to Lackney (1998), embracing the levels of discomfort. He cites a range of research
concept of ‘place’ and ‘place-making’ is critical to that supports these claims (Berglund & Lindvall,
understanding the way in which design principles 1986; Cohen, et al, 1986; McGuffey 1982).
for optimal learning environments are intended Lackney notes that achieving good indoor air quality
to be approached. Lackney suggests that design is as essential as providing comfortable, healthy
must be approached in a holistic, systemic way, thermal conditions and functional, aesthetically-
comprising not only the physical setting, but sound lighting and acoustic environments. He
also the social, organisational, pedagogical, and notes that strategies for improving indoor air quality
emotional environments that are integral to the include increasing the levels of fresh air intake
experience of place. All of these are necessary and increased ventilation rates in buildings. These
if optimal learning environments are to preventive design measures cost very little and save
be created. energy, as well as providing a healthier environment
for learners.

Griffin (1990) found that visual factors such

as natural light and use of shade can affect an
individual’s behaviour. It was found that white light
7
The above information was found in the University of Georgia’s increased activity while too much light could be
School Facilities Planning webpage: [Link] detrimental to activity.
sdpl/researchabstracts/[Link]
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 39

EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON PERFORMANCE When the results were analysed by age, it was
found that there was little difference in the
Staff and students were asked to indicate if responses of students across a range of age
the buildings had a positive impact on their categories, as Figure 5.3, below, illustrates.
performance. Figure 5.1 illustrates that 80
per cent of staff believed that they did. For
students, this was the case for almost 50 DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT YES
per cent of those surveyed. ON PERFORMANCE? NO

100

DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT STAFF (no.100) 90

ON PERFORMANCE? STUDENTS (no.278) 80
70
100 60
90 50
80 40
70 30
60 20
50 10
40 %
30 UNDER 21 21-30 31+

20
FIGURE 5.3:
10
QUESTION TO DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS (no. 282)
%
YES NO

FIGURE 5.1:
In general, students who indicated that the building
PERCEIVED IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE
had an influence upon their performance stated
that the buildings had contributed in three main
ways. First, they helped to motivate students in their
It was found that buildings had the least impact work. Second, they facilitated inspiration amongst
upon the performance of undergraduate (49 per students, and finally they provided key facilities
cent) and postgraduate (53 per cent) students critical to the course content.
surveyed, and the most impact upon respondents
that were research students (83 per cent).
‘...if it was a normal, standard office or lecture
DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT YES
room, you would not speak to many people... it is
ON PERFORMANCE? NO that sort of informal interaction that enables you to
experience... that is an important part of education.’
100
90 ‘...you feel obliged to put that little bit more
80 effort in. If you were coming to an old, grey
70 building every day...’
60
50
‘buildings helped to
motivate students in their
40
30
20
work, facilitated inspiration
amongst students, and
10
%
UNDERGRADUATE POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH
provided key facilities critical
FIGURE 5.2:
to the course content’
QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282)
40 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

‘...yes, as a first year who does not use this building Table 5.1 illustrates that there were some variations
a lot, it is something that you can aspire to... you between student and staff views in the case study
look at this building and think ‘whoa!’ It is a goal sites. For example, 80 per cent of staff in one
that you set yourself to be in here.’ institution indicated that the building affected their
performance, whereas this was only the case for
14 per cent of students in the same institution.
The results from the staff questionnaires were The qualitative research uncovered that the
analysed by the nature of their employments, and building in question was largely used for research
Figure 5.4 below illustrates that the buildings had purposes. Moreover, whilst overall, 50 per cent of
least impact upon administration staff. However, students indicated that the buildings affect their
this figure was still high at 70 per cent. Similar to performance, in one institution this figure rose to
the student responses, the buildings had most 71 per cent - there was a high level of satisfaction
influence on the performance of research staff with the building within this institution generally
(90 per cent). amongst both staff and students.

The following comments from the interviews

highlight the ways in which staff believed the
DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT YES
buildings improved their performance, and
ON PERFORMANCE? NO identify some concerns.

100
A
90
80 ‘...I don’t think there is any doubt that it has an
70 impact on me. It is at the risk of talking about it in a
60 very general way. There is no question at all that the
50 building is an extremely pleasant place to come to.
40 It is a good working environment. And I think it is a
30 happy working environment.’
20
10
% ‘...there are positive and negative parts. Positive
ACADEMIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION side... good community for discussing ideas in the
pods... the large room with research students in
FIGURE 5.4:
it... it is a good environment for research students...
QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 97)
and mixing with academic staff – that is the
positive. Negative side, the staff would say... can’t
get my head down and do serious work.’

TABLE 5.1:
DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE?
CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 100 STAFF 207 STUDENTS
YES NO YES NO
Institution 1 80% 20% 14% 86%
Institution 2 91% 9% 58% 42%
Institution 3 84% 16% 55% 45%
Institution 4 67% 33% 56% 44%
Institution 5 82% 18% 71% 29%
Total 80% 20% 50% 50%
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 41

‘...this building does what the previous building As one respondent illustrated, in terms of having
didn’t – it gives us opportunities to learn through a positive impact on performance, it is important
the building. For example, if I teach perspective, that the design features of buildings encourage
I get perspective use of this space. The light comes and facilitate the casual meeting of individuals
through in a particular way and you can teach to enable collaboration to take place.
without a shadow... we can talk to a student about
certain types of material and how the materials go
together – and they can physically see it.’ ‘...I would not say it makes a vast difference.
The building is nice to be in... and I am sure
we all work a little bit better in a building that
‘staff and students were seems smart and organised and has all the right
sorts of facilities, but in general I have worked in all
of the opinion that whilst different facilities and I do not feel my work is less
other factors, undoubtedly, productive here or more productive if I was in a
less attractive building.’
had an impact upon their
performance as employees
and students, the buildings
and associated facilities
were also a significant factor’
42 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT An examination of the academic issues that were

INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE most important in positively impacting upon staff
and students’ current performance revealed that,
In an attempt to uncover the extent to which staff in the case of staff, attitude, motivation and interest
and students were influenced by the features in type of work (94%), as well as the quality of
and functions of the buildings, as opposed to fellow staff (89%) and support staff (79%) were the
other considerations, they were asked to indicate most positive features. For students, the amount
how much their performance was influenced by and level of learning (87%) proved to be the most
a range of issues within the following categories significant positive feature that influenced their
– academic, social and facilities. performance, while the teaching quality (83%) and
course material (82%) also proved to be highly
In order to identify which of the categories of significant features.
features most influenced the performance of staff
and students, the total percentage of very positive/ In the case of staff, the locality of the university
positive responses was calculated for each feature, (69%) was cited as the main positive social feature
as presented in Tables 5.2a and 5.2b. that had an impact on their performance.

TABLE 5.2A:
FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STAFF PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY FEATURE STAFF % POSITIVE
ACADEMIC Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work/study 94%
Quality of fellow staff 89%
Quality of support staff 79%
Amount and level of working/learning 61%
Research quality of the department 58%
Quality of taught students 55%
Quality of research students 54%
University and departmental policies and governance 52%
Ability to attract external funding 46%
Course material N/A
Level of admin support N/A
My preparedness for university education N/A
Teaching quality N/A
All features 65%
SOCIAL Location factors 69%
Inclusion, involvement, participation 52%
Interaction, community, relationships 53%
Town 41%
Financial reward/matters 46%
Social facilities 33%
All features 49%
FACILITIES Support of facilities 75%
Quality of office 73%
Campus 64%
Teaching facilities 61%
Research facilities 50%
Learning facilities N/A
All features 65%
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 43

For students, the town in which the university within the buildings had an equally positive impact
was in or was near to (63%), as well as the level upon their current performance. In the case of
of inclusion, involvement and participation (61%) students, they indicated that the facilities (72%)
were the main social features in this regard. on offer within the buildings had most impact upon
their performance. Social factors also had impact
In terms of the buildings’ facilities that positively upon the performance of 49% of staff and 56%
influenced performance, staff indicated the support of students. These included where the institution
facilities (75%) and the quality of the office (73%) was situated and issues around the involvement
had the most significant influence. For students, and participation within the institution.
meanwhile, it was, unsurprisingly, the teaching
facilities (90%), campus (81%) and research From these findings, it can be concluded that
facilities (78%) that had the most positive influence staff and students were of the opinion that whilst
on their current performance. other factors, undoubtedly, had an impact upon
their performance as employees and students,
In summary, staff indicated that the academic the buildings and associated facilities were also
features (65%) and the facilities (65%) on offer a significant factor.

TABLE 5.2A:
FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STUDENT PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY FEATURE STUDENT % POSITIVE
ACADEMIC Teaching quality 83%
Amount and level of working/learning 87%
Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work/study 82%
Course materials 82%
My preparedness for university education 71%
Level of admin support 66%
Research quality of the department 45%
University and departmental policies and governance 38%
Ability to attract external funding N/A
Quality of fellow staff N/A
Quality of research students N/A
Quality of support staff N/A
Quality of taught students N/A
All features 69%
SOCIAL Town 63%
Inclusion, involvement, participation 61%
Location factors 59%
Interaction, community, relationships 58%
Social facilities 50%
Financial reward/matters 47%
All features 56%
FACILITIES Teaching facilities 90%
Campus 81%
Research facilities 78%
Learning facilities 39%
Quality of office N/A
Support facilities N/A
All features 72%
44 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Conclusions
This research emphasises the benefits of investing • The majority of staff identified cosmetic and
in the higher education estate. The aim of this environmental features as being most influential.
research was to assess whether links exist between These included cleanliness, a feeling of space
new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment, and bright working areas.
retention and performance of staff and students
within higher education institutions. The short
answer is that they do. Overall, this research has PARTICULAR FEATURES OF BUILDINGS
focused upon the quality, functionality and impact CONTRIBUTED POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY
of buildings from the perspective of the individuals TO THE WAY STAFF AND STUDENTS FEEL AND
who use them. BEHAVE WHILST WORKING AND STUDYING

The findings from this research highlight the As Price et al (2003) note, it is important that the
importance of the ‘wow factor’ of buildings, expectations of staff and students gained during
alongside the more traditional concern of recruitment are matched by the subsequent reality
function. This is important evidence, which of their experiences once they begin to use the
confirms the significance of the performance buildings. Indeed, as Fleming and Stor (1999)
indicators produced by the Construction Industry state, university facilities can impact positively
Council. These encourage architects and bodies or negatively upon student perceptions of their
commissioning new buildings to consider whether academic experience (cited by Price et al, 2003).
the planned building has the ‘wow factor’ as well as
taking account of the more traditional concerns of
function and cost (Kelso, 2000). In this research,
the vast majority of staff and students (in excess
‘staff and students were
of 90 per cent) was satisfied with their choice of of the opinion that whilst
university, and the vast majority was also of the
opinion that the buildings they worked and studied
other factors, undoubtedly,
in were well designed. had an impact upon their
performance as employees
STAFF AND STUDENTS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC and students, the buildings
FEATURES OF BUILDINGS THAT IMPACTED
UPON THEIR RECRUITMENT
and associated facilities
were also a significant factor’
According to Coffey and Wood Steed (2001),
students have become more aware as consumers,
and are asking more of their universities: ‘they want In light of this, our findings are relevant because
an environment more like the one-stop shopping of they highlight the importance placed upon specific
the malls they frequent - more convenience, more features of buildings not only in the recruitment
interaction, and better amenities.’ process, but also in terms of their impact upon
how staff and students feel and behave whilst they
This research has highlighted that: are working or studying. Moreover, these findings
provide useful insights into both the positive and
• The majority of students in our study identified the negative impact of buildings’ features from the
structural and functional features, including the perspective of staff and students.
quality of the facilities, the library, sports centre,
atrium and lecture rooms as being those that
exerted most influence
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 45

This research has highlighted that: This research has highlighted that:

• The functions and facilities of buildings had • The majority of staff was of the opinion that the
a very positive impact upon how staff and buildings they worked in impacted positively
students feel and behave whilst they are upon their performance. This was also the case
working or studying for half of the students surveyed

• A majority of staff indicated that the external • The buildings had the most positive impact
views and surroundings also played a significant upon the performance of research students
part in the way they feel and behave whilst at and the least impact upon the performance of
work. This view was not shared by students undergraduate students

• Staff and students identified some negative • The facilities associated with their institution
influences on their feelings and behaviour impacted most upon student performance.
associated with cosmetic and environmental These included the teaching facilities, and
factors. These included problems with the campus and research facilities.
heating and ventilation, as well as acoustics
and noise
GOOD QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION CANNOT
• Staff indicated that their office and work BE SUPPORTED WITHOUT GOOD QUALITY
space, and the size, proportion and openness ENVIRONMENTS
of the building they worked in were positive
contributing factors to how they feel and behave According to Edwards (2000), universities are
communities – they are places where new concepts
• Students identified teaching rooms and stressed like sustainability can be demonstrated, and they
the importance of the size, openness and have a strong sense of place. Lackney (1998)
proportion of the buildings as contributing suggests that embracing the concept of ‘place’
factors to how they feel and behave. and ‘place-making’ is critical to understanding
the way in which design principles for optimal
learning environments are intended to be
HIGH QUALITY, WELL-DESIGNED HIGHER approached. Edwards (2000) argues strongly
EDUCATION BUILDINGS HAVE A POSITIVE for the historic link between university buildings
INFLUENCE UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF and intellectual inquiry.
STAFF AND STUDENTS
This research has highlighted that:
According to SCOP (2002), if higher education
colleges are to maintain high-class services and • In general, students who indicated that the
quality, the UK higher education sector requires features of the buildings they studied in
substantial capital investment to modernise and impacted upon their performance stated
upgrade buildings and equipment, many of which that this happened in three main ways.
are outdated for the purpose they now serve. As They helped to motivate students in their
noted, the research literature in relation to the work; they facilitated inspiration amongst
impact of buildings upon the performance of students; and they provided key facilities
staff and students in the higher education sector critical to the course content
is limited. The findings in this report, therefore,
provide a valuable insight into the ways in which • Staff indicated that academic factors associated
staff and students perceive good quality buildings with their job (including interest in the type
influencing their overall performance. of work and the quality of their fellow staff
and support staff), together with the facilities
they had access to, (including the quality of
the office and support facilities) impacted
equally upon their performance.
46 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

SUMMARY

The tables below provide a summary of ••• MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE

the key findings of this research as they relate •• SECOND MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE
to the recruitment, retention and performance • THIRD MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE
of staff and students, with particular focus
on those groups of features which have
exerted the most positive influence.

OUTCOME INDICATOR FEATURES OF BUILDING DESIGN STAFF

TOP THREE ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN OVERALL IMPACT
RECRUITMENT SITUATIONAL • Proximity to city centre
• Proximity to other major university
buildings
• Accessibility to main transport
routes and links
•
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Lecture and teaching rooms
• ICT availability
• Internal layout and design ••
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Cleanliness of building
• Feeling of space
• Aesthetic appeal •••
RETENTION SITUATIONAL • External views
• External surroundings
•••
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Functions/facilities
• Office and work space
• Size/proportion/openness ••
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Decoration/furnishings/furniture
• Wow factor
• Health/safety/security •
PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC • Attitude, motivation and interest in type
of work
• Quality of fellow staff
• Quality of support staff
•••
SOCIAL • Location factors
• Inclusion, involvement, participation
• Interaction, community, relationships •
FACILITIES • Support facilities
• Quality of office
• Campus •••
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 47

OUTCOME INDICATOR FEATURES OF BUILDING DESIGN STUDENTS

TOP THREE ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN OVERALL IMPACT
RECRUITMENT SITUATIONAL • Proximity to natural beauty
• Accessibility of university
• Accessibility to main transport routes
and links •
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Modern design - size and layout
• Quality of facilities e.g. ICT
• Types of materials used •••
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Cleanliness of building
• Environmentally-friendly features
• Atmosphere ••
RETENTION SITUATIONAL • External views
• External surroundings
•
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Functions/facilities
• Teaching rooms
• Size/proportion/openness •••
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Decoration/furnishings/furniture
• Air quality/ventilation
• Heating/cooling ••
PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC • Teaching quality
• Amount and level of working/learning
• Attitude, motivation and interest in type
of work
••
SOCIAL • Town
• Inclusion, involvement, participation
• Location factors •
FACILITIES • Teaching facilities
• Campus
• Research facilities •••
48 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

‘cosmetic and environmental
• These findings suggest that the cosmetic and
environmental features of buildings, such as
features of buildings, such
cleanliness, a feeling of space and aesthetic as cleanliness, a feeling of
appeal, are most influential in the recruitment of
staff in the higher education sector. For students,
space and aesthetic appeal,
however, it would appear that structural and are most influential in the
functional features, such as modern design,
the quality of the facilities and types of materials
recruitment of staff in the
used exert most influence in terms of higher education sector’
their recruitment

• In retaining staff, it would appear that situational

features such as external views and surroundings IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
are most important, whereas the feelings and
behaviour of students were most influenced by Whilst the findings of the research provide useful
structural and functional features, such as size, insights into the experiences of the two most
proportion, and openness important stakeholders – staff and students –
the research does not attempt to measure the
• With regard to what was perceived to influence quality of the design. Consequently, this is an
performance, staff placed equal value upon important area for future research. It would
academic issues such as motivation, interest in be particularly useful to take account of the
the type of work and the quality of their fellow Construction Industry Council’s Design Quality
staff, alongside the facilities they had access Indicator assessment, which enables respondents’
to. Students, on the other hand, suggested opinions on building quality, functionality and
that the quality of teaching had less influence impact to be measured. In particular, future
upon their importance than did teaching and research could expand the range of stakeholders
research facilities. to include, for example, designers, commissioners,
developers, constructors, and project managers.
Finally, this research is a welcome addition to
the limited existing evidence base on the links Another important issue that begins to emerge
between building design and recruitment, from the research and which would benefit from
retention and performance of staff and students further investigation is the negative impact which
in the higher education sector. Our findings can result from design inadequacy. In particular,
support Edwards’ (2000) claim that good quality it would be useful to explore in depth what is
higher education cannot be supported without perceived to be high quality and what is merely
good quality environments, and they further acceptable. For example, it would be useful to
reinforce the need for capital investment to investigate with the full range of stakeholders
modernise and upgrade buildings and the importance of eliminating the negative
equipment, as highlighted by SCOP, 2002. aspects commonly found in buildings, against
the importance of creating a ‘wow factor’.

And finally, it would also be useful to assess

the impact of well-designed higher education
buildings upon the local community, and
to investigate the relationship between
well-designed higher education buildings
and the award of research grants.
 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 49

BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Audit Commission (2003), PFI in Schools: The quality and cost JM Consulting (2002) Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and
of buildings and services provided by early Private Finance Learning in Higher Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE
Initiative schemes
Jones, W. (1974) Comparison of Cognitive and Affective Change of
BBC News 20.04.2004. Overseas students ‘set to triple’. Ninth Grade Students in Open-Space and Closed-space classes.
[Link] Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University

Baker, M (2004). ‘Scramble to win student millions’. Kelso, P. (2000). Architects urged to go for the ‘wow factor’ in designs
[Link] for Britain’s new public buildings. The Guardian newspaper,
27 November 2000
Berglund & Lindvall. (1986). Sensory reactions to sick buildings.
Environment International, 12, 147-159 Kennedy, M. (2002) Creating Ideal Facilities. American School and
University January 1. [Link]
Betts, K.S. (2003). National USA survey of student recruitment creating_ideal_facilities/
satisfaction and retention. [Link]
Lackney, J.A. (1998). Twelve Design Principles Based on Brain-based
CABE, (2002) Design Review, [Link]/publications 23.04.2003 Learning Research Regional CEFPI Conference workshop, Minneapolis,
MN, Brain-based Learning Track, 6/8/98,
Coffey, J.S. and Wood-Steed. R. (2001). Campus image: centre of see [Link]
attention. American School and University. [Link]
university_campus_image_centre/ Leaman, A., Bordass, B., 1999, The Probe Occupant Surveys and their
Implications, CIBSE National Conference
Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols, D., & Krantz. D.S. (1986). Behavior,
health, and environmental stress. New York: Plenum Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (2001) Assessing Building Performance
in use. Building Research and Information, Vol. 29, No. 2: 129-143
Demonica, D. and Ogurek, D. (2003) A New Approach to Community
College Master Planning. In College Planning & Management, June 2002 Learning and skills development agency (2001). Capital projects in further
education. The educational impact. A report by the LSDA for the LSC.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) The Future of Higher Learning and skills development agency
Education, Norwich: HMSO
Lewis, F. (1972) The Influence of Open-Space Classrooms and Closed-
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (October 2000). space Classrooms on Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the School Building.
Better Public Buildings. London: HMSO Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia: Athens

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2001), Building Lund Kriken, J, (2004) Principles of Campus Master Planning. Planning
Better Outcomes: The impact of School Infrastructure on Student for Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 4
Outcomes and behaviour, [Link]
tions/2001/digest/[Link] McGuffey, C.W. (1982). Facilities. In Walberg, H.J. (Ed.) Improving educa-
tional standards and productivity: The research basis for policy. Berkeley,
Doidge C, (2000) Post Occupancy Review of Buildings. RIBA CA: McCutchan Publishing. 237-288

Dolence, M.G, (1998). Strategic enrolment management. In C.C. Swan Metcalf, M. (2000) Changing the Rules. College Planning & Management,
(Sr. Ed.) and S.E. Henderson (Ed.), Handbook for the college admissions July 2000
profession, 127-139 Westport, CT
Mills, F. (1972) A Comparison of Teacher Performance and Attitudes of
Edwards, B (2000) University Architecture, London, Spon Press Teachers Performing Independently in Self-Contained Classrooms and
Teachers Performing Cooperatively in Open Instructional Areas. Unpub-
Feilden R, 2001, CABE, Design Quality and PFI Schools lished doctoral dissertation, Arizona, State University
A speech given at the PFI Schools Conference, The Millennium School,
Greenwich. [Link] MORI, (2001) Student Living Report 2001. Commissioned by UNITE,
speeches/[Link]?speech_id=14 28/04/03 MORI, Bristol

HEFCE (1997) Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education. MORI, (2002) Student Living Report 2002. Commissioned by UNITE,
HEFCE MORI, Bristol. Available at: [Link]/docs/unite_SLR_
[Link]
Griffin, T. (1990) The Physical Environment of the College Classroom
and its Effects on Students. In Campus Ecologist vol. 8 no. 1 National Students’ Outlook (2003) The National USA Survey of Student
Recruitment, Satisfaction & Retention
Gullickson, A.R. and Tressler, G.R. (2001). Recruitment and retention in
the ATE program. The Evaluation Centre. Western Michigan University Osborne, M., Brink, B., Cloonan, M., Davies, P., Marks, A., Turner, E. and
Williams, J. (2001) For me or Not for me in Scotland? A Report on mature
HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK . (2001) Recruitment and retention Student Participation in Higher Education. CRLL: Glasgow and Stirling
of staff in UK higher education
[Link] (2005). CIPD research predicts continu-
Ikpa, V. (1992) The Norfolk Decision: The Effects of Converting from ing recruitment problems. [Link]
a Unitary Educational System to a Dual Educational System upon ticles/2005/01/19/27391/CIPD+research+predicts
Academic Achievement. Norfolk City Schools, Virginia
50 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000), (Research Report RR242) Building This report is produced with sincere thanks to the staff and students
Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the Relationship Between of the case study institutions who gave time and shared their
Schools Capital Investment and Student Performance, London, HMSO experiences and views on building design.

OECD, (2001) Designs for Learning, 55 Exemplary Educational The authors and CABE are indebted to the project steering group for
Facilities, OECD Publications, Paris its assistance throughout this project: David Chiddick – University of
Lincoln (Chair), Bernard Dromgoole (HEFCE), Richard Feilden (Feilden
OECD (2000) The Appraisal of Investments in Educational Facilities Clegg Bradley Architects), Roger Hawkins (HEDQF and Hawkins\Brown
Architects), Chris Higgins (King Alfred’s College, Winchester), John
Pearce, M., 2001, University Builders, Wiley-Academy, Chichester Plumridge (De Montfort University), David Kirkwood (University of
Sussex), Andrew Nightingale (University of Essex). The project has
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., Agahi, H. (2003) The Impact of been managed for CABE by Tom Bolton and Sarah Carmona.
Facilities on Student Choice of University Facilities. 21, 10: 212-222
The research was designed and the data collected for CABE by the
Schneider, M., (2002) Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? University of the West of England: Professor Bob Grimshaw, Professor
National Clearing House for Educational Facilities ([Link]) Martin Symes, Dr Marie Puybaraud, Christen Peglow, Nada Brkljac.

SCOP (2002) A creative step-change – Maximising Participation in Higher The research findings were analysed and the report written for CABE by
Education. [Link]/UploadFolder/Final%[Link] PricewaterhouseCoopers: Dr David Armstrong, Michael Kane, Dr Valerie
Bunting, Barry McKiernan, Dr Emer O’Hagan, Ana Purina, and Kelly
Scottish Centre for Research in Education (2001). Retention and Long, with Professor Bryan Lawson of the University of Sheffield.
Wastage in FE and HE. [Link]/scot-research/wastage
As the purpose of this publication is to disseminate information,
Siedman, A (1998). Recruitment begins with retention: Retention extracts may be reproduced, other than for gain and reward, subject
begins with recruitment. Centre for the Study of College Retention. to permission being given by CABE, and acknowledgement being made.
[Link]/article_recruitment_begins.htm Care has been taken to establish that the information provided in this
publication is accurate at the time of publication and that the sources
Smith, J.E. (1998) Recruitment: student outreach strategies. In C.C. of third-party information are mentioned and acknowledged. Neither
Swan (Sr. Ed.) and S.E. Henderson (Ed.), Handbook for the college PricewaterhouseCoopers nor CABE accepts any responsibility for
admissions profession, 127-139 Westport, CT: The Association of any errors or omissions which may be found, or for the consequences
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers) of using or acting upon any of the information or opinions contained in
this publication.
UCEA (Universities and Colleges Employers’ Association), (2002).
Report highlights serious recruitment and retention difficulties in GRAPHIC DESIGN
higher education. [Link] Draught Associates Limited / [Link]
asp?p=1&MR=298

Universities Business (June 2004). First impressions: climbing enrol-

ments, increased retention and lifelong connection are linked to the
quality of the campus’ facilities. [Link]
mi_m0LSH/is_6_7/ai_n6054466

Universities UK (2002). ‘University buildings and services in critical

state’, says new report. [Link]
[Link]?MR=303

Universities UK, SCOP, and HEFCE (2002). Investment in Infrastructure

for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Warwick, D. (2003). Diana Warwick speaks in House of Lords

about problems of retention and recruitment in UK Universities.
[Link]

Wolff, S., (2002) Design features for Project-Based Learning. Oregon

State University. [Link]
DesignShare_3_7_02.pdf
The Tower Building T 020 7960 2400
11 York Road F 020 7960 2444
London E enquiries@[Link]
SE1 7NX W [Link]

ISBN 1-84633-001-7