Design With Distinction

DESIGN WITH
DISTINCTION
THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING
DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION
CABE is the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the
Governments champion for design quality in the built environment. It is funded
by both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Ofce
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

11 York Road
London
SE1 7NX
T
F
E
W
020 7960 2400

020 7960 2444
enquiries@cabe.org.uk
www.cabe.org.uk
THE VALUE OF DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Measuring the impact of

architecture and design on
the performance of higher
education institutions.
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.
RICHARD FEILDEN OBE

(1950 - 2005)
He was the founding partner of Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects of London

and Bath. He won Building Design magazines 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
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 inuence will not be forgotten, however, and his
spirit lives on.
THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Methodology
Summary of ndings
Implications of the research
7
7
9
CASE STUDY PROFILES
10
II
INTRODUCTION
Terms of reference
Structure of report
16
16
17
III
METHODOLOGY
Selection of case study buildings
Overview of methodology
Literature Review
Qualitative research
Quantitative research
Prole of survey respondents
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
IV
RECRUITMENT
Overview of existing literature
Overall inuence of buildings upon recruitment
Inuence of buildings upon recruitment of staff
Impact of buildings upon recruitment of students
Aspects of design that inuence recruitment
21
21
23
26
27
27
RETENTION
Overall satisfaction with choice of university and design of the buildings
Design aspects that inuence the feelings and behaviour of staff & students
General views on being in the buildings
30
30
31
33
36
VI
PERFORMANCE
Impact of buildings upon performance
Aspects of design that inuence performance
38
38
39
42
VII
CONCLUSIONS
Summary of key ndings
Implications of the research
44
48
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY
49
PORTLAND BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Executive
Summary
Over recent years, there has been a marked
increase in the number of new building projects
in the higher education sector, and in the
complexity and importance of estates provision and
management for such schemes. However, despite
this, there appears to be a distinct lack of value of
design research carried out in this area. Work in
the past on measuring the impact of architecture
and design on the performance of organisations
occupying buildings has examined all manner of
sectors: health, childrens education, ofces retail
and house-building. Higher education, though,
has been neglected. Until now.
In July 2003, CABE commissioned a research
study aimed at assessing the value of design in
higher education. This study was funded jointly
by the UK HE funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC,
HEFCW and DELNI) and supported by the
Association of Directors of Estates (AUDE). The
research was designed and data collected by the
University of the West of England (UWE), while
PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted subsequent
analysis and reporting. Its aim was to assess
whether links exist between new, well-designed
buildings and the recruitment and retention of
students, staff and quality of teaching, research
and other outcomes.
METHODOLOGY
The study involved three main strands of research:
Literature review of more than 50 research
articles, identifying key themes and related
issues covering a wide range of qualitative and
quantitative studies on the impact of design on
the recruitment and retention of students
and staff
Qualitative interviews and focus groups with
students and staff in four higher education
buildings in England and one in Wales
Surveys with staff and students in the

ve higher education buildings, collecting
primary data on a range of features of the
building design
The case study buildings were selected in
collaboration with CABE and were deemed
examples of good higher education design.
the existence of welldesigned buildings on a

campus is a signicant
factor in the recruitment of
staff and of students
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
RECRUITMENT
The research ndings suggest that the existence of
well-designed buildings on a campus is a signicant
factor in the recruitment of staff and of students.
Approximately 60 per cent of students and staff
indicated that the quality of the building design
had a positive impact on their decision to study or
work at their chosen university
Among staff, the quality of the buildings had
the most positive impact on the recruitment of
academic staff (65 per cent). Among students,
the most positive impact was on the recruitment
of postgraduate students (72 per cent)
When asked to identify specic features of
buildings that would most inuence their decision
to work in a particular institution, just over half
of all staff identied cosmetic and environmental
features as being most inuential. These included
cleanliness, a feeling of space and bright working
areas. Most students identied structural/
functional features, including the quality of the
facilities, the library, sports centre, atriums and
lecture rooms
Only a very small number of either staff or

students (around 10 per cent) pinpointed
situational features (i.e. where the building was
located) as being inuential in their decision to
take up work or study at their institution.
RETENTION
The research suggests that the way people feel and
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
retention rates.
the way people feel

and behave while
studying or working within
buildings is linked to their
overall satisfaction rates and
level of happiness
The functions and facilities of buildings had the
most positive impact upon how the staff and
students feel and behave whilst they are working
or studying (more than 7 out of 10 students
and staff). Staff also indicated that their ofce
and workspace, and the size, proportion and
openness of the building they worked in were
positive contributing factors to the way they feel
and behave
The majority of staff and students (more than
60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic and
environmental features that impact most upon the
way they feel and behave were the decoration,
furnishings and furniture within the buildings
Staff and students in the focus groups identied
some negative inuences on their feelings
and behaviour associated with cosmetic and
environmental factors. These included problems
with the heating and ventilation, as well as
acoustics and noise
A majority of staff (more than 60 per cent)
indicated that the external views and
surroundings also played a signicant part
in the way they feel and behave whilst at work.

However, students did not share this view
Overall, most staff identied situational features,
such as the external views and surroundings
as having the most positive impact on how they
feel and behave whilst at work, whereas most
students identied structural/functional features,
such as teaching rooms, on the location
of stairs.
PERFORMANCE
The majority of staff (80 per cent) was of the opinion
that the buildings they worked in impacted positively
upon their performance. However, this was only the
case for half of the students we surveyed.
The research showed that the buildings had the
most positive impact upon the performance of
research students (83 per cent) and the least
impact upon the performance of undergraduate
students (51 per cent)
In general, students indicated that the features
of the buildings they studied in affected their
performance in three main ways:
- helping to motivate students in their work
- facilitating inspiration amongst students
- providing key facilities critical to the
course content
Staff indicated that academic factors associated
with their job and facilities they had access to
have an equal impact upon their performance.
These factors included interest in the type of
work and the quality of their ofce and
support facilities
Students indicated that the facilities within
their institution impacted most upon their
performance. These included the teaching,
campus and research facilities
Staff and students also stated that particular
social features inuenced their performance,
including the locality of the university and the
level of inclusion and participation they enjoyed.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

This research breaks new ground by providing
evidence on the links between building design
and recruitment, retention and performance of
staff and students in the higher education sector.
good quality higher

education requires good
quality environments
However, whilst the ndings of the research provide

useful insights, there are a number of areas which
would benet from additional research, including:
The measurement of the design quality in
higher education buildings
An assessment of the impact of building design
upon the local community
A wider sample of institutions to include those
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
quality environments. It also reinforces the
need for further capital investment to modernise
and upgrade buildings and equipment.
The relationship between good design on

campus and the award of research grants.
10
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
UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
David Goldman Informatics Centre
School of Computing and Technology
St Peters Campus
01
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 Peters
Campus. The multi-level ground oor and
balconied rst oor 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 oor, divided into
pens. Bridges link the upper balconies and the
upper oor teaching rooms seem to hang over
the central space. Staff ofces are located on
the perimeter of the building and comprise a
mix of conventional ofces often shared by three
members of staff and pods, which are clusters
of ofces off a central social space. The building
was designed on ecological principles, as
reected in the external cladding and the
heating/ventilation system.
BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To improve undergraduate and postgraduate
recruitment by counteracting the negative
image of Sunderland.
IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
11
12
Jubilee Campus
School of Education
02
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, inuencing 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
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Portland Building
School of the Environment
03
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.
IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
BUILDING OBJECTIVE
To improve undergraduate recruitment by
counteracting the negative impressions of
Portsmouth, and to act as the catalyst for the
development of a new campus.
13
14
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 ofces
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
rst 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
UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Oxstalls Campus
School of Sports Science
05
ARCHITECT: FEILDEN CLEGG
BRADLEY ARCHITECTS
OPENED: 2001
AREA: 2771M2
USAGE: SCHOOL OF
SPORTS SCIENCE
AWARDS: THE CIVIC TRUSTS
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 citys 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 nishes. A
lofty, glazed corridor links the teaching areas to the
LRC and provides an attractive entrance and design
feature. The use of water unies 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
to counteract the universitys perceived bias
towards Cheltenham.
IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
15
16
Introduction
In January 2003, the UK Government published a
White Paper called The Future of Higher Education
which identied the stresses under which higher
education in the UK is operating1. One pressing
issue it highlighted was the need to maintain the
infrastructure for research and teaching. The report
found an estimated 8 billion backlog in teaching
and research facilities.
An earlier study focused in particular on the
infrastructure within higher education buildings2.
The 2002 report, Investment in Infrastructure
for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
suggested several billion pounds of investment
was needed to repair, replace and modernise the
buildings, services, IT networks and libraries of UK
higher education buildings. It also highlighted that
many post-war buildings used throughout the UKs
universities were reaching the end of their design
life and stressed that the university sector was
experiencing a climate of chronic under-funding.
The report noted, too, that it is in this environment
that there has been a rapid growth in the size of the
student population, the introduction of new subjects
and changes in pedagogic methods. However, not
all of these developments have been matched by an
equivalent expansion in higher education estates.
What is of concern to all universities is ensuring

that our students, whatever their background, have
a high quality experience. That requires university
teaching to be informed by research, provided by
high quality and motivated staff, in buildings t for
purpose and using modern equipment.
(DIANA WARWICK, 2003: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNIVERSITIES UK)
Tony Blair stressed the need

for architects to consider
more than cost and pure
function when reviewing the
quality of designs
Furthermore. in the foreword to a report by the

Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
entitled Better Public Buildings, Tony Blair stressed
the need for architects to consider more than cost
and pure function when reviewing the quality of
designs (Department of Culture, Media and Sport,
October 2000). According to Jon Rouse, the then
Chief Executive of CABE, there is a growing danger,
in the midst of modern procurement processes,
that the delight factor in architecture is being
suffocated by measurement methods that favour
only tangible impacts.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Despite the number of new building projects in
the higher education sector over the last number
of years, and the complexity and importance of
estates provision and management within this
sector, there appears to be a distinct absence of
Value of Design studies in this area. The work
that has been done to measure the impact of
architecture and design on the performance of
organisations occupying buildings has examined
sectors such as health, childrens education,
ofces, retail and house-building.
To ll this gap, in July 2003, CABE, in partnership
with the UK Higher Education Funding Councils
the funding bodies for the research and the
Association of University Directors of Estates
(AUDE), commissioned a research study. The
subject material was the impact of design standards
in recently completed higher education buildings
on the recruitment, retention and performance of
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
by the University of Western England (UWE).
Subsequent analysis and reporting was conducted
by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
Department for Education and Skills, The Future of Higher

Education (2003), Norwich: HMSO
Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE (2002)
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

DIFFERENT USAGE OF BUILDINGS
QUALITY, IMPACT AND FUNCTION

OF BUILDINGS
STAFF AT DIFFERENT STAGES

OF THEIR CAREER
SITUATIONAL, STRUCTURAL AND

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

links exist between new, well-designed buildings and
the recruitment and retention of students, staff and
quality of teaching, research and other outcomes.
In addressing the aim of the study, a number of
key research questions were posed, namely:
In what ways do buildings inuence the
recruitment, retention and performance of
students and staff in the higher education sector?
What features of buildings inuence recruitment,
morale and retention and performance of staff
and students?
Are staff and students satised with the quality
and functionality of their buildings and associated
facilities, and do they equate good quality with
better performance?
Are there variations in the views of respondents

within and between staff and student groups, and
between higher education sites?
What quality improvements could be made to
improve the performance of staff and students?
STRUCTURE OF REPORT
This report outlines the main ndings
of the study. Its structure is as follows:
Section II Methodology
Section III Recruitment
Section IV Retention
Section V Performance
Section VI Conclusions.
17
18
Methodology
FIGURE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

AN OVERVIEW OF OUR APPROACH
This section provides an overview of the

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

The selection of the case study buildings was
made in collaboration with the project Steering
Group. While the buildings selected were deemed
examples of good design, a number of additional
selection criteria were used in the selection process:
The inclusion of buildings that were reasonably
contemporary (a cut-off date of 1996
was applied)
The inclusion of buildings that had been long
enough in occupation to establish some pattern
of usage
LITERATURE REVIEW
A general review of the literature was conducted in
relation to the design of educational environments3.
Over 50 articles and journals were reviewed and a
bibliography is attached to the report. The literature
review had three dimensions:
To dene the strategic context within which
the study is placed
To identify key themes and related issues
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 reected.
The sample included campus locations and
inner-city locations, as well as different types of
departments and university.
JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
A range of qualitative evidence was collected across

the ve case study institutions. Table 2.1 provides a
summary of the types and nature of data collected.
A total of 103 members of staff (69% response rate)

and 287 students (57% response rate) took part in
the research across the ve buildings.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Statistical analysis was performed primarily

at two levels:
During the visits to each of the ve case study sites,

questionnaires were administered to staff (academic,
research and administration) and students
(undergraduate, postgraduate and research).
A total of 150 staff and 500 students were targeted
across the buildings (30 staff and 100 students
in each institution).
Descriptive analysis of individual responses

to survey questions
Cross-tabulations between the background
characteristics of each institution and the
importance of individual factors on staff and
student recruitment, retention and performance.
TABLE 2.1:
OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED
DETAILS
Key informant
interviews
Interviews with key members of HE staff including lecturers, tutors,

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
images
On completion of focus groups the research team was asked to take photographs
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
Student
Prole 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
Prole 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
It should be noted that, whilst most of the literature in this area

relates to school buildings, specic efforts were made to obtain
and review literature that focused upon higher education.
19
20
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 provide proles 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
Male
58%
61%
40%
42%
27%
48%
Female
42%
39%
60%
58%
73%
52%
GENDER
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%
Full-time
96%
89%
82%
96%
92%
92%
Part-time
4%
11%
18%
4%
8%
8%
Academic
48%
78%
52%
52%
50%
57%
Research
26%
0%
11%
9%
0%
10%
Administration
26%
22%
37%
39%
50%
33%
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
HE 01
HE 02
HE 03
HE 04
HE 05
ALL HE
Male
31%
79%
38%
63%
69%
58%
Female
69%
21%
62%
37%
31%
42%
Under 21-30
64%
49%
0%
40%
43%
42%
31-50
29%
42%
73%
47%
53%
47%
50+
7%
9%
27%
13%
4%
11%
Full-time
100%
100%
97%
93%
100%
98%
Part-time
0%
0%
3%
7%
0%
2%
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
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT TYPE
YEAR IN INSTITUTION
TABLE 2.4:
PROFILE OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS
PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS
GENDER
AGE
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT TYPE
Recruitment
the number of overseas

students wanting to attend
UK universities could triple
to more than 870,000 by
2020. Whilst this could be
worth 13bn to the
UK economy, the British
Council has warned of
competition from abroad,
including the US
This section provides a summary of current

international literature on the impact of building
design on recruitment. It also presents the
main ndings of the issues surrounding the
recruitment of both staff and students, taken from
the quantitative surveys with staff and students,
together with the qualitative focus groups with
students, and the interviews with staff.
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development (CIPD), recruitment difculties
in general will continue in the rst quarter of 2005,
as overall levels of employment continue to rise
(Personneltoday.com, 2005). Speaking in the
House of Lords, Diana Warwick, Chief Executive
of Universities UK, stated that there are growing
problems recruiting and retaining staff in UK
universities. Furthermore, research by Universities
UK and its employers organisation (UKEA) showed
that one-fth of all universities and higher education
institutions were experiencing recruitment
difculties (Universities UK, 5.02.2003).
Recruitment of students is also an important issue
for higher education institutions worldwide. For
example, it has been stated that global competition
between universities to attract international students
is getting ercer, with big money at stake (Mike
Baker, BBC News, 24.01.2005). And, according
to a report by the British Council, the number of
overseas students wanting to attend UK universities
could triple to more than 870,000 by 2020. Whilst
this could be worth 13bn to the UK economy, the
British Council has warned of competition from
abroad, including the US (BBC News, 20.04.2004).
According to Smith (1998), the primary goal
of recruitment programmes and activities is
to inuence the behaviour of prospective students,
their parents and signicant others in the
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.
While UK universities have become increasingly

concerned to maximise research income in the
past decade, conventional, government- and
student-funded undergraduate teaching remains
a signicant, and for many institutions still a
dominant, proportion of income (Price et al,
2003). For this reason, it is crucial for universities
to recruit students successfully.
Furthermore, a study commissioned by the
HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK in 2001 found
that universities throughout the UK were facing
difculties recruiting staff4. It discovered that pay
is the major underlying factor in the difculties
facing universities. The majority of research on
recruitment has focused on students, rather
than staff choices. For that reason, the following
discussion is conned to students. It appears from
the literature that building design does not tend to
be the prime factor of inuence when choosing a
university. But it is a signicant variable.
Research undertaken by the Institute of
Employment Studies (Price et al, 2003) included
20,000 students who applied to full-time
undergraduate courses in universities throughout
the UK in 1998. They found that the course content
was the most important factor inuencing the
university chosen. Additionally, students stated
that cost was a signicant factor in their choice of
university location. Whilst they were often forced
Recruitment and Retention of Staff in UK Higher Education, 2001
21
22
to consider a university closer to their parents

home due to nancial constraints, students cited
overall image of the university as having an
inuence on their decision.
ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING
An ongoing UNITE/MORI study echoes these

mixed ndings (MORI, 2001, 2002). The 2001
study found that course was the rst feature that
inuenced this decision, while location and social
facilities in town/city comprised the second and
third most popular inuence.
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
one in terms of campus planning. For example,
planning for the campus of the University of
California took over a decade. The team evaluated
more than 85 sites in the area (Lund and Kriken,
2004). It appears that location is also an important
issue for prospective students. A National Student
Outlook (NSO) study in 2003 found that, of the
2000 responses obtained from students at ve
locations, three factors had a signicant role in
the students nal selection of a college the
academics available there, the location of the
college, and the colleges reputation.
to university as mature students. They analysed

four different types of college throughout Scotland:
an ancient university; a post-1992 university;
a college of further education; and a Robbins
university. By far the most commonly reported
motivation for choosing a given institution was its
geographical location being close to where the
students live or work. This factor was rated as one
of the ve most important reasons for institutional
choice by 87 per cent of respondents. Female
students cited it more often than males.
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES

THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT
where universities
possessed a particularly
distinctive campus (and/or
location), the survey results
clearly indicated that this
was a marketing lever
Other studies substantiate the notion that the
situational aspect of a college is important when
recruiting students. Osborne et al (2001) examined
the motivations behind those who choose to return
The second category of features that may inuence

recruitment to universities relates to structural
and functional issues. These refer to the physical,
architectural design of the university buildings and
the extent to which the design is t for purpose.
Research conducted by Price et al (2003) focused
upon the importance of facilities management in
the success of universities recruitment campaigns.
They found that availability of desired course was
universally rated as the most important recruiting
factor in every institution examined. Notably
though, where universities possessed a particularly
distinctive campus (and/or location), the survey
results clearly indicated that this was a marketing

lever. They found that issues such as computer
outlets in accommodation and the availability
of quality computers were important issues for
prospective students, alongside concerns with
library facilities and the availability of quiet areas for
study. Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001), commenting
on the importance of campus image in American
universities, noted that there had been a move
to design, add to, or renovate traditional student
centres in order to appeal to their consumers.
COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT
Cosmetic features such as colours and furniture,
and environmental features, such as heating,
lighting and sound are often evident when students
visit universities for the rst time, and can make an
immediate impression. Price et al (2003) also found
that cleanliness of the accommodation
was important to a number of students, and
the availability of quiet areas for study was also
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
noted that this may lead to problems of expectation
if impressions gained during recruitment are not
matched by subsequent reality.
DID YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A

WOW FACTOR ON YOUR FIRST VISIT?
STAFF (no.75)
STUDENTS (no.284)
100
OVERALL INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS

ON RECRUITMENT
In most of the case study sites, staff agreed
that the buildings had produced a good initial
impression on potential employees. With regard to
the recruitment of students, it was generally noted
that the quality of the buildings stood out amongst
competing universities, and in some cases, there
was anecdotal evidence to suggest that students
had turned down renowned buildings due to poor
facilities and accommodation.
...when I came down it was the summer
and this building was stunning
walking around it was great! (student)
... we invite all of our potential students to come

for open days ...it is quite an open space and
so its not made up of lots of cellular spaces.
So, straight away you can see what is going on and
it is quite transparent... it has a very positive effect.
(member of staff)
...I came for the interview and was very

impressed by the building... the rst time
you see it, it is impressive! (student)
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
I did not know just how spectacular it was
until I got here. I didnt know that it was going
to be an up-to-date university. (student)
90
80
I was really shocked how new everything

was. I made my decision there and then
that I wanted to come here... (student)
70
60
50
40
30
...the place sells itself; I dont have to do

any selling. (member of staff)
20
10
%
YES
TABLE 3.1:
WOW FACTOR
NO
Figure 3.1 illustrates most staff and students

surveyed indicated a wow factor was evident
on their rst visit to their building. The comments
above illustrate the positive impact of the wow
factor upon staff and students at various buildings.
23
24
On closer examination of the results, it was found

that there were some variations between the views
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,
in their view, the building had the wow factor,
only 38 per cent of students shared this view. One
explanation for the lower positive responses from
students might be because this building did not
have all of its sports facilities on site. Moreover,
during the focus groups with students at this
institution, it was noted that, during the open
days, the building was not completed.
Their collective responses are

illustrated below
DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING

DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON
YOUR DECISION TO WORK /STUDY HERE?
STAFF (no.75)
STUDENTS (no.284)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Conversely, in another institution, 81 per cent of

students thought that the building in question had
the wow factor, whereas this was the view of only
55 per cent of staff. One possible reason for this
might be the dissatisfaction expressed by some
staff with regard to their ofce space. Moreover,
some staff felt that the building might exert a more
positive inuence upon younger
teaching professionals.
30
20
10
%
YES
NO
FIGURE 3.2:
THE IMPACT OF QUALITY OF BUILDING DESIGN
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

the case study sites that the buildings had been
used extensively in marketing materials and there
was a common view that the buildings had added
value. Staff and students were asked to indicate
if the overall quality of the buildings had had a
positive impact on their decision to work,
or study, at their chosen university.
From these responses, it can be seen that the

majority of students (63 per cent) indicated that the
quality of the building design had a positive impact
on their decision to study at the university. This was
also the case for 61 per cent of staff.
The following comments illustrate the ways in

which the buildings had a positive effect on the
recruitment of staff and students.
My view is that whenever we bring someone to

this building, they are pretty gob-smacked when
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
their friends to come... the numbers are growing...
(member of staff)
...but there is something about watching

peoples reaction to it when we are recruiting
staff, when we are trying to impress people...
when we are wanting to say this is a very
high quality organisation - the building
helps us to say that.
(member of staff)
I went to an open day at another university and

to compare this it was a brand new building and
everything was clean and tidy... It was clean and
modern and new and that has a denite impact.
I went to [another institution] on an open day
and... it was grotty, dirty and dark.
(student)
The results show that the majority of students

surveyed (75 per cent) in one institution
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,
however, that the building in question was
used for research purposes, and the respondents
were largely undergraduate students who
were, therefore, unfamiliar with the building.
Similarly, over half of the staff surveyed at
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?
75 STAFF
284 STUDENTS
YES
NO
YES
NO
Institution 1
67%
33%
25%
75%
Institution 2
Institution 3
52%
47%
48%
53%
61%
75%
39%
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 ve case
study sites.
25
26
EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON
RECRUITMENT OF STAFF
INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS ON
RECRUITMENT OF STUDENTS
Recruitment of good quality staff is an ongoing

concern for most employers. In a report produced
by IRS Research (Recruitment and Retention of
Academic Staff in UK Education, 2001), it was
noted that there are recruitment difculties for
both academic and support staff in UK Higher
Education institutions and that these have
continued to get worse, year-on-year, since 1998.
It is important that higher education buildings are

designed to suit the diverse needs of their users,
and these needs may vary according to age.
When the survey results were analysed by the
students age, it was found that the quality of the
buildings had least impact on the recruitment of
students aged over 30, with 50 per cent of these
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
positive impact upon the recruitment of academic
staff, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.
YES
NO
DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN

HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO
STUDY HERE?
100
WORK HERE?
90
YES
NO
80
70
100
60
90
50
80
40
70
30
60
20
50
10
40
%
UNDER 21
30
20
21-30
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 difcult 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
them thinking more positively... because they have
come to the new building.
JUBILEE CAMPUS,
31+
27
EFFECT OF BUILDINGS UPON RECRUITMENT

OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUDENTS
It should be noted that this was an

open-ended question.
The impact of buildings may also vary in

accordance with the specic academic
requirements of different types of students.
Figure 3.5 illustrates that, whilst the quality of
buildings had impacted positively upon a high
percentage of each category of student (i.e.
undergraduate, postgraduate and research), they
had generally impacted most positively upon the
recruitment of postgraduate students, with over 70
per cent of respondents indicating this to be so.
The specic features identied by staff and

students as having an inuence over their choice
of study and work environment were placed within
one of three categories:

STUDY HERE?
YES
NO
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Structural and functional features

Cosmetic and environmental features
Situational features.
Figure 3.6 illustrates their responses. It is
interesting to note that the responses of staff
and students were broadly similar in terms of the
features identied. In general, situational features
appeared to be less inuential for both staff and
students. However, this may have been because
the questionnaire was primarily concerned with
issues specic to the features of buildings, as
opposed to their location. Students placed slightly
more importance upon structural and functional
features in terms of inuence, whereas for staff,
cosmetic and environmental features of buildings
were slightly more inuential in terms of their
decision to work in a particular institution.
%
UNDERGRADUATE
POSTGRADUATE
RESEARCH
FIGURE 3.5:
CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE THREE MAIN FACTORS THAT

INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO WORK HERE?
YES
NO
60
50
ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT

INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT
According to Fleming and Storr (1999), university
facilities can be an essential component of
attracting key research personnel, provide
environments for faster knowledge, and inuence
student perceptions of their academic experience
(Fleming and Storr, 1999, cited by Price et
al, 2003).
In an effort to explore more specically in what
ways particular features of buildings might
inuence 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.
40
30
20
10
%
STRUCTURAL &
FUNCTIONAL
SITUATIONAL
FIGURE 3.6:
COSMETIC &
ENVIRONMENTAL
28
STAFF ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS THAT

INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT
From the gure above, it can be seen that 51 per
cent of the features identied as being inuential
in recruiting staff could be classied as cosmetic
and environmental. These included cleanliness,
a feeling of space, having a well-lit foyer and
reception area, a minimalist appearance, or light
and bright working areas.
In addition, 40 per cent of the features identied
by staff as potentially inuencing their choice
of university could be classied as structural or
functional. These included lecturing and teaching
rooms, automatic doors, computer terraces, internal
layout and design, whether or not the building was
aesthetically pleasing, and the overall shape and
structure of the building.
The remaining nine per cent of the features
identied by staff were classied 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 specic features of buildings when people
are choosing a place of employment.
During the interviews, some staff stated that,

for them, the buildings were not an important
factor when making a decision to work at a
particular institution:
I was in another faculty before, and there

were ve reasons why I joined - nothing to
do with the building. (It was the) climate
and promotion... and they had clinical
facilities that I wanted in the department.
I think the buildings help, but it is less of a

factor than maybe you would like me to say.
In addition, some staff identied features that

might have a negative inuence on their choice of
employment. These included a bad use of space,
noisy buildings, and buildings that look unattractive.
...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.
Im 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.
STUDENTS ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS

THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT
From the same gure on page 27 (Fig 3.6), it can
be seen that 52 per cent of the features identied
by students could be classied 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,
caf and lecture rooms.
Forty per cent of the features identied 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
identied by students could be classied as
situational. These included being easily accessible,
and having a good transport link. Students that
participated in the focus groups also identied
features of the buildings that had inuenced their
decision to come to the university.
I think you look out and see modern

buildings and you think it is a new building,
loads of new facilities, and that is the rst
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,
which in some cases they did.
Personally, when looking at universities,

this one had the best facilities and in
particular the new building shows that they are
spending money. The fact that everything is
in one building had a big inuence on
what university I chose.
How the building looks, it would make you

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...
However, some students expressed

disappointment with some of the features.
I changed my view about the library
I loved it when I rst came here but now there
is nowhere to work. No study area, and now there
are two desks between bookshelves, and,
because people are walking round they could do
with a silent oor. There is nowhere to work
in it, which irritates me...
...the building did not improve the
canteen or library.
29
30
Retention
This section provides a summary of
international literature on the impact of building
design on retention. It also presents the main
ndings of the issues surrounding the retention
of both staff and students taken from the
quantitative surveys with staff and students,
together with the qualitative focus groups with
students, and the interviews with staff5.

The retention of both staff and students is an
important issue for all higher education institutions.
Retention from the students perspective can
be dened as the maintenance of students
satisfactory progress toward their educational
objectives until the objectives are attained
(Dollence, 1998. Issues regarding student retention
have been receiving increasing attention in recent
years. Research by Mantz Yorke of Liverpools John
Moores University identied eight possible factors
that can inuence a student to withdraw. Notably,
two of the eight relate to the location and the
facilities of their institution (Yorke, 1998, cited by
Scottish Centre for Research in Education, 2001).
a more pleasant and healthy

internal environment is more
likely to improve productivity
and staff retention, and
reduce sick leave
Retention of staff is also an issue for employers
in higher education institutions. In a study by
Gullickson and Tressler (2001) they suggest,
amongst other things, that a more pleasant
and healthy internal environment is more
It is important to state that the majority of the ndings presented

here relate to the level of satisfaction with the building. For the
purposes of this study, a link has therefore been made between
the level of satisfaction of staff and students with the buildings
and their likelihood to remain at the institution.
likely to improve productivity and staff retention,

and reduce sick leave.
After the expansion of the higher education sector
in the early 1990s, anecdotal evidence suggested
that an increasing number of undergraduates were
not completing their courses. In 1996, HEFCE
commissioned two teams to provide more
robust research into why this was happening.
The research found that non-completion rates
were between four to ve per cent per year.
However, by 1997, more research commissioned
by HEFCE suggested that these gures may,
in fact, be as high as eight to 10 per cent
(HEFCE, 1997).
The literature in relation to the impact of higher
education buildings upon retention is discussed,
as previously, under identied headings.

INFLUENCE RETENTION
Research has found location to be a signicant
factor in students decisions not to complete
university courses. Research undertaken by
Yorke on behalf of HEFCE (1997) examined
undergraduate non-completion in England.
The report identied 36 possible inuences on
the decision to withdraw, which were clustered
down to eight possible factors. Unhappiness
with the locality of the institution was cited as
the second of these possible factors inuencing
the decision to leave.
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL

FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION
As was found with recruitment, the literature in
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
environment, while other literature suggests that
the structural design of a building may directly
inuence users wellbeing and subsequently result
in either retention or exit.
31
For example, research reviewed in a report by

the SCRE Centre found that course content and
personal or nancial reasons are the dominant
explanations for students leave a course without
completing it6. Similarly, in the study which Yorke
undertook for HEFCE (1997), mentioned above,
Yorke concluded that dissatisfaction with aspects of
institutional provision was of minimal importance
to an individuals decision to withdraw from higher
education. He found that issues that were more
signicant included disenchantment with the
course content, nancial difculties, family or
work commitments, or university life in general.
OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE OF

UNIVERSITY AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS
In the surveys conducted with staff and students,
respondents were asked to indicate if they were
satised with their choice of university or with their
place of employment and, as Figure 4.1 illustrates,
the vast majority of staff and students stated that
they were satised with both.
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE

OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT?
STAFF (no.96)
STUDENTS (no.207)
100

THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION
90
80
70
Again, the literature here is limited in relation to

higher education buildings. However, Kennedy
(2002), whilst focusing upon schools, argued that
cosmetic quality contributes to overall quality.
Grifn (1990) introduced person-environment
interaction theory, which investigates the impact
of a variety of physical attributes upon peoples
behaviour. Whilst Grifns work was conned to the
classroom, he found that a number of signicant
physical environmental factors affect human
behaviour. Grifn argued that spatial arrangements
and physical design were signicant factors. He
found that, in general, less crowded spaces which
offer each person more room produced less stress.
He also found that colour tended to impact upon
peoples behaviour. In particular, pleasure has been
found to be heightened by brightness (especially
warm colours).
60
50
40
30
20
10
%
YES
NO
FIGURE 4.1:
SATISFACTION
When these results were analysed by institution,

there was a consistently high level of satisfaction
across each of the buildings, as illustrated in
Table 4.1, below.
TABLE 4.1:
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT?
96 STAFF
207 STUDENTS
YES
NO
YES
NO
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%
Institution 1
See www.scre.ac.uk/scot-resarch/wastage/ch5.html
32
Staff and students were also asked to indicate

if, in their view, the building was generally well
designed. Figure 4.2 below illustrates that almost
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.
IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED

AS BEING WELL DESIGNED?
Interviews with staff within these buildings

uncovered some possible reasons for
these responses.
...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
environment to be in... But there are two sides
to that. Within the corridors, there is much more
interaction than there used to be, but across the
whole building it has become divisive.
STAFF (no.101)
STUDENTS (no.282)
100
90
80
...the constant ght and ghting all the time,

the constant day-to-day management having to
deal with too little space for people it is a constant
struggle. But the irony is, with very minor things
being done - most of them are on the management
side - this building would be a dream...
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
%
YES
NO
FIGURE 4.2:
REGARDED AS WELL DESIGNED
TABLE 4.2:
IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED AS BEING WELL DESIGNED?
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

case study sites. From this table it can be seen
that whilst students consistently indicated that their
buildings were well designed, in two of the buildings
surveyed, a lower percentage of staff (47 per cent
and 50 per cent) indicated this to be the case.
The above comments from staff illustrate that

there are a set of related factors governing the
impact that buildings have upon mediating the
relationships between people. In this respect,
some staff made positive comments about
the buildings.
ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE THE FEELINGS

AND BEHAVIOUR OF STAFF AND STUDENTS
I like the joined-up-ness of the buildings.
We are all part of a diverse group, and
the unity of the campus suits our purpose.
The university is bigger than all of us, and
we are happy to show and express that.
In a review of the literature by Grifn (1990) which

investigated the impact of a variety of physical
attributes upon peoples behaviour, it was found
that spatial arrangements/physical design are
signicant in terms of their effect upon human
behaviour. For example, Grifn 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 inuenced the way they feel and behave. The
way people feel and behave is an indicator of their
overall level of happiness, which will undoubtedly
inuence their decision to remain at an institution.
TABLE 4.3A:
FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION
CATEGORY OF FEATURE
FEATURE
STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL
Function/Facilities
76%
Ofce 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%
Decoration/Furnishings
64%
WOW factor
62%
Health/Safety/Security
58%
Staff rooms
49%
Air quality/Ventilation
32%
Heating/Cooling
25%
All features
48%
External views
61%
External surroundings
60%
All features
60%
COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL
SITUATIONAL
STAFF % POSITIVE
33
34
Tables 4.3a and 4.3b illustrate the extent to which

the feelings and behaviour of staff and students
were positively inuenced by specic structural
and functional, cosmetic and environmental
and situational characteristics of the buildings
they frequented in the course of their
day-to-day activities.
We have plenty of options with sizes of

rooms... possibilities of extending, shortening
rooms. So there is that sort of thing
in the design, and we are very fortunate.
In order to identify which of the categories of

features most inuenced 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
Function/Facilities
71%
Teaching Rooms
66%
66%
Lighting
61%
Stimulating character
59%
Research facilities
58%
Flexible spaces
56%
Accessibility/entrance
53%
Acoustics
43%
Materials
52%
SITUATIONAL
STUDENT % POSITIVE
Ofce and work space
N/A
All features
60%
Decoration/Furnishings
60%
Air quality/Ventilation
54%
Heating/Cooling
54%
WOW factor
54%
Health/Safety/Security
46%
Staff rooms
N/A
All features
54%
53%
External views
53%
All features
52%
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES

Analysis of Table 4.3A and Table 4.3B reveals that
the functions and facilities of the buildings had the
most positive impact upon how both staff (76 per
cent) and students (71 per cent) feel and behave.
Staff also indicated that the ofce and workspace
(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
rooms had a positive inuence on their feelings
and behaviour.
During the interviews and focus groups, staff and
students were given the opportunity to highlight
specic problems with the structural features of
their building. Some of these comments were
positive, others negative, as illustrated below.
South-facing glass panels make working in
the ofces in the summer impossible.
The acoustics of the place - you can make

one noise and it carries over. Even the teaching
rooms on level 2 - they have halls on top.
As you pass, you can hear what each
individual lecturer is saying. So it coincides
and affects peoples concentrations.
For people who dont know the building,

it is constantly difcult to nd their way around.
It is difcult to access the building and to nd
the staircase, as well as the toilets.
There was an initial concept/solution for unisex

toilets which was not going to work. So they were
relocated and are now on different oors.
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.
I agree with what people are saying. It is a lovely

place... and it is quiet... The downside being open
plan - it is noisy and there is nowhere to sit and
read... main desks have a computer, but where do
you just sit and read?
The buildings wow factor

was nominated by 62 per
cent of staff as having a
positive impact on the way
they feel and behave
A majority of staff (64 per cent) and students
(60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic factors
that most inuenced the way they feel and behave
were the decoration, furnishings and furniture
within the building. In terms of environmental
features, it was interesting to note that a relatively
small percentage of staff identied these features
as having a positive impact upon their feelings and
behaviour: heating and cooling was indicated by
25 per cent of staff, and air quality and ventilation
by 32 per cent of staff. However, conversely, 54
per cent of students indicated that these same
environmental features had a positive impact on
their feelings and behaviour. The buildings
wow factor was nominated by 62 per cent of
staff as having a positive impact on the way they
feel and behave, and this view was shared by 54
per cent of students.
35
36
The following comments illustrate the positive

and negative inuences staff attributed to the
cosmetic or environmental features of the buildings.
They also highlight some suggestions of areas
for improvement.
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
is a student or a member of staff. If you have a
nice working environment, it makes a difference.
(member of staff)
In relation to the temperature, the heating
is not the best. There are sometimes
real temperature extremes, which cause real
discomfort, especially in hot summers.
(student)
The ventilation doesnt work well. Windows
can be either closed or wide open. It is
sometimes difcult to work here.
(member of staff)
Acoustics is another issue. It allows no
privacy and is disruptive for concentration work.
(member of staff)
SITUATIONAL FEATURES
While students generally did not feel that the
situational features of the building had a positive/
very positive impact on how they feel and behave,
around three-fths 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.
overall, for 60 per cent of

staff, situational features
exerted the most positive
inuence in terms of their
feelings and behaviour on a
day-to-day basis
An examination of the categories in the table
above and the features within them, reveals that,
overall, for 60 per cent of staff, situational features
exerted the most positive inuence in terms of
their feelings and behaviour on a day-to-day basis.
For 60 per cent of students, meanwhile, it was the
structural and functional features of the buildings
that had the most positive impact upon how they
feel and behave.
Noise and smell is difcult.

(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.
(staff)
Heating in the building - they use a sensor
reader in big areas and they put all the sensors
in strange places. So it is freezing in the building.
(student)
As impressive as the terraces are, they are
a waste of space they are covered with
computers and there is everything above it and
nothing below it. You could have expanded the
oors and you would have had loads and loads of
space. It would appeal to students.
(student)
During the interviews and focus groups with

staff and students, they were given the opportunity
to give their overall views on the quality of the
buildings. The following comments illustrate
the range of views expressed.
I lived on the old campus for two years... I think

this is a beautiful campus. It has a style to it.
I found the other campus small... this library to
me is so much better, more beautiful, and more
pleasant to work in, in terms of the lighting and
warmth. In the other one, there was always a cold
breeze... and now it is lovely. It has a different feel.
(student)
It appears that the issue of space is not a

problem in this building. They share it with other
departments, with community groups, and with
members of the community. The building
seems to facilitate this shared space, which is
perhaps key to architecture.
(member of staff)
It is a pleasant building and I enjoy working

in it, with reservations about a few things,
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)
This feels like a place of education. In my opinion,

this is what it should look like - professional, a
bit like a school, narrow corridors, big rooms and
you feel grown up to come here all day.
(student)
....personally, I would like to see a gym onsite and it

is really lacking a swimming pool a gym I cannot
see as expensive... it denitely would benet.
(student)
37
38
Performance
This section provides a summary of international
literature on the impact of building design on
performance. It also presents the main ndings of
the issues surrounding the performance of both
staff and students taken from quantitative surveys
with them, together with the qualitative focus
groups with students, and the interviews
with staff.

Despite a wide review of literature, searching
for the impact of buildings on organisational
performance, not a great deal of information
was uncovered. However, the literature that
was unearthed in relation to performance is
discussed within the three identied categories.
It should be noted that most of the literature is
taken from research conducted in schools rather
in universities. However, the ndings bear clear
relevance to this study.
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL

FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE
Several studies have examined the inuence that
open-space classrooms have on teacher and
student attitudes. Lewis (1976) looked at this
relationship and found that teachers housed in
open-space classrooms showed attitudes that are
more positive. Similarly, Jones (1974) found that
teachers attitudes towards their students in openspace classrooms improved signicantly. Mills
(1972) also concluded that teachers in open-space
areas exhibited behaviours that allowed greater
pupil freedom and self-direction7.
Ikpa (1992) found a signicant negative
relationship between the age of school buildings
and achievement. The data gathered indicated that,
as the age of the school building increased, the
achievement test scores tended to decrease.
COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL

FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE
AFFECT PERFORMANCE
The relationship between educational performance
and situational factors is under-researched.
According to Lackney (1998), embracing the
concept of place and place-making is critical to
understanding the way in which design principles
for optimal learning environments are intended
to be approached. Lackney suggests that design
must be approached in a holistic, systemic way,
comprising not only the physical setting, but
also the social, organisational, pedagogical, and
emotional environments that are integral to the
experience of place. All of these are necessary
if optimal learning environments are to
be created.
The above information was found in the University of Georgias

School Facilities Planning webpage: http://www.coe.uga.edu/
sdpl/researchabstracts/attitudes.html
The discussion here is limited to the impact of

environmental features. According to Lackney
(2003), thermal comfort has been shown to
inuence task performance, attention spans and
levels of discomfort. He cites a range of research
that supports these claims (Berglund & Lindvall,
1986; Cohen, et al, 1986; McGuffey 1982).
Lackney notes that achieving good indoor air quality
is as essential as providing comfortable, healthy
thermal conditions and functional, aestheticallysound lighting and acoustic environments. He
notes that strategies for improving indoor air quality
include increasing the levels of fresh air intake
and increased ventilation rates in buildings. These
preventive design measures cost very little and save
energy, as well as providing a healthier environment
for learners.
Grifn (1990) found that visual factors such
as natural light and use of shade can affect an
individuals behaviour. It was found that white light
increased activity while too much light could be
detrimental to activity.
39
EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON PERFORMANCE
When the results were analysed by age, it was

found that there was little difference in the
responses of students across a range of age
categories, as Figure 5.3, below, illustrates.
Staff and students were asked to indicate if

the buildings had a positive impact on their
performance. Figure 5.1 illustrates that 80
per cent of staff believed that they did. For
students, this was the case for almost 50
per cent of those surveyed.
YES
NO
DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT

ON PERFORMANCE?
100
ON PERFORMANCE?
90
STAFF (no.100)
STUDENTS (no.278)
80
70
100
60
90
50
80
40
70
30
60
20
50
10
%
40
UNDER 21
30
20
21-30
31+
FIGURE 5.3:
10
QUESTION TO DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS (no. 282)
%
YES
NO
FIGURE 5.1:
PERCEIVED IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE
It was found that buildings had the least impact

upon the performance of undergraduate (49 per
cent) and postgraduate (53 per cent) students
surveyed, and the most impact upon respondents
that were research students (83 per cent).
ON PERFORMANCE?
YES
NO
100
In general, students who indicated that the building

had an inuence upon their performance stated
that the buildings had contributed in three main
ways. First, they helped to motivate students in their
work. Second, they facilitated inspiration amongst
students, and nally they provided key facilities
critical to the course content.
...if it was a normal, standard ofce or lecture

room, you would not speak to many people... it is
that sort of informal interaction that enables you to
experience... that is an important part of education.
...you feel obliged to put that little bit more
effort in. If you were coming to an old, grey
building every day...
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
%
UNDERGRADUATE
POSTGRADUATE
FIGURE 5.2:
RESEARCH
buildings helped to
motivate students in their
work, facilitated inspiration
amongst students, and
provided key facilities critical
to the course content
40
...yes, as a rst year who does not use this building

a lot, it is something that you can aspire to... you
look at this building and think whoa! It is a goal
that you set yourself to be in here.
The results from the staff questionnaires were

analysed by the nature of their employments, and
Figure 5.4 below illustrates that the buildings had
least impact upon administration staff. However,
this gure was still high at 70 per cent. Similar to
the student responses, the buildings had most
inuence on the performance of research staff
(90 per cent).
YES
NO

ON PERFORMANCE?
Table 5.1 illustrates that there were some variations

between student and staff views in the case study
sites. For example, 80 per cent of staff in one
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 qualitative research uncovered that the
building in question was largely used for research
purposes. Moreover, whilst overall, 50 per cent of
students indicated that the buildings affect their
performance, in one institution this gure rose to
71 per cent - there was a high level of satisfaction
with the building within this institution generally
amongst both staff and students.
The following comments from the interviews
highlight the ways in which staff believed the
buildings improved their performance, and
identify some concerns.
100
90
...I dont think there is any doubt that it has an

impact on me. It is at the risk of talking about it in a
very general way. There is no question at all that the
building is an extremely pleasant place to come to.
It is a good working environment. And I think it is a
happy working environment.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
%
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATION
FIGURE 5.4:
QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 97)
...there are positive and negative parts. Positive

side... good community for discussing ideas in the
pods... the large room with research students in
it... it is a good environment for research students...
and mixing with academic staff that is the
positive. Negative side, the staff would say... cant
get my head down and do serious work.
TABLE 5.1:
DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE?
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%
...this building does what the previous building

didnt it gives us opportunities to learn through
the building. For example, if I teach perspective,
I get perspective use of this space. The light comes
through in a particular way and you can teach
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.
staff and students were

of the opinion that whilst
other factors, undoubtedly,
had an impact upon their
performance as employees
and students, the buildings
and associated facilities
were also a signicant factor
As one respondent illustrated, in terms of having

a positive impact on performance, it is important
that the design features of buildings encourage
and facilitate the casual meeting of individuals
to enable collaboration to take place.
...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
seems smart and organised and has all the right
sorts of facilities, but in general I have worked in all
different facilities and I do not feel my work is less
productive here or more productive if I was in a
less attractive building.
41
42
ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT

INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE
In an attempt to uncover the extent to which staff
and students were inuenced by the features
and functions of the buildings, as opposed to
other considerations, they were asked to indicate
how much their performance was inuenced by
a range of issues within the following categories
academic, social and facilities.
In order to identify which of the categories of
features most inuenced the performance of staff
and students, the total percentage of very positive/
positive responses was calculated for each feature,
as presented in Tables 5.2a and 5.2b.
An examination of the academic issues that were

most important in positively impacting upon staff
and students current performance revealed that,
in the case of staff, attitude, motivation and interest
in type of work (94%), as well as the quality of
fellow staff (89%) and support staff (79%) were the
most positive features. For students, the amount
and level of learning (87%) proved to be the most
signicant positive feature that inuenced their
performance, while the teaching quality (83%) and
course material (82%) also proved to be highly
signicant features.
In the case of staff, the locality of the university
(69%) was cited as the main positive social feature
that had an impact on their performance.
TABLE 5.2A:
FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STAFF PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
FEATURE
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
SOCIAL
FACILITIES
STAFF % POSITIVE
Teaching quality
N/A
All features
65%
Location factors
69%
Inclusion, involvement, participation
52%
Interaction, community, relationships
53%
Town
41%
Financial reward/matters
46%
Social facilities
33%
All features
49%
Support of facilities
75%
Quality of ofce
73%
Campus
64%
Teaching facilities
61%
Research facilities
50%
Learning facilities
N/A
All features
65%
For students, the town in which the university

was in or was near to (63%), as well as the level
of inclusion, involvement and participation (61%)
were the main social features in this regard.
In terms of the buildings facilities that positively
inuenced performance, staff indicated the support
facilities (75%) and the quality of the ofce (73%)
had the most signicant inuence. For students,
meanwhile, it was, unsurprisingly, the teaching
facilities (90%), campus (81%) and research
facilities (78%) that had the most positive inuence
on their current performance.
In summary, staff indicated that the academic
features (65%) and the facilities (65%) on offer
within the buildings had an equally positive impact

upon their current performance. In the case of
students, they indicated that the facilities (72%)
on offer within the buildings had most impact upon
their performance. Social factors also had impact
upon the performance of 49% of staff and 56%
of students. These included where the institution
was situated and issues around the involvement
and participation within the institution.
From these ndings, it can be concluded that
staff and students were of the opinion that whilst
other factors, undoubtedly, had an impact upon
their performance as employees and students,
the buildings and associated facilities were also
a signicant factor.
TABLE 5.2A:
FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STUDENT PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
FEATURE
ACADEMIC
Teaching quality
83%
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
N/A
Quality of research students
N/A
N/A
SOCIAL
FACILITIES
STUDENT % POSITIVE
Quality of taught students
N/A
All features
69%
Town
63%
61%
Location factors
59%
58%
Social facilities
50%
Financial reward/matters
47%
All features
56%
Teaching facilities
90%
Campus
81%
Research facilities
78%
Learning facilities
39%
Quality of ofce
N/A
Support facilities
N/A
All features
72%
43
44
Conclusions
This research emphasises the benets of investing
in the higher education estate. The aim of this
research was to assess whether links exist between
new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment,
retention and performance of staff and students
within higher education institutions. The short
answer is that they do. Overall, this research has
focused upon the quality, functionality and impact
of buildings from the perspective of the individuals
who use them.
The majority of staff identied cosmetic and

environmental features as being most inuential.
These included cleanliness, a feeling of space
and bright working areas.
The ndings from this research highlight the

importance of the wow factor of buildings,
alongside the more traditional concern of
function. This is important evidence, which
conrms the signicance of the performance
indicators produced by the Construction Industry
Council. These encourage architects and bodies
commissioning new buildings to consider whether
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
of 90 per cent) was satised with their choice of
university, and the vast majority was also of the
opinion that the buildings they worked and studied
in were well designed.
As Price et al (2003) note, it is important that the

expectations of staff and students gained during
recruitment are matched by the subsequent reality
of their experiences once they begin to use the
buildings. Indeed, as Fleming and Stor (1999)
state, university facilities can impact positively
or negatively upon student perceptions of their
academic experience (cited by Price et al, 2003).
STAFF AND STUDENTS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC

FEATURES OF BUILDINGS THAT IMPACTED
UPON THEIR RECRUITMENT
According to Coffey and Wood Steed (2001),
students have become more aware as consumers,
and are asking more of their universities: they want
an environment more like the one-stop shopping of
the malls they frequent - more convenience, more
interaction, and better amenities.
This research has highlighted that:
The majority of students in our study identied
structural and functional features, including the
quality of the facilities, the library, sports centre,
atrium and lecture rooms as being those that
exerted most inuence
PARTICULAR FEATURES OF BUILDINGS

CONTRIBUTED POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY
TO THE WAY STAFF AND STUDENTS FEEL AND
BEHAVE WHILST WORKING AND STUDYING
staff and students were

of the opinion that whilst
other factors, undoubtedly,
had an impact upon their
performance as employees
and students, the buildings
and associated facilities
were also a signicant factor
In light of this, our ndings are relevant because
they highlight the importance placed upon specic
features of buildings not only in the recruitment
process, but also in terms of their impact upon
how staff and students feel and behave whilst they
are working or studying. Moreover, these ndings
provide useful insights into both the positive and
the negative impact of buildings features from the
perspective of staff and students.
The functions and facilities of buildings had

a very positive impact upon how staff and
students feel and behave whilst they are
working or studying
The majority of staff was of the opinion that the

buildings they worked in impacted positively
upon their performance. This was also the case
for half of the students surveyed
A majority of staff indicated that the external

views and surroundings also played a signicant
part in the way they feel and behave whilst at
work. This view was not shared by students
The buildings had the most positive impact

upon the performance of research students
and the least impact upon the performance of
undergraduate students
Staff and students identied some negative

inuences on their feelings and behaviour
associated with cosmetic and environmental
factors. These included problems with the
heating and ventilation, as well as acoustics
and noise
The facilities associated with their institution

impacted most upon student performance.
These included the teaching facilities, and
campus and research facilities.
Staff indicated that their ofce and work

space, and the size, proportion and openness
of the building they worked in were positive
contributing factors to how they feel and behave
Students identied teaching rooms and stressed
the importance of the size, openness and
proportion of the buildings as contributing
factors to how they feel and behave.
HIGH QUALITY, WELL-DESIGNED HIGHER

EDUCATION BUILDINGS HAVE A POSITIVE
INFLUENCE UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF
STAFF AND STUDENTS
GOOD QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION CANNOT

BE SUPPORTED WITHOUT GOOD QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTS
According to Edwards (2000), universities are
communities they are places where new concepts
like sustainability can be demonstrated, and they
have a strong sense of place. Lackney (1998)
suggests that embracing the concept of place
and place-making is critical to understanding
the way in which design principles for optimal
learning environments are intended to be
approached. Edwards (2000) argues strongly
for the historic link between university buildings
and intellectual inquiry.
According to SCOP (2002), if higher education

colleges are to maintain high-class services and
quality, the UK higher education sector requires
substantial capital investment to modernise and
upgrade buildings and equipment, many of which
are outdated for the purpose they now serve. As
noted, the research literature in relation to the
impact of buildings upon the performance of
staff and students in the higher education sector
is limited. The ndings in this report, therefore,
provide a valuable insight into the ways in which
staff and students perceive good quality buildings
inuencing their overall performance.
In general, students who indicated that the

features of the buildings they studied in
impacted upon their performance stated
that this happened in three main ways.
They helped to motivate students in their
work; they facilitated inspiration amongst
students; and they provided key facilities
critical to the course content
Staff indicated that academic factors associated
with their job (including interest in the type
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 ofce and support facilities) impacted
equally upon their performance.
45
46
SUMMARY
The tables below provide a summary of
the key ndings of this research as they relate
to the recruitment, retention and performance
of staff and students, with particular focus
on those groups of features which have
exerted the most positive inuence.
OUTCOME INDICATOR
FEATURES OF BUILDING DESIGN
RECRUITMENT
SITUATIONAL
MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE

SECOND MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE
THIRD MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE
STAFF
TOP THREE ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN
RETENTION
PERFORMANCE
Proximity to city centre

Proximity to other major university
buildings
Accessibility to main transport
routes and links
Lecture and teaching rooms

ICT availability
Internal layout and design
Cleanliness of building
Feeling of space
Aesthetic appeal
SITUATIONAL
External views
Functions/facilities
Ofce and work space
Decoration/furnishings/furniture
Wow factor
Health/safety/security
ACADEMIC
Attitude, motivation and interest in type

of work
SOCIAL
Location factors
FACILITIES
Support facilities
Quality of ofce
Campus
OVERALL IMPACT
OUTCOME INDICATOR
FEATURES OF BUILDING DESIGN
RECRUITMENT
SITUATIONAL
STUDENTS
TOP THREE ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN
RETENTION
PERFORMANCE
Proximity to natural beauty

Accessibility of university
Accessibility to main transport routes
and links
Modern design - size and layout

Quality of facilities e.g. ICT
Types of materials used
Cleanliness of building
Environmentally-friendly features
Atmosphere
SITUATIONAL
External views
Functions/facilities
Teaching rooms
Decoration/furnishings/furniture
Air quality/ventilation
Heating/cooling
ACADEMIC
Teaching quality
Attitude, motivation and interest in type
of work
SOCIAL
Town
Location factors
FACILITIES
Teaching facilities
Campus
Research facilities
OVERALL IMPACT
47
48
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

These ndings suggest that the cosmetic and
environmental features of buildings, such as
cleanliness, a feeling of space and aesthetic
appeal, are most inuential in the recruitment of
staff in the higher education sector. For students,
however, it would appear that structural and
functional features, such as modern design,
the quality of the facilities and types of materials
used exert most inuence in terms of
their recruitment
In retaining staff, it would appear that situational
features such as external views and surroundings
are most important, whereas the feelings and
behaviour of students were most inuenced by
structural and functional features, such as size,
proportion, and openness
With regard to what was perceived to inuence
performance, staff placed equal value upon
academic issues such as motivation, interest in
the type of work and the quality of their fellow
staff, alongside the facilities they had access
to. Students, on the other hand, suggested
that the quality of teaching had less inuence
upon their importance than did teaching and
research facilities.
Finally, this research is a welcome addition to
the limited existing evidence base on the links
between building design and recruitment,
retention and performance of staff and students
in the higher education sector. Our ndings
support Edwards (2000) claim that good quality
higher education cannot be supported without
good quality environments, and they further
reinforce the need for capital investment to
modernise and upgrade buildings and
equipment, as highlighted by SCOP, 2002.
cosmetic and environmental

features of buildings, such
as cleanliness, a feeling of
space and aesthetic appeal,
are most inuential in the
recruitment of staff in the
higher education sector
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Whilst the ndings of the research provide useful
insights into the experiences of the two most
important stakeholders staff and students
the research does not attempt to measure the
quality of the design. Consequently, this is an
important area for future research. It would
be particularly useful to take account of the
Construction Industry Councils Design Quality
Indicator assessment, which enables respondents
opinions on building quality, functionality and
impact to be measured. In particular, future
research could expand the range of stakeholders
to include, for example, designers, commissioners,
developers, constructors, and project managers.
Another important issue that begins to emerge
from the research and which would benet from
further investigation is the negative impact which
can result from design inadequacy. In particular,
it would be useful to explore in depth what is
perceived to be high quality and what is merely
acceptable. For example, it would be useful to
investigate with the full range of stakeholders
the importance of eliminating the negative
aspects commonly found in buildings, against
the importance of creating a wow factor.
And nally, 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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Audit Commission (2003), PFI in Schools: The quality and cost

of buildings and services provided by early Private Finance
Initiative schemes
JM Consulting (2002) Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and

Learning in Higher Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE
BBC News 20.04.2004. Overseas students set to triple.

http://news.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/education/3640141.stm
Baker, M (2004). Scramble to win student millions.
http://www.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4201721.stm
Berglund & Lindvall. (1986). Sensory reactions to sick buildings.
Environment International, 12, 147-159
Betts, K.S. (2003). National USA survey of student recruitment
satisfaction and retention. http://www.nationalstudentsoutlook.com
CABE, (2002) Design Review, www.cabe.org.uk/publications 23.04.2003
Coffey, J.S. and Wood-Steed. R. (2001). Campus image: centre of
attention. American School and University. http://asumag.com/mag/
university_campus_image_centre/
Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols, D., & Krantz. D.S. (1986). Behavior,
health, and environmental stress. New York: Plenum
Demonica, D. and Ogurek, D. (2003) A New Approach to Community
College Master Planning. In College Planning & Management, June 2002
Department for Education and Skills (2003) The Future of Higher
Education, Norwich: HMSO
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (October 2000).
Better Public Buildings. London: HMSO
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2001), Building
Better Outcomes: The impact of School Infrastructure on Student
Outcomes and behaviour, http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2001/digest/building.pdf
Doidge C, (2000) Post Occupancy Review of Buildings. RIBA
Dolence, M.G, (1998). Strategic enrolment management. In C.C. Swan
(Sr. Ed.) and S.E. Henderson (Ed.), Handbook for the college admissions
profession, 127-139 Westport, CT
Edwards, B (2000) University Architecture, London, Spon Press
Feilden R, 2001, CABE, Design Quality and PFI Schools
A speech given at the PFI Schools Conference, The Millennium School,
Greenwich. http://www.cabe.org.uk/eFFvzhkWfwk=8PhmcV98tqg/news/
speeches/speech.html?speech_id=14 28/04/03
HEFCE (1997) Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education.
HEFCE
Grifn, T. (1990) The Physical Environment of the College Classroom
and its Effects on Students. In Campus Ecologist vol. 8 no. 1
Gullickson, A.R. and Tressler, G.R. (2001). Recruitment and retention in
the ATE program. The Evaluation Centre. Western Michigan University
HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK . (2001) Recruitment and retention
of staff in UK higher education
Ikpa, V. (1992) The Norfolk Decision: The Effects of Converting from
a Unitary Educational System to a Dual Educational System upon
Academic Achievement. Norfolk City Schools, Virginia
Jones, W. (1974) Comparison of Cognitive and Affective Change of

Ninth Grade Students in Open-Space and Closed-space classes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University
Kelso, P. (2000). Architects urged to go for the wow factor in designs
for Britains new public buildings. The Guardian newspaper,
27 November 2000
Kennedy, M. (2002) Creating Ideal Facilities. American School and
University January 1. http://asumag.com/DesignPlanning/university_
creating_ideal_facilities/
Lackney, J.A. (1998). Twelve Design Principles Based on Brain-based
Learning Research Regional CEFPI Conference workshop, Minneapolis,
MN, Brain-based Learning Track, 6/8/98,
see http://www.designshare.com/
Leaman, A., Bordass, B., 1999, The Probe Occupant Surveys and their
Implications, CIBSE National Conference
Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (2001) Assessing Building Performance
in use. Building Research and Information, Vol. 29, No. 2: 129-143
Learning and skills development agency (2001). Capital projects in further
education. The educational impact. A report by the LSDA for the LSC.
Learning and skills development agency
Lewis, F. (1972) The Inuence of Open-Space Classrooms and Closedspace Classrooms on Teachers Attitudes Towards the School Building.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia: Athens
Lund Kriken, J, (2004) Principles of Campus Master Planning. Planning
for Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 4
McGuffey, C.W. (1982). Facilities. In Walberg, H.J. (Ed.) Improving educational standards and productivity: The research basis for policy. Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan Publishing. 237-288
Metcalf, M. (2000) Changing the Rules. College Planning & Management,
July 2000
Mills, F. (1972) A Comparison of Teacher Performance and Attitudes of
Teachers Performing Independently in Self-Contained Classrooms and
Teachers Performing Cooperatively in Open Instructional Areas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona, State University
MORI, (2001) Student Living Report 2001. Commissioned by UNITE,
MORI, Bristol
MORI, (2002) Student Living Report 2002. Commissioned by UNITE,
MORI, Bristol. Available at: www.unite-group.co.uk/docs/unite_SLR_
2002.pdf
National Students Outlook (2003) The National USA Survey of Student
Recruitment, Satisfaction & Retention
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
Student Participation in Higher Education. CRLL: Glasgow and Stirling
Personneltoday.com (2005). CIPD research predicts continuing recruitment problems. http://www.personneltoday.co.uk/Articles/2005/01/19/27391/CIPD+research+predicts
49
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000), (Research Report RR242) Building

Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the Relationship Between
Schools Capital Investment and Student Performance, London, HMSO
This report is produced with sincere thanks to the staff and students
of the case study institutions who gave time and shared their
experiences and views on building design.
OECD, (2001) Designs for Learning, 55 Exemplary Educational

Facilities, OECD Publications, Paris
The authors and CABE are indebted to the project steering group for
its assistance throughout this project: David Chiddick University of
Lincoln (Chair), Bernard Dromgoole (HEFCE), Richard Feilden (Feilden
Clegg Bradley Architects), Roger Hawkins (HEDQF and Hawkins\Brown
Architects), Chris Higgins (King Alfreds College, Winchester), John
Plumridge (De Montfort University), David Kirkwood (University of
Sussex), Andrew Nightingale (University of Essex). The project has
been managed for CABE by Tom Bolton and Sarah Carmona.
OECD (2000) The Appraisal of Investments in Educational Facilities

Pearce, M., 2001, University Builders, Wiley-Academy, Chichester
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., Agahi, H. (2003) The Impact of
Facilities on Student Choice of University Facilities. 21, 10: 212-222
Schneider, M., (2002) Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?
National Clearing House for Educational Facilities (www.edfacilities.org)
SCOP (2002) A creative step-change Maximising Participation in Higher
Education. www.scop.ac.uk/UploadFolder/Final%20Submission.doc
Scottish Centre for Research in Education (2001). Retention and
Wastage in FE and HE. www.scre.ac.uk/scot-research/wastage
Siedman, A (1998). Recruitment begins with retention: Retention
begins with recruitment. Centre for the Study of College Retention.
www.cscsr.org/article_recruitment_begins.htm
Smith, J.E. (1998) Recruitment: student outreach strategies. In C.C.
Swan (Sr. Ed.) and S.E. Henderson (Ed.), Handbook for the college
admissions profession, 127-139 Westport, CT: The Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Ofcers)
UCEA (Universities and Colleges Employers Association), (2002).
Report highlights serious recruitment and retention difculties in
higher education. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/mediareleases/show.
asp?p=1&MR=298
Universities Business (June 2004). First impressions: climbing enrolments, increased retention and lifelong connection are linked to the
quality of the campus facilities. http://www.ndarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m0LSH/is_6_7/ai_n6054466
Universities UK (2002). University buildings and services in critical
state, says new report. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/mediareleases/
show.asp?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.
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/mediareleases/show.asp?MR=340
Wolff, S., (2002) Design features for Project-Based Learning. Oregon
State University. http://www.designshare.com/Research/Wolff/Wolff_
DesignShare_3_7_02.pdf
The research was designed and the data collected for CABE by the
University of the West of England: Professor Bob Grimshaw, Professor
Martin Symes, Dr Marie Puybaraud, Christen Peglow, Nada Brkljac.
The research ndings were analysed and the report written for CABE by
PricewaterhouseCoopers: Dr David Armstrong, Michael Kane, Dr Valerie
Bunting, Barry McKiernan, Dr Emer OHagan, Ana Purina, and Kelly
Long, with Professor Bryan Lawson of the University of Shefeld.
As the purpose of this publication is to disseminate information,
extracts may be reproduced, other than for gain and reward, subject
to permission being given by CABE, and acknowledgement being made.
Care has been taken to establish that the information provided in this
publication is accurate at the time of publication and that the sources
of third-party information are mentioned and acknowledged. Neither
PricewaterhouseCoopers nor CABE accepts any responsibility for
any errors or omissions which may be found, or for the consequences
of using or acting upon any of the information or opinions contained in
this publication.
GRAPHIC DESIGN
Draught Associates Limited / www.draught.co.uk
The Tower Building

11 York Road
London
SE1 7NX
T
F
E
W
020 7960 2400

020 7960 2444
enquiries@cabe.org.uk
www.cabe.org.uk
ISBN 1-84633-001-7

Design With Distinction

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Design With Distinction

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DESIGN WITH

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

The Tower Building

020 7960 2400

THE VALUE OF DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Measuring the impact of

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

RICHARD FEILDEN OBE

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

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

CASE STUDY PROFILES

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

PORTLAND BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Surveys with staff and students in the

the existence of welldesigned buildings on a

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

Only a very small number of either staff or

the way people feel

in the way they feel and behave whilst at work.

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

good quality higher

However, whilst the ndings of the research provide

It provides evidence to support the belief that

The relationship between good design on

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ARCHITECT: SIR COLIN

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

What is of concern to all universities is ensuring

Tony Blair stressed the need

Furthermore. in the foreword to a report by the

Department for Education and Skills, The Future of Higher

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 1.1 - OVERALL AIMS OF STUDY

OVERALL AIM OF STUDY:

ASPECTS OF THE USER GROUP

FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH

STAFF WITH EXPERIENCE OF

QUALITY, IMPACT AND FUNCTION

STAFF AT DIFFERENT STAGES

SITUATIONAL, STRUCTURAL AND

MATURE AND YOUNGER STUDENTS;

The overall aim of the study was to assess whether

Are there variations in the views of respondents

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION

FIGURE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

This section provides an overview of the

SELECTION OF CASE STUDY INSTITUTIONS

Ensuring that good design was reinforced

JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS