Critical success factors for campus interaction spaces and services – a systematic literature review

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to create an overview of current literature and identify gaps in what is known about stimulating interaction through spaces and services provided on university campuses. Design/methodology/approach The authors used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement methodology for systematic literature review. In total, 3,616 articles were screened, 31 articles were included. Facility Directors from 13 Dutch Universities were asked to define the search terms related to services. Findings Spaces and services were mostly studied separately. The majority of papers (18/31) were based on perceptions (surveys or interviews). The following critical success factors were identified in the literature: geographic proximity, cognitive proximity, scale, transitional spaces, comfort and experience, shared facilities and events, local buzz and networks. These factors are interrelated. The authors present a new relational model, from spaces and services, through interaction to innovation, visualising how the identified papers are related. Research limitations/implications The scope of possible findings may have been narrowed because prior relevant studies were rather limited and as a consequence of the search strategy designed to limit the number of unrelated hits. Some knowledge gaps may not have been identified, as only a few mainstream concepts related to the critical success factors were used for comparison. Nevertheless, the literature review provides a reliable overview of current academic knowledge regarding critical success factors for spaces and services that stimulate interaction on campuses. Originality/value This paper offers a novel perspective by emphasising the relational chain from interaction to innovation, visualising the large diversity in research fields and summarising the critical success factors in the literature.

An on-campus university student accommodation model

“…Abramson (2009) revealed that students regard communal spaces as essential student accommodation spaces. Jansz et al (2020) similarly indicated that shared facilities (e.g. common rooms) stimulate interaction on campus.…”

The role of shared study space in shaping graduate students’ social networks

“…Proximity is also the essential concept behind other "shared spaces" such as coworking spaces and maker spaces that celebrate the interaction, collaboration and knowledge development (Bueno et al, 2018). By working in shared spaces, proximity encourages knowledge-sharing, the development of networks, startup teams and productive business behavior (Jansz et al, 2020;Appel-Meulenbroek et al, 2017;Assenza, 2015;Pitt and Bennett, 2008).…”

“…Proximity theory provides a theoretical thread to understand how space is involved in developing social relations among graduate students. Studies have noticed that spatial proximity is an essential factor in shaping college students' social relations (Jansz et al, 2020;Borgatti, 2003). As the shared study space provides opportunities for face-to-face interactions, proximity theory implies that accessing this shared space will increase the possibility of interaction with the other students, which might lead to more social connections.…”

“…As the graduate students became more diverse, bridging social networks between different social groups is highly valued. Scholars and designers of higher education facilities have suggested that space should encourage social interactions among students and promote diversity and inclusion in the academic community (Jansz et al, 2020;Thomas, 2010). This idea is reflected among recent space design concepts that celebrate collaboration and universal access (Johnson and Lomas, 2005).…”

Achieving lively, creative and successful university environments

“…In a similar manner, Cleveland and Fisher (2014) argue that works in this area 'are in their infancy' (p 24; a conclusion that may seem odd as they trace the field back to 1960s). Based on a literature review, Jansz et al (2020) argue that the scattered results may be due to the fact that the success looked for holds many aspects and several steps, each with their own set of requirements. But regardless of this, they also conclude that the bulk of the studies are based on perceptions whereas studies of the actual effects of different design measures are rare.…”