Learning Resources

Abstract: Panelists Gary David, Bentley University, and Linda Jerrett, Boston University, shared what their campuses are currently doing to not only accommodate students and faculty, but plan for the fall and the future of education technology. They described their approaches to decision making during this time when information is limited and the variables are unknown. This session was moderated by Parke Rhoads, a principal with Vantage Technology Consulting Group, who is an expert in strategic campus technology and is currently working with many higher education institutions during this ‘new normal’.

Abstract: If a facilities master plan cannot keep up with rapid change, it becomes just another big book on the shelf. The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor’s (UM) College of Engineering did away with a static master plan in favor of a one that is data-driven and reflects the latest trends in engineering education. In this session, you will learn how UM created this responsive master plan that acts more as an interactive set of tools than a static document.

Abstract: In 1966, Frederick W. Mayer joined the staff of the University Planner’s Office at the University of Michigan. In 1968 he was named “university planner”—a position he held until his retirement in 2003. In this position he was responsible for the preparation and updating of master plans for all of the university’s campuses.

The material included in this work is presented as a case study of one university’s successful program of campus planning and implementation over a period of 40 years. It is hoped that it will prove instructive and useful to other institutions and individuals engaged in the process of campus planning.

Abstract: This article describes a method for attributing research expenditures directly to assigned space that avoids the difficulties with traditional approaches that have arisen from the growth of interdisciplinary research activities where the attribution of research to the faculty member or unit is not strongly correlated with the location where the research is performed. The emergence and growth of new transdisciplinary research activities that not only connect research from traditional disciplines but also form the unifying theme around which a whole new area may form depends in part on reducing traditional barriers to space allocation and encouraging the creative efforts of everyone contributing to meet research space needs. Projects may be distributed across several rooms, some of which are shared with other projects. We seek to attribute credit for such efforts using approximations from existing data to avoid exacerbating an already onerous data collection challenge. The pilot version and a second iteration of the project have been completed with worthwhile results. A new analysis is currently underway with further improved data collection, an enhanced database, and a more systematic process.

Abstract: This article explores a major opportunity that universities have to capitalize on their existing property portfolio to both earn additional revenue and enhance the quality of the student and staff experience: the creation of university-linked retirement communities. We examine this opportunity in the context of demographic and educational trends in the United States and United Kingdom and identify the factors that act as catalysts for universities to create these communities. We then describe a conceptual framework for university-linked retirement communities that categorizes communities in terms of the level of university involvement in the community and the level of care provided to the residents. We next place university-linked retirement communities in a broader context of social housing trends in Europe and suggest that it may also be possible to create more socially inclusive university-linked learning-centered communities that provide additional opportunities for universities to capitalize on their resources and expertise while contributing to the surrounding community.

Abstract: Colleges and universities are faced with increasing demands for accountability and performance data with respect to faculty activity and productivity from diverse audiences and constituencies, ranging from academic planners and legislators to parents and taxpayers. This article argues that different audiences have different information needs and that a one-size-fits-all approach to describing faculty activity and productivity is both inappropriate and potentially harmful. Concrete strategies are proposed for providing appropriate information to these disparate groups.

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to emphasize the concept of utopia, which universities have used throughout history in developing their “spaces of knowledge.” This concept should continue to be an objective in the 21st century as universities look for paradigms in the architectural layout of their institutions. The implicit principle of this article is that good architecture is a necessary component in achieving educational excellence.

Abstract: Examines traditional assumptions underlying space management and proposes an alternative approach to projecting space use. Specifically, the author recommends making projections based on space per faculty rather than space per student, and then comparing these projections with the space allocation at peer institutions. Problems with traditional methods of space allocation are discussed, as is the process of implementing this approach and identifying comparable institutions.

Abstract: Book Review: Privacy and the Handling of Student Information in the Electronic Networked Environments of Colleges and Universities. CAUSE, 1997.52 pages

Abstract: In this article, we discuss a method for developing and writing scenarios for a college or university. We begin by reviewing the general literature on scenarios; we then detail a scenario development project at Arizona State University. This project, conducted in 1988–89, was Arizona State University's first institution-wide, futures-based planning and scenario development effort. The focus of the project for Arizona State University was planning and programming for affirmative action. An outside consultant facilitated the group-process portion of the project and instructed university staff in scenario development. Staff in the university's Office of Institutional Analysis then developed and wrote a set of three scenarios to guide the university's affirmative action programming and planning during the decade of the nineties.