Please complete a detailed outline. Include an introduction that has a topic sentence and tells the reader which texts will be synthesized. YOU MUST INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING Introduction Paragraph: In approximately 5-7 sentences, introduce your paper's idea and the connections that can be made between the texts. The introductory paragraph must be in full paragraph form. Your thesis statement must be included at the end of the introduction. Working Thesis: Tell the reader what you're going to prove (thesis/argument) and how you're going to do it. Feel free to use the Magic Thesis Sentence (MTS) template provided below. Developing a thesis statement is perhaps the trickiest part of writing an argumentative paper. By looking at , we can see ________________________________________________________. This (tell the reader what the "This" is) suggests that (or this is important because)_______ . (This last part is your thesis/argument)., Three Topics Sentences: Every paragraph you will eventually write, will require a strong and engaging topic sentence that identifies the main idea the paragraph will discuss. What ideas, similarities, differences are you discussing/juxtaposing between the three texts? The topic sentence should be general enough to express your paragraph's overall subject, but it should also be specific enough for your reader to understand your main point. The body paragraph sentences and quotes MUST be complete sentences. For each topic sentence you submit, you are also REQUIRED to include TWO DIRECT QUOTES (one from each scholarly article) to back up the claim AND one from the "They Say, I Say" reading you are focusing on. Like with the synthesis paper, make the essays/articles "speak to each other." Conclusion Paragraph: • Restate Thesis (but not verbatim) • 5-7 Sentences • Summarize YOUR main points and wrap up the ideas addressed in a thoughtful manner. PROMPT: Write a research essay in response to Danah Boyd, drawing upon research into the mixing/integration – or lack thereof – on college campuses, online and/or in the military. Frame your argument as a response to Boyd. Please complete a detailed outline. Include an introduction that has a topic sentence and tells the reader which texts will be synthesized. YOU MUST INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING Introduction Paragraph: In approximately 5-7 sentences, introduce your paper's idea and the connections that can be made between the texts. The introductory paragraph must be in full paragraph form. Your thesis statement must be included at the end of the introduction. Working Thesis: Tell the reader what you're going to prove (thesis/argument) and how you're going to do it. Feel free to use the Magic Thesis Sentence (MTS) template provided below. Developing a thesis statement is perhaps the trickiest part of writing an argumentative paper. By looking at , we can see ________________________________________________________. This (tell the reader what the "This" is) suggests that (or this is important because)_______ . (This last part is your thesis/argument)., Three Topics Sentences: Every paragraph you will eventually write, will require a strong and engaging topic sentence that identifies the main idea the paragraph will discuss. What ideas, similarities, differences are you discussing/juxtaposing between the three texts? The topic sentence should be general enough to express your paragraph's overall subject, but it should also be specific enough for your reader to understand your main point. The body paragraph sentences and quotes MUST be complete sentences. For each topic sentence you submit, you are also REQUIRED to include TWO DIRECT QUOTES (one from each scholarly article) to back up the claim AND one from the "They Say, I Say" reading you are focusing on. Like with the synthesis paper, make the essays/articles "speak to each other." Conclusion Paragraph: • Restate Thesis (but not verbatim) • 5-7 Sentences • Summarize YOUR main points and wrap up the ideas addressed in a thoughtful manner. Why America Is Self-Segregating danah boyd H The United States has always been a diverse but segregated country. This has shaped American politics profoundly. Yet, throughout history, Americans have had to grapple with divergent views and opinions, political ideologies, and experiences in order to function as a country. Many of the institutions that underpin American democracy force people in the United States to encounter difference. This does not inherently produce tolerance or result in healthy resolution. Hell, the history of the United States is fraught with countless examples of people enslaving and oppressing other people on the basis of difference. This isn’t about our past; this is about our present. And today’s battles over laws and culture are nothing new. danah boyd is a principal researcher at Microsoft Research and a visiting professor in New York University’s interactive telecommunications program. She is the author of It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (2014) and the founder of Data & Society, a research institute “focused on the social and cultural issues arising from datacentric technological development.” This essay first appeared in 2017 on Points, a blog of Data & Society. 219 danah bo y d Ironically, in a world in which we have countless tools to connect, we are also watching fragmentation, polarization, and de-diversification happen en masse. The American public is selfsegregating, and this is tearing at the social fabric of the country. Many in the tech world imagined that the Internet would connect people in unprecedented ways, allow for divisions to be bridged and wounds to heal. It was the kumbaya dream. Today, those same dreamers find it quite unsettling to watch as the tools that were designed to bring people together are used by people to magnify divisions and undermine social solidarity. These tools were built in a bubble, and that bubble has burst. Nowhere is this more acute than with Facebook. Naive as hell, Mark Zuckerberg dreamed he could build the tools that would connect people at unprecedented scale, both domestically and internationally. I actually feel bad for him as he clings to that hope while facing increasing attacks from people around the world about the role that Facebook is playing in magnifying social divisions. Although critics love to paint him as only motivated by money, he genuinely wants to make the world a better place and sees Facebook as a tool to connect people, not empower them to self-segregate. The problem is not simply the “filter bubble,” Eli Pariser’s notion that personalization-driven algorithmic systems help silo people into segregated content streams. Facebook’s claim that content personalization plays a small role in shaping what people see compared to their own choices is accurate. And they have every right to be annoyed. I couldn’t imagine TimeWarner being blamed for who watches Duck Dynasty vs. Modern Family. And yet, what Facebook does do is mirror and magnify a trend that’s been unfolding in the United States for the last twenty years, a trend of self-segregation that is enabled by technology in all sorts of complicated ways. 220 5 Why America Is Self-Segregating The United States can only function as a healthy democracy if we find a healthy way to diversify our social connections, if we find a way to weave together a strong social fabric that bridges ties across difference. Yet, we are moving in the opposite direction with See p. 137 for ways to provide serious consequences. To understand this, let’s talk a roadmap for about two contemporary trend lines and then think your readers. about the implications going forward. Privatizing the Military The voluntary US military is, in many ways, a social engineering project. The public understands the military as a service organization, dedicated to protecting the country’s interests. Yet, when recruits sign up, they are promised training and job opportunities. Individual motivations vary tremendously, but many are enticed by the opportunity to travel the world, participate in a cause with a purpose, and get the heck out of Dodge. Everyone expects basic training to be physically hard, but few recognize that some of the most grueling aspects of signing up have to do with the diversification project that is central to the formation of the American military. When a soldier is in combat, she must trust her fellow soldiers with her life. And she must be willing to do what it takes to protect the rest of her unit. In order to make that possible, the military must wage war on prejudice. This is not an easy task. Plenty of generals fought hard to fight racial desegregation and to limit the role of women in combat. Yet, the US military was desegregated in 1948, six years before Brown v. Board forced desegregation of schools. And the Supreme Court ruled that LGB individuals could openly serve in the military before they could legally marry. 221 danah bo y d Morale is often raised as the main reason that soldiers should not be forced to entrust their lives to people who are different than them. Yet, time and again, this justification collapses under broader interests to grow the military. As a result, commanders are forced to find ways to build up morale across difference, to actively and intentionally seek to break down barriers to teamwork, and to find a way to gel a group of people whose demographics, values, politics, and ideologies are as varied as the country’s. In the process, they build one of the most crucial social infrastructures of the country. They build the diverse social fabric that underpins democracy. Tons of money was poured into defense after 9/11, but the number of people serving in the US military today is far lower than it was throughout the 1980s. Why? Starting in the 1990s and accelerating after 9/11, the US privatized huge chunks of the military. This means that private contractors and their employees play critical roles in everything from providing food services to equipment maintenance to military housing. The impact of this 222 10 Why America Is Self-Segregating on the role of the military in society is significant. For example, this undermines recruits’ ability to get training to develop critical skills that will be essential for them in civilian life. Instead, while serving on active duty, they spend a much higher amount of time on the front lines and in high-risk battle, increasing the likelihood that they will be physically or psychologically harmed. The impact on skills development and job opportunities is tremendous, but so is the impact on the diversification of the social fabric. Private vendors are not engaged in the same social engineering project as the military and, as a result, tend to hire and fire people based on their ability to work effectively as a team. Like many companies, they have little incentive to invest in helping diverse teams learn to work together as effectively as possible. Building diverse teams — especially ones in which members depend on each other for their survival — is extremely hard, time-consuming, and emotionally exhausting. As a result, private companies focus on “culture fit,” emphasize teams that get along, and look for people who already have the necessary skills, all of which helps reinforce existing segregation patterns. The end result is that, in the last 20 years, we’ve watched one of our major structures for diversification collapse without anyone taking notice. And because of how it’s happened, it’s also connected to job opportunities and economic opportunity for many working- and middle-class individuals, seeding resentment and hatred. A Self-Segregated College Life If you ask a college admissions officer at an elite institution to describe how they build a class of incoming freshman, you will quickly realize that the American college system is a diversification project. Unlike colleges in most parts of the 223 15 danah bo y d world, the vast majority of freshman at top tier universities in the United States live on campus with roommates who are assigned to them. Colleges approach housing assignments as an opportunity to pair diverse strangers with one another to build social ties. This makes sense given how many friendships emerge out of freshman dorms. By pairing middle class kids with students from wealthier families, elite institutions help diversify the elites of the future. This diversification project produces a tremendous amount of conflict. Although plenty of people adore their college roommates and relish the opportunity to get to know people from different walks of life as part of their college experience, there is an amazing amount of angst about dorm assignments and the troubles that brew once folks try to live together in close quarters. At many universities, residential life is often in the business of student therapy as students complain about their roommates and dormmates. Yet, just like in the military, learning how to negotiate conflict and diversity in close quarters can be tremendously effective in sewing the social fabric. In the spring of 2006, I was doing fieldwork with teenagers at a time when they had just received acceptances to college. I giggled at how many of them immediately wrote to the college in which they intended to enroll, begging for a campus email address so that they could join that school’s Facebook (before Facebook was broadly available). In the previous year, I had watched the previous class look up roommate assignments on MySpace so I was prepared for the fact that they’d use Facebook to do the same. What I wasn’t prepared for was how quickly they would all get on Facebook, map the incoming freshman class, and use this information to ask for a roommate switch. Before they even arrived on campus in August/September of 2006, they had self-segregated as much as possible. 224 Why America Is Self-Segregating A few years later, I watched another trend hit: cell phones. While these were touted as tools that allowed students to stay connected to parents (which prompted many faculty to complain about “helicopter parents” arriving on campus), they really ended up serving as a crutch to address homesickness, as incoming students focused on maintaining ties to high school friends rather than building new relationships. Students go to elite universities to “get an education.” Few realize that the true quality product that elite colleges in the US have historically offered is social network diversification. Even when it comes to job acquisition, sociologists have long known that diverse social networks (“weak ties”) are what increase job prospects. By self-segregating on campus, students undermine their own potential while also helping fragment the diversity of the broader social fabric. Diversity Is Hard Diversity is often touted as highly desirable. Indeed, in professional contexts, we know that more diverse teams often outperform homogeneous teams. Diversity also increases cognitive development, both intellectually and socially. And yet, actually encountering and working through diverse viewpoints, experiences, and perspectives is hard work. It’s uncomfortable. It’s emotionally exhausting. It can be downright frustrating. Thus, given the opportunity, people typically revert to situations where they can be in homogeneous environments. They look for “safe spaces” and “culture fit.” And systems that are “personalized” are highly desirable. Most people aren’t looking to self-segregate, but they do it anyway. And, increasingly, the technologies and tools around us allow us to self-segregate with ease. Is your uncle annoying you with his political rants? Mute 225 20 danah bo y d him. Tired of getting ads for irrelevant products? Reveal your preferences. Want your search engine to remember the things that matter to you? Let it capture data. Want to watch a TV show that appeals to your senses? Here are some recommendations. Any company whose business model is based on advertising revenue and attention is incentivized to engage you by giving you what you want. And what you want in theory is different than what you want in practice. Consider, for example, what Netflix encountered when it started its streaming offer. Users didn’t watch the movies that they had placed into their queue. Those movies were the movies they thought they wanted, movies that reflected their ideal self — 12 Years a Slave, for example. What they watched when they could stream whatever they were in the mood for at that moment was the equivalent of junk food — reruns of Friends, for example. (This completely undid Netflix’s recommendation Netflix recommends shows to its users based on what they have already watched. 226 Why America Is Self-Segregating infrastructure, which had been trained on people’s idealistic self-images.) The divisions are not just happening through commercialism though. School choice has led people to self-segregate from childhood on up. The structures of American work life mean that fewer people work alongside others from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Our contemporary culture of retail and service labor means that there’s a huge cultural gap between workers and customers with little opportunity to truly get to know one another. Even many religious institutions are increasingly fragmented such that people have fewer interactions across diverse lines. (Just think about how there are now “family services” and “traditional services” which age-segregate.) In so many parts of public, civic, and professional life, we are self-segregating and the opportunities for doing so are increasing every day. By and large, the American public wants to have strong connections across divisions. They see the value politically and socially. But they’re not going to work for it. And given the option, they’re going to renew their license remotely, try to get out of jury duty, and use available data to seek out housing and schools that are filled with people like them. This is the conundrum we now face. Many pundits remarked that, during the 2016 election season, very few Americans were regularly exposed to people whose political ideology conflicted with their own. This is true. But it cannot be fixed by Facebook or news media. Exposing people to content that challenges their perspective doesn’t actually make them more empathetic to those values and perspectives. To the contrary, it polarizes them. What makes people willing to hear difference is knowing and trusting people whose worldview differs from their own. Exposure to content cannot make up for self-segregation. 227 25 danah bo y d If we want to develop a healthy democracy, we need a diverse and highly connected social fabric. This requires creating contexts in which the American public voluntarily struggles with the challenges of diversity to build bonds that will last a lifetime. We have been systematically undoing this, and the public has used new technological advances to make their lives easier by self-segregating. This has increased polarization, and we’re going to pay a heavy price for this going forward. Rather than focusing on what media enterprises can and should do, we need to focus instead on building new infrastructures for connection where people have a purpose for coming together across divisions. We need that social infrastructure just as much as we need bridges and roads. Joining the Conversation 1. Writer danah boyd argues that, rather than becoming a more diverse nation, the United States is becoming a nation of self-contained identity groups. What evidence does she provide to support her argument? In what ways does your own experience support or challenge boyd’s view? 2. In paragraph 4, boyd writes that Mark Zuckerberg is “naive as hell,” using language that is informal, especially in contrast to her discussion of “fragmentation, polarization, and de-diversification,” which is happening “en masse” (paragraph 2). How does this blend of styles affect your response to the essay? 3. According to boyd, we like the idea of diversity, but we’re not willing to work for it (paragraph 25). How do you think Sean Blanda (pp. 212–18) or Barack Obama (pp. 296–313) might respond? 228 Why America Is Self-Segregating 4. Write an essay responding to boyd, drawing on your own experiences in college, online, in the military, or with something else. Frame your argument as a response to boyd. 5. Self-segregation in college life is a topic on the minds of other writers, too. Go to theysayiblog.com and search for Conor Friedersdorf. Read his essay on elitism in college dorms. What does he say about them? 229 University of Groningen Facilitating campus interactions - critical success factors according to university facility directors Jansz, Sascha Naomi; van Dijk, Terry; Mobach, Mark P. Published in: Facilities DOI: 10.1108/F-03-2020-0031 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2021 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Jansz, S. N., van Dijk, T., & Mobach, M. P. (2021). Facilitating campus interactions - critical success factors according to university facility directors. Facilities, 39(9/10), 585-600. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-20200031 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverneamendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0263-2772.htm Facilitating campus interactions – critical success factors according to university facility directors Sascha Naomi Jansz Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands and Research Group Facility Management, Research Centre for Built Environment – NoorderRuimte, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands Facilitating campus interactions 585 Received 6 April 2020 Revised 25 September 2020 18 November 2020 Accepted 28 November 2020 Terry van Dijk Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, and Mark P. Mobach Research Group Facility Management, Research Centre for Built Environment – Noorder Ruimte, Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands and Research Group Spatial Environment and the User, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate which critical success factors (CSFs) influence interaction on campuses as identified by the facility directors (FDs) of Dutch university campuses and to discuss how these compare with the literature. Design/methodology/approach – All 13 Dutch university campus FDs were interviewed (office and walking interview), focussing on CSFs relating to spaces and services that facilitate interaction. Open coding and thematic analysis resulted in empirically driven categories indicated by the respondents. Similarities and differences between the CSFs as previously identified in the literature are discussed. Findings – The following categories emerged: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. The campus is seen as a system containing subsystems and is itself part of a wider system (environment), forming a layered structure. Constraints and motivators are part of the environment but cannot be separated from the other four categories, as they influence their applicability. Research limitations/implications – This study was limited to interviews with FDs and related staff. The richness of the findings shows that this was a relevant and efficient data collection strategy for the purpose of this study. Practical implications – By viewing the campus as an open system, this study puts the practical applicability of CSFs into perspective yet provides a clear overview of CSFs related to campus interaction that may be included in future campus design policies. Social implications – This (more) complete overview of CSFs identified in both literature and practice will help FDs, policymakers and campus designers to apply these CSFs in their campus designs. This improved campus design would increase the number of knowledge sharing interactions, contributing to For their contribution to this paper the authors would like to thank Marjolein Overtoom and Oscar Couwenberg. This research was funded by Facility Directors of Dutch Universities. The authors would like to thank them for their input and support. Facilities Vol. 39 No. 9/10, 2021 pp. 585-600 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/F-03-2020-0031 F 39,9/10 innovation and valorisation. This could create a significant impact in all research fields, such as health, technology or well-being, benefitting society as a whole. Originality/value – This study provides a comprehensive overview and comparison of CSFs from both literature and practice, allowing more effective application of CSFs in campus design policies. A framework for future studies on CSFs for interaction on campuses is provided. Keywords Interaction, Services, Campus, Spaces, Proximity, Shared facilities, Context 586 Paper type Research paper Introduction Dutch universities have three main objectives: education, research and knowledge valorisation (VSNU, 2013). Knowledge valorisation is often stimulated by means of a “triple helix” of academic-industry-government relationships (Etzkowitz, 2008). One example is the opening-up of the university campus. A campus is defined by Dinteren et al. (2017) as an active open innovation environment where actors can meet and inspire each other in the presence of high-end shared facilities and at least one renowned knowledge carrier, which largely determines the campus’s thematic profiling. Many universities now seek to attract companies to their campuses to create a meeting place where the different campus users, such as university staff, company employees and students, can interact (Buck Consultants International, 2018; TU Delft, 2014; VU Amsterdam, 2014). This paper focuses on Dutch university campuses (the university is the “renowned knowledge carrier”). For companies, (re)locating to a university campus can also be advantageous. Becker et al. (2003) identified the following assumed benefits for corporate campuses: branding, identity and community, cost and control, security and business continuity, attraction and retention of staff, communication and collaboration and provision of amenities and services. Co-location on a campus is assumed to increase interactions across different organisational units owing to geographic proximity, which in turn is assumed to stimulate innovation (Becker et al., 2003; Curvelo Magdaniel, 2016; Geenhuizen, 2010). The built environment influences people’s behaviour (Meusburger, 2009) and thus also stimulates or inhibits the interaction of the different users. Therefore, Burlage and Brase (1995, p. 140) argued that “campus architecture should be grounded in the research on behaviour”. Behaviour can also be limited owing to constraints, defined in leisure research as factors that prevent or prohibit an individual’s participation in an activity (Jackson et al., 1993 cited Moghimehfar and Halpenny, 2016). However, Jackson et al. proposed that people facilitate their participation though a negotiation process, which is inspired by their motivation to attend. In other words, if there is sufficient motivation, people will negotiate constraints to be able to perform the desired behaviour, in this case interaction. In a preceding review article by the same authors, the following critical success factors (CSFs), which influence how spaces and services stimulate interaction on campuses, were identified in the scientific literature: geographic proximity, cognitive proximity, scale, transitional spaces, comfort and experience, shared facilities and events/local buzz/networks (Jansz et al., 2020). In this paper, the campus is seen as a system, described by Checkland (1981, cited Checkland, 2012) as a group of interacting or interrelated entities that form a unified whole and responds to influences from its environment (all entities outside the system’s boundary). It is important to realise that the system boundary is not fixed, in the sense that the system has smaller subsystems and is in itself also a functional part of a wider system (buildings are part of the campus and the campus is part of the region). Furthermore, the system is open to influences from its environment and has to respond appropriately. Therefore, a system will, in principle, be part of a “layered structure”, making a hierarchy of systems (Checkland, 1981 cited Checkland, 2012). In this paper, the boundaries between the subsystem (CSFs), system (campus) and wider system (environment) will be assumed as perceived from the viewpoint of university facility directors (FDs). Opening up the campus involves FDs, as they are responsible for a university’s spaces and services. As described in EN ISO 41001:2018: Facility management is an organisational function which integrates people, place and process within the built environment with the purpose of improving the quality of life of people and the productivity of the core business (NEN, 2018). In this case, the core business is valorisation and the FD’s contribution is to facilitate interaction through spaces and services. Of course, this system boundary may not be as rigid as it seems. As well as having a direct influence on campus, FDs can also have an indirect influence on environmental factors, such as political decisions, university strategy and city developments. For example, they may meet with the municipality to discuss increasing public transit options to campus. However, this initiative is not part of their “core domain” and opportunities to do so may differ per campus. Over the years, campus management has become more complex and challenging, which increases the need for evidence-based management information to support campus decisionmaking (Den Heijer, 2011). However, the question is whether CSFs identified in the literature are the same as those used by FD’s when creating campus design policies, as success factors of campuses can be increasingly complex and relative to user behaviours (Rytköne, 2016). Instead, it may be possible that FDs operate primarily on the basis of experience and intuition, designing their campus spaces in the way that they feel is most productive for facilitating interactions. In a bid to close this knowledge gap, this paper presents the CSFs identified by FDs at the 13 Dutch universities as stimulating campus interaction. What do they see as the determining factors that they strategically act on? In-depth interviews and thematic analysis were used to collect the CSFs that they apply. The results allow a comparison with the preceding literature review, enabling a discussion. Finally, a more complete list of CSFs based on both literature and experience that may be used in future campus designs is presented. The practical implementations and experiences of FDs yield an interesting view on how campus spaces and services tend to stimulate interaction between different campus users. Their perspective adds to the existing, more formally acquired, theory. Methodology To be able to include all 13 Dutch university campuses and collect all CSFs FDs see as most important, an in depth interview study was used. This qualitative approach was chosen to ensure that CSFs not described in the literature would have room to emerge and the in-depth reasons as to why CSFs are important and of their interrelationships could be discussed (Hennink et al., 2020). As mentioned in the introduction, FDs may operate primarily on the basis of experience and intuition. In the literature, this experience-based approach has been referred to as “phronesis”, often translated as “practical wisdom”. Phronesis is the ability to use one’s experience to implement general knowledge in a specific situation and is context dependent (Aristotle, trans 1976 cited Flyvbjerg, 2001). Scientific literature, on the other hand, is generally geared towards universal theories (also called “episteme”). Flyvbjerg (2001), however, argues that this focus is not appropriate for studies focussing on human behaviour. As Flyvbjerg explains, a universal theory “requires that the concrete context of Facilitating campus interactions 587 F 39,9/10 everyday human activity be excluded, but this very exclusion of context makes explanation and prediction impossible” (2001, p.40). This is because: [. . .] in social science, the object is a subject [. . .] these self-interpretations and their relations to the context of those studied must be understood in order to understand why people act as they do. (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 32) 588 In other words, the context influences people’s behaviour, while people also influence the context. To see whether any similarities and/or differences emerge between the phronesis and episteme approach and see whether one could reinforce the other, the results from the interview study are compared to the literature in the discussion section. To ensure that the context would have room to emerge in the interviews, a walking interview was used to encourage spontaneous interaction, with the environment prompting the discussion of the related CSFs (Kinney, 2017). The FDs were asked to select a location on campus that embodies the CSFs they mentioned, walk through the location with the interviewer and point out examples in the space. These walking interviews generate more place-specific data than sedentary interviews and engage to a greater extent with features in the area under study and their connections (Evans and Jones, 2011). Participants As this paper focusses on current (and possible) interaction stimulation strategies for university facility management, the FDs of all 13 universities in The Netherlands with physical campuses were selected for the interviews (see Table 1). The FDs were contacted at one of their quarterly national meetings and all agreed to cooperate. The interviews took place in spring/summer 2018. The participants (N = 26) were 13 facility directors (1 interim), 11 guests invited by the FD (four facility managers of the visited location, four representatives of real estate departments, two experienced facility management employees as the FD had recently changed and one director of new business development), plus two whose presence on location was unplanned (one company employee, one business incubation manager). Interview protocol Interviews were semi-structured to ensure that the specific dimensions of the research question could be addressed while leaving room for respondents to add context (Galletta, 2013). Interviews started with open questions about what FDs regarded as CSFs, followed by questions specifically relating to spatial and service factors because interaction is place dependent (Meusburger, 2009) and services are often indicated as an important enabler for interaction (Van De Klundert and Van Winden, 2008). The same interview protocol was used during all interviews and all preparations (invitation, briefing, etc.) were standardised to ensure comparability. As described earlier, a place-based, participant-driven (walking) interview was used because of the focus on the spatial or locational cues that respondents assumed influence human interaction behaviour and increase knowledge sharing. However, as confidentiality cannot be assured when interviewing in a public place and participants might be concerned about being overheard, the walking interview was combined with a desk interview (following the advice of Kinney, 2017). One respondent only took part in an office interview because there was “no interaction-oriented location available”. Respondents were asked to decide on a location beforehand; it had to be a notable example of a place on campus where unplanned interactions between companies and the university might Gen Med/Gen Med/Gen Med/Gen Tech Tech Med/Gen Tech Tech Vening Meineszgebouw A The Gallery Plus Ultra Tilburg University Radboud University Leiden University University of Groningen Delft University of Technology Eindhoven University of Technology Utrecht University University of Twente Wageningen University and Research Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam University of Amsterdam Maastricht University *Office interview only, respondents reported that there was no suitable location Amsterdam Venture Studios Start-up village Employee lounge – School of Business and Economics Intermezzo (Toren) Outdoor campus spaces Wijnhaven Energy academy YES! Delft Cataclyst Erasmus University Rotterdam Med/Gen Med/Gen Med/Gen Med/Gen Interview location University Type of university Separate Combined Combined Combined Separate Separate Separate Separate Separate Combined Separate Combined Separate Services and real estate 30.523 10.026 10.779 13.050 19.899 26.853 28.875 21.651 10.766 22.359 31.019 16.861 28.047 No. of students 103 471 140 – 77 135 198 245 143 Utrecht Science Park Kennispark Twente Wageningen Campus VU Campus Amsterdam Science Park Brightlands Maastricht Health Campus – Mercator Science Park Leiden Bio Science Park Campus Groningen TU Delft Science Park TU/e Science Park – – 31 159 73 Included in number of companies (Buck, 2018) No. of companies (Buck, 2018) Facilitating campus interactions 589 Table 1. Overview of Dutch universities, med = medical, gen = general, tech = technical F 39,9/10 take place. Before starting the interview, participants were given an informed consent form stating that the interview would be recorded and transcribed and that all information would be anonymised in any resulting publications. Interviews began with a short introduction, explaining our aim to find what spatial and service characteristics could be identified as critical success factors for interaction. The interview protocol included 14 questions. 590 Analysis The data was recorded and transcribed. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006) using ATLAS.ti V8 software (Friese, 2014). As described by Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analysis consists of five steps: data familiarisation; initial coding; searching themes; reviewing themes; and defining and naming themes. An additional step was added to this process during step 4. At this stage, not only did the first author review the themes but a second coder also reviewed all codes, quotations and themes created by the first author in the first three steps. This was then combined into a final set. To ensure readability, the themes were grouped by the first author based on the interview data, using the categories defined by the respondents as a starting point. Only later, in the discussion, was this grouping compared to the grouping found in the literature. In the data, multiple quotes used slightly different names for the same categories. The names “designing spaces and building community” were taken directly from the data, while the names “constraints, motivators, designing services and creating coherence” were agreed upon by the authors (Figure 1). Only those mentioned 10 times or more or mentioned by more than half of the respondents were included in the categories “designing spaces and designing services”. Results The interviews produced a series of statements about what FDs consider to be CSFs, as well as statements suggesting certain perceived categories, hierarchies and interrelations. The following quote illustrates the recurring CSF categories mentioned by the respondents: Figure 1. Final themes and categories You need content. You need vision. Then you’ll need a place [. . .] and a program to run in this place. And then of course, communication is important to properly set up the network”. (INT-07) Another respondent framed it slightly differently: “You need three things: a community [. . .], a space [. . .] and a program [. . .]” (INT-11). The authors further refined these category names into the following six categories, to most accurately capture the full scope of the CSFs in these groups: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. “Constraints” was the only factor not mentioned as a specific category by the respondents, possibly because they found it too obvious to mention. Whereas the four categories of designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence all include CSFs that can be directly influenced by FDs, the other two categories are of a special type. Constraints and motivators are outside a FD’s sphere of influence (e.g. campus size) and set the stage for the applicability of CSFs. They are a part of the environment and outside the system’s boundary (see methodology). For example, motivators may relate to a university’s strategy and long-term goals, steering the directions FDs may choose when implementing CSFs. In other words, constraints and motivators are CSFs that are not part of the design itself but which set the stage for which CSFs from the other four categories can or cannot be included in the campus design. This hierarchy between the categories was also indicated by respondents when they emphasised why certain measures from other campuses would not work on theirs. Just as a campus consists of different layers (campus, buildings, floors, rooms), the CSFs in the open campus system are part of a layered structure. Constraints and motivators are part of the environment (higher layer) and directly influence the applicability of the categories in the lower layer (Figure 1). Constraints limit interaction behaviour on campus but (as described in the introduction) motivators can inspire a negotiation process that facilitates the desired behaviour, in this case interaction. As mentioned in the methodology section, the CSFs above the dotted line are outside the system’s boundary (outside the FD’s scope) and can only be influenced indirectly by FDs. The four categories below the line are part of the “core domain” of the FDs and represent how they can add value to the campus by including these in their campus design. It is clear that this includes not only designing spaces and services but also building community and creating coherence on the campus. These four core activities are at the heart of the FD’s scope of work. However, the system boundary will not be the same for each campus and may change over time. An FD’s scope can be expanded, or constraints and motivators may change, creating new opportunities for FDs to add value. As the interviews specifically targeted CSFs relating to spaces and services, most of the emergent themes are in these categories. This was also clearly the area where respondents felt most comfortable making statements although not all agreed on exactly which services or design choices should be included in their scope. In other words, the system boundary and which factors can be directly or indirectly influenced by FDs, differs per campus and may change over time. Because of space constraints, not all CSFs relating to spaces and services mentioned by one or more respondents can be discussed in this paper. Therefore, only those CSFs named ten times or more, or by more than half of the respondents, are included in these sections. Constraints The respondents were very aware of both their significance and their limitations in facilitating interaction through campus design. While they named many CSFs that they use to stimulate interaction, they were also very aware of the environment in which they operate, including the constraints and motivators. The “constraints” category includes CSFs Facilitating campus interactions 591 F 39,9/10 592 that are outside the FDs’ sphere of influence (structural constraints, e.g. campus size or distance to the nearest city) and, therefore, outside the system boundary (see methodology). However, constraints are all-important when considering interventions: All those concepts, you can’t apply those here. You have to analyse the situation every time; what’s the context, what type of people, what type of university, which strategy can you apply to what you are in that moment. For example, [X] might say ‘only one lunch location for the whole campus’ but imagine we did that here: we’d have to supply them with bicycles because of the huge distances”. (INT-09) Depending on an FD’s scope, they may or may not be in a position to implement certain measures to facilitate interaction. Even though many campuses have existed for several decades, no ideal blueprint for the organisational structure of campus facility management has emerged. In some cases, real estate management (campus planning, building projects, etc.) is organised separately from campus services (catering, cleaning, etc.), while in other cases, these are housed within the same department (Table 1). Some campuses have an organisational structure with a separate campus management organisation to increase accountability for overall campus integration, which can affect an FD’s scope. It may include developers, consultants, event managers, campus planners and municipal and/or neighbourhood representatives. They can be in charge of the selection procedure for which companies may or may not be located on campus. [. . .] they have a separate entity responsible for communication, business development, I believe there are 10-15 people working on a day-to-day basis to improve the cross-fertilisation between university, companies, municipality, province, and all the other parties currently involved there. They’re really driving that and developing a score of events looking for this interaction between the different campus users”. (INT-07) But, the respondents stated, this separate organisation must have a sufficient mandate to be functional. The type of university influences “creating coherence” (see below) and a university’s level of attraction to companies, thus influencing the interaction potential. The different types mentioned by respondents are technical, medical and general universities, broader and smaller scope universities and large and small universities (in terms of either student numbers or campus size). For example: “At a technical university, you will see this more often because of the combination of facilities” (INT-08), referring to the shared use of costly facilities. Based on a campus’ relationship with the city there is a difference in the spaces and services that FDs feel they need to provide. For campuses that are within the city, some spaces and services can be shared: The city is a very important meeting place for us. People come to [X] because it is [X] and that is where you meet, in endlessly different ways you meet each other there. For us, it is often not so obvious to do something ourselves because a lot of facilities are already in the city itself and people have very different needs. (INT-12) For campuses that are a fair distance from the city, these spaces and services will have to be provided by FDs. The city may also play a role in the thematic direction of the campus: This campus is really oriented towards the city and the added value for the city. Here, we try to connect with all ministries, hospitals, governments and more. Here, it is really focused on the themes of [the city]. (INT-05) Motivators The “motivators” category shows why (unplanned) interaction between companies and universities is needed, what results are expected and it allows FDs to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different strategies. These are often formulated in the university’s strategic vision, which should be connected to both the university board and employees (INT-11). The main reason to look for cooperation with companies is to increase a university’s valorisation efforts: This university has three core objectives: 1) Education, 2) Research and 3) Valorisation. Valorisation is no more than the practical application of your knowledge and that’s where you get the connection with companies”. (INT-11) Generally, a certain chain of events is expected, leading from interaction, through knowledge sharing, to innovation and valorisation (Jansz et al., 2020). The war for talent is named as one of the main reasons why companies want to be located on campus. “[those companies] [. . .] only want one thing: to be close to the students” (INT-10). Expected results for this CSF range from joint projects between companies and students to start-ups and being able to recruit the talented workforce that companies need. Private funding (e.g. through contract research) is becoming increasingly important for universities, as public funding is not keeping pace with the growing student numbers. Also, grant applications often require matching by private companies. “And it has to do with finance. That you do scientific research in cooperation with someone who is also physically present, that almost guarantees long-term cooperation in the research” (INT-13). A university’s image or brand is very important, as a major part of university funding is linked to the number of students. Having companies on campus can play a large part in enhancing this image. It’s exposure, of course [. . .] their image is very important for a university. So, when you have an important cooperation partner physically present on your campus, that also gives a good appearance. (INT-13) Organisational culture can contribute to or block spontaneous meetings. Respondents mentioned having to actively “pull people out of their buildings” as one of the main reasons why there was less spontaneous interaction than they would have liked. A good way to achieve this is to organise events, giving people a reason to go to a different or new location. “You have to make sure people come out of their buildings or into each other’s buildings, you have to make sure there is programming” (INT-01). “It all adds up to the open character of the campus to make sure people feel it’s a matter of course to come out of their buildings [and interact]” (INT-01). Another issue is fear of intellectual property theft. One respondent mentioned mixing different sectors in an incubator setting to prevent these issues. Designing spaces When asked where most spontaneous meetings take place on campus, one respondent said: The interaction actually takes place on different levels of scale. At the level of the campus as a whole, zooming in on the building level it is at theme-oriented facilities, such as the [sustainability themed department], [incubator spaces] or [multi company building]. And at the floor level we have living rooms people can use on a daily basis and bring their guests. (INT-07) The respondents agreed that the spatial design of spontaneous meeting places plays a distinct role in stimulating unplanned interactions but not all respondents felt that it is within their scope to design these. “That is not my expertise. That would be interior Facilitating campus interactions 593 F 39,9/10 594 architecture” (INT-13). However, they do have a clear vision and named the following concepts to stimulate unplanned meetings through spatial design: open/transparent, informal, atmosphere and geographic proximity. Creating an open and transparent space means that people should feel free to enter the space and participate in whatever is going on. The space should be visible, easy to find and accessible. You should be able to see what is going on inside before entering the space. Closed-off spaces (such as closed offices or inaccessible buildings) were specifically named as a barrier to interaction. There is a clear need for informal spaces, where you can talk about different topics in an informal way, as opposed to more formal rooms (such as meeting rooms). This is often combined with catering facilities and good coffee (mentioned specifically 30 times). This informality can be achieved through the use of furniture and lounge areas and by giving people an opportunity to make a space their own. This is also connected to a space’s atmosphere, which gives people an opportunity to choose which space best suits their needs. “And it’s also putting people at ease, saying: it’s ok. You can come in here. You can sit here, and you can just talk to each other here, to create that informal atmosphere” (INT-01). However, creating a certain atmosphere also depends on current trends: “[This building has] a pit where a lot of dialogue or session dialogue-like things happen. But after five years it is almost dated again so you need something new. That changes very quickly” (INT-01). Geographic proximity was also mentioned, but on a very general level. Often, respondents were referring to being on the same campus as a measure of proximity, though not necessarily in the same building or on the same floor. However, they did point to “being close to your colleagues” as a way to stimulate interaction and mentioned long distances and urban structures that inhibit easy travel as main barriers to interaction, originating in the environment. Furthermore, there is the risk of creating only a temporary effect: “Once you are closer to each other, first you find each other more often than before, but then you get used to it and it decreases” (INT-12). Designing services The services provided on campus were often cited by respondents as the main reason for companies to wish to be located on campus. In general, respondents especially mentioned coffee, public access, opening hours, provision of information, relaxation opportunities and parking as important campus services. Most of these are on the building or floor level. However, when focussing on strategies for services that can positively influence interaction between different campus users, they most frequently mentioned catering, meeting spaces, shared research facilities, sports, a library and event locations. Depending on the strategy, these can be on the level of the campus, building or floor. “Good coffee always does the trick. Good coffee. Really good coffee” (INT-14). (For readability, only those mentioned 15 times or more have been included in Figure 1.) For shared research facilities, especially those that are costly have the greatest effect as this cooperation creates new opportunities to use this equipment. “The shared [laboratory] facilities [are the key], because it’s such a costly and expensive facility that the joint management is effective and efficient for both parties” (INT-14). Building community Respondents felt that the campus should be an integrated whole, home to an innovative community where interactions and knowledge sharing are appreciated: And we really try to stimulate [interactions in public spaces] as it’s always a barrier to sit down on someone else’s turf or to do something there or to have to go there”. (INT-05) A large part of creating a community is event programming: “[. . .] if you want to make this successful, you’ll have to set up a substantive program. Because if you don’t [. . .] it’ll die out” (INT-05). This requires an event manager dedicated to programming, which can be an opportunity for campus facility management: If you really leave it up to the campus users, it won’t take off. That’s when this employee can take up a broader role. They can be a broker between different research areas, close to the action, who knows people. And that makes it easier for others with ideas as well, as they have an easy point of contact to spar with. (INT-05) “Fun” events such as weekly drinks are considered to add to the overall campus experience, as they create an atmosphere where people feel free to interact with each other. However, respondents also stressed the importance of content-related activities, such as conferences, workshops and lectures. “And then you see that people congregate who have at least one thing in common. [. . .]. And then you get new interactions very easily” (INT-01). While some respondents see event programming as a way to actively contribute to the campus’s success, not all respondents feel that it should be part of their scope. Another possibility is to set up the initial program and then transfer the management of the program once everyone is convinced of the added value. Networks were often mentioned as part of a healthy community. Respondents also relate network building to creating a talent base and opportunities to share knowledge: We would like companies located on campus to be more aware of and more knowledgeable about each other so you can build and sustain a kind of network. [. . .] For example, so you can ensure that they can find each other better and know about each other’s presence more. (INT-02) Respondents mentioned local buzz as an important CSF and the result of a well-functioning community. Gertler (1995) defines local buzz as the information and communication ecology created by face-to-face contacts, co-presence and co-location of people and firms within the same industry and place or region (Gertler, 1995 in: Bathelt et al., 2004). “Yes, so, that local buzz, the chance of collision, local buzz, that’s what companies find important. The unexpected interactions. Being able to quickly contact a researcher” (INT-01). One respondent gave a clear overview of what was needed to create a community: If I were to start a new community, I’d need three things: someone to facilitate everything on location, a space where everyone can meet. And that space must have an innovative atmosphere, so when you enter it’s like ‘Yes! This gives me energy, and this is where it happens, I want to be here. And third, there must be a program. (INT-11) Creating coherence The CSF named most often and by all respondents was “content”: the interaction must be able to provide knowledge useful to the university’s primary process of education, research or valorisation. This is not unexpected as it is part of the definition of facility management (see Introduction). This category has been named “creating coherence”, as all CSFs relate to making sure the right people (with complementary skills or knowledge) meet each other. Connection to the primary process, or content, is all-important: “If there is no connection on content, the presence of a company makes little sense. [. . .] You’re looking for partners, companies, government agencies that make you stronger” (INT-12). To ensure this connection on the content, many campuses (though not all) use a selection procedure to see if Facilitating campus interactions 595 F 39,9/10 596 a company should be allowed to locate on campus or not. “This interaction between research and companies is required, otherwise a company cannot establish itself here. [. . .] We’re not just a business park, we’re a university” (INT-09). To set selection criteria, it is essential that a campus has a clear profiling theme. This brings clarity to all campus users and visitors and ensures that everyone shares a common interest. The profiling themes are expected to work best when campus users have different backgrounds or come from different disciplines (multidisciplinary) and are, therefore, able to bring new and unexpected knowledge into these interactions and to stimulate interdisciplinary research areas. Discussion Now that the CSFs of FDs have been identified, these can be compared to the CSFs identified in the preceding systematic literature review by the same authors (Jansz et al., 2020) and the added value for companies located on a corporate campus (Becker et al., 2003). Figure 2 shows the open campus system, with its layered structure of CSFs and the parallels (confirmations) between the CSFs found through experience and in the literature. Before making a comparison, it is important to look at how FDs view their part in facilitating interactions on campus. Clearly, FDs feel that they have an important part to play in facilitating interactions, yet they are very aware that they cannot force these interactions to take place. They put into perspective how manageable this goal is. The CSFs’ Figure 2. Open campus system – comparison of CSFs in literature (left) and in experience of FDs (right) value is relative, as FDs operate on a complex playing field in which constraints originating in the environment can limit their opportunities to implement certain strategies. This is a very different mindset to that of the scientist, who identifies CSFs based on observations and a focus on general theories. The respondents see the CSFs as part of a layered structure with many different subsystems, which itself is part of a wider system (as described by Checkland, 2012) see introduction), making the factors interrelated and interdependent (this interconnectivity is evident in both the literature and in practice). An example is the connection between community, networks, local buzz and event programming (as also [partially] described by Breznitz et al., 2018 and Capdevila, 2015): to kick-start the community, a certain amount of effort is required to organise events. Also, spaces, services and cohesion need to be supplied by the organisation. Once events are happening in the community, this will create local buzz and strengthen the network, which will in turn increase event attendance. When the local buzz reaches a high enough level, some of it may feed back into the ecosystem in the form of informally organised events. This would allow a formal event planner (an opportunity for FDs to add value) to withdraw and transfer this task to the campus users. This requires FDs to think in terms of webs of strategic interventions, rather than lists of factors in their own right. There are many parallels between the CSFs mentioned in the literature and in practice (Figure 2), confirming their importance. For example, both stress the importance of a connection of the content (“cognitive proximity” (Zhong and Luo, 2018) or “creating coherence”) However, although there are direct relationships, similar categories do not always encompass exactly the same things. For example, while “events/local buzz/ networks” is also represented in the “community” category, this category is more extensive. Also, “transitional spaces”, such as “third spaces” (public places on neutral ground where people can gather and interact (Oldenburg, 1989)), is partly covered by “open/transparent, informal and atmosphere”, but is broader than just these three. Finally, “geographic proximity” is defined differently: while FDs refer to geographic proximity as being on the same campus, the scientific literature describes how unplanned interaction through geographic proximity alone is limited to 50 m for frequent interaction (Allen, 1997), or to the building floor for less frequent interaction (Becker et al., 2003; Schwab et al., 2016). While campus users will ideally move through the campus automatically, creating opportunities for unplanned meetings on the campus level, this is generally not the case. Scale has an effect on the interactions taking place or not (Capdevila, 2015; Schwab et al., 2016; Venable, 1981). In fact, many meetings take place on the level of the workplace, floor or building. This relates to the fact that interaction is an inherently individual activity and while both individuals are on campus, their direct environment is always on a smaller scale (the system boundary of the individual is different from the system boundary of the campus). The challenge is, therefore, to facilitate easy movement between these levels of scale, so that users may encounter each other all over the campus, which is an opportunity for FDs to add value. Also, not all CSF categories named in practice are represented in the literature (Figure 2). The layered structure indicated by the FDs shows the interconnectivity of the CSF categories and reveals that the categories located in the environment, which are fundamentally linked to the applicability of the CSFs within the system’s boundary, were not identified in the previous literature review: constraints and motivators (although motivators does hold many parallels with Becker et al. (2003) for corporate campuses). Constraints can eliminate the implementation of certain CSFs, while motivators may inspire a negotiation process to remove these restrictions (Moghimehfar and Halpenny, 2016). It is Facilitating campus interactions 597 F 39,9/10 598 important to note that the previous literature review did not specifically look for these constraints and motivators (as they are outside the system’s boundary) but neither did the interviews. However, the FDs clearly stated (unsolicited) that the system cannot be viewed fully outside its environment. It is an open system that can only operate within the constraints and motivators originating in its environment, responding to any changes that may occur. This (unsolicited) inclusion of the layered structure might be expected to appear in the literature as well, but it did not. This may be indicative of the different points of view of practitioners and scientists. Whereas, scientists look for universal laws and patterns that will pass peer-review tests, practitioners such as the FDs have a perspective rooted in implementation and justification while being aware that they cannot force interactions to take place. Traditionally, scientists analyse the campus in isolation from its environment, effectively assuming that it is a closed system. However, the respondents feel that the campus is an open system, which needs to be viewed in its environment to result in practically applicable guidelines for campus design. This difference in their relationship with reality has also been addressed by Flyvbjerg (2001) through the concept of phronesis (see methodology). Conclusion This paper has looked into the experience-based knowledge (“phronesis”) of university FDs regarding CSFs for interaction in campus design. These CSFs are especially important as campuses are opening up to company (re)location to create a meeting place where the different campus users, such as university staff, company employees and students, can interact. These CSFs, within the system boundary of the campus, were then compared to those found in the literature. In thematically analysed interviews, the FDs of the 13 Dutch campuses, identified six main CSF categories: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. These are part of a layered structure, with subsystems, which is itself part of a wider system in which constraints and motivators affect the other four CSF categories, showing that the CSFs are interrelated and interdependent. There are many parallels between the CSFs identified in the literature and in practice although similar categories can be broader or smaller in either. Also, even though they use the same terminology, they may not always mean the same things. An FD addition to the current literature is the acknowledgement that the environment, with its constraints and motivators, cannot be fully separated from the system. It is an open boundary and the precise location of that boundary may differ per campus and change over time. FDs are very aware that they cannot force these interactions to take place, they can only be facilitated. They emphasise the role of the environment and put the value of the CSFs in perspective, as they operate on a complex playing field. This provides us with a richer view of the CSFs that influence interaction through campus design. Respondents clearly state that although interaction should take place on the campus scale, the scale of the interaction itself is always on the individual level. The present authors, therefore, suggest that the movement between the different levels of scale needs to be as comfortable as possible, which is where FDs can really add value. Further research on where these interactions take place and how a campus user moves between these different levels of scale could further support FDs in the future. References Allen, T.J. (1997), “Architecture and communication among product development engineers”, The International Center for Research on the Management of Technology. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004), “Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 31-56. Becker, F., Sims, W. and Schoss, J.H. (2003), “Interaction, identity and collocation: what value is a corporate campus?”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 344-365. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101. Breznitz, S.M., Clayton, P.A., Defazio, D. and Isett, K.R. (2018), “Have you been served? The impact of university entrepreneurial support on start-ups’ network formation”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 343-367. Buck Consultants International (2018), Inventarisatie en Meerwaarde Van Campussen in Nederland, Den Haag. Burlage, J. and Brase, W. (1995), “Campus architecture that shapes behavior”, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 133-141. Capdevila, I. (2015), “Co-Working spaces and the localised dynamics of innovation in barcelona”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 1-25. Checkland, P. (2012), “Four conditions for serious systems thinking and action”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 465-469. Curvelo Magdaniel, F. (2016), Technology Campuses and Cities. A Study on the Relation between Innovation and the Built Environment at the Urban Area Level, Delft University of Technology. Den Heijer, A.C. (2011), Managing the University Campus: Information to Support Real Estate Decisions, Delft University of Technology. Dinteren, J., Jansen, P. and Lettink, N. (2017), “Ruimte voor kennisontwikkeling – van sciencepark tot innovatiedistrict”, M&O, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 65-82. Etzkowitz, H. (2008), The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, New York, NY. Evans, J. and Jones, P. (2011), “The walking interview: methodology, mobility and place”, Applied Geography, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 849-858. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Friese, S. (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti, SAGE, London. Galletta, A. (2013), Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond, 1st ed., New York, NY University Press, New York, NY. Geenhuizen, M.V. (2010), “‘Valorisation of knowledge: preliminary results on valorisation paths and obstacles in bringing university knowledge to market”, The Eighteenth Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference, Enschede, pp. 1-13. Gertler, M.S. (1995), “Being there”: proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies”, Economic Geography, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 1-26. Hennink, M., Hutter, I. and Bailey, A. (2020), Qualitative Research Methods, 2nd ed., SAGE, London. Jansz, S.N., van Dijk, T. and Mobach, M.P. (2020), “Critical success factors for campus interaction spaces and services – a systematic literature review”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 89-108. Kinney, P. (2017), “Walking interviews”, Social Research Update, no. 67. Meusburger, P. (2009), “Milieus of creativity: the role of places, environments, and spatial contexts;”, in Meusburger, P., Funke J. and Wunder E. (Eds),Milieus of Creativity, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 97-153. Facilitating campus interactions 599 F 39,9/10 600 Moghimehfar, F. and Halpenny, E.A. (2016), “How do people negotiate through their constraints to engage in pro-environmental behavior? A study of front-country campers in Alberta, Canada”, Tourism Management, Vol. 57, pp. 362-372. NEN (2018), “nen-EN-iso 41011”, Delft. Oldenburg, R. (1989), “The character of third spaces”, in Carmona, M. and Tiesdell, S. (Eds), Urban Design Reader, Architectural Press, Oxford, pp. 163-169. Rytköne, E. (2016), University Campus Management Dynamics in Spatial Transformation Systemic Facilitation of Interdisciplinary Learning Communities, Aalto University. Schwab, N.G., Cullum, J.C. and Harton, H.C. (2016), “Clustering of worry appraisals among college students”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 156 No. 4, pp. 413-421. TU Delft (2014), Valorisatieagenda TU Delft 2020, Delft. Van De Klundert, M. and Van Winden, W. (2008), “Creating environments for working in a knowledge economy: promoting knowledge diffusion through area based development”, Corporations and Cities, Delft, pp. 1-18. Venable, T.C. (1981), “A case study of factors related to interprofessional relationships of a university faculty”, Contemporary Education, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 209-213. VSNU (2013), Een Raamwerk Valorisatie-Indicatoren, Den Haag. VU Amsterdam (2014), VU Instellingsplan 2015-2020, Amsterdam. Zhong, D. and Luo, Q. (2018), “Knowledge diffusion at business events: the mechanism”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 71, pp. 111-119. Corresponding author Sascha Naomi Jansz can be contacted at: s.n.jansz@rug.nl For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com Peer-Reviewed Article ISSN: 2162-3104 Print/ ISSN: 2166-3750 Online Volume 9, Issue 2 (2019), pp. 687-704 doi: 10.32674/jis.v9i2.943 © Journal of International Students https://ojed.org/jis/ Seeking a Sense of Belonging: Social and Cultural Integration of International Students with American College Students Julia Rivas Katherine Hale Monica Galloway Burke Western Kentucky University ABSTRACT International students studying at higher education institutions in the United States experience challenges as they adjust to new environments. Social connectedness to American college students could mitigate such challenges and assist international students with social and cultural integration. This study, using qualitative data from interviews, examined international students’ experiences and their sense of belonging on an American college campus, including the factors that contribute to or deter from it. Keywords: belonging, college students, cultural integration, international students, social integration INTRODUCTION International students are a population in higher education that has been rising in recent years. According to the Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange (2016a), the enrollment of international students to the United States (US) increased 7% over the previous year academic year with a total of over one million international students accessing higher education 682 in the US during the 2015-2016 academic year. This increase marks the tenth consecutive year that Open Doors reported growth in the total number of international students in U.S. higher education as there are now 85 percent more international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities than were reported a decade ago (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2016b). Still, the number of globally mobile students is expected to continue to increase (Altbach & Basset, 2004). International college students come to the US to access superior education; however, during their academic journey, they encounter many demands, which include building new friendships, navigating different social and cultural norms, and confronting the challenges associated with daily living (Mori, 2000) such as adapting to new cultural values, foods, and weather (Li & Gasser, 2005). In addition, they face challenges in adapting to the academic and social environment, which may include difficulty with the English language and communication, developing friendships, and a lack of knowledge of the American culture (Johnson & Sandhu, 2007). Social connectedness to American college students could mitigate such challenges and assist international students with social and cultural integration. Social connectedness, defined as “the subjective awareness of being in close relation with the social world’’ (Lee & Robbins, 1998, p. 338), is considered a significant predictor of adjustment (Duru & Poyrazli, 2007; Yeh & Inose, 2003). In general, experiencing positive social interaction can encourage psychological well-being and adjustment of international college students (Li & Gasser, 2005; Ye, 2006). International students also face significant challenges in adjusting and developing a sense of belonging on U.S. campuses often due to difficulties in acclimating to a new social life, potential language barriers, and limited knowledge of the new culture (Bentley, 2008). As sense of belonging and social and cultural integration are critical for success in higher education, it is important to investigate the factors that positively impact the social connectedness of international students. This research study, using qualitative data from interviews, examined the experiences of international students with sense of belonging and social connectedness on an American college campus, including the factors that contribute to or deter from it. 683 LITERATURE REVIEW In conjunction with the educational experience, traveling to the US provides international students with the opportunity “to participate in transnational networks―social networks in which day to day interactions involve people from two or more countries” (Gargano, 2009 as cited in Glass, Wongtrirat, & Buus, 2015, p. 53). Studies have demonstrated that interaction between international students and American peers are linked to several benefits, which include higher levels of satisfaction and a more positive experience academically and non-academically (Trice, 2004). A survey of 497 graduate international students regarding their social interactions with Americans found that those who socialized with Americans were more involved on campus and socialized with students from other countries as well (Trice, 2004). On the other hand, international students with little interest in social interaction may tend to isolate themselves, causing higher probability of suffering from low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression (Darwish, 2015). In a study at two Midwestern universities, 143 international students were surveyed to identify students’ social support systems, life stress, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors. The results of this study demonstrated higher reactions to stressors for female international students compared to males in the sample pool where higher level of academic stressors were predicted by higher levels of life stress and by lower level of social support (Misra, Crist & Burant, 2003). In addition, Sinha (1988) proposed that individuals in individualistic cultures often have more skills in entering and leaving new social groups than those in collectivistic cultures; but making new “friends” implies lifelong intimate relationships with many obligations and not non-intimate acquaintances which occurs more often in individualistic cultures. There are several factors that influence the ability of international students to effectively become socially and academically integrated. Such variables that could impact international students’ sociocultural adaptation to a new environment include one’s country of origin, cultural distance based on whether students come from a collectivist or individualist background, student’s culture and customs, language ability, length of stay in the host culture, social connectedness, interpersonal skills, and frequency of contact with host nationals (Constantine, Anderson, Berkel, Caldwell, & Utsey, 2005; Darwish, 2015; Searle & Ward, 1990; Surdam & Collins, 1984; Tafarodi & Smith, 2001; Ward & Kennedy, 1992, 1993a, 1993b; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999; Ward & Searle, 1991; Wilton & Constantine, 2003). Therefore, social connectedness and support are important for this population of students. A 684 study conducted by Sherry, Thomas, & Hong Chui (2010) demonstrated that international students face English language problems, financial problems, and difficulty adapting to new culture. Suggestions to improve such obstacles include improving financial assistance and scholarships, creating opportunities for international students to improve language and practice speaking English with American students. Each of these studies demonstrated some obstacles to which international students are exposed when studying in the US. Araujo (2011) explained that international students with higher levels of English proficiency experienced lower levels of acculturative stress, which can positively influence their academic experience; and students with lower English proficiency have more probability of experiencing depression, low self-esteem and anxiety. These studies illustrate the challenges that can affect international students in every area of their lives. However, with adequate support from American colleges and universities, international students can obtain the benefits of higher education in the US (Glass et al., 2015). Gaining an understanding of international students’ social belonging and integration while at U.S. universities is imperative to determine whether institutions are meeting their needs and, ultimately, to ensure that these students have a positive educational experience to support their academic persistence. Using participants’ narratives, this phenomenological study investigates the following research questions: 1. What factors impact international students’ sense of belonging and connectedness with American students? 2. What are international students’ perception of culture and social interaction in America? RESEARCH METHOD In this study, the researchers used qualitative methodologies (Creswell, 2013) to extensively explore the experiences of international students and obtain a more robust comprehension of their perspectives related to their transition and social belonging. We examined how participants described their experience with the phenomenon of sense of belonging in their collegiate experience in the US and attempted to determine what participants had in common by reducing “individual experiences with a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence” (Creswell, 2007, p. 58). Qualitative research is both exploratory and descriptive, employing intensive fieldwork through interviews (individual and focus group), observation, and document analysis 685 (Creswell, 1998) and provides intersections of personal narratives in a way of making meaning (Glesne, 2006). Using interviews for data collection, this study examined four characteristics associated with international students’ lived experiences and transition: (a) perspective of American culture; (b) social interaction with American college students; (c) sense of social belonging; and (d) academic and campus experiences. The format for the individual interviews was semistructured, which enables the researcher to pose a set number of predetermined questions in a specified order but offers the flexibility to probe (Herman & Reynolds, 1994). Broad and general questions were posed in the interviews were helpful in getting “a textural description and structural description of the experiences, and to provide an understanding of the common experiences” (Creswell, 2007, p. 61). After receiving IRB approval, in-depth interviews were conducted with participants in a person-to-person format and recorded with a digital voice recorder and transcribed. Data were also collected through a demographic survey. Participants For this research study, a mid-sized public institution in the southern region of the US was used as the site. International students were selected through purposeful sampling. In 2015, the enrollment of international students was 1,377 at the institution, which had more than doubled over the previous five years. Students from Saudi Arabia, China, and India accounted for over 63% of all international enrollment in 2015. The interviewees were contacted via email and recommendations from other students and staff were also considered. The sample consisted of 17 international students from diverse educational levels and ethnicities. There were 10 males and seven females, with nine studying at the undergraduate level (including Exchange and Author: please spell out this abbreviation here and add brackets are it ESLI students) and eight at the graduate level (including ESLI students). The average age of the participants was 25.1 (minimum=19 and maximum = 38). Approximately 59% of the participants had been at the institution two or more years and about 29% less than a year. The majority (nine) were from the continent of Asia with the most from the countries of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Most of the participants have majors/programs of study in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) areas (47%). Table 1 provides a detailed profile of the participants. 686 < 1 year < 1 year < 1 year 2 years < 1 year > 2 years P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Length of Residency P1 Student Male Female Male Male Female Male Gender 687 College/Major 22 22 23 23 22 Mechanical Engineering (Undergraduate) Electrical Engineering (Undergraduate) Dental Hygiene (Undergraduate) English as a Second Language International (ESLI) (Undergraduate) English as a Second Language International (ESLI)(Graduate) Sport Psychology 19 (Undergraduate) Age Table 1: Demographics of Participants Jordan Pakistan Brazil Peru Canada Saudi Arabia Country of Origin Studying at university level Studying at university level Studying at university level Studying at university level Studying at university level Employed Prior Activity > 2 years < 1 year > 2 years > 2 years 2 years 1.5 years 2 years > 2 years P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 Male Female Female Male Female Female Male Male 688 26 26 28 20 38 34 27 23 Engineering Technology Management (Graduate) Saudi Arabia Pakistan Nigeria Public Health (Graduate) Public Health (Graduate) Ukraine/Angola Iran Nigeria Denmark Nigeria Biology (Undergraduate) Folk Studies/Religious Studies (Graduate) Nursing (Undergraduate) Photojournalism (Exchange Student) Engineering (Graduate) Studying at university level Studying at university level Studying at university level Studying at university level Full-time employment Business Studying at university level Studying at university level > 2 years > 2 years 1 year P15 P16 P17 Female Male Male 689 21 27 27 Pakistan Taiwan Exploratory Studies/No Major (Exchange student) Pakistan Engineering Technology Management (Graduate) Computer Science (Graduate) Studying at university level Studying at university level Studying at university level Data Analysis To systematically “uncover and describe the structures, the internal meaning structures, of lived experience” (van Manen, 1990, p. 10) of international students, data analysis involved coding and the development and discovery of patterns. Coding, described by Charmaz (2001) [Author: please add this citation’s reference to the References section] as the “critical link between data collection and their explanation of meaning” (as cited in Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 72), provided an opportunity to develop constructs, categories, and attributes through finding patterns and interpreting meaning in the participants’ narratives. To examine perspectives, cultural values, and relational experiences of the participants, values coding was used to “reflect a participant’s values, attitudes, and beliefs, representing his or her perspectives or worldview” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 75). The codes were collapsed into similar categories and three themes emerged. RESULTS A number of salient themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis. We highlight only a select number of narratives that best reflect each theme and offer insights regarding the factors that impact the participants’ feelings of belonging and ability to connect with American peers. The main themes include perspectives of the US, factors impacting social belonging and social life, and academic and campus experience. Perspectives of the US During the interviews, several questions about the participants’ perspective of the US were presented. The majority of the participants provided similar opinions by referring to Americans as having a sense of superiority, being hard to get close to, and exhibiting superficial interactions. As expressed by an undergraduate student from South America, “For me American people are very reserved, very closed in their own lives; so, it's kind of hard to get a close relationship with American people.” Although international students recognized the friendliness of Americans, participants also perceived building close friendships to be very difficult due to the lack of reciprocation on the part of Americans. The degree of social interaction an international student establishes is an important variable in social connectedness and belonging, and culture 690 influences how they view and approach connecting with others and social networking with American students. Students who experience cultural differences can present difficulties establishing social network with Americans (Trice, 2004). Previous studies demonstrate that students who come from collectivistic cultural backgrounds (e.g., China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil, and India) tend to have a difficult time understanding how to connect with their American peers, as American culture emphasizes assertiveness and self-reliance (Darwish, 2015). An individualistic culture (e.g., North America and some European cultures) emphasizes and prefers independent and personal individual development and self-expression whereas collectivist culture (e.g., East Asia, African, Latin American, and Middle Eastern or Arabian countries) focuses more on the group than the individuals where everyone is connected to others because each is part of a group, tribe, family, or other type of unit and behavior dependent on the values and preferences of others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Schmidt, 2006; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Sinha (1988) proposed that individuals in individualistic cultures often have more skills in entering and leaving new social groups than those in collectivistic cultures; but making new “friends” implies lifelong intimate relationships with many obligations and not non-intimate acquaintances which occurs more often in individualistic cultures. This concept is maintained by a graduate student from Nigeria (P7) who asserted as follows. Social relationships in America are quite different from the international. I have to say that because America, being an individualistic country, social network here is not as close as it is for internationals and that is why internationals here come together and that is why we are very flexible in terms of bonding together; whereas Americans, they are a little, I don't want to say, kind of scared of stepping up and meeting new internationals. Several participants acknowledged the cultural differences between the US and their country of origin while also referring to those differences as challenging experiences due to the lack of understanding, autonomy, and in some cases, exposure to other cultures. A graduate student from Saudi Arabia (P1) provides examples of becoming more autonomous and independent since he began to study in the US. 691 I think here I do everything for myself, not same for my country. In my country father will give me money, mother makes me food for me. But here, I make everything for myself. I go for cell phone. I buy it every month. I give money for it so I can talk to my home. Also, I make food for me. I do everything for myself. I like that. Factors Impacting Social Belonging and Social Life Finding a sense of belonging for international students in American institutions presents challenges. Most of the participants interviewed expressed finding a deeper connection with other international students rather than American peers. The lack of understanding and assimilation of cultural differences results in feelings of disappointment or loneliness in some cases, which creates a more profound connection with other international peers (as cited in Darwish, 2015). An undergraduate student from Brazil (P4) expressed that he had a closer connection with international peers due to cultural understanding, I am not sure why I have more international friends. I think we are closer because we understand each other better. We are more interested about… I don’t want to be like saying that we are not interested about other cultures, but that is what it seems because we always come to talk with each other, you know. I feel that Americans don’t have the interest about other cultures or something like that. I don’t want to generalize, like I said, I have some American friends but I lean more to internationals. This statement aligns with the finding by Yang, Teraoka, Eichenfield and Audas (1994) that there is a belief that Americans are not interested in other cultures, which can serve as a barrier to intercultural interactions. Additionally, although a positive social interaction facilitates connections with others and can have a beneficial impact on well-being, a negative interaction can have a harmful impact and a more influential effect on psychological well-being for individuals (Lincoln, 2000). A 20-year-old undergraduate male (P11) reported as follows. I had some bad experiences with American students and whenever I approach some American students, I don’t find 692 that same mutual impact as I find with international students. It’s just, I would say, I connect better with internationals and from what I have heard, internationals connect better with internationals. The level of social belonging also depends on the disposition of the international student. For example, participants who perceived themselves as having a more social personality tended to look for more interaction with others and, therefore, felt more comfortable in making connections with others. Conversely, individuals with less social interest tend to become isolated, which generates a higher probability of suffering from low selfesteem, anxiety, and depression (Darwish, 2015). A 27 year old male graduate student from Pakistan (P16) revealed possessing an interest in enhancing his social life as follows. I have an active social life. I felt I cannot stay by myself, to be honest, like doing nothing or I cannot focus on one thing for a long time; so, I need to get out, meet new people, get to know them, get to share my experiences. Furthermore, a female undergraduate student from Nigeria (P9) shared a similar opinion but added that the onus of social interaction is on the international student as well. I think it’s the same everywhere, because we are human beings. If you really want to be social, if you really want to be friendly with people, you will. You will go out of your way to do things and be social, but when you want to be isolated, you can still do that, and I think it’s the same way everywhere in the world. Academic and Campus Experience Participants in this study expressed encountering different challenges throughout their academic journey which included language barriers, differing educational systems, and discrimination. A lack of English proficiency represents a significant barrier for international students to become academically, personally and professionally successful (Darwish, 2015). In fact, language is considered the most challenging aspect for international students (Araujo, 2011). Some participants indicated having to 693 mentally interpret sentences before verbalizing the desired statement, which at the beginning of the acclimation process could cause participants [Author: please reword the following for clarity and grammar.] withdrawing feelings and intimidation. A 22 year old female from Pakistan (P5) described her difficulties with speaking English as follows. “I find it difficult for speaking because I have to choose what I am going to say and sometimes I have to make structures in my head before saying them.” This sentiment was also expressed by a 26 year old male (P14) from Saudi Arabia. You speak another language and the biggest challenge is getting over making mistakes. I hate making mistakes and that is one of the reasons why I stopped talking. Like at the beginning, I hated to talk. Like if you ask me something, I will have the shortest answer ever; like I will always find the shortcut to the answer, so I won't talk a lot and I won't make mistakes. Despite language and cultural obstacles, the majority of participants in this study acknowledged that they found English to not be difficult and to have a high satisfaction level of academic performance. Some of the participants also noted a difference between their home country’s education system and the American educational system. As indicated by Greenfield et al. (2006), a student from a collectivist society may wait for directions to follow instead of asking questions, may need to fit into the surrounding culture rather than feeling comfortable standing out, or may be more passive than a student from an individualistic society. Adjusting to the differing educational ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment