Category: university environment

  • Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

    Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

    by Erika Kalocsányiová and Rania Hassan

    Promoting sustainability literacy in higher education is crucial for deepening students’ pro-environmental behaviour and mindset (Buckler & Creech, 2014; UNESCO, 1997), while also fostering social transformation by embedding sustainability at the core of the student experience. In 2022, our group received an SRHE Scoping Award to synthesise the literature on the development, teaching, and assessment of sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes. We conducted a multilingual systematic review of post-2010 publications from the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), with the results summarised in Kalocsányiová et al (2024).

    Out of 6,161 articles that we identified as potentially relevant, 92 studies met the inclusion criteria and are reviewed in the report. These studies involved a total of 11,790 participants and assessed 9,992 university programmes and courses. Our results suggest a significant growth in research interest in sustainability in non-STEM fields since 2017, with 75 studies published compared to just 17 in the preceding seven years. Our analysis also showed that Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, and Austria had the highest concentration of publications, with 25 EHEA countries represented in total. The 92 reviewed studies were characterised by high methodological diversity: nearly half employed quantitative methods (47%), followed by qualitative studies (40%) and mixed methods research (13%). Curriculum assessments using quantitative content analysis of degree and course descriptors were among the most common study types, followed by surveys and intervention or pilot studies. Curriculum assessments provided a systematic way to evaluate the presence or absence of sustainability concepts within curricula at both single HE institutions and in comparative frameworks. However, they often captured only surface-level indications of sustainability integration into undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, without providing evidence on actual implementation and/or the effectiveness of different initiatives. Qualitative methods, including descriptive case studies and interviews that focused on barriers, challenges, implementation strategies, and the acceptability of new sustainability literacy initiatives, made up 40% of the current research. Mixed methods studies accounted for 13% of the reviewed articles, often applying multiple assessment tools simultaneously, including quantitative sustainability competency assessment instruments combined with open-ended interviews or learning journals.

    In terms of disciplines, Economics, Business, and Administrative Studies held the largest share of reviewed studies (26%), followed by Education (23%). Multiple disciplines accounted for 22% of the reviewed publications, reflecting the interconnected nature of sustainability. Finance and Accounting contributed only 6%, indicating a need for further research. Similarly, Language and Linguistics, Mass Communication and Documentation, and Social Sciences collectively represented only 12% of the reviewed studies. Creative Arts and Design with just 2% was also a niche area. Although caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from these results, they highlight the need for more research within the underrepresented disciplines. This in turn can help promote awareness among non-STEM students, stimulate ethical discussions on the cultural dimensions of sustainability, and encourage creative solutions through interdisciplinary dialogue.

    Regarding factors and themes explored, the studies focused primarily on the acquisition of sustainability knowledge and competencies (27%), curriculum assessment (23%), challenges and barriers to sustainability integration (10%), implementation and evaluation research (10%), changes in students’ mindset (9%), key competences in sustainability literacy (5%), and active student participation in Education for Sustainable Development (5%). In terms of studies discussing acquisition processes, key focus areas included the teaching of Sustainable Development Goals, awareness of macro-sustainability trends, and knowledge of local sustainability issues. Studies on sustainability competencies focussed on systems thinking, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, ethical awareness, interdisciplinary knowledge, global awareness and citizenship, communication skills, and action-oriented mindset. These competencies and knowledge, which are generally considered crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainability (Wiek et al., 2011), were often introduced to non-STEM students through stand-alone lectures, workshops, or pilot studies involving new cross-disciplinary curricula.

    Our review also highlighted a broad range of pedagogical approaches adopted for sustainability teaching and learning within non-STEM disciplines. These covered case and project-based learning, experiential learning methods, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, reflection groups, pedagogical dialogue, flipped classroom approaches, game-based learning, and service learning. While there is strong research interest in the documentation and implementation of these pedagogical approaches, few studies have so far attempted to assess learning outcomes, particularly regarding discipline-specific sustainability expertise and real-world problem-solving skills.

    Many of the reviewed studies relied on single-method approaches, meaning valuable insights into sustainability-focused teaching and learning may have been missed. For instance, studies often failed to capture the complexities surrounding sustainability integration into non-STEM programs, either by presenting positivist results that require further contextualisation or by offering rich context limited to a single course or study group, which cannot be generalised. The assessment tools currently used also seemed to lack consistency, making it difficult to compare outcomes across programmes and institutions to promote best practices. More robust evaluation designs, such as longitudinal studies, controlled intervention studies, and mixed methods approaches (Gopalan et al, 2020; Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015), are needed to explore and demonstrate the pedagogical effectiveness of various sustainability literacy initiatives in non-STEM disciplines and their impact on student outcomes and societal change.

    In summary, our review suggests good progress in integrating sustainability knowledge and competencies into some core non-STEM disciplines, while also highlighting gaps. Based on the results we have formulated some questions that may help steer future research:

    • Are there systemic barriers hindering the integration of sustainability themes, challenges and competencies into specific non-STEM fields?
    • Are certain disciplines receiving disproportionate research attention at the expense of others?
    • How do different pedagogical approaches compare in terms of effectiveness for fostering sustainability literacy in and across HE fields?
    • What new educational practices are emerging, and how can we fairly assess them and evidence their benefits for students and the environment?

    We also would like to encourage other researchers to engage with knowledge produced in a variety of languages and educational contexts. The multilingual search and screening strategy implemented in our review enabled us to identify and retrieve evidence from 25 EHEA countries and 24 non-English publications. If reviews of education research remain monolingual (English-only), important findings and insights will go unnoticed hindering knowledge exchange, creativity, and innovation in HE.

    Dr. Erika Kalocsányiová is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Lifecourse Development at the University of Greenwich, with research centering on public health and sustainability communication, migration and multilingualism, refugee integration, and the implications of these areas for higher education policies.

    Rania Hassan is a PhD student and a research assistant at the University of Greenwich. Her research centres on exploring enterprise development activities within emerging economies. As a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary researcher, Rania is passionate about advancing academia and promoting knowledge exchange in higher education.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Possible futures for working environments

    Possible futures for working environments

    by Nic Kipar

    This blog follows an earlier short review of the literature and is based on the author’s experience in a range of universities. It suggests how working environments might change in practice, with illustrations from the author’s own institution, the University of Glasgow.

    Introduction

    In thinking about working environments, the most effective approach is to ask individuals how they work best. This enables them to thrive in the environment most suited to themselves and the particular activity they are undertaking. More importantly, staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. This openness fosters a supportive and adaptable workplace, enabling everyone to find the spaces that best suit their work and wellbeing.

    Embracing new thinking

    Traditionally, we have not considered whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. This oversight stands in contrast with the University Value of Curiosity and Discovery: “Embracing new thinking and innovation in a spirit of open minded collaboration that positively impacts on ourselves, our University, our city, society and the world.”

    In response, the University of Glasgow has recently begun incorporating a co-design element into its Workspace Futures Programme, starting with a ‘diagnose’ phase. Yet I still wonder: are we thinking boldly enough? Are we exploring possibilities that reach beyond our usual perspectives and assumptions?

    Let me pose a provocation from my colleague Dr Nathalie Tasler (personal communication, November 2024):

    Remember the Disney movie Aladdin? “Phenomenal cosmic powers… itty-bitty living space!” So how can our immensely talented and creative colleagues thrive when their environment is filled with “stop rules” (Runco, 2007)? In social psychology, stop rules are constraints—often invisible—that limit our thinking, stifle creativity, and shut down possibility thinking (Craft, 2005; Lin, 2020) before they even have a chance to take shape. When workplaces impose these restrictions, whether through rigid protocols, uninspiring spaces, or unspoken norms, how can we expect innovation and fresh ideas to flourish? What would it take to create a work environment where potential isn’t confined, but unleashed?Transforming everyone’s spaces

    While we have been focused on transforming student study spaces and creating vibrant, open campuses that attract students and the public alike, we may be neglecting the needs of our own staff. The University of Edinburgh (Bayne, presentation in November 2024) uses the term “buzz” to describe the energy of a thriving campus, drawing inspiration from the University of Warwick’s public events, like World Cup screenings in collaboration with local businesses, that created memorable, widely shared experiences. Edinburgh’s themes of Belonging and buzz; Sanctuary and beauty; Sustainable connections; Mobility, flexibility and flow, and Openness, public co-creation and surfacing resonate with our work on student spaces, but have we fully explored the potential of spaces that could truly empower our staff work best depending on their known, or yet unknown preferences?

    Understanding individual preferences in workspace design is challenging. Environmental needs are deeply personal, shaped by complex and unique factors. This makes it impossible to assume that one person’s ideal workspace will suit everyone. When we project our own preferences onto others, we risk introducing bias and overlooking or misjudging their needs. These hidden barriers are created by a world design with certain people in mind, leaving others feeling excluded. They make aspects of society accessible to some while shutting out others. These mismatches are the building blocks of exclusion, making people feel unwelcome or unable to fully participate (Holmes, 2018).

    It is one thing to offer flexible options for staff to work from home or from a campus office. But we should also look closely at the campus itself, at how we treat these spaces and how they treat us. Typically, we arrive on campus, head into buildings and into offices or meeting rooms, and operate within closed-off spaces that might be limiting our ability to think creatively or envision the future. It makes me wonder: Are we missing something essential?

    An office is an office is an office?

    We expect our staff to innovate and imagine exciting futures, yet how can we foster that kind of thinking when we confine people to uninspiring spaces? A room does not need to have white walls or dull furniture to feel stifling; even a vibrant, biophilic space can feel restrictive if it is still just four walls. What if we reimagined our workplaces so that, rather than feeling like “just another day at the office”, staff actually felt genuinely inspired to be there?

    At present, we do not offer staff the full range of spaces that might suit different types of work or support them in ways they find personally meaningful. Why is it, for example, that a staff member working in an on-campus café among students is often seen as “not really working”? Such assumptions are outdated, belonging to a pre-digital era. Why do we still insist that all staff need traditional offices, all the time?

    Offices have their purpose, of course, but not all office types are effective for all needs. Open-plan offices with cubicles, for instance, combine the worst aspects of every workspace model. Various issues are associated with open office spaces featuring cubicles, which are often regarded as suboptimal work environments. Common problems include lack of privacy, increased noise levels, and the inability to control one’s environment, which can lead to diminished productivity, lower job satisfaction, and elevated stress levels. The systematic literature review by Colenberg et al (2021) finds a link between cramped cubicle setups in open spaces and decreased physical and mental health due to poor environmental control. I recall working in university offices in the early 1990s, when alternative approaches were simply unimaginable. Back then, an office with your name on the door was a status symbol and a sign of belonging. But why are we still behaving as though we are living in the 20th century?

    Spaces designed to fit people, not making people fit

    James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS) © UofG

    If someone can concentrate deeply and produce creative, high-quality work in a bustling student study space like the James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS,) or in a moderately busy area like the Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) lobby, who are we to judge? For some, the energy of a café may be the perfect environment to spark ideas and focus, while others need absolute silence and solitude to work through complex problems. Some might prefer a quiet, shared workspace, finding comfort in the presence of others without the noise. Many benefit from working at home, or outside if weather permits, while others feel more motivated and inspired by coming onto campus.

    Ultimately, as long as staff are accessible when needed and are delivering excellent work, there is no “right” way to structure a work environment. What works for one person may not work for another, and that is precisely the point: a truly supportive workplace recognises and respects individual preferences and needs. By allowing each person the freedom to choose the space that best supports their productivity and wellbeing, we create a culture that values flexibility and respects diversity in how we all work best.

    Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) © UofG

    Welcoming variation and diversity as agents for evolution

    The psychologist Dr Lorna Champion (personal communication, November 2024) summarised this succinctly: “Evolution is based on variation. If a characteristic supports the survival then it is retained and handed on, because of difference, we evolve. If we don’t have variation then we stagnate.” It is time to embrace new thinking, to break from outdated models, and to create environments that truly support and inspire staff to thrive.

    Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Working environments: a short overview of the literature

    Working environments: a short overview of the literature

    by Nic Kipar

    We rarely consider whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. We should ask individuals how they work best, to enable them to thrive. Staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. Here in the first of two blogs Nic Kipar reviews what we know from research about working environments; the second blog will look at what this might mean in practice.

    Control over the workspace

    A growing body of research underscores the significant role that control over the physical workspace plays in employee wellbeing, productivity, and job satisfaction. Studies consistently show that providing employees with autonomy over their work environment – such as control over lighting, workspace flexibility, and layout adjustments – can reduce stress and improve mental health (Colenberg et al, 2021). This sense of control fosters a positive psychological environment, as evidenced in both Swedish and Dutch Masters and PhD research. For example, Ghaemi Flores (2023) found that agile and activity-based workspaces, which allow for greater personal control, are rated more favourably by employees. Similarly, van der Vleuten-Chraibi (2019) observed that control over light levels even in shared spaces enhances workspace satisfaction and productivity.

    Despite these benefits, the hierarchical tradition in workspace allocation—where higher-ranking employees receive designated offices—remains a barrier to the adoption of more flexible environments. Ghaemi Flores (2023, p44) notes that overcoming this cultural resistance is crucial for a successful transition to activity-based work settings.

    Research also challenges the assumption that open-plan offices facilitate collaboration. Instead, these layouts often lead to increased distractions and reduced personal control, negatively impacting both productivity and employee wellbeing (Bernstein and Turban, 2018). Open-plan designs, especially cubicles, have been shown to disrupt natural collaboration, as employees may withdraw to avoid noise and distractions.

    This body of research collectively suggests that providing employees with control over their workspace fosters a healthier, more satisfying work environment, positively affecting both personal and organisational outcomes.

    Wellbeing and working environments

    The psychological dimension of workspace design is essential to employee wellbeing and productivity. Ruohomäki et al (2015) identify key factors, such as privacy, personal space, and control over tasks and schedules, as critical for reducing distractions and supporting mental focus. Research by Danielsson and Bodin (2008) further supports the idea that private and agile office environments contribute to better emotional health, largely due to the sense of control they afford employees. Lee and Brand (2005) also proposed that offering more flexibility and control over workspaces could lead to significant benefits for occupants. This is consistent with findings by Laughton and Thatcher (2019, p837) that shared offices and agile spaces promote psychological wellbeing more effectively than reservable spaces or open-plan offices.

    Morrison and Macky (2017) applied the established Job Demands-Resources model to explore the demands of shared work environments and hot-desking arrangements and found that open offices increase cognitive demands on employees, leading to higher job dissatisfaction. Similarly, Cvijanovic (2019) found that customised workspaces are linked to higher job satisfaction and lower stress, although they do not necessarily enhance productivity. High social density within a workspace has also been shown to reduce perceived control (MacMillan, 2012). The study by Cobaleda Cordero et al (2019) of wellbeing related to working spaces also supports these findings.

    The role of greenspace in workplace wellbeing

    Access to greenspace within the workplace has been shown to positively affect employee wellbeing. Research by Bratman et al (2015) and Berman et al (2008) showed that walking in nature or even viewing pictures of nature can improve directed attention and cognition, the latter supporting the theory of Attention Restoration. (Attention Restoration Theory, developed by psychologists Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan in the late 1980s, proposes that exposure to natural environments can help restore mental focus and relieve “attention fatigue.” This fatigue arises when we rely on directed, or focused, attention for extended periods.) Gilchrist et al (2015) went further by finding that time spent in workplace greenspace, as well as views of natural elements like trees and flowering plants, significantly boosted wellbeing. Interestingly, the mere presence of these natural elements, rather than subjective satisfaction with the view, appears to be sufficient to yield benefits.

    A systematic review by Ricciardi et al (2022) suggests that greenspace exposure may benefit cognition, according to recent advances in environmental psychology. The review included six longitudinal and 19 cross-sectional studies focusing on schoolchildren, adults, and the elderly. Most studies used the Landsat Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, which is a widely used measure of live green vegetation on Earth, calculated from satellite images, to measure greenspace exposure and examined outcomes such as academic achievement, global cognition, attention/executive functions, and memory. Although findings are inconsistent, they indicate a potential cognitive benefit from exposure to greenspace.

    Activity-based workspaces

    Activity-Based Workspaces (ABWs) are designed to offer flexibility by providing different spaces tailored to specific tasks, encouraging employees to choose environments that support their current work needs. Originally introduced to stimulate creativity in IT start-ups, ABWs are intended to facilitate both collaborative and focused work. However, Haapakangas et al (2023) found that the use of ABWs varies widely among employees, influenced by factors such as age, job role, and ergonomic satisfaction. High cognitive demands and collaborative tasks were associated with more active workspace switching, while distractions in ABWs led to frustration and a decrease in perceived environment fit. Haapakangas et al (2018) noticed that difficulties in locating available workspaces led to frustration and perceptions of time loss and recommend implementing real-time information systems to help employees locate suitable workspaces and accessible quiet zones to address privacy needs.

    Clearly, there will always be a need for quiet working spaces, which also highlights the benefits of flexible working that includes home office work (should the individual wish to do so and has a quiet home office working space, which may not be possible for everyone).

    The value of silence, and the value of controlled noise

    Silence in the workplace offers numerous benefits, such as enhancing wellbeing, productivity, emotional regulation, and focus for all employees, but particularly for neurodiverse employees or those sensitive to noise. Quiet spaces reduce sensory overload and support productivity, especially for individuals on the autism spectrum or those with sensory processing disorders (Asselineau et al, 2024, Cox et al, 2024, Szulc, 2024). Open-plan offices, however, often contribute to decreased wellbeing due to limited privacy and excessive noise (Delle Macchie et al, 2018, Laughton, 2017).

    Interestingly, silence can have the opposite effect on some, with controlled noise being beneficial for some individuals and tasks. Research on ADHD (Sikström and Söderlund, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2010) suggests that moderate background noise may enhance focus by helping the brain filter distractions. ADHD is linked to unusual functioning of the brain’s dopamine system, a neurotransmitter crucial for motivation, attention, and learning. Under typical conditions, stable dopamine levels allow the brain to regulate its responses to new stimuli, “dampening” reactions to prevent overstimulation. However, in individuals with ADHD, dopamine levels are lower than average, which causes the brain to overreact to external stimuli, leading to heightened sensitivity and difficulty filtering out distractions. In environments with moderate stimulation (like gentle noise or activity), people with ADHD can often focus well. This phenomenon, known as “stochastic resonance”, suggests that a moderate level of noise can improve cognitive performance by making it easier to distinguish important signals. Though it may seem counterintuitive, the right amount of noise can push a weak signal over a “detection threshold,” allowing it to stand out more clearly.

    Stochastic resonance, observed across systems from biological networks to electronics, demonstrates how controlled noise can sometimes enhance performance. In the brain, this effect helps neurons respond more effectively to subtle stimuli. For individuals with ADHD, who typically have lower dopamine levels, computational models suggest that a slightly higher level of background noise may be needed to achieve this beneficial effect, enabling the brain to filter out distractions. However, both extremes – very quiet (low stimulation) or highly chaotic (high stimulation) environments – can impair focus. Empirical evidence supports this theory, indicating that tailored environmental adjustments, such as specific levels of background noise, can help individuals with ADHD better manage distractions and maintain concentration.

    Studies by Vostal et al (2013) also highlight the need for adjustable acoustic environments for those with ADHD, as a controlled level of noise or visual simplicity can improve task engagement. In classrooms, Batho et al (2020) found that quiet zones or low-level background noise are beneficial, depending on the cognitive task – findings that may be relevant to workplace design as well.

    It is not only the noise or activity in an environment that can be beneficial; the environment itself plays a crucial role. Kat Holmes notes that “the objects and people around us influence our ability to participate” (Holmes et al, 2018, p2). Certain settings can create a sense of belonging, such as the feeling of being part of a learning community in student study spaces, which can enhance concentration and productivity. Humans are inherently social beings, shaped by evolution to thrive in environments that support connection – provided there are also sufficient opportunities for solitude and silence when needed.

    Summary

    This short literature review underscores the importance of control, flexibility, and environmental sensitivity in workplace design. The research suggests that workplaces need to cater to individual preferences and diverse needs to create supportive and inclusive environments that foster both personal and organisational success. No preference is better or worse, it all depends on the individual and what works best for them.

    Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

    References

    Asselineau, A, Grolleau, G and Mzoughi, N (2024) ‘Quiet environments and the intentional practice of silence: Toward a new perspective in the analysis of silence in organizations’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 326-340

    Batho, LP, Martinussen, R and Wiener, J (2020) ‘The Effects of Different Types of Environmental Noise on Academic Performance and Perceived Task Difficulty in Adolescents With ADHD’ Journal of attention disorders, 24(8), pp 1181-1191

    Bayne, S (2024) Future of learning spaces University of Edinburgh: Learning & Teaching Design workshop,  28.10.2024

    Bayne, S, Wood, H-R, Simmonds, R, Drysdale, T, Murray, E, Lamb, J, Christie, B. and Nicol, . (2024) Futures For Our Teaching Spaces: principles and visions for connecting space to curriculum Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh

    Berman, MG, Jonides, J and Kaplan, S (2008) ‘The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature’ Psychological Science, 19(12), pp 1207-1212

    Bernstein, ES and Turban, S (2018) ‘The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration’ Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 373(1753), pp 1-8

    Bratman, GN, Daily, GC, Levy, BJ and Gross, JJ (2015) ‘The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, pp 41-50

    Champion, L. (2024) RE: Evolution is based on variation. Personal communication to Kipar, N., 05.11.2024

    Cobaleda Cordero, A, Babapour, M and Karlsson, M (2019) ‘Feel well and do well at work: A post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape’ Journal of corporate real estate, 22(2), pp 113-137

    Colenberg, S, Jylhä, T and Arkesteijn, M (2021) ‘The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being – a literature review’ Building research and information: the international journal of research, development and demonstration, 49(3), pp 352-366

    Cox, CB, Krome, LR and Pool, GJ (2024) ‘Breaking the sound barrier: Quiet spaces may also foster inclusivity for the neurodiverse community’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 350-352

    Craft, A (2005) Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer

    Cvijanovic, M (2019) The relationship between workspace and office placement and workforce productivity and wellbeing Doctor of Philosophy, Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota

    Danielsson, CB and Bodin, L (2008) ‘Office Type in Relation to Health, Well-Being, and Job Satisfaction Among Employees’ Environment and behavior, 40(5), pp 636-668

    Delle Macchie, S, Secchi, S and Cellai, G (2018) ‘Acoustic Issues in Open Plan Offices: A Typological Analysis’ Buildings (Basel), 8(11)

    Ghaemi Flores, S (2023) From cubicles to collaboration: A study on the transformation of government office spaces driven by cost-efficiency, digitilization, and modernization Master of Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

    Gilchrist, K, Brown, C and Montarzino, A (2015) ‘Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites’ Landscape and urban planning, 138, pp. 32-40

    Haapakangas, A, Hallman, DM, Mathiassen, SE and Jahncke, H (2018) ‘Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use’ Building and environment, 145, pp 115-124

    Haapakangas, A, Sirola, P and Ruohomäki, V (2023) ‘Understanding user behaviour in activity-based offices’ Ergonomics, 66(4), pp 419-431

    Holmes, K (2018) Mismatch: how inclusion shapes design Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

    Laughton, K-A (2017) The Effects of Workspace Office Layout on Aspects of Employee Wellbeing MA, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

    Laughton, K-A and Thatcher, A ‘Health and Wellbeing in Modern Office Layouts: The Case of Agile Workspaces in Green Buildings’ Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Florence, Italy: Springer International Publishing, pp 831-840

    Lee, SY and Brand, JL (2005) ‘Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes’ Journal of environmental psychology, 25(3), pp 323-333

    Lin, Y-S (2020) ‘Possibility Thinking’ The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 1-9

    Morrison, RL and Macky, KA (2017) ‘The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces’ Applied ergonomics, 60, pp 103-115

    Ricciardi, E, Spano, G, Lopez, A, Tinella, L, Clemente, C, Elia, G, Dadvand, P, Sanesi, G, Bosco, A and Caffò, AO (2022) ‘Long-Term Exposure to Greenspace and Cognitive Function during the Lifespan: A Systematic Review’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18)

    Runco, MA (2007) Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press

    Ruohomäki, V, Lahtinen, M and Reijula, K (2015) ‘Salutogenic and user-centred approach for workplace design’ Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), pp 184-197

    Sikström, S and Söderlund, G (2007) ‘Stimulus-Dependent Dopamine Release in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder’ Psychological Review, 114(4), pp 1047-1075

    Söderlund, G, Sikström, S and Smart, A (2007) ‘Listen to the noise: noise is beneficial for cognitive performance in ADHD’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), pp 840-847

    Söderlund, GBW, Sikström, S, Loftesnes, JM and Sonuga-Barke, EJ (2010) ‘The effects of background white noise on memory performance in inattentive school children’ Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6(1)

    Szulc, JM (2024) ‘Embracing silence: Creating inclusive spaces for autistic employees’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 357-359

    Tasler, N (2024) RE: Aladdin Personal communication to Kipar, N 05.11.2024

    van der Vleuten-Chraibi, S (2019) Lighting in multi-user office environments: improving employee wellbeing through personal control PhD, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven

    Vostal, BR, Lee, DL and Miller, F (2013) ‘Effects of Environmental Stimulation on Students Demonstrating Behaviors Related to Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review of the Literature’ International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), pp 32-43

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link