This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
Introduction
The rapid and unparalleled technological change and corresponding social
complexities that characterize the modern world have presented a dramatic
challenge not only to American business, but to the organizational structures of
colleges and universities . The same sweeping technological advances driving
business are also impacting the organizational features and workplaces within
colleges and universities. There is a call to both business and education to make
radical changes in the structure and culture of the organization, the role of
leadership and philosophy of management, the relationship among workers, the
way work is performed, the general quality of work life, and the physical
environment of the work place.
A variety of prescriptions has been offered to facilitate the above changes,
but key among these is that the workplace of the future, including the college
campus, must permeate a sense of community where daily work takes on a deeper
meaning and satisfaction (Chapped 1993). The purpose of this article is to
examine the role of "place attachment" in the development of a sense of
community.
Place Attachment
Place attachment is the concept that captures the notion of the affective
process or the emotional bonding of people to places. The effort to look at people
and their workspaces in order to find ways to enhance productivity has been
substantial. Work environments have been analyzed in regard to temperature, air
quality, lighting, noise, music, color, supporting facilities, and a multitude of
environmental stressors capable of interfering with optimal human functioning
(Sundstrom, 1987). Ergonomics and human factors engineering have proven a
positive step toward developing an understanding of the fit between human
beings and the workplace. The above efforts, however, have primarily focused on
the "science" of physical environments and human behavior and have not made
the shift of focus from the structural/physical dimension of physical space to the
affective and cognitive processes important to the people-place bond. The shift
seems timely!
Many of the strategies pushing reform in organizational behavior often
conclude by acknowledging increased organizational success may rest upon the
members of the organization developing a "sense of belonging" and the
accompanying heightened obligation to participate (Davidson and Cotter, 1989).
Even the new concepts of organizations carry an emotional tone to them, i.e.
empowerment, participatory management, teamwork, and vision. These "touchy
feely"concepts suggest organizational improvement strategists are looking beyond
"doing-it-by-the numbers" and "business-as-usual." Place attachment is a concept
not to be overlooked in the effort to improve the collaborative working
environment of organizations.
Spaces and People
The pioneering works of Hall (1966) in proxemics and spatial behavior,
and that of Barker (1968) on the ecological nature of places point out the
importance of the relationships that are established between spaces and people.
The concept of place attachment continues the focus of the importance of this
relationship. The origins of the feeling of "being attached to a place" are varied
and complex, involving the interplay of affect and emotions, knowledge and
beliefs, and behaviors and actions in reference to place. The people-place
bonding phenomena is therefore a simultaneous collection of physical and
psychological data that are deeply intertwined (Low and Altman, 1992). If one
recognizes that the built environment is as much social as physical (Levy-Leboyer, 1982; Zeisel, 1981),the place attachments involve several important
dimensions.
Dimensions of Place Attachment
Place attachments are functional, symbolic, and relational. Physical
spaces are functional in that they make invitations, encourage movement, and
support or interfere with the behaviors that take place within it (Gump, 1987).
The functional dimension is of critical importance in designing organizational
workplaces within college and university environments. If workplaces do not
support the function that needs to be carried out, the frustration, low productivity,
stress, and a host of negative behaviors emerge to the detriment of developing
attachment and a sense of belonging. This is especially significant as physical
space relates to establishing an atmosphere of communication and collaboration.
The paradigmatic shift to a world view in which everything is increasingly
complex, interrelated, and interdependent demands an academic environment
well-suited to the task of crossing interdisciplinary boundaries and uncovering
underlying connections. (Kramer and Bacelar, 1994). The challenge of adapting
to new technologies is in part dependent upon the flexibility of the knowledge
construct that filters new information (Johnson, 1994). To be functional, physical
spaces in colleges and universities must facilitate information exchanges among
and between disciplines.
Workplaces are not just functional but they are also symbolic. Block
(1991) discussed shaping the work environment in a manner that the organization
becomes a monument to the worker's deepest beliefs. Certainly, among these is
the belief in the importance and value of one's self. A place that is functionally
"not fit" gives a very strong message that the inhabitant of the space is of low
worth and not worthy of support. Working under adverse conditions from poor
design to "sick building syndrome" does little to support attachment or a sense of
belonging to the organization.
Another core value espoused is the importance of embracing diversity; not
only in population but in culture and thought. Organizations need to question
whether the absence of physical representation of such diversity communicates an
opposing reality.
The relationship dimension of place attachment is paramount. Local
social involvements, particularly with friends and co-workers, prove to be the
most consistent and significant source of sentimental ties to places. It is this sense of "insidedness" that promotes attachment and supports a coherent sense of
personal identity with place and community (Hummon, 1992). Hummon goes on
to underscore that the workplace is the primary location where people experience
many of the social, political, and supportive networks that are an important part
of everyday existence. Recognizing the social nature of learning and knowledge,
it seems reasonable to propose that physical space be designed to enhance a
dynamic social system that heightens cognitive connection to place.
The concept of place attachment provides a viable starting point and a
context for meaning and community, but what can colleges and universities do to
increase place attachment and a sense of belonging.
Creating Place Attachment
From the authors' experiences there are two major ingredients to developing a
sense of place within the work setting. One focuses on the structure of the
workplace, the other on the process of developing workspaces. The workplace
must be a "fit" place to work in terms of both physical and cognitive structure and
the development of the "fit," in an ecological sense, must include significant and
meaningful participation of the workplace inhabitant.
Most workplaces in colleges and universities are offices. What makes an
office a "fit" place to work; both in its physical structural features as well as in
the ecological sense? Deasy and Lasswell (1985) suggest several dimensions that
are especially important to both of these issues within the workplace: (a) personal
space, (b) personal status, and (c) territoriality.
Deasy and Laswell suggest the following measures to increase the
employees' measure of control over their personal space or environment: (a)
identify each individual's workspace, (b) provide lockable personal storage, (c)
allow the workspace to be approachable from the "front," (d) avoid spaces that
have high concentration of other workers, (e) provide local control over light and
heat, (f) provide window views, (g) provide flexible furnishings, (h) provide for
personalization, and (I) provide for ease of cleaning.
Providing spaces that have personal status contributes to a feeling of
having importance within the organization. Deasy and Lasswell (1985) suggest
the following as important to personal status: (a) involve people in the design
process, (b) recognize that appearance is important, (c) distribute amenities fairly, and (d) stay within the norms of the organization.
A sense of place attachment is increased by a sense of "ownership" or
territoriality. Territoriality (Deasy and Lasswell, 1985) is increased by: (a)
establishing clear boundaries, (b) providing conventional office space rather than
the "open office landscape," and (c) having controllable access. Territoriality also
presents an interesting paradox. In establishing clear boundaries, one must at the
same time create boundaries which are permeable, open to the rest of the
community. If ones own space is viewed in a separationist context-a sanctuary
from the rest of the organization-a sense of community will diminish.
Summary
From an ecological and participative management perspective, the most
important recommendation is to involve the people who will be using the space in
its design or redesign. Involvement breeds attachment, which may assist in the
creation and development of campus community. People working in "unfit"
spaces who are not given the opportunity to become involved in making it "fit"
are unlikely to contribute to the sense of community that college and university
campuses so often seek. The path to campus community may start with place
attachment.
Editor's Note: William Hubiak is a private consultant and a doctoral candidate in
Human Resource Development at the School of Education, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Barker, R.G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying
the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Block, P. (1991). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San
Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Chappell, T. (1993). The soul of a business: Managing for profit and the common
good. New York: Bantum Books.
Davidson, W.B. & Cotter, P.R. (1989). Sense of community and political
participation . Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3),119-125
Deasy, C.M. & Lasswell, T.E. (1985). Designing places for people. New York:
Whitney Library of Design
Hall, E.T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hummon, D. M. (1992) . Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of
place. In I Altman & S.M. Low (Eds.) Human behavior and environment;
Advances in theory and research: Place attachment. New York: Plenum
Johnson, L. (1994). The future impact of the communications revolution. In J.C.
Sinnot (Ed.). Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning. Wesport, CN:
Greenwood Press.
Kramer, D.A. & Bacelar, W.T. (1994). The educated adult in today's world:
Wisdom and the mature learner. In J.C. Sinnott (Ed.). Interdisciplinary handbook
of adult lifespan learning. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Levey-Leboyer, C. (1982). Psychology and environment Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Low, S.M. & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In
I.Altman and S.M. Low (Eds.). Human behavior and environment; Advances in
theory and research: Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.
Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.