Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (12) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Article (3)
- Public lecture (2)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (12) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12)
Keywords
- GfHf-Jahrestagung 2018 (4)
- Ausbildung (1)
- Beitritt (1)
- Civil Service (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- ECHR (1)
- EMRK (1)
- EU-Accession (1)
- EU-Beitritt (1)
- Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (1)
- Europäische Union (1)
- Germany (1)
- GfHf-Jahrestagung2018 (1)
- Professional Training (1)
- Public Administration (1)
- Verwaltungsdienst (1)
- Vocational Education (1)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (1)
Student Space Control
(2018)
The role of the city changed within the knowledge economy. Knowledge has become the most important resource of urban prosperity and universities are considered the hope of city development (Van Winden 2009). Previous research has elaborated various dimensions in which universities interact with their home cities (or regions). They refer to economic impacts (e.g. Behr 2004; Florida 2006; Van Winden 2007; Gabe 2012), differ between forms of the spatial and structural integration of the university into the area (e.g. Larkham 2000; Kunzmann 2004; Gerhard 2012) or focus on social impacts of universities in the urban environment (e.g. Chatterton 1999; Sage et al. 2011; Smith 2004; Smith/Hubbard 2014; Gerhard, Hoelscher & Wilson 2017). All of these rely on a specific concept of space. However, they are lacking the neutral consideration of a fundamental factor of city development in university towns: students as urban agents (Russo/Tatjer 2007). Students constitute a considerable part of the population in university cities. As such, they need to play a key role in the analysis of the urban space. Drawing on a systematic literature review (Machi & McEvoy 2016), it is shown within this presentation that whenever students are subject to urban studies, either their role is conceptualized with a negative connotation (‘Studentification’: most important Smith 2004, 2008) or mainly depicted as leading to urban devaluation. As a counter draft to the prevailing approaches, the concept of ‘Student Urbanity’ (Steinmueller 2015) is introduced as an unbiased approach to the analysis of students as a source of urban processes of change. Using official (urban) statistics as well as observations and maps, the presentation highlights the results of a comparative case study, which exploratively tested this model in the cities of Heidelberg (Germany) and Montpellier (France) (Steinmüller 2015). Starting with the identification of distribution patterns of students’ residences, urban areas with a significantly high share of them are analysed with regard to the following research questions: - Which (social-)structural and spatial characteristics can be observed in these areas? - How do the students shape the urban space and infrastructure within the detected areas? - Which tendencies of revaluation respectively devaluation emerge from this influence? The presentation makes an empirical case for ‘Student Urbanity’ showing the relations between urban space and university with regard to students as agents of the development. It concludes with the discussion of this new student role as potential sources of reurbanisation as well as urban inequalities.
Campus design and estate management: concepts and challenges from an international perspective
(2018)
The university is an ancient and successful concept which, until very recently, has usually been associated with a particular locus, e. g. at a single, fairly homogenous site, or as a collection of buildings in a town or city built over time. Some institutions have been planned in their entirety from predominantly one architectural drawing board (e.g. University of Lausanne at Dorigny), others have started out as a small idea (e.g. the first college quadrangle in Oxford) and have since grown to become something quite different from the original, e.g.in Oxford there are now over 40 colleges, Science Park, university hospitals etc. Architectural trends have also played their part in university construction e.g. neo-Gothic (19th century), Brutalist (20th century) or the German Marburg University building system of the 1960s, which was emulated by many other institutions. Irrespective of style, university buildings are loaded with meaning and yet we frequently take them for granted and do not consider how they might impact on our capacity to learn and teach. It is only when we are disturbed by construction work that we are irritated into taking any real notice of our physical environment. Yet subliminally we are undoubtedly affected by our surroundings, which are not fixed, but change to become objects of “(re)interpretation, narration and representation […]” (Gieryn, 2002, p.35). This is a sense-making process as we negotiate how to act within them (Weick, 1995). Buildings impact on our well-being and how we thrive, which should be of key importance to the academic world in which creativity and innovation are of such importance (Marmot, in Temple (ed.) 2014). When higher education estate fails, and there are many examples of this, it is as much “a failure of psychology as of design” (de Botton, 2006/2014, p. 248). However, we do not have much data on the processes and ideas behind the creation (or adaptation) of higher education estate (cf. Bligh, in Temple (ed.) 2014). This research therefore asks the following questions: How do those who make decisions about higher education buildings take psychological well-being, or learning capability into account? Do they make compromises on the quality of materials? How do different countries and their university leaders address and govern the processes behind the creation and management of higher education estate of various types and age? What are current trends and challenges to higher education estate? Employing a constructivist perspective, this ongoing international research examines notions of value, care and identity (Tse et al, 2015) and analyses how an institution’s strategic capacity and organisational capability impacts on how estate is managed (cf. Thoenig & Paradeise, 2016). It uses case studies (Yin, 6th ed., 2018) from different institutional types in Great Britain, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and China which have been selected according to a strategic capacity model. Alongside documentary research and online data-gathering, interviews onsite have been conducted with a range of stakeholders, including leaders, planners, faculty and students. The research aims to theorise how an important and costly part of university administration is being managed in the context of today’s teaching and learning needs.