Knowledge Environments at Universities: Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

Abstract

Until the early 1980s most research on scientific creativity had focused on the personal attributes of scholars. Few authors found it necessary for their theoretical considerations to include the social, cultural, and scientific environment-the seat of socialization, learning, control, and encouragement by supervisors, research activities, and creative processes. Spatial differences in scientific practices and research cultures; spatial inequalities of career opportunities, financial resources, academic freedom, and other factors influencing the scientific achievements of scholars; and the attractiveness and reputation of universities received little attention. Science was assumed to be placeless. At best, it was admitted that talented individuals could not develop their creativity in repressive societies.In the 1980s and 1990s researchers studying creativity increasingly accepted that talent, wealth of ideas, motivation, endurance, and other personal traits are not the only factors influencing how well a person's scholarly pursuits and academic career develops. What people call creative is never the result of individual action alone. The talented student and the creative scientist do not work in a social, cultural, and economic vacuum. A stimulating knowledge environment and a talented individual must come together and interact before a creative process can occur

The impact of the built environment on creativity in public spaces of Dutch university campuses and science parks

“…The statistical approach can potentially aid in urban analyses striving to objectively pinpoint specific areas on campuses that can subsequently be correlated with increased opportunities for creativity. The practical implications of the empirical findings are in line with the concept of 'spatial affordances for creativity', showing that creativity or creative ideas depend not only on the interactions between people, but can also be enhanced or hindered by their contextual built environment (Amabile 1983;Amabile et al 1996;Sternberg and Lubart 1991;Csikszentmihalyi 2014;Meusburger 2009Meusburger , 2018.…”

“…They are meeting points and catalysts that bring people, ideas, and resources together before a creative process can occur (Sternberg and Lubart 1991;Meusburger 2009). In recent years, there has been increasing scientific interest from an urban design and planning perspective in how the characteristics of the physical environment of public spaces play a role in creativity (Meusburger 2009(Meusburger , 2018Stevens 2015;Wood and Dovey 2015). Such characteristics, (urban functions and physical features) have been proven to contribute to a strong sense of place and have been associated with improved trust, and consequently the exchange of information between people (Dolan and Metcalfe 2012;Rantisi, Leslie, and Christopherson 2006).…”

“…Creativity is 'the production, conceptualization, or development of novel, original and useful ideas, processes, or procedures by an individual or by a group' (Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2000, 215). Creative ideas emerge and develop in complex, dynamic interaction between a human (the creator) and his or her environment (Amabile 1983;Amabile et al 1996;Csikszentmihalyi 2014;Meusburger 2009Meusburger , 2018. The concept of spatial affordances for creativity is aligned with Gibson (1979) theory of affordances, defined as the relationships between the abilities of organisms (humans) and features of the environment (Gibson 1979;Chemero 2003).…”

“…In the context of university campuses, the meaning of spatial affordances for creativity refers to what the built environment has to 'offer' concerning a (creative) individual and how it guides, facilitates, and also constrains creativity or creative encounters on campus (Glǎveanu 2012). Therefore, in practical terms, the added value of studying spatial affordances for creativity of campuses' public spaces enables the understanding of how the built environment enhances or hinders, among others, campuses' teaching activities, researching, learning, peoples' development of abilities and ideas, cross-disciplinary discussions, interactions between knowledgeable agents, and the possibilities of identifying and solving problems (Meusburger 2009(Meusburger , 2018. In other words, creativity on campuses is the result of systematic interdependencies between the physical environment and social interactions in which people share knowledge and exchange ideas (Soares, Weitkamp, and Yamu 2020).…”

The Relationship between the Spatial Configuration and the Fourth Sustainable Dimension Creativity in University Campuses: The Case Study of Zernike Campus, Groningen, The Netherlands

“…Therefore, a complementary theoretical framework that addresses people's perceptions of their sense of place and public spaces is necessary to understand creativity as the fourth sustainability. For that reason, the second perspective builds on Peter Meusburger's [5,8,77] studies, which propose that the success of a university campus or any other type of creative cluster derives from the interface between the built environment and causal interactions between people that facilitate the generation, diffusion and application of creativity. This is connected to theories of a 'sense of place'.…”