Abstract—In a typical university, a fulltime instructor
teaches from three to fifteen hours a week. For a teaching
university, this may even be as much as eighteen hours a week,
up to 50% of the standard working time. During non-classroom
hours, an instructor has many duties - advising students,
committee meetings, conducting research, evaluating student
work, and preparing for future class meetings, as well as
serving as a community liaison. Much of the time, an
instructor's office remains empty - a place simply to store books
and papers. With a large proportion of empty offices during
teaching times, and with a faculty becoming more
technology-savvy, combined with perennially decreasing
education budgets, it makes sense to revisit the traditional,
cellular faculty office (the ivory tower) and consider
alternatives that can both maintain a good academic workspace
and make optimal use of resources (activity-based workspaces,
or ABW). Unfortunately, many instructors loathe giving up
their traditional office space, as it signifies status as well as a
sanctuary away from students and colleagues. The tension
between collaboration and privacy is difficult to resolve. As
academic models change, case studies and best practices of
successful projects present a path to faculty ABW. This paper
reviews the academic tradition of a single or shared, enclosed
university office space. It takes a forward-looking approach to
activity-based workspaces– a concept that will be commonplace
in the coming decade as Millenials start academic careers - and
reviews supporting practices in industry as well as academia.
Finally, this paper presents best practices and
recommendations for transitioning faculty to open, shared and
non-territorial workspaces.
Index Terms—Activity based workspace, faculty office,
shared workspace.
Dolly Samson is with the Stamford International University, Bangkok,
Thailand (e-mail: dolly@stamford.edu).
Cite:Dolly Samson, "From the Ivory Tower to Activity Based Workspaces," International Journal of Information and Education Technology vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 624-626, 2013.