SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Collaboration, greatly facilitated by advanced telecommunication networks, has become a dominant mode of conducting academic work. However, when collaborators meet in both physical and “electronic” spaces there are a number of unexamined costs that go with the efficiency and inclusiveness made possible by easy telecommunication-based exchanges. This article asks collaborators to be sensitive to the role that physical space plays in creative human endeavors, and to consider the impact on work accomplished in merged electronic and physical work environments. A history of city space and university space are presented within Richard Sennett's notion of exposure: a delicate balance of fear and stimulation associated with community. The concluding section of this article considers how to build the collaborative university so that the pleasures of physical space are preserved, and the efficiencies of reaching across distances with telecommunications can be leveraged. The article's coda presents a case study, and efforts are made to use hypermedia's attributes to improve the collaboration between author and reader.


Working together: benefits and costs

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Academic work grows increasingly collaborative. For at least ten years, co-authored articles have dominated journal table of contents, and a growing percentage of federal research funding is awarded to consortia of investigators rather than to individuals (Chubin, Porter, and Rossini, 1985). As this issue of JCMC illustrates, and as the popular press resonates, new ways of collaborative learning are central to today's academic mission (Gay and Lentini, this issue; Hutchison, this issue; Reinhardt, 1995; Wheeler, Valacich, Alavi, and Vogel this issue). To support these collaborative relationships, project partners are turning to electronic work environments to augment face-to-face meetings (e.g., Tang, Isaacs, and Rua, 1994).

Working jointly in physical and electronic space has offered collaborators both efficiency and more inclusive teams. There is an avalanche of work supporting the virtues of telecommunication-based collaborative work environments (see for example: The Unofficial yellow pages of CSCW. However, in this solo piece, I would like to take the opportunity to explore the cost of collaboration as it moves into multiple work spaces.

Nearly without exception, academics will talk out of both sides of their mouths about their electronic communities. In the first breath we will revel in the opportunities offered by telecommunication networks, and in the next report being seduced, cajoled, and bludgeoned into a state of over-commitment in cyberspace. As a community, we are failing Sebastian de Grazia's (1962) measure of the good life: the pursuit of leisure. Rather than buying time with our efficient technologies, we find new ways to sell it in overlapping parcels. Constant activity in simultaneous work spaces is the cost we bear for uncritically accepting the “distributed work environment.”

Work place or work space?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

I want to argue that we have confused connecting across distance with being in the same space. In this confusion we have become smug about our domination of space and ignore the contribution of natural and built space to our well-being, thought, and behavior (Dattner, 1995). Marvin (1988) noted this tendency even in the technology writers of the late 1800s: “What these writers hoped to extend without challenge were self-conceptions that confirmed their dreams of being comfortably at home and perfectly in control of a world at their electric fingertips … only the scale of the community in which they imagined themselves as participants had changed (p. 192).”

Compare these technology writers' sense of sameness about space with Hiss's (1990) description of the language of those who preserve buildings and other special places: “The people involved in this work speak not just of architectural beauty but of the character of a place, of its essential spirit, of the quality of life there, of its livability, genius, flavor, feeling, ambience, essence, resonance, presence, aura, harmony, grace, charm, or seemliness. These are probably allusions to an actual direct experience of some place (p.15).” This far more micro-vision of space, one that implies a much greater influence on human behavior but usually at an unarticulated level (Walter, 1988; Bachelard, 1964), is unexamined in work spaces that have characteristics of the built environment overlayed with “electronic reach” across distance. Perhaps we have gone too far in accepting the work place as a web of extended social relationships, while ignoring the workplace as a habitat.

The rhythm of work

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

In the language of urban geographers who long have charted human activity in physical space, those of us in the electronic community act as if the “friction of distance,” a measurement unit that represents the energy associated with moving goods, information, or people together for the purpose of transaction (Abler, Janelle, Philbrick, and Sommer; 1975) is equal to zero in electronic space. Seduced by the apparently effortless gathering of information, we have discounted the transaction costs of turning information into knowledge, and knowledge into wisdom. Harris (1987, p. 395) describes each of these synthetic activities as the greatest enemy on which the next level is based: too much information destroys knowledge, and excess knowledge attacks wisdom.

This article, while perhaps falling well short of wisdom, will build the argument that the universal “we” has lost a sense of rhythm, and is in danger of unbalancing the thought and action cycle that drives creative human behavior (Grudin, 1990; Schon, 1983; Ghiselin, 1952). Where traveling through space physically once buffered periods of mental activity, we are squeezing out the inherent rest cycle associated with going to libraries, face-to-face meetings, and going from home to work (Quortrup, 1993). The added convenience of telecommunication-based collaboration, the umbrella reason that new technologies are adopted within organizations, carries with it this hidden cost of a loss of pace as it throws us into the vacuum of electronic space.

Charming cyberspace

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Before we continue I should say that frankly, this line of reasoning amazes me. I had planned to write an introduction to a special issue on the virtues of collaboration that used telecommunications to span distances; and I am thankful for my colleagues in this issue who make strong and convincing cases for this premise. I am using their success and the astonishing number of symposia, conferences, and journals focused on constructing telepresence as a license to equivocate my own once unbridled enthusiasm for an academic “homestead in the virtual community” (Rheingold, 1993). My goal is to encourage us to use the benefits of virtual communities to preserve leisure rather than clone commitment; to find in Margaret McLaughlin's turn of words the “alternative set of charms for virtual places. After all, [she concludes] there must be something that is attracting so many people to linger” (McLaughlin, 1995).

TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

I want to sketch two histories that will help us understand the overlap of time expended on academic work brought about by the overlap of physical and electronic space. The first history is the history of the city, the physical space where people congregate to a level that unpredictable meetings always promise both excitement and fear (Sennett, 1990); a physical space made imperative by needs for human communication and in its later forms possible by communication technology (deSola Pool, 1980; Gottman, 1990); and a physical space that some would argue will be exploded by the new media technologies (Peters and Gilder, 1995; Cervero, 1986).

The city, in Sennett's (1990) thinking, is about exposure and the dualism of opportunity and threat that accompanies this openness. He describes a gradual but continuing shift in feelings about the city as moving toward the psychological state of fear and away from the pleasurable awareness associated with chance encounter: “The fear of exposure is in one way a militarized conception of everyday experience, as though attack-and-defense is as apt a model of subjective life as it is of warfare. What is characteristic of our city-building is to wall off the differences between people, assuming that these differences are more likely to be mutually threatening than mutually stimulating” (p. xiii, Sennett, 1990). Responding with a sense of loss, Whyte reminds us of what the open spaces of the agora meant to the ancient Greeks: “at its height (the agora) would be a good guide to what is right [as a place for human interaction]. Its characteristics were centrality, concentration, and mixture” (1988, p. 340).

The second spatial history is of the academic campus itself; an institution spawned in the stimulation of the city (The University of Paris, 13th century) and as a retreat from exposure to the city's “distractions” (Cambridge, 1284). Oldenburg (1989) has written of the “great good places,” of public squares, taverns and skating rinks. These great good places “nourish the kinds of relationships and the diversity of human contact that are the essence of the city [and one would hope the University]. Deprived of these settings, people remain lonely within their crowds. The only predictable social consequence of technological advancement is that they will grow ever more apart from one another (p. xv). Following Turner (1984), and later Chapman (1994), we'll consider where the lineages from Paris and London have taken us, and what an “electronic university” (Rossman, 1992; Jones, 1991) might offer as a great, good place.

Communication and population distribution

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Saint Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636) was a man of both thought and action. He built cities in Spain as he created a church hierarchy in that country, and he wrote an etymology in which he described two origins for the word city. The first was urbs, the stones of the city needed for shelter, commerce, and defense. The second was civitas, the practices of congregated people in ritual and civil spirit (Sennett, 1990).

Over time, the walled city for defense gave way to the open city of commerce. By the 1700s, London stood as the largest European city because of its happy geographic location and centrality to the trade of both its wealthy citizens and its partners moving goods over the seas. The following discussion of London follows the work of Robert Fishman (1987) and ultimately will lead us to an understanding of the changing demographics and demands of today's collaborative academic environment.

The early form of London reflected the needs of its merchant class and co-located the residences and shops of these merchants in a tightly bundled core of the town. The family, all involved in the business, often lived above the retail establishment and was surrounded by the clerks and workers to whom they offered employment. This tight bundling was required so that the activities of commerce; contact, response to threat and opportunity, and negotiation could be conducted easily. Shoulder to shoulder London grew, drawing energy from the concentration of people of commerce.

While a requisite of a lifestyle built on the inherent risk of leveraging capital rather than the more secure economic base of the landed gentry that lived on the rents of its sharecropping constituencies, urban crowding brought with it drawbacks as well as benefits of density. The streets of London accumulated piles of garbage, people fell in the open sewers that split streets of mud, and noise and rancor permeated every street corner. While the very center of town might have the social amenities afforded by wealth, the suburbs (literally below or less than the urb) populated by the working class brought with it this set of social ills.

Partly to leapfrog these suburbs and partly to imitate the lifestyle of the landed aristocracy, wealthy merchants ringed the core city about eight miles from center with a series of weekend cottages. Each Friday after business was done, the roads were clogged with carriages and horses heading out to the country retreat. The traffic flow reversed Sunday evening. The family traveled and worked together because the husband and wife were cross-functional in the business enterprise, and the children were cogs in commerce and someday heirs to the accumulated wealth of the family.

By the mid 1700s, an evangelical Christian movement had begun to re-define the role of women in the English family and championed the “closed, domesticated, nuclear family,” a significant transformation from the “open” family unit that drew sustenance as individuals from the surrounds (Stone, 1977). The women (re-constituted as models of virtue in need of protection that outweighed their vital economic contribution to the family business), and children (valued more and more as descendants in high correlation with the growing likelihood of their survival to adulthood associated with the health of wealth) increasingly were left behind, eight miles from the city core.

Now the father made the daily commute from exurb to city, while maintaining a residence in the city for the many situations that required closer oversight than could be accomplished two hours round trip by horse. It was important to realize that because the merchant class' futures always were at risk, its members could not completely retreat to the pastoral idyll of those whose livelihood relied on the more stable rents from land. Instead, they needed to stay within commuting distance of their income source.

By the mid 1800s, a new form of organizing work had begun, one in which telecommunication technology would begin to play a role in spatial allocation. The work form was embodied in the industrial revolution and involved re-organizing both space and time. Built on principles of Taylorism, complex work tasks were broken into repetitive subordinated tasks (Braverman, 1974). Work time became synchronized out of necessity because the absence of a member of the assembly line would bring the entire production process to a standstill. This is the era in which the gold watch, the symbol of punctuality, became the marker for a career well-served and a job well-done (see Rifkin, 1987 for a remarkable chronicle of the history of time). It also marked a new reason for the geographic concentration of people.

To gather all of these people under one roof and to organize them in horizontal modes of production required lots of acreage, lots of space; an assembly line moves poorly up stairs. Because the central city was built-up vertically and the site of valuable communication-based commercial activity, the factories in which the product manufacturing of the industrial revolution was being done ringed the city, co-located with the homes of the lower classes who lacked the wealth and the modes of transportation to live far from the workplace, regardless of how the pollution of production affected the home environment.

Different circumstances were on hand for the factory owner. His job now required that he span distances in his work. On one hand, he had to oversee the production process occupying an office in close proximity to the shop floor. On the other hand, he had to engage in the communication-based aspects of commerce; negotiating with suppliers, lining up re-sellers, haranguing transporters, and building relationships with other independent economic agents.

Clearly, something was needed for these owners to escape the dilemma of spatial organization. Center city and factory floor were both critical to economic prosperity, but the home needed to be maintained in comfort, security and closure. A technology had to emerge so that people could escape the bounds of what H.G. Wells called The credible city(1902).

Initially, the credible city was cast as a ring of concentric circles around an urban core. Each ring represented a transportation system and the range of the vehicle in that system that permitted face-to-face communication within one hour. In abstract, the credible city appeared as a circle two miles in radius if foot travel were the only transportation mode, an eight mile radius if horses were available, and up to 30 miles in radius along the spokes of trolley lines.

Telecommunications and population distribution

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

These rings began to relax with the invention and distribution of the telephone. As the phone became more reliable and as standardization of work practices made the communication needs less and less on the factory floor (See Beniger, 1986 for a discussion of communication systems of control), factory owners began to install telephone lines between their outlying factories and an office each kept in the center of downtown (see Leuder, 1986 for a history of communication technology in the office). While the complicated business of dealing with the unpredictable required the face-to-face context, the routine instructions of production could be handled by voice over the phone. The telephone also reached to the home, allowing the family unit to maintain contact in the event an emergency required action at a greater distance. A technology had emerged that allowed people to co-locate their physical and electronic presence, to conduct work simultaneously in two places from a single premises.

As more and more businesses specialized and complexified their transaction patterns, the role of communication in spatial development became more important. Pool (1980) argued that the telephone joined the Otis elevator as the necessary technologies for the construction of skyscrapers in the early 20th century. The elevator preserved scarce and expensive land while the telephone allowed the multitude of people working in the skyscraper to meet without impossible transaction costs of walking up and down the stairs between the floors. As Abler (1975) reminds us, the “friction of distance” is much higher for vertical space than it is for horizontal space when no technological assists are available.

From the years in which the telephone went into commercial service (1877) and Frank Lloyd Wright completed the Larkin Building as the forerunner of the people-aggregating modern office complex (1903) until 1970, both the telecommunications and transportation infrastructure improved greatly. In the case of the telephone, the network advanced in reach, reliability, speed, and functionality. In the case of transportation, Dwight Eisenhower oversaw the development of the Interstate highway system in the 1950s. Conceived to move tanks in time of war, in times of secured borders the superhighways instead filled up with automobiles.

Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Over this 100 year history, some interesting changes in the relationship between travel and telecommunications had occurred. At first, free of constraints, the relationship between travel and telecommunications was direct: the more people telecommunicated the more they traveled to meet each other as well. The reverse also held: those who had met face-to-face telephoned one another more often (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 1994; Mokhtarian, 1990). By 1980, several things had occurred that suggested there were conditions in which telecommunications would substitute for travel. These conditions included suburban gridlock (Cervero, 1986), the oil shock of 1973 that made travel more expensive and helped set in motion a number of telecommuting experiments (Nilles, 1991), and terrorism, a major impetus to the growth of videoconferencing as corporations re-considered travel in a dangerous world.

As these technologies improved, as the bandwidth passed across the networks increased, and as far-flung relationships strengthened, an unanticipated consequence occurred: the capacity of space to buffer the work load of individuals dramatically lessened. Although we still do not know how to make more time in the day, our culture of urgency is splitting space into time. Meter-readers punching in their data between houses, academics sitting in air planes working on powerbooks, Open University students going to school in their living rooms, all have neatly sidestepped the “down time” of moving between locations for different kinds of work (Acker and McCarthy, 1990).

In the United States, this culture of urgency also has been re-defining the work-living relationships of people (see Masser, Svide'n and Wegener, 1992 for a parallel vision of Europe). A combination of economic factors, limitations of the size of credible cities, and the steady improvement of telecommunications created conditions for the middle class to seek the “Garden of Eden” in the suburbs. Garreau (1991) sketches the growth of the Edge City along the following lines.

Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Following World War II, there was a huge pent-up demand for affordable housing, but land was expensive close to urban centers. Encouraged by government-backed mortgages and expectations of easy transportation via superhighway, developers platted and constructed ex-urbias. People willingly traveled back and forth to work, continuing the commuting tradition from their newly purchased homes. In the 1960s and 70s, shopping centers followed the consumer and moved to the huge malls that ringed urban centers. This movement to market again was made possible by the relatively low cost of land, highways that moved cars in reasonable numbers in reasonable times, and by the relative availability of cheap parkingas a corollary of extensive automobile use.

These population shifts have resulted in the majority of people now living and working outside of what historically has been the city. For example, only 8 percent of New York's population now lives in Manhattan and 2/3 of all American office facilities are in “edge cities,” new municipalities formed in suburbs that ring older downtowns (Garreau, 1991; p. 5). In the process, a new set of commitments to organizing residence, work, and commerce has arisen and the large amounts of capital that have gone into homes, shopping malls and industrial campuses has established new living patterns with their own inertia.

In the current state, the initial pleasures of the “bourgeois utopia” (Fishman, 1987) of suburbs are being weakened by the ills of overcrowding, an overcrowding of automobiles more than people. Although residences and work places have drifted physically closer over the last thirty years, travel time between residence and work has been increasing. This apparent contradiction is caused by poor pacing; each residence releases two or more automobiles in “morning drive time,” and the work places return the congregated mass to the streets in the evening.

To our exurbanite, this time lost to traffic is far more onerous than long distances to travel (Technology and Telecommuting: Issues and Impacts Committee, 1994). The high stress levels of stop-and-go traffic fills-up time rather than “marks time” as occurs when commuters' attention wanders along empty streets (Cervero, 1989). In spite of various experiments such as car pool lanes, staggered work shifts, telecommuting incentives (Gray, Hodson, and Gordon, 1993), we are becoming both time- and place-bound.

In spite of the travel binds of the 1990s, community planners continue to rely on a spoke and hub model of development. The first outerbelts to ring cities lured people and then their jobs away from the center. Now, a second outerbelt is showing up on planning maps of cities experiencing growth. This pattern demonstrates Nilles (1991) model of urban sprawl: people move to low density housing with low density road systems to escape urban problems. As more people arrive, the roads prove inadequate and the citizens exercise the political power of their wealth and numbers to build additional roads to and from their communities. Once the access is improved, more people are attracted to the ex-urbs. In short order, these areas sprawl into the condition of “suburban gridlock” (Cervero, 1986).

The NII and the seamless workplace

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

The condition we find ourselves in 1995 is a time in which state planners and building developers are confronting serious challenges to growth and quality of life. Urban sprawl has thinned the human population to a level where intrinsically interesting activities associated with diversity don't spontaneously appear, and has created conditions where automobiles can no longer traverse space in reasonable lengths of time. In these circumstances, individuals are faced with a choice: (1) they can endure further degeneration of their time-space circumstance, (2) They can re-group at the city center and attempt to spontaneously regenerate the proxemics of diversity within the bounds of a credible city, or (3) they can turn and run farther to the hinterland. Not surprisingly, telecommunications, now in the rhetoric of the National Information Infrastructure rather than the telephone, remains at the center of this engaged choice.

What isn't clear is how a fully developed NII will influence human mobility. While the highway system is not an all encompassing metaphor for the NII, the existence of the NII is very likely to influence in a concrete way the highway system and the physical transport of people. As a challenge to the status quo, Arcosanti-like environments are proposed in which people live and work very close together and share expansive greenbelts around their cities (Soleri, 1973). Far more dominant are choices that preserve the status quo. For example, one reason people become more conversant with telecommunications is the convenience offered by home- and satellite-based working relationships. Alternately, people may disperse themselves further from population concentrations and rely even more heavily on telecommunications to meet their work and social needs. One possible outcome of these choices is the re-habituation of people to living in very small local ways, with only occasional forays into urban exotica. The cruel irony of a heavily gridded but barriered travel and telecommunications infrastructure is the possibility of more and more persons being driven into solo, individual spaces rather than into communities of difference and exposure (see Porter, Rossini, Carpenter, Larson, and Tiller, 1982 for a discussion of the effects ladder of telecommunications).

To summarize, in the late 20th Century, much of the attraction of cities has been lost as people have come to feel the negatives of exposure more than the benefits. With the attraction of community weakened, people have drifted further from the city center. Supported by improved telecommunications and improved transportation networks, many of our communities now reflect population densities uncomfortably in the middle: underpopulated for diversity, over-populated for autonomy. Driven by a culture of urgency, the inhabitants lack the time to enjoy the virtues of either diversity or autonomy if either were obtained. The central issues to consider as our telecommunication networks reach toward greater presence is whether they will isolate or re-unite us, deliver diversity through the NII or place each living unit at the end of its own road. In the following section, the history of the university is discussed, and an attempt will be made to reconcile its history and trajectory with these bracketing views of the workplace at large.

From Athens and Paris

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

The first paid professional teachers were the Sophists, who earned their living with no sense of place. Itinerants, the Sophists traveled about collecting students as they went. This sense of gypsy-scholar continued into the 13th century and the founding of the University of Paris. Contestibly the first continental University, Paris' charter simply recognized the existence of a band of teachers and students in the urban Parisian environment (Rossman, 1992).

To England

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Across the Channel, Oxford and Cambridge derived their mission from the University of Paris, but greatly modified the pursuit of that mission. These English colleges understood their organization to more closely resemble a cloister in which students and teachers retired from the city and lived and studied together removed from distractions (Turner, 1984). Even the English architectural tradition of the enclosed quadrangle established the physical space of a separate community. In addition to defensible space, the cloister's four sides housed four sides of existence: study, sleep, dining, and prayer. In nearly all ways, these colleges were designed to be self-sufficient. In contrast, the Parisian model located the college as a place to come and study, while the greater community absorbed the students and teachers after hours and sustained their residential needs.

To the United States

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

In the United States, the tradition of higher education began as a descendent of the English model. Harvard, founded in 1636, was four miles removed from Boston (in a locale then called Newtowne, later re-named Cambridge), a campus that celebrated a connection to nature while maintaining a healthy distance from the city. The notion of a campus of self-standing buildings joined by pathways grew partly because of the widely available space and partly as a defense against fire that could totally destroy connected buildings constructed from the forests of the new world. Paths joined buildings and were traveled at measured pace, well-below the nano-second circles run by microprocessors that at terminal velocity leap to the workstation of a networked colleague (see Robert Root's discussion of Cruiser, a networked videoconference system supporting informal communication among offices, Root, 1988).

Rather than centralizing colleges at only two locations as the British had done with Oxford and Cambridge, the United States established multiple colleges that reflected parochial needs more than any national vision (Turner, 1984). Most of these learning institutions developed local character and a sense of a community located in physical space. The enduring college custom of “homecoming” speaks to this practice and sense of community.

A somewhat later important historical force was the 1862 Land Grant Act which deeded federal land to states to be used or sold for the purpose of supporting higher education for the citizens. By the mid 19th Century, universities already were being attacked as too removed from contemporary social needs and the land grant was used to support institutions to teach the practicalities of farming and mechanical arts, to serve the immediate needs of the community (Greeley, 1857).

Shortly thereafter, Frederick Olmstead planned Berkeley as the great compromise, a suburban school removed enough for contemplation but within reach of the city's excitement, stimulation, and pragmatic concerns. Here, the notion of campus as a naturalistic park began (Turner, 1984) and has carried over to the design of industrial parks in edge cities (Garreau, 1991). Throughout this time, the notion of viewing contemporary society at a distance was dominant.

After WWII, the GI Bill sent many new students to school and by 1962 almost all of the country's 2,000 universities were growing. To manage the greatly increased student body size, “circulation” became a goal of campus construction in the 1960s and functional division occurred so that people had to move about. Faculty offices were concentrated away from classrooms, and libraries were freestanding and triangulated from offices and classrooms to further encourage chance encounters and the building of community.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the next factor shaping American education was the “community college” (as in Greeley's time taken to mean serving the community rather than serving as a community) in the guise of commuter schools (Chapman, 1994). For this educational organization, the campus space design was influenced by the goal of access rather than lingering; students wanted to be able to get on and park, and get off and go home or to work as their needs dictated. Circulation became back and forth rather than within. This “new traditional” student, equally committed to work, education, and outside family and social responsibilities, was seen as a replacement class for the declining number of the traditional cohort of 18-22 year old students born just after World War II.

Horns of the dilemma

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Now, halfway through the 1990s, the time-place paradox also permeates the academy, replicating greater society's dilemma of residential and work spatial arrangements. It is becoming increasingly difficult for time-constrained students to travel to campus or students who must live with multiple responsibilities (work, family, school) to live on campus, a place primarily dedicated to a single responsibility. Just as our cities are confronted with the need to reduce the friction of distance while maintaining the vitalism of the community, so are our colleges and universities.

Campus planners have “been asked to respect the timelessness of a well-ordered campus and the extraordinary capability that a timeless environment has to accommodate changing circumstances” (Chapman, 1994, p. 12). They have been admonished to enhance those characteristics of the campus that foster collegiality, communication, and interaction [emphasis in original], a reminder that a college is, above, all, a unique community for advanced learning (Chapman, 1994, p. 12).

At the same time, campus planning is focusing large amounts of resources and energy on the electronically-engaged university (Annenberg/CPB Project Guidelines, 1995; Arms, 1990). IBM estimates that American institutions of higher education have spent 20 billion dollars on teaching and learning technology over the past fifteen years (Reinhardt, 1995). Through networks, students, faculty, and staff are to evolve work habits that increase efficiency, broaden scope, allow individuals to better manage their personal time and financial resources. The appropriate integration of physical and electronic space is central to what it means to be an academic community.

Turner (1984, p. 305) reconciles these perspectives in this observation: “Campus has often been a vehicle for expressing the utopian [rather than necessarily attainable] social visions of the American imagination. Above all, the campus reveals the power that a physical environment can possess as the embodiment of an institution's character.” This choice of physical environment for the academy: at home, on the job, on the campus, or merged among these places asks the essential question: dislocation or co-location between physical and electronic space.

THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

Universities are responding to the culture of urgency using various strategies to allow people to be in two places at the same time. One strategy centers on improving on-line access to a university's libraries, Internet point-of-presence, and individual class resources (faculty-student e-mail, bulletin boards, web pages), typically using modem pools and client-server technologies. A second strategy focuses on managing time, specifically time students must be in a particular place at a given time. Faculty are videotaping lectures so that individual students can attend lectures during their available time either in their own homes or at a central media laboratory. A third strategy promotes academic groupware, to allow students and faculty to be members of groups that meet from independent places either synchronously (Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, and George, 1991), or asynchronously (Acker, Bate, Vlasko, Alter, Bracken and Radhakrishnan; 1994).

In many respects, these innovations could be considered as parallel to efforts to accommodate the time/space crunch of individuals in other work environments. However, the innovations in academic work space are elevated to a contest for institutional survival as these technologies have weakened the “natural monopoly” of educational institutions once afforded by physical presence. The birthing of this new work space will have its most pragmatic manifestations and fiercest battles in defining what is an accepted education, the purview of accreditation. Accreditation, a process that itself has relied on a sense of place for its enforcement, is ill-prepared for this contest.

We can see at least three models by which telecommunications-mediated education is contesting educational turf. The Open University in the United Kingdom represents one approach: a single educational institution invents and invests in a vision that from the beginning is organized as using external space in the form of the student's home, or in the case of the U.S.' National Technological University, the student's workplace. The principle challenge of extra-terrestrial organizations is academic credibility; will the student find the education valuable in her/his own eyes and in the eyes of her/his employers? (The answer appears to be yes, at least in the two examples cited). One significant advantage held by these outreach institutions is that in their relative youth and inaugural commitment to co-locating education and work or residence off-campus, they do not possess an established tradition or culture based on internal space to contest this approach.

The situation at the University of Maine system in the United States illustrates one possible outcome when an institution founded on internal space tries to externalize its educational offerings. Under the title Professor battling television technology(Honan, April 4, 1995, A8) The New York Times details the resignation of Maine's Chancellor Orenduff for proposing an “eighth campus, this one without buildings or professor.” The resignation was motivated by a vote of no confidence from the University of Maine's faculty that opposed how the consultative process was conducted and the proposal that the two-way video program deliver accredited degrees from the University. The faculty complaints were about both the technology and job security. The University of Maine's experience represents opposition to a change in educational delivery marshaled from a history of separated education, work, and residence.

The third model of co-locating physical and electronic space is the collaborative model between two or more universities. This collaboration can be understood as founded on the broadcast model of distance education in which one locale delivers its expertise to a collaborating institution. Alternately, the conversational model emphasizing parity between contributing partners can be implemented (Acker and McCain, 1992). This approach can be structured to avoid competition for students and the state and federal resources based on enrollments.

Whichever approach is followed to meet the student/consumer's implied need for co-location of physical and electronic space, we are entering an era in which the contests will be substantial and played for large stakes. It is very likely, that collaborative education will be cast as competitive education from the perspectives of many institutions and their faculty. We have passed the stage in the diffusion of innovations where the organization takes a wait-and-see attitude toward the innovators. The implications for the early and late majority are now imminent enough to spark, debate, resistance, and impassioned calls for change. My concern is that too many of the voices echo earlier technologist's “dreams of being comfortably at home and perfectly in control,” (Marvin, 1989) confirming Sennett's observation that we now flee from exposure, a path antithetical to the mission of education.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

As telecommunication networks begin to saturate the physical environs, we have entered a period of social transformation. Lefebvre (1991, p. 54) observes that “a social transformation, to be truly revolutionary in character, must manifest a creative capacity in its effects on daily life, on language, and on space– though its impact need not occur at the same rate, or with equal force, in each of these areas.” The social transformation has changed daily life and language, but the impact on space is in earlier stages of development. To prepare for the revolution soon to arrive, we must disentangle issues of space from issues of spanning distances.

This article has sketched in broad strokes the history of city space and the history of academic space. Both cities and institutions of higher education are in the process of re-defining spatial relationships in the lives of their constituencies. They do so in response to a culture of urgency and the underexamined goal of being able to co-locate physical and electronic work space.

I began this essay and literature review with a concern for the process of collaboration and the conditions under which the cycle of thought and action could be protected. My concern is that most of us lack the experience to coordinate activity in physical and electronic environments and are in the main unconscious of the effects of the physical space and activity patterns we select in which to do our work. Can the collaborative process conducted in distributed locations save us time for reflection, or will these space-merging technologies only increase the frenzy of activity? Higher education must consider this issue, especially if its practices serve to habituate and direct activities in other social arenas by those who, at least for a time, are charges of academic institutions.

Without paying enough attention, we may have slipped into work spaces that leave us nowhere to hide, that over-illuminate our thought refuges with the blaze of activity. On many occasions, collaboration oriented toward efficient output is partitioned, each piece well-crafted, and then put together, but leaving the sense of whole somehow less than the sum of the parts (Landow, 1990). Yet, other relationships benefit both the product and process of collaboration, with the interstices of the collaborators the most interesting elements of the mosaic (Joyce, 1995). I suspect the collaborators of the second set understand how, or have stumbled into ways, to conduct their work in physical and networked environments to buy time rather than merely leverage time.

In summary, travel-irritated citizens caught in time-poor conditions, but blessed with resources to cover distance with telecommunications, are establishing new work methods and relationships. However, they often are unfeeling of the constitutive elements of space (Scuri, 1995; Hiss, 1990; Oldenburg, 1989). Academic institutions face the same circumstances and choices, but with traditions extending back to utopic visions and forward to technology-based transformations. In both arenas, collaborative work may help us to return to the agora, or expose us to a middling diversity of gnawing dissatisfaction.

The interesting questions to ponder are: (1) is “exposure” in cyberspace the same as exposure in physical space, and (2) if so, who among us will: (a) unthinkingly exceed the virtual FARs of stimulating space and move into active freneticism, (b) ever so gently decline into the state of “comfortably numb” as we use isolating environments to cut ourselves off from exposure (Kay, 1991; p. 138; Pink Floyd, 1979), or (c) pro-actively leverage connectivity to serve our time rather than succumb to the temptations of too many activities (DeGrazia, 1962). At the institutional level, how will higher education plan its physical and electronic spaces to meet the needs of these individuals? The answers probably lie in the combination of autonomy and self-awareness that structures individual lives, and the sense of mission that make-up institutional memories.

CODA

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References

The generalizations with which this article ended directly above may be accurate, but they are also too abstract to generate either response or controversy. This coda is a pointer to an international collaborative project between Ohio State University, U.S.A. and the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. If you follow this link you will see an argument for one view of the “great, good place of collaboration” (following Oldenburg, 1989), because it involves travel as well as telecommunications, and because in the process it transplants people into new physical environments, whether those environments are the 1,300 or so restaurants and bars of Amsterdam, or the baseball field of Columbus on the Fourth of July with a crowd dancing to The Temptations.

This collaborative relationship is based on short three week visits supported by telecommunication links during the rest of the year. The two partners are equals and engaged in reciprocal host-guest relationships, not host -remote relationships. It claims to capture both the sense of place and the efficiencies of telecommunications. It supports the time-constrained schedules of committed adults by telescoping semester-away programs into three weeks, and as a great gift from the Dutch, lessons in how to take time rather than make time.

At this pointer, we discuss the incentives for all levels of commitment: Institutional, faculty, student, library, and computer services needed for collaboration, demonstrate shared resources that exceed the capacity of either institution acting alone, present the students and their collaborative work, and ask our readers: What is wrong with this picture? And, if you will take a moment to solve this puzzle, I will provide my answer to Margaret McLaughlin's question: “What are the alternative set of charms for virtual places”.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. Working together: benefits and costs
  5. Work place or work space?
  6. The rhythm of work
  7. Charming cyberspace
  8. TWO HISTORIES OF SPACE
  9. THE HISTORY OF CITY SPACE
  10. Communication and population distribution
  11. Telecommunications and population distribution
  12. Travel, telecommunications, and the culture of urgency
  13. Coming full circle: Work and residence re-unite
  14. The NII and the seamless workplace
  15. THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY SPACE
  16. From Athens and Paris
  17. To England
  18. To the United States
  19. Horns of the dilemma
  20. THE COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY
  21. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  22. CODA
  23. References
  • Abler, R., Janelle, D., Philbrick, A., & Sommer, J. (eds.) (1975). Human geography in a shrinking world. North Scituate , MA : Duxbury Press.
  • Acker, S., Bate, B., Vlasko, N., Alter, M., Bracken, J., & Radhakrishnan, J. (1994). Collaborative learning: Designing and implementing a multichannel environment. 1994 CAST Proceedings: “Finding Our Way”.
  • Acker, S. & McCain, T. (1992). Designers' and producers' values: Their social, technical and economic influences on the success of videoconferencing. Media and technology for human resource development, 4(3), 175190.
  • Acker, S. & McCarthy, F. (1990). The telework suitability scale. Pacific Telecommunications Conference Proceedings, 709715.
  • Acker, S., Slaa, P., & Bouwman, H. (1993). International academic joint ventures: Using telecommunications and travel in a distributed work environment. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 1(4). [File http://www.ACKER.IPCTV1N4@GUVM.GEORGETOWN.EDU].
  • Annenberg/CPB Project. (1995). Annenberg/CPB Higher education project 1995 guidelines. Washington , D.C. : Annenberg/CPB Project.
  • Arms, C. (1988). Campus networking strategies. Maynard , MA : Digital Press.
  • Bachelard, G. (1964). The poetics of space. Boston : Beacon Press.
  • Becker, F. (1981). Workspace: Creating environments in organizations. New York : Praeger Publishers.
  • Beniger, J. (1986). The control revolution. Cambridge , MA. : Harvard University Press.
  • Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York : Monthly Press Review.
  • Brotchie, J., Hall, P. & Newton, P. (eds.) (1987). The Spatial Impact of Technological Change. London : Croom Helm.
  • Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds: Possible worlds. Cambridge , MA. : Harvard University Press.
  • Cervero, R. (1989). America's suburban centers. Boston : Unwin Hyman.
  • Cervero, R. (1986). Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick , NJ : Center for Urban policy research, Rutgers University.
  • Chapman, M. (Spring, 1994). Social change and American campus design. Planning for Higher Education, 22, 112.
  • Chubin, D., Porter, A. & Rossini, F. [eds.]. Interdisciplinarity: Theory and practice of problem-focused research and development. Mt. Airy , MD. : Lomond Publishing.
  • Comer, D. (1988). Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles, protocols, and architecture. Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
  • Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London : Routledge.
  • Darsey, J. (May 3, 1995). Personal communication.
  • Dattner, R. (1995). Civil Architecture: The new public infrastructure. New York : McGraw Hill.
  • DeGrazia, S. (1962). Of time, work and leisure. New York : Vintage Books.
  • Frank, S. (November, 1994). Reinventing the architecture of work. ID Magazine, 4751.
  • Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois Utopias: The rise and fall of suburbia. New York : Basic Books.
  • Fulk, J. & Steinfield, C. (1990). Organizations and communication technology. Newbury Park , CA : Sage Publishing.
  • Galegher, J., Kraut, R. & Egido, C. (Eds.) (1990). Intellectual Teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Gay, G. & Lentini, M. (1995). Use of Communication Resources in a Networked Collaborative Design Environment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1(1) at http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol1/issue1/contents.html.
  • Ghiselin, B. (ed.) (1952). The creative process. New York : Mentor Books.
  • Giedion, S. (1962). Space, time, and architecture: The growth of a new tradition. Cambridge , MA. : Harvard University Press.
  • Gottman, J. (1961). Megalopolis: The urbanized Northeastern seaboard of the United States NY : Twentieth Century fund.
  • Gottmann, J. & Harper, R. (eds.) (1990). Since Megalopolis. Baltimore : John Hopkins Press.
  • Gray, M. (1995). Growth of the World Wide Web. Available at http://www.netgen.com/info/growth.html.
  • Gray, M., Hodson, N., & Gordon, G. (1993). Teleworking explained. New York : Wiley.
  • Grudin, R. (1990). The grace of great things: Creativity and innovation. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
  • Gumpert, G. & Drucker, S. (1992). From the agora to the electronic shopping mall. Critical studies in mass communication, 9(2), 186200.
  • Harris, B. (1987). Cities and regions in the electronic age. In Brotchie, J., Hall, P. and Newton, P. (eds.). The Spatial Impact of Technological Change. London : Croom Helm.
  • Hill, G. (November 14, 1994). All together now: Internal computer networks are changing the way companies–and their employees– do business. Wall Street Journal, R1-ff.
  • Hiss, T. (1990). The experience of place: A new way of looking at and dealing with our radically changing cities and countryside. New York : Vintage Books.
  • Honan, W. (April 4, 1995). Professors battling television technology. New York Times, A8.
  • Hutchison, C. (1995). The ‘ICP OnLine’: Jeux sans frontières on the CyberCampus. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1(1) at http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol1/issue1/contents.html.
  • Huws, U., Korte, W, & Robinson, S. (1990). Telework: Towards the Elusive Office. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons.
  • Johnson-Lenz, P. & Johnson-Lenz, T. (1994). Groupware for a small planet. in P.Lloyd, (ed.). Groupware in the 21st Century: Computer supported cooperative working toward the millennium. Westport , CT : Praeger Press.
  • Jones, G. (1991). Make all America a school: Mind Extension University. Englewood , CO : Jones 21st Century Publishing.
  • Joyce, M. (1995). Of two minds: Hypertext pedagogy and poetics. Ann Arbor , MI : University of Michigan Press.
  • Kay, A. (September, 1991). Computers, networks and education. Scientific American, 265(3), 138148.
  • Landow, G. (1990). Hypertext and collaborative work: The example of intermedia. In Intellectual Teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (Galegher, J., Kraut, R. and Egido, C., Eds.). 407428. Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith). Cambridge , MA. : Blackwell Publishers.
  • Leuder, R. (1986). The ergonomic payoff: Designing the electronic office. New York : Nichols.
  • Lloyd, P. (ed.) (1994). Groupware in the 21st Century: Computer supported cooperative working toward the millennium. Westport , CT : Praeger Press.
  • Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place? Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
  • MacKie-Mason, J. & Varian, H. (September, 1994). Some FAQs about usage-based pricing. Available at http://www.ipps.lsa.umich.edu:70/0/ipps/papers/info-nets/useFAQs/useFAQs.html.
  • Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electronic communication in the late Nineteenth Century. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  • Masser, I. & H. J.Onsrud, (eds.) (1993). Diffusion and Use of Geographic Information Technologies. London : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Masser, I., Svide'n, O. & Wegener, M. (1992). The Geography of Europe's Futures. Belhaven Press, London .
  • McCartney, S. (April 19, 1995). The multitasking man: Type A meets technology. The Wall Street Journal. B1B2.
  • McLaughlin, M. (May 6, 1995). Saturday E-Mail message, header: “Draft on WWW site”.
  • Mokhtarian, P. (1990). A typology of relationships between telecommunications and transportation. Transportation Research, 24A(3), 231242.
  • Mokhtarian, P. & Salomon (1994). Modeling the choice of telecommuting: Setting the context. Environment and planning A. 26, 749766.
  • Mumford, L. (1938). The culture of cities. New York : Harcourt, Brace and company.
  • National Research Council (1994). Research recommendations to facilitate distributed work. Washington , D.C. : National Academy Press.
  • Nilles, J. (1991). Telecommuting and urban sprawl: mitigator or inciter? Transportation, 18, 411432.
  • Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through The Day. New York : Paragon House.
  • Peters, T. & Gilder, G. (February 27, 1995). City vs. Country: The impact of technology on location. Forbes ASAP, 5661.
  • Pink, Floyd, (1979). Comfortably numb. The Wall. (Song 6, Disc 2). New York : Capital Records.
  • Pool, I. (September., 1980) Communications technology and land use. ANNALS, AAPSS, 451, 112.
  • Porter, A., Rossini, F., Carpenter, S., Larson, R. & Tiller, J. (1982). A guidebook for technology assessment and impact analysis. New York : North Holland.
  • Qvortrup, L (1993). Flexiwork and telework centres in the Nordic countries: Trends and perspectives. Paper presented at the ECTF International Seminar “Flexiwork Policy in the European and Nordic Labour Markets”, Helsinki May 18–19 1993. Accessible at: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/telep/telework/ttrfolder/typfolder/ftnc.html.
  • Reinhardt, A. (March, 1995). New ways to learn. Byte, 20(3), 50-ff.
  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading , MA : Addison-Wesley.
  • Richards, B. (November 21, 1994). Many rural regions are growing again; A reason: Technology. Wall Street Journal, A1A5.
  • Rifkin, J. (1987). Time wars: The primary conflict in human history. New York : Simon and Schuster.
  • Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work. New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons.
  • Root, R. (1988). Design of a multimedia vehicle for social browsing. Proceedings of the 1988 conference on computer-supported cooperative work. New York : ACM Press.
  • Rossman, P. (1992). The emerging worldwide electronic university: Information age global higher education. Westport , CT : Greenwood Press.
  • Samarajiva, R. & Shields, P. (1993). Institutional and strategic analysis in electronic space: A preliminary mapping. Presented to the 43rd annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington , D.C .
  • Schon, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York : Basic Books.
  • Schor, J. (1993). The overworked American. New York : Basic Books.
  • Scuri, P. (1995). Design of enclosed spaces. London : Chapman and Hall.
  • Social Science Perspectives on IS (April 1994). ACM Transactions on Information Systems, (12), 2.
  • Sennett, R. (1994). Flesh and stone. New York : W.W. Norton.
  • Sennett, R. (1990). The conscience of the eye. New York : W.W. Norton.
  • Sims, C. (August 4, 1991). Late bloomers come to campus. The New York Times, 1617.
  • Soleri, P. (1984). Arcosanti: An urban laboratory? San Diego , Calif. : Avant Books.
  • Sterling, B. (March 2, 1994). The Virtual City. Speech at Rice Design Alliance: Houston , Texas available at http://riceinfo.rice.edu/projects/RDA/Virtual City/index.html.
  • Stone, L. (1977). The family, sex, and marriage in England, 1500–1800. New York : Harper & Row.
  • Tang, J., Isaacs, E. & Rua, M. (1994). Supporting distributed groups with a montage of lightweight interactions. Transcending Boundaries: CSCW 1994, 2334.
  • Technology and Telecommuting: Issues and impacts Committee (1994). Research recommendations to facilitate distributed work. Washington , D.C. : National Academy Press.
  • Trachtenberg, M. (1986). Architecture, from prehistory to post-modernism: The Western tradition. Englewood Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
  • Turner, P. (1984). Campus, an American planning tradition. Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
  • Vance, J. (1977). This scene of man: The role and structure of the city in the geography of Western Civilization. NY : Harper and Row.
  • Walter, E. Placeways: A theory of the human environment. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press.
  • Wegener, M. & Masser, I. (1995) Brave New GIS Worlds.
  • Wegener, M. (1987) Spatial Planning in the Information Age. In: J.F.Brotchie, P.Hall and P.W.Newton, (eds.) The Spatial Impact of Technological Change. Croom Helm, London , pp. 375392.
  • Wells, H. (1902). Anticipations. New York : Harper Brothers.
  • Wheeler, B., Valacich, J., Alavi, M. & Vogel, D. (1995). A Framework for Technology-mediated Inter-institutional Telelearning Relationships. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1(1) at http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol1/issue1/contents.html.
  • Whyte, W. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center. New York : Doubleday.
  • Williams-Hawkins, M. (1994). Exploitation of an innovation: An action-oriented analysis of international academic joint ventures as a method of international instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
  • Wycherley, R. (1969). How the Greeks built cities. Garden City , New York : Doubleday Anchor.