Guest editorial: Higher education: academic spaces for working and learning in the COVID-19 legacy

The organization of a higher education institute is diverse, encompassing different levels of management and a wide range of end users, including students, staff and visitors. The concept of “place” extends beyond the physical campus to include digital spaces and the areas in between. In addition, facility management processes are based on both interrelated and disconnected activities, depending on the user profile (Wheele et al., 2023a, 2023b). It is the integration of “people, place and process” within the built environment (ISO41011:2024), that is, facility management service.

Organization and space are taken together in facility management. It is long well known that spatial configuration influences the potential of activities and productivity (Lindkvist and Elmualim, 2009). Spatial activities in higher education can also be determined by the capabilities of the teacher to manage a space whether it is physical, digital and/or hybrid (Topraklı et al., 2025). Value for learning and working spaces are often distinguished separately within higher education though in practice they are intertwined. Particular to FM, value can be based on best value which takes performance against both cost and quality (Atkin and Brooks, 2021), as well as added value when a service is enhanced for the improved performance of the organization (Jensen and van der Voordt, 2016). In academic settings, the functional value of spaces is often considered without recognizing that these spaces can and do serve multiple purposes simultaneously. This takes in that they have an added value and a best value when the space can be used for multiple purposes.

For example, within the academic environment, an office space is also a learning space for example through academic staff need to supervise students (Indegård, 2025). The classroom whether physical or virtual is both a meeting social space and a learning space where the teacher plays a key role in facilitating (Obuobisa-Darko, 2025 and Toprakli et al., 2025). However, what we are finding that those using these spaces are disconnected from the role of the facility manager to service the space as the space itself has an embedded pedagogy that influences how the teacher runs classes. While facility management is a discipline known to adapt to organizational needs, these organizational needs are becoming increasingly complex to serve digital and physical spaces made up of diverse user groupings (Wheele et al., 2023a, 2023b). Value creation of these spaces in their use of spaces is not always organized through engagement of facility manager as the use is mixed indicating value within agile spaces needs further conceptualization in how to design and manage.

The pedagogical spaces and the support facility management provides to these spaces is not always distinguishable, which is problematic when trying to provide services with value to meet the needs of higher education spaces. University campuses contain places for working, studying, learning and researching with colocation of students and staff being increasingly dominant (Sykäri et al., 2025; Wheele et al., 2023a, 2023b). The role of FM to support academic workers and students in their overall experience at university is still evolving (Wheele et al., 2023a, 2023b). According to Nenonen et al. (2023), FM needs to react to experience management, sustainability issues in remote work and human-centric approach to capture the new needs of the user organizations. However, the roles of academic knowledge staff and facility managers are clearly distinguished within the organization of higher education. The strategic, tactical and operational levels might not be transparent and clear for all the stakeholders.

In this special issue, we present two different levels of spaces within higher education. First, there are four articles on space as an academic workplace and second, there are four articles on space for learning based within student experiences. While we distinguish the spaces here at the same time the embodiment of higher education of being for research, for learning, for teaching and for being social means spaces are often intertwined in terms of meaning and original functionality. In this way, hybrid spaces is a common thread between both academic and learning spaces.

Working environments are nowadays understood as learning environments, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, where coming into the office often serves to learn from colleagues. At the same time, academic work has always included flexibility to work from home (or anywhere/anytime), yet this flexibility was not always mirrored in workspace designs (Indergård and Hansen, 2023; Nenonen et al., 2020; Nenonen and Sankari, 2022). Within this special issue, four papers articulate how space design in navigating the nuances of the activities and the place of academic work.

“Four Models of the Coworking Concept to Facilitate Remote Higher Education” by Orel and Bennis explores how coworking spaces can support remote learning and work in higher education. The paper outlines four different coworking models and examines their potential benefits for students and faculty navigating hybrid and remote academic environments.

“The Affordances of the Academic Workplace: An Empirical Study of Academic Staff Experiences with Different Office Designs” by Indegård examines how different office types impact academic employees’ satisfaction, with private offices preferred for providing privacy and silence. However, the location of the work environment also significantly affects the experience, especially in terms of social affordance.

“Here, There, and Everywhere: Hybrid Multi-Locational Work and Academics’ Outcomes” by Migliore summarizes the consequences of remote work and hybrid workspaces, emphasizing that academic employees are inherently mobile, but institutional frameworks must support this mobility.

“Optimizing the Social Workplace through Consent-Based Decision-Making: A Case Study on Developing Shared Workplace Guidelines for University Support Services” by Sykäri et al. explores participatory methods for workplace adaptation and cocreation, demonstrating how faculty members cocreate rules and workplace culture in hybrid university settings within the context of relocation. Sensemaking is applied to understand how different people make sense of the open participation approach and assesses the value of this approach when making changes to space and facilities for a shared workplace.

From the articles, we draw a distinct legacy to the post-academic world for the academic workplace:

• Hybrid work and learning are here to stay – Universities must continue investing in flexible, technology-supported spaces that accommodate diverse working and learning styles.

• Multilocational work needs institutional support – Hybrid work models require clear policies and infrastructure to sustain productivity and engagement.

• Redefining the role of FM managers – FM professionals are increasingly engaged in pedagogical and strategic planning rather than solely operational tasks.

• The changing role of university campuses – Campuses are evolving into hubs for collaboration, rather than merely places of instruction.

• Coworking and shared spaces play a key role in higher education – Universities are exploring coworking models to support hybrid learning, academic collaboration and the remote student experience.

• Identifying the changing role of facility management within hybrid working and teaching environments – The use of digital tools within the classroom and for work purposes need to be better aligned to how FM manage the facility with space functionality in mind.

Teaching, studying and learning now take place within physical, digital or hybrid environments, requiring new definitions of academic work, adaptions to new pedagogical demands and new solutions for FM management. In addressing these spaces more rigorously, it is also possible to understand the impact of more digitally orientated higher education on the overall learning and academic work experience (Lahti et al., 2022). The four papers of the special issue focus on how learning spaces are also social spaces where connectedness and engagement among students and their teachers needs facilitation.

“Student experiences with social connectedness in the hybrid university teaching and learning environment, the role of lecturers (Leaders)” by Obuobisa-Darko examines student experiences with social connectedness in hybrid teaching and learning environments, emphasizing the role of lecturers in facilitating this connectedness. Evidence from this research suggests that students in hybrid learning environments experience social connectedness through four key factors: interaction and involvement, support and care, valued relationships and interdependence.

“We Are Learning the Hybrid Communication Culture: Curating Atmospheres of Social Connection for University students” by Wheele et al. explores the concept of “affective atmospheres” to highlight the intangible qualities that shape student experiences in hybrid learning spaces. Their study demonstrates how digitalization has changed the way students engage socially and the necessity of curating digital and physical learning environments to maintain a sense of community.

“Shared Learning Spaces and Social Connectivity: A Facility Management Perspective on Hybrid Learning Environments” by Toprakli et al. discusses how shared learning spaces contribute to student engagement, highlighting the role of spatial planning and technology integration in fostering social connectedness in hybrid education. Their findings underline the need for well-managed hybrid spaces to support both academic success and student well-being. They highlight the importance of spatial arrangement within shared spaces to maximize interaction between key collaborators which needs to be done both in physical, digital and hybrid environment. They study provides guidance on how facility managers can address the need for flexibility and reactivity in shared learning and social environments.

“Enhancing University Library Spaces Design: A User-Centric Approach to User Satisfaction” by Huiying investigates how modern library design influences student engagement and satisfaction. This study explores the impact of flexible seating arrangements, spatial organization and user-focused interior design elements in creating effective learning environments within university libraries.

From the articles, we draw a distinct legacy to the post-academic world for learning spaces:

• Social connectedness in digital spaces – Ensuring student well-being requires thoughtful digital space management to promote interaction and belonging.

• Hybrid learning demands new spatial strategies – Universities must develop physical and digital infrastructures that align with evolving pedagogical models.

• Facility management must integrate student experience – Ensuring students’ social and academic well-being requires FM to engage in broader institutional decision-making.

• The digital campus is a growing reality – Effective management of virtual spaces is crucial to maintaining the social and collaborative aspects of higher education.

• Training facility managers for the post-pandemic university, including tangible and intangible aspects of the environment.

This special issue moves beyond conventional views of FM in higher education. We align our discussion with the ISO41011:2024 definition of FM as an “organizational function that integrates people, place, and process within the built environment to improve quality of life and productivity.” As universities navigate the post-COVID-19 landscape, FM will play a central role in shaping adaptive, inclusive and sustainable academic environments. However, the role of facilities management in the context of learning environments is not yet researched thoroughly in the context of changes in learning environments. There is often a focus on the pedagogy in terms of teaching needs without it being aligned to how facilities support this pedagogy. The complexity is coming between the nuances between the physical, digital and the third space whether this is within the work environment of academics or the teaching/learning environment of a classroom. The fluidity of the meaning of space and what space can afford within high education environment also means that there is a demand for agile and reactive supporting services from facility management. While this special issue does address some of the challenges in managing spaces in higher education both working and learning space, there are future directions for research on FM in higher education:

• Challenges in engaging facility managers with pedagogical spaces.

• Aligning physical spaces with new pedagogical models.

• Bridging the gap between pedagogy and facility management.

• Comparing experiences across hybrid, digital and physical workspaces.

• Agile facility management as a driver of institutional change.

• New roles of facilities manager in evolving campus.

• Multiple use of campus: practices, structures and policies.

• Sustainable and multifunctional campus use.

Guest editors:

Collaborating on this special issue with three researchers who are deeply passionate about people, spaces and places − both physical and digital − has been an enriching and insightful journey. The process has been a significant learning curve, offering us a deeper appreciation for the complexities of FM in higher education. Working together, we have explored diverse perspectives, engaged in stimulating discussions, and gained a profound understanding of how FM plays a crucial role in shaping academic environments. This collaboration has reinforced the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in addressing contemporary challenges in university spaces.

The authors would like to acknowledge their own institutions at NTNU, ZHAW and University of Helsinki for the support in developing this special issue. In addition, they would like to thank reviewers for their constructive feedback and authors for responding to the call as well as their patience during the two years of developing this special issue.

The authors would like to thank NTNU Campus for the future support for this work and Dr Kjersti Bjørkeng Størdal, NTNU for providing valuable feedback on this article. The authors would also like to thank ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Life Sciences and Facility Management, Institute of Facility Management, Zurich, Switzerland; and University of Helsinki and Centre for Real Estate and Facility Management, NTNU for supporting them in the process and final editorial in the special issue.