Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 245–259 | Cite as

Physical Space and the Resource-Based View of the College



Space serves as a key resource for colleges and universities, and institutions exchange information about it with each other and with prospective students. Using content analysis to examine several widely circulated publications, this study looked for differences in the value attributed to space when institutional leaders present it to students and to other institutions. More broadly, I hope to suggest how differences in the presentation of space could indicate divergent priorities that can damage institutional trustworthiness.

Key words

physical space strategy resource-based view competition 


  1. Barker, J. F. (2008, March 7). The architect as university president. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B32.Google Scholar
  2. Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190. special issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biemiller, L. (2007, February 23). An engineering lab that can entertain. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B7.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, K. S. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 604–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campus architecture (2005, March 25). Chronicle of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  8. Campus architecture (2006, April 28). Chronicle of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  9. Campus architecture (2007, February 23). Chronicle of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  10. Campus architecture (2008, March 7). Chronicle of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  11. Capron, L., & Chatain, O. (2008). Competitors’ resource-oriented strategies: Acting on competitors’ resources through interventions in factor markets and political markets. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, M. (1996). Competitors analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chronicle of Higher Education Website (n.d.). Retrieved September 13, 2009, from
  15. Complete book of colleges (2007 ed.) (2006). New York, NY: Princeton Review.Google Scholar
  16. Complete book of colleges (2008 ed.) (2007). New York, NY: Princeton Review.Google Scholar
  17. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fugazzotto, S. J. (2009). Mission statements, physical space, and strategy in higher education [Electronic version]. Innovative Higher Education. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from
  19. The good, the bad, and the future in campus design (2006, April 28). Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B28–B31.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, M., & Holley, K. (2008). Constructing the interdisciplinary ivory tower: The planning of interdisciplinary spaces on university campuses. Planning for Higher Education, 36(3), 34–43.Google Scholar
  21. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Hossler, D., & Kalsbeek, D. (2008). Enrollment management & managing enrollment: Setting the context for dialogue. College & University, 83(4), 2–9.Google Scholar
  23. Karlsson, J. (2003). Remembering apartheid: Political discourse in school space. In R. Edwards & R. Usher (Eds.), Space, curriculum, and learning (pp. 13–27). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Karnani, A., & Wernerfelt, B. (1985). Multiple point competition. Strategic Management Journal, 6(1), 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kong, E. (2009a, August). Harnessing knowledge for innovation in social enterprises: An intellectual capital perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  26. Kong, E. (2009b, August). A qualitative analysis of intellectual capital in Australian social service nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  27. Loughlin, C. E., & Suina, J. H. (1982). The learning environment: An instructional strategy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Buccholtz, A. K. (2009). Factor-market rivalry. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 423–441.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetric-based view of advantage: Towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. New campus architecture: A sampling (2007, February 23). Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B3–B16.Google Scholar
  31. Peteraf, M. A. (1993a). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peteraf, M. A. (1993b). Intra-industry structure and response toward rivals. Managerial and Decision Economics, 14(6), 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peteraf, M. A., & Bergen, M. A. (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: A market-based and resource based framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1027–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson’s four-year colleges (2008). 2007. Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, M. E. (1979). The structure within industries and companies’ performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 61(2), 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Spooner, D. (2008). Assessing the learning value of campus open spaces through post-occupancy evaluations. Planning for Higher Education, 36(3), 44–55.Google Scholar
  39. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  40. Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. “Sustainability” from A to Z: A round-table discussion (2007, February 23). Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B18–B20.Google Scholar
  42. Temple, P., & Barnett, R. (2007). Campus space: Future directions. Planning for Higher Education, 36(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  43. Wasley, P. (2007, February 23). The modernist falls victim to changes in taste. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B9–B11.Google Scholar
  44. Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams June, A. (2007, Sept. 27). Columbia U. clears a major hurdle in 17-acre project to expand into Harlem. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved August 7, 2009, from
  47. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Strategizing, economizing, and economic organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wills, E. (2006, April 28). Elegant digs for the preservationist brothers of Sigma Phi. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B8–B10.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (2003). A geography of power, identity, and difference in adult education curriculum practice. In R. Edwards & R. Usher (Eds.), Space, curriculum, and learning (pp. 123–138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations