Spaces That Support Us

Works cited

Sources behind the guide

MLA-style entries are provided here for traceability. Archival links point to the exact issue or record used; current resource links elsewhere in the guide point to official OSU pages.

  1. Convery, Kristen. “Students First.” Ohio State Alumni, May–June 2010, OSU Publication Archives.
  2. Hajrasouliha, Amir H., and Reid Ewing. “Campus Does Matter: The Relationship of Student Retention and Degree Attainment to Campus Design.” Planning for Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 3, Apr.–June 2016, pp. 1–17, Society for College and University Planning.
  3. Herrick, John H. “Campus Buildings History.” The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank, Herrick Archives collection. Individual records consulted: Journalism Building, Ohio Union, Thompson Memorial Library, and Walker House.
  4. Holley, Lauren. “RPAC Turns 10.” The Lantern, 23 Sept. 2015, OSU Publication Archives.
  5. “Home Management House Named for Mrs. Walker” and “Cleveland Society Champions Co-ed.” The Ohio State Lantern, 9 May 1932, OSU Publication Archives.
  6. McClellan, Erin. “Beyond the Stacks.” Ohio State Alumni, July–Aug. 2016, OSU Publication Archives.
  7. McLane, Yelena, and Nadya Kozinets. “Spatiality, Experiences, and the Formation of Place Attachment at Campus Student Life Centers.” College Student Journal, vol. 53, no. 1, 2019, pp. 78–98, ERIC.
  8. Mulrooney, Hilda Mary, and Alison Faith Kelly. “Belonging, the Physical Space of the University Campus and How It Is Perceived by Students.” Journal of Learning Spaces, vol. 10, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1–13, ERIC full text.
  9. Witzman, Kate. “Journalism Building Gets Facelift.” The Lantern, 29 Oct. 2009, OSU Publication Archives.

Sources represented in the research map

  1. Ahn, Mi Young, and Howard H. Davis. “Four Domains of Students’ Sense of Belonging to University.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 3, 2020, pp. 622–634, Bangor University Research Portal.
  2. Cervero, Robert, and Kara Kockelman. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 2, no. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219, MIT.
  3. Dober, Richard P. Campus Planning. Society for College and University Planning, 1996, ERIC.
  4. Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervero. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 76, no. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294, doi:10.1080/01944361003766766.
  5. Hajrasouliha, Amir. “Connecting the Dots: Campus Form, Student Perceptions, and Academic Performance.” Focus, vol. 15, 2019, pp. 38–48, Cal Poly Digital Commons.
  6. Hajrasouliha, Amir H. The Morphology of the “Well-Designed Campus”: Campus Design for a Sustainable and Livable Learning Environment. 2015. University of Utah, PhD dissertation, University of Utah Digital Library.
  7. Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge UP, 1984, Internet Archive.
  8. Kenney, Daniel R., Ricardo Dumont, and Ginger S. Kenney. Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community through Campus Design. Praeger, 2005, ERIC.
  9. Kuh, George D. “Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 33, no. 3, 2001, pp. 10–17, doi:10.1080/00091380109601795.
  10. Kuh, George D., et al. “Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 79, no. 5, 2008, pp. 540–563, doi:10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116.
  11. Lounsbury, John W., and Dorothy DeNeui. “Psychological Sense of Community on Campus.” College Student Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, 1995, pp. 270–277, ResearchGate record.

Author’s opinion

Judge improvement by access, not size alone

My research changed the way I evaluate campus investment. Thompson’s technology help, the Journalism Building’s multimedia spaces, student participation in the Ohio Union, and the RPAC’s wellness facilities respond to documented student needs. Walker House demonstrates why expansion alone is an inadequate measure of progress: an institution can support one group while excluding members of that same group. OSU should evaluate each project by whose input shaped it, who can use its services, and which barriers remain. Square footage creates capacity; policy, affordability, and inclusive design determine access.

One last thought

Keep looking closely at the places you use.

Return to the map ↑