DOI: 10.17032/shu-0000000308
title: Examining Universities’ Construction Projects to Better Understand Their Civic and Sustainability Ambitions

description: ABSTRACT 
This thesis examines how civic universities enact and materialise their civic and sustainability commitments through major campus construction projects. While civic universities are currently being studied regarding how they realise their civic engagement commitment (Dobson & Ferrari, 2023; Dobson & Owolade, 2025), this thesis focuses on a less examined but highly significant civic activity: engagement during the campus construction phase. These construction operations are not merely technical zones of delivery; they are spatially embodied expressions of their civic responsibility. By examining how universities involve 
neighbouring communities during construction, this thesis positions campus sites as critical interfaces where civic responsibility is either realised or undermined. 

Despite financial constraints impacting UK higher education, many institutions have pursued ambitious development schemes positioned as emblematic of civic renewal and environmental responsibility (Office for Students, 2023; Whyte, 2023). By comparing case studies of Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) and the University of Sheffield (UOS), this research shows how campus construction reflects the interplay of multiple institutional logics. Empirical data collected between 2023 and 2024 included document analysis, semi-structured interviews with university leaders, estates and sustainability staff, contractors, city planners, and residents affected by UOS's construction, alongside site observations. 

Through a thematic analysis, the findings revealed that both universities invoke multiple logics—civic, environmental, academic, market, financial, and reputational—to legitimise 
campus investment, although their emphasis and configuration differ. Second, architectural forms expressed civic logic but were also shaped by planning regulations: SHU’s restrained, grid-aligned design contrasts with UOS’s iconic spectacle, each reflecting regulatory codes. Third, sustainability implementation varied between the institutions: SHU adopted a pragmatic zero-carbon-ready approach, with perceived biodiversity gains, while UOS 
pursued a capital-intensive net-zero operational building, with perceived biodiversity loss. 

Additionally, the thesis identified an implementation gap between universities’ civic engagement rhetoric and actual construction-phase engagement practices, analysed 
through Arnstein’s Participation Ladder. SHU’s engagement was tokenistic; whereas UOS’s was reactive and nonparticipatory. Procurement models emerged as a determinant of engagement and accountability: SHU’s alliance fostered shared accountability, whereas UOS’s Novated Design & Build led to institutional disengagement. 
 
This study advances understanding of the spatial materialisation of institutional logics, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability in higher education estates. It contributes to knowledge by reimagining campus construction as a “civic interface”—a space for 
expressing and testing institutional civicness. The study advocates for embedding social value in procurement, adopting holistic sustainability approaches, and fostering genuine community collaboration.
description: This thesis employed semi-structured interviews, direct observation, and document review—methods well-suited to capturing the socially constructed practices and 
institutional agency at the heart of this inquiry.

Research Philosophy:
 
Social constructionism was an appropriate philosophical foundation for this study, particularly in light of the revise research aims and questions in Table 1. In this case universities’ actions and practices, such as delivering campus construction, are socially constructed through collective institutional agency. For example, senior leadership sets the vision for campus development, which is then operationalised with the support of both internal support agents—like estate managers—and external support agents—such as contractors. These interactions reflect institution-wide agency shaped by embedded institutional logics, rather than isolated individual decisions. While individual actors were interviewed in this thesis, the primary focus remains on the collective agency of the institution and its socially constructed ways of functioning, which in turn guide its praxis. 

Social constructionism posits that social realities are collectively and intentionally co-constructed by individuals interacting within a sociocultural context (Berger & Luckmann, 1979; Burr, 2015; Hammersley, 2013; Lee, 2012). In light of this, this study examines how two universities within the same city construct their campus buildings through collective institutional agency—an inherently social process—aligned with their civic and sustainability aspirations. In this context, actions and practices are, as Crotty (1999, p. 9) asserts, “not discovered, but rather constructed.” Because multiple actors contribute to the enactment of institutional agency, no singular reality or universally valid interpretation can be claimed (Cohen et al., 2018).

Case Study Design 
Justification for Case Study Design

Building on the social constructionist paradigm, this study adopted a qualitative case study methodology, well-suited to exploring the socially constructed realities of universities within their specific social contexts (Stake, 1995). Case study design allows for capturing multiple interpretations and perspectives, making it particularly appropriate for examining complex institutional phenomena (Simons, 2009) and underscoring its compatibility with interpretive inquiry.

Given the focus of this thesis on qualitative case study design, I employed Stake’s (1995) instrumental case study approach. In this study, the cases were the two recently completed university campus buildings, which serve as a lens to understand the issue of how these institutions realise their civic and sustainability ambitions. The two universities served as illustrative examples, providing insights into institutional actions and practices. While individual actors were interviewed, the primary unit of analysis remains the collective institutional response, aligning with the constructionist emphasis on socially mediated practices.

Case Selection:
 
In 2019, the Civic University Network, led by Bob Kerslake, urged UK universities to renew their civic mission by forming Civic University Agreements (CUAs) with local anchor partners (UPP Foundation, 2019). These agreements positioned universities as proactive civic players, emphasising their role in using campus placemaking to promote sustainability and civic engagement—key indicators of their civic impact (Dobson & Ferrari, 2023). 

The two universities selected—Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) and the University of Sheffield (UOS)—were purposefully chosen for their prominent membership in the CUN and their explicit public commitments to advancing civic engagement and net-zero ambitions through their newly constructed campus buildings. Their active claim to civic initiatives and sustainability agendas made them ideal examples for this study. 

As shown in Table 1, other practical considerations also informed the selection. Both universities were accessible for data collection, and their construction timelines (2022–2024) aligned with the data collection period. 

As illustrated in Table 1, additional practical considerations influenced the selection process. Both universities were conveniently accessible for data collection, and their construction timelines (2022–2024) coincided with the data collection period. Their host city—Sheffield—adds contextual richness, as both institutions maintain deep historical ties to the city, yet each has a distinct organisational culture and practice.

Table 1: Case Selection Criteria
Criteria SHU UOS
Member of the CUN, with a signed CUA Yes Yes
Publicly committed to sustainability and decarbonisation of campus buildings Yes Yes
The campus building construction happened between 2022 to 2024 Yes Yes
Universities situated in Sheffield Yes Yes
Accessibility of cases for data collection Yes Yes

Source: the Author

As Stake (1995, p. 4) asserted, “a good instrumental case study does not depend on being able to defend the typicality of the case.” Each university represents a unique case, and while some commonalities may exist, the study does not aim for strict comparison or statistical generalisation. Instead, it offers analytical generalisation (Yin, 2018) and assertive interpretation (Stake, 1995, 2008), allowing readers to form naturalistic generalisations from their own reflections. The two cases offer rich and context-specific insights into institutional logics and practices.


Description of Sheffield Hallam University:

SHU traces its origins to the Sheffield School of Design, founded in 1843 and later renamed the Sheffield School of Art in 1851. In 1992, the institution gained degree-awarding powers and was officially renamed SHU. Today, SHU serves approximately 28,000 students and employs over 4,200 staff. Historically rooted in vocational education, SHU has focused on meeting regional workforce needs in sectors such as healthcare and teaching. 

SHU’s campus footprint has evolved significantly. By 1992, it operated across multiple sites, including Collegiate Campus, Pond Street, Psalter Lane, and Totley Hall. Over the years, the university has operated on two campuses, consolidating its operations into two main sites: the City Centre Campus (around Pond Street and Howard Street) and the Collegiate Campus. Since 2016, SHU has committed to phasing out the Collegiate Campus in favour of a single, integrated City Centre Campus.

This transformation is guided by a 15-year City Centre Campus Masterplan that aims to enhance spatial efficiency and civic visibility. Phase 1 of this plan included the development of Howard Street Block A–D and Hallam Green, which form the focus of this thesis. The rationale for selecting these buildings is already explained in the previous section, and further contextual insights will be provided in Chapter 6. SHU’s evolving campus strategy reflects its broader commitment to civic engagement and sustainability, making it a compelling case for examining how universities enact institutional logics through built form.

Description of the University of Sheffield:

UOS originated in 1828 as the School of Medicine, later expanding with Firth College in 1879 and the Sheffield Technical School in 1884. These institutions merged in 1897 to form the University College of Sheffield, which initially joined a federal university initiative alongside Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. In 1905, the college gained independence and was formally established as UOS.

As of 2025, UOS serves approximately 30,233 students and employs 8,750 staff. It is recognised as one of the original redbrick civic universities, with a longstanding commitment to civic values. Its mission to deliver world-class research, innovation, and education aligns with its affiliation to the Russell Group, often regarded as a symbol of global prestige. Despite this, UOS’s civic ethos remains central to its identity. In 2021, it reaffirmed this commitment by signing a CUA with local partners—an important factor in its selection as a case study.

Historically, UOS operated across multiple sites, including the Sir Frederick Mappin Building, Firth Court, and St. George Square. In response to this spatial fragmentation, the university initiated several masterplans, culminating in the 2015–2025 Campus Masterplan, of particular concern, which prioritised consolidation and efficiency. A key outcome was the development of the Social Science Building, known as The Wave, initiated in 2019 and completed in 2023. This building centralises the social sciences faculty, previously dispersed across several locations, and reflects broader institutional goals of sustainability and spatial coherence. The Wave building offers valuable insights into how UOS realised its civic and sustainability ambitions.


Data Collection
1. Semi-Structured Interviews:
 
Semi-structured interviews were a core data-collection method in this study, enabling the collection of rich, contextually grounded data aligned with the research aims and questions. A detailed interview journal protocol is presented in Table 1 below. In total, 14 interviews were conducted with a diverse range of institutional participants, including a vice-chancellor (VC), deputy VC, estate and sustainability managers, university project managers, town planners, construction project managers, and affected neighbours. Interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 1 hour and were conducted either in person (n = 5) or online (n = 9), depending on the participant's availability and preference.

An initial interview guide was developed based on the principal research questions, with approximately six open-ended sub-questions or guides per theme (see attached Interview Guides). As the study progressed, the guide was refined to reflect emerging insights, while maintaining thematic consistency. This recursive approach allowed for flexibility in probing responses and revisiting unanswered questions. The interview process followed the phases outlined by Kvale (1996), Kvale and Brinkmann (2015), and Cohen et al. (2018), including thematising, designing, constructing schedules, formatting questions, determining response modes, interviewing, transcribing, analysing, verifying, and reporting.

Interview experience and reflections: The interviews were generally informal and conversational, fostering openness and rapport. While initial nerves were present—particularly during the first interview with a senior SHU participant—positive feedback helped build confidence. Contrary to the literature, this suggests that as a researcher, I did not hold greater knowledge or authority over participants (Cohen et al., 2018). Familiarity with some participants and the collegial tone of others, such as UOS_Interviewee_1A, who offered to buy coffee, contributed to a comfortable interview environment. After each session, I recorded reflections in a journal, which supported later analysis.

Transcription and data cleaning: All interviews were transcribed by me. In-person recordings were captured using a SHU-approved audio recorder and transcribed using Microsoft Word 365. On average, 5–7 hours were spent cleaning each transcript, with longer durations for recordings affected by background noise. Online interviews conducted via Microsoft Teams and Zoom benefited from built-in transcription features, reducing cleaning time to 4–5 hours per interview. The transcription process included a combination of verbatim and light formatting, preserving emphasis, filler words, and gestures where relevant (see attached transcript files). This approach ensured fidelity to participants’ voices while enhancing readability. 
Transcripts were completed within 24 hours of each interview and reviewed two days later for grammatical accuracy before being uploaded to NVivo for analysis.

Confidentiality and data security: All participants were assigned pseudonyms, and consent was obtained to identify their institutions and campus buildings. Data were initially stored on a password- and fingerprint-protected personal laptop, then transferred to the SHU-secured Q drive following transcription and cleaning. Online interviews were conducted using SHU domain platforms, and all files were deleted from local storage after upload. A SHU VPN was installed to secure my home internet connection during remote work. 

Table 2: Interview Protocol Journal
Participant ID Affiliation/Role Recruitment Technique Recruitment Date Interview Date Location Duration Transcription Date
SHU_Interviewee_1B SHU’s Executive Lead Direct Contact 24/07/2023 08/09/2023 In-person at SHU Office 50 mins 10/09/2023
SHU_Interviewee_2B SHU’s Sustainability Lead Direct Contact 17/10/2023 24/10/2023 Online – Microsoft Teams 59 mins 25/10/2023
SHU_Interviewee_3B SHU’s Estate Development Lead Direct Contact 18/09/2023 25/10/2025 Online – Microsoft Teams 50 mins 26/10/2023
SHU_Interviewee_1C BAM’s Project Delivery Lead - SHU Direct Contact 01/11/2023 13/11/2023 Online – Microsoft Teams 56 mins 14/11/2023
SHU_Interviewee_4B SHU’s Senior Project Delivery Lead Snowballing & Direct Contact 01/11/2023 21/11/2023 In-person at SHU Office 54 mins 22/11/2023
SHU_Interviewee_5B SHU’s Marketing Lead Snowballing & Direct Contact 27/11/2023 18/12/2023 Online – Microsoft Teams 35 mins 28/11/2023
UOS_Interviewee_1A UOS’s Estate Development Lead Snowballing & Indirect Contact 31/08/2023 26/09/2023 In-person at UOS Café 1 hour 27/09/2023
UOS_Interviewee_2A UOS’ Senior Project Delivery Lead Direct Contact 10/10/2023 25/10/2023 In-person at UOS Office 53 mins 26/10/2023
UOS_Interviewee_1N Affected Resident on the neighbouring street of UOS construction Snowballing & Direct Contact 01/11/2023 08/11/2023 Online – Microsoft Teams 1 hour 09/11/2023
UOS_Interviewee_3A UOS’s Deputy Executive Lead Direct Contact 10/10/2023 21/11/2023 In-person at UOS Office 40 mins 22/11/2023
UOS_Interviewee_2N Affected Resident on the neighbouring street of UOS construction Snowballing & Direct Contact 08/11/2023 27/11/2023 Online – Zoom 42 mins 28/11/2023
UOS_Interviewee_4A UOS’s Sustainability & Communication Lead Snowballing & Direct Contact 27/11/2023 19/12/2023 Online – Microsoft Teams 54 mins 20/12/2023
SC_Interviewee_1E Sheffield City Council’s (SCC) City Planner Snowballing 29/04/2024 21/05/2024 Online – Microsoft Teams 57 mins 22/05/2024
SC_Interviewee_2E SCC’s Regeneration Lead Direct Contact 08/05/2024 22/05/2024 Online – Microsoft Teams 1 hour 23/05/2024

Source: the Author


2. Direct Observation:

Observation served as a complementary method in this study, enriching insights gained from interviews and documents. Between structured and unstructured observation, as noted by Simons (2009), the case study researcher occupies a middle ground. My approach leaned toward unstructured observation, consistent with Simons (2009), who noted its value in case study research for capturing cultural practices and contextual dynamics. While Bryman (2016) defined structured observation as behaviour tracking via predefined categories, my focus was more interpretive and situational.

Guided by Stake’s (1995) emphasis on intentionality, I focused on the duration and management of the impact of construction activities on passersby, particularly at SHU’s site. My initial visits involved brief fieldwork—typically 5 to 10 minutes of strolling around each sites, accompanied by 1- to 2-minute photos or videos—to capture spatial and communicative cues.

As my research questions evolved (see Table 1), the role of observation became less central, particularly toward the end of data collection. At UOS, major construction had concluded, limiting observation to a minor routine visit. I visited the site biweekly, primarily on Fridays. At SHU, active construction was ongoing during early data collection, prompting weekly visits. As the project progressed, my visits became more sporadic, often coinciding with my lecturing period or campus engagements.

The primary aim of observation was to triangulate findings from other methods and deepen understanding of institutional norms and practices (Yin, 2018). Observations were particularly valuable at the SHU site, where construction was still active. They enabled me to verify or challenge claims made during interviews, prompting participants to clarify or expand on their statements. This iterative process enhanced both the credibility and interpretive depth of the study.

Ethical considerations: All photographs and videos focused exclusively on-site hoarding and construction impacts. I avoided capturing identifiable individuals, and any accidental inclusions were promptly deleted. As my research focus shifted, most images were removed from my devices, with only a select few retained for illustrative use in the empirical findings chapter. These were securely stored on the SHU Q drive and uploaded to NVivo. All files were deleted from my personal laptop to ensure data security. In sum, direct observation provided contextual richness, supported data triangulation, and offered a grounded lens through which to interpret institutional practices in campus development.

3. Document Review:

Document analysis played a central role in this study, particularly during its initial phase when the research aimed to explore how campus construction sites could function as living laboratories for environmental education and public engagement. To this end, I collected a wide array of public-facing promotional materials, including social media content (YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.), press releases and advertisements, and messaging from university and contractor websites. 

These materials are classified as public documents (Bryman, 2016; Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Atkinson & Coffey, 2004). Authorship was either direct (from universities) or indirect (from contractors), with consent secured where necessary. Although access was straightforward, systematic tracking and monitoring—conducted weekly during the early data collection—required sustained effort. Once collected, documents were sorted on my laptop, uploaded to NVivo for analysis, backed up on the SHU Q drive, and deleted from local storage.

Following the refinement of my research questions, I removed outdated materials and focused on a curated set of approximately 20 key documents (see attached documents), including: sustainability and climate strategies, campus master plans and design statements, civic university agreement strategies, vision and mission statements, annual reports and planning documents, and selected press releases.
 
About two-thirds of these were public; the remainder were private documents accessed via the SHU staff intranet. As a staff member (by status of my graduate teaching assistant role), I had legitimate access, and my consent form included provisions for their use. However, recognising their relevance only during later stages of analysis, I sought additional permission from a SHU interviewee with authority over their use. While I was advised not to publish direct quotes from these private documents in journal articles, I was permitted to include them in the final thesis.

Analytical approach: Rather than treating documents as mere supplementary data, I adopted the perspective of Atkinson and Coffey (2004), who argue that documents should be viewed as ‘social facts’—constructed artefacts that reflect institutional narratives and priorities. In this study, documents were treated as primary data sources, integrated with interviews and observations to provide a multi-layered understanding of campus development.

To ensure analytical rigour, I applied Flick’s (2018) four criteria for document evaluation: 
1. Authenticity: Verified the origin and legitimacy of each document
2. Credibility: Assessed for accuracy and institutional authorship
3. Representation: Traced document evolution (e.g., SHU’s 2019 Environment Policy replaced by the 2023 Climate Management Action Policy) and cross-referenced statements across versions
4. Meaning: Interpreted documents in relation to their intended audiences—e.g., students, staff, business partners, anchor institutions, and the public—recognising the layered messaging embedded within
After evaluation, documents were uploaded to NVivo for thematic coding, backed up on the Q drive, and removed from my personal devices to maintain data security.
description: 1. Semi-Structured Interviews Data 
An initial interview guide was developed based on the principal research questions, with approximately six open-ended sub-questions or guides per theme (see attached Interview Guides). As the study progressed, the guide was refined to reflect emerging insights, while maintaining thematic consistency. This recursive approach allowed for flexibility in probing responses and revisiting unanswered questions. 

Transcription and data cleaning: All interviews were transcribed by me. In-person recordings were captured using a SHU-approved audio recorder and transcribed using Microsoft Word 365. On average, 5–7 hours were spent cleaning each transcript, with longer durations for recordings affected by background noise. Online interviews conducted via Microsoft Teams and Zoom benefited from built-in transcription features, reducing cleaning time to 4–5 hours per interview. The transcription process included a combination of verbatim and light formatting, preserving emphasis, filler words, and gestures where relevant (see attached transcript files). This approach ensured fidelity to participants’ voices while enhancing readability. 
Transcripts were completed within 24 hours of each interview and reviewed two days later for grammatical accuracy before being uploaded to NVivo for analysis.

Confidentiality and data security: All participants were assigned pseudonyms, and consent was obtained to identify their institutions and campus buildings. Data were initially stored on a password- and fingerprint-protected personal laptop, then transferred to the SHU-secured Q drive following transcription and cleaning. Online interviews were conducted using SHU domain platforms, and all files were deleted from local storage after upload. A SHU VPN was installed to secure my home internet connection during remote work. 

The all audio and video data files were deleted from the QDRive to comply with participant consent of non-identity, the data kept in the Q drive are interview transcripts and interview guides.

2. Direct Observation:
My initial visits involved brief fieldwork—typically 5 to 10 minutes of strolling around each sites, accompanied by 1- to 2-minute photos or videos—to capture spatial and communicative cues.

As my research questions evolved, the role of observation became less central, particularly toward the end of data collection. At UOS, major construction had concluded, limiting observation to a minor routine visit. I visited the site biweekly, primarily on Fridays. At SHU, active construction was ongoing during early data collection, prompting weekly visits. As the project progressed, my visits became more sporadic, often coinciding with my lecturing period or campus engagements.

Ethical considerations: All photographs and videos focused exclusively on-site hoarding and construction impacts. I avoided capturing identifiable individuals, and any accidental inclusions were promptly deleted. As my research focus shifted, most images were removed from my devices, with only a select few retained for illustrative use in the empirical findings chapter. These were securely stored on the SHU Q drive and uploaded to NVivo. All files were deleted from my personal laptop to ensure data security.

3. Document Review 
Document analysis played a central role in this study, particularly during its initial phase when the research aimed to explore how campus construction sites could function as living laboratories for environmental education and public engagement. To this end, I collected a wide array of public-facing promotional materials, including social media content (YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.), press releases and advertisements, and messaging from university and contractor websites. 

Following the refinement of my research questions, I removed outdated materials and focused on a curated set of approximately 20 key documents (see attached documents), including: sustainability and climate strategies, campus master plans and design statements, civic university agreement strategies, vision and mission statements, annual reports and planning documents, and selected press releases.