Creative environments for design education

and practice: A typology of creative spaces

Katja Thoring, Pieter Desmet and Petra Badke-Schaub, Delft University of
Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Landbergstraat 15,
2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands

This article presents a typology of creative spaces that is relevant to facilitating

creative working and learning processes for designers. Drawing on qualitative
user research with cultural probes in a design thinking institution, this typology
identifies five different types of creative spaces along with five related spatial
qualities. The paper suggests characteristics and criteria for each type and
quality and summarizes the results in a framework. A second study in a
practitioner’s context validated these findings. The work presented in this article
contributes to a better understanding of the impact of the built environment for
creative design in education and practice and might inspire designers and
educators to improve the design of their work environments.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: architectural design, interior design, systems design, design thinking,

creative space

D
esigning and learning are two sides of the same coin. Design practi-
tioners constantly have to adapt to new situations and contexts. No
design project is the same, and research is part of almost any design
project. At the same time, today’s design education is mainly centred on proj-
ect work, sometimes involving real clients. Consequently, design educational
environments are considered to have similar requirements as spaces in design
practice. Analysing creative spaces in both design education and design prac-
tice might reveal interesting insights for both worlds. The goal of this study is
to provide an overview of relevant space types for creative work along with
related spatial qualities that forms a typology of creative spaces relevant
for design education, design thinking, and design practice.

This article is structured as follows: In the first section, we review the relevant
literature. Section 2 presents our research method. Section 3 describes an
empirical study in an educational institution for design thinking. The findings
from this study have led to the development of the typology of creative spaces.
Exemplary spaces from the study are shown to illustrate possible applications
Corresponding author: of different space types and qualities. In Section 4, we present an additional
Katja Thoring. study in a practitioner’s context to validate the typology. We conclude by dis-
[email protected] cussing our findings and providing suggestions for future work.
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X Design Studies 56 (2018) 54e83
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.02.001 54
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 1 Literature review
Recently, public interest in creative environments has increased, which can be
reasoned from the large number of ‘coffee table books’ on the topic of creative
office spaces (e.g. Borges, Ehmann, & Klanten, 2013; Georgi & McNamara,
2016; Groves, Knight, & Denison, 2010; Stewart, 2004) and books about cre-
ative learning spaces (e.g. Dudek, 2012; Ehmann, Borges, & Klanten, 2012;
Mirchandani, 2015). However, these publications merely present a collection
of photographic case examples of peculiar office or learning spaces. They
are rarely categorized systematically; neither do they provide any theoretical
underpinning about possible reasons why the spaces are designed as they
are. Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate an increased public and corpo-
rate interest in the topic of creative working and learning environments that
warrants further investigation. What follows is a structured literature review
on the phenomenon of creative work environments in design thinking, design
practice, and design educational contexts to provide an overview of relevant
literature in this field.

1.1 Procedure
We conducted a keyword search within the Scopus database with a focus on
‘creative learning spaces’, and a second search with a focus on ‘creative work
or office spaces’. For both search steps, possible combinations with synonyms
were also considered (e.g. space vs. environment, creative vs. innovative, office
vs. work). The results were limited to peer-reviewed journal and conference
publications only.1

We analysed the returned 242 sources based on their abstract. We identified

papers for exclusion that were either unrelated to the topic or limited to spe-
cific aspects of the creative environment (e.g. lighting, climate, ergonomics
of office chairs) as well as papers that addressed a peculiar (non-design-related)
context, such as hospitals, libraries, or nursing homes. We conducted a full-
text analysis on the remaining 43 sources, which left us with 30 sources. After
a backward and forward citation analysis, we identified 14 more sources as
potentially relevant for the topic. In this step we also included non-peer-
reviewed sources such as books and PhD theses that appeared to be of rele-
vance. This procedure resulted in a total number of 44 sources that were
included for further analysis. From these 44 sources 15 presented classification
systems, such as the one we suggest in this paper. The remaining 29 sources
represented either literature reviews about the phenomenon, case studies or
empirical studies, experimental approaches, theories about the influence of
space on creativity, or guidelines for designing creative spaces. Several sources
presented combinations of various approaches. We limit our discussion below
to the 15 classifications because this is also the concern of our work. The re-
maining 29 sources will be discussed in future work. Figure 1 illustrates the sys-
tematic literature search approach.

A typology of creative spaces 55

 Potentially relevant papers identified Potentially relevant papers identified * also synonyms were included:
in Scopus with search string in Scopus with search string – creative / innovative
Creative Learning Space* Creative Office Space* – space / environment
– office / work
– learning / education

n=61 n=181

Selection Criteria A: Abstract-based Relevance

n=199
Exclusion Criteria: unrelated context (e.g. hospitals), scope too narrow (e.g. light)

n=14 n=29

n=43

Selection Criteria B: Full-Text-based Relevance

n=13
Exclusion Criteria: unrelated context (e.g. hospitals), scope too narrow (e.g. light)

Additional studies retrieved from

n=14
forward and backward citation analysis

n=30

Identified sources relevant for creative spaces (n=44)

n=29 n=15

Case Studies, Lit. Reviews, Experiments, Theories, Guidelines Classifications

Figure 1 Schematic overview of the systematic literature search process

1.2 Results
The included 15 sources that presented some sort of framework, typology, or
classification of creative spaces are discussed in the following section.

Five of the analysed sources referred to educational environments: Setola and

Leurs (2014) presented a framework for creative learning spaces, which they
label the Wild, the Pub, the Attic, and the Workplace. This metaphor maps
onto Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle. ‘The Wild’ suggests the activity of observa-
tion; ‘the Pub’ is identified as a space for sharing thoughts with others; ‘the
Attic’ should be used for analysis; and ‘the Workplace’ is for planning and
making things. Jankowska and Atlay (2008) presented a framework in which
they distinguish three types of learning spaces: S-space (social learning space),
F-space (formal space), and C-space (creative space). They found that C-
spaces enhance creativity with visual and aesthetic qualities, writable walls,
flexible layout, and special technologies. Leurs, Schelling, and Mulder

56 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 (2013) studied multimedia design students and the ways in which studio space
and ownership of the environment can enhance the learning experience. They
distinguish between space (three-dimensional surroundings) and place (space
with meaning, value, and functions that foster commitments and team spirit).
They suggest a three-stage process: 1) make space, in which students are pro-
vided with space, supplies, and tools; 2) make place, wherein students establish
ownershipdthat is, students make the space their own; and 3) make sense, in
which meaning-making occursdi.e. students identify patterns and connec-
tions among research data, insights, sketches, and ideas. Lawson and Dorst
(2009) identified four types of spaces relevant for design education: the studio
that imitates design practice and in which students work on given design pro-
jects; the tutoring space, in which tutors guide, consult, and teach the students;
the crit room, in which internal and external experts or fellow students are
invited to review and give feedback on the students’ designs; and the design
library as both a study room and a repository of design literature and prece-
dents. However, they did not elaborate on the physical characteristics of these
spaces.

Doorley and Witthoft (2012) presented a classification of spaces inspired by

the school of design thinking in Stanford/USA. They suggested four cate-
gories: places (home base, gathering space, threshold/transitions, support
structure), properties (posture, orientation, surface, ambience, density, stor-
age), actions (saturate, synthesize, focus, flare, realize, reflect), and attitudes
(collaborate across boundaries, show don’t tell, bias toward action, focus on
human values, be mindful of process, prototype toward a solution). However,
the relations between those categories remain unclear. Moreover, some cate-
gories appear to be redundant (e.g. storage and support structures), and others
appear to be rather unrelated to the spatial configuration (e.g. actions and
attitudes).

From the 15 classifications, 9 addressed creative spaces within design practice

or creative office environments in general. Moultrie et al. (2007) proposed a
framework to better understand the design, role, and goals of creative spaces
in a practitioner’s context. They distinguished between strategic intent, process
of creation, process of use, and physical embodiment of intent. From these cat-
egories, only the physical embodiment relates to our concept of physical cre-
ative space. The authors presented 10 categories within this concept:
geographic location, scale, real/virtual, flexibility, design values and imagery,
IT resources, data and information, modelling and visualization resources,
constraints, and evolution. These categories are not further detailed or illus-
trated through examples. Williams (2013) presented a typology of creative
workplaces, based on the metaphor of linguistics’ grammar. In a semiotic sen-
tence structure, the condition of a specific intended behaviour (syntax) would
result in a peculiar combination of place, properties, and affordances (lexis).
She distinguished between behaviours (engage or disengage with people or

A typology of creative spaces 57

 ideas), place (official workspace, semi-official workspace, informal workspace,
informal spaces at work, plus five non-workspaces, such as home or transpor-
tation), properties (comfort, sight, sound, spaciousness, movement and alive-
ness), and affordances (tools and equipment). Dul and Ceylan (2011)
presented a framework consisting of 9 social-organizational and 12 physical
work environment characteristics that were supposed to influence employee
creativity. The 12 physical characteristics are: furniture, indoor plants, calm-
ing colours, inspiring colours, privacy, window views (nature), any window
view, quantity of light, daylight, indoor climate, sound, and smell. Besides
these characteristics no space types or qualities were identified. Greene and
Myerson (2011) provided a classification of different types of knowledge
workers that might lead to different requirements for creative spaces. They
identified the anchor, the connector, the gatherer, and the navigator, and pre-
sented spatial requirements for each. Martens (2008) presented a hypothetical
framework outlining the contribution of the physical work environment for
creativity and creative work processes, based on a case study. The framework
positions creativity, creative work, and an appropriate work environment.
Critical factors identified were layout, furniture, colour, finishing, and light.
Based on a literature review of 17 articles, Meinel, Maier, Wagner, and
Voigt (2017) identified several categories of interest regarding creativity-
supporting physical work environments: They defined five aspects regarding
spatial layout (privacy, flexibility, office layout, office size, complexity), four
space types (relaxing space, disengaged space, doodle space, unusual/fun
space), and several tangible office elements (furniture, plants, equipment, win-
dow/view, decorative elements, materials) and intangible office elements
(sound, colours, light, temperature, smell). They summarized the results in a
framework. Lindahl (2004) investigated the influence of the workplace on
organizational performance but without a specific focus on creativity. Based
on several case studies, he identified four relevant spatial aspects: work envi-
ronment qualities (health and safety), metaphorical and symbolic qualities
(corporate image and identity), spatial configuration (dependencies between
activities and spatial setting), and the quality and degree of participation in
the design process. He summarized the results in a set of models. Van Meel,
Mertens, and van Ree (2010) provided a set of abstract principles and design
considerations for office design (e.g. the work lounge, the locker area) and pre-
sented examples for each. However, these classifications resemble a list of re-
sources for architects and office planners rather than a systematic framework
of creative spaces. Groves-Knight and Marlow (2016) presented a rudimentary
framework of ‘innovation spaces’ arranged around 10 themes, which are sup-
plemented by expert interviews and exemplary cases. The focus was on corpo-
rate environments; as a result, learning environments were rarely addressed.
The suggested themes also remain rather indistinct and unstructured. Most
themes address factors that might influence the process of designing creative
spaces rather than a spatial classification itself, for example the available “re-
sources” or the “invitation” that suggests to involve all stakeholders in the

58 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 design process. The framework does not distinguish between actual types or
qualities of the physical spaces.

The only source that addressed creative spaces in both design education and
practice is from Walter (2012). Based on existing literature, he suggested a con-
ceptual framework for creating a workspace that increases creativity in both
learning and office environments. It aligns the physical features of the work-
place with the creative process but without distinguishing this process into
certain activities or space types. Additional concepts are the organizational
climate for creativity and conceptual features of the workplace, such as flexi-
bility, ubiquity, variety, interaction, and access to resources. The framework
remains vague due to the lack of examples or empirical evidence.

1.3 Summary
While diverse in aims and methods, the analysed studies support the proposi-
tion that the quality of creative work and learning is influenced by the design of
the interior and exterior space in which the design activities take place. How-
ever, the literature revealed that there is currently no satisfactory and compre-
hensive typology of creative spaces for design education and practice. Many
studies do not provide examples and hence remain vague. Only one typology
addresses both design education and practice; most sources focus on only one
area. Moreover, some sources do not focus on creative or design contexts,
which weakens their attempt to define creative spaces. The discussed sources
all make use of their own terminology and structure, which makes it difficult
for the researcher and practitioner to compare and integrate the existing
knowledge. Also, most of the presented typologies were not validated through
additional studies. Although the studies do address some relevant space types
and qualities on various levels, altogether the impression emerges that none of
them is comprehensive.

These results warrant our attempt to systematically develop a typology of cre-

ative spaces that is (a) comprehensive, (b) addressing design education and
practice, (c) based on empirical data, (d) provides tangible examples of spaces,
and (e) is validated through an additional study. In the following sections, we
outline the development of our typology of creative spaces. In Section 5.2 we
refer to the literature again to highlight differences and similarities between
our typology and the analysed sources.

2 Methodology
The goal of this study is to identify different types and qualities of spaces
within the analysed institution, and to understand how these spaces were
used by the participants by analysing their behaviour and collecting their ideas
and visions for creative spaces. For this purpose, we conducted a qualitative
study following a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), using

A typology of creative spaces 59

 cultural probes (Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999; Mattelm€ aki, 2006). We chose
this qualitative approach to analyse the system of creative spaces in a realistic
context. We use the space in an educational design thinking institutiondthe
Hasso Plattner Institute’s School of Design Thinking (HPI D-School) in Pots-
dam, Germanydas the basis for our first case study for the following reasons:

(1) We expect a school for design thinking to provide a broader and more
comprehensive design education than a traditional design school because
it focuses on creativity and innovation from several disciplines while still
integrating classical design skills, such as sketching and model making.
(2) Design thinking addresses design as a problem-solving technique beyond
mere form giving, which reflects a more contemporary idea of design
(Dorst, 2011).
(3) Design thinking can be located in the intersection of educational and prac-
tice contexts. Education here is mainly based on real client projects, but it
still requires lecturing and teacher feedback.

Hence, we expect the study’s findings to cover a broad range of possible appli-
cations that might be transferable to both design education and design practice
as well as other contexts.

2.1 Context description

The HPI D-School is an educational institution for interdisciplinary design
thinking. There are approximately 120 design students studying at a given
time. The study programme is part-timedtwo days per weekdand is divided
into two tracksdone basic track (first semester) and one advanced track (sec-
ond semester). The programme lasts two semesters in total and is targeted at
students from all disciplines as a part-time extramural study. Basic-track and
advanced-track students are accommodated in two separate buildings. The
two buildings were built just a few years ago. The interiors were designed spe-
cifically for the requirements of design thinking education, focusing on work-
ing in small teams rather than in traditional classroom or office settings.

2.2 Cultural probes

Cultural probes are a method for qualitative user research (Gaver et al., 1999;
Mattelm€ aki, 2006) that provide participants with a set of tools, typically con-
sisting of single-use cameras, user diaries, maps, postcards, or the likedalong
with instructions on how to complete the tasks. The participants work inde-
pendently on these tasks for a specified amount of time. The advantage of
this method is that the participants may document and comment their existing
environments and provide their wishes, critique, and visions about the spaces
as well. The cultural probes boxes we prepared for the participants in this
study contained several items they were encouraged to use to document and
evaluate their study and work environments, such as a diary with certain

60 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 questions and several floor plans to indicate positive and negative spaces. See
Figure 2 for an overview of the cultural probes.

2.3 Procedure
We recruited a total of 9 participants and handed each of them a set of iden-
tical cultural probes to complete within two weeks time. The participants were
chosen to represent a broad range of different students with diverse back-
grounds. We included only students from the advanced track, because they
would be familiar with both buildings.

2.4 Returned data

The study yielded a significant amount of rich data (sketches, pictures, notes).
Each of the approximately 200 photos we received included a written descrip-
tion of why the depicted space was evaluated as positive or negative and in
what way the spaces were able to support or hinder the respondent’s creative
work process. Each photo was marked on one of the provided maps of the uni-
versity’s buildings or campus with a red or green sticker to indicate a negative
or positive aspect, respectively. The diaries and postcards revealed insights
about participants’ wishes and needs and their insights about missing spaces
within the institution’s environments. After an initial data analysis, we invited
each participant for an individual follow-up interview to answer emerging
questions and to clarify reasons why respondents had marked certain spaces
as positive or negative. Then, the resulting data were analysed using a
grounded theory approach with open and axial coding (Corbin & Strauss,
2014).

Figure 3 shows an overlay of the campus map from all participants, which al-
lowed us to identify areas with frequent indications of positive or negative
spatial aspects. Each icon on the map represents a photograph taken by a
participant. Red indicates a negative impression; green, a positive one. Each

Figure 2 The set of cultural

probes that were handed to
the participants included
several floor plans, a single-
use camera, a diary with
prompts, and additional tools
to document and evaluate
their creative environments

A typology of creative spaces 61

Figure 3 Indication of positive (light green dots) and negative (dark red dots) aspects on provided campus map, aggregated from all partici-
pants; each dot represents a photo (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)

picture was described in more detail with handwritten notes. Selected photos
taken by the participants are presented in Section 3.

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show exemplary results from the diaries and postcards.
Here, the students were able to express their wishes, needs, and visions
regarding their institutions’ creative environments. Using these, we were
able to identify the types and qualities of existing spaces on the campus as
well as those that might be missing.

2.5 Data analysis

The data analysis was conducted by three researchers using an open and axial
coding approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Together, they read all the written
notes and examined all the sketches and other visual material provided by the
participants. After conducting follow-up interviews to clarify emerging

62 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

Figure 4 Selected pages from the diary of one participant: responses to the pre-printed prompts, ‘this disturbs me when I’m creative’ (left), and
‘I need this to be creative’ (right)

Figure 5 Exemplary postcard

(‘My perfect workplace’)

questions, the researchers transcribed the main insights from each item (photo,
sketch, or note) as well as the insights from the interviews onto colour-coded
Post-It notes. These notes were tagged with (þ) or () symbols to indicate pos-
itive or negative comments about the given space. Subsequently, the re-
searchers clustered the Post-It notes according to the similarity of the
material. Data, codes, and clusters were compared constantly with each other
and merged, split, named, and renamed as necessary. This procedure was
repeated until no further categories emergeddthat is, to the point of theoret-
ical saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Through this procedure it was also
possible to identify relationships and influences between categories (axial cod-
ing). We were able to classify different types and qualities of creative spaces by
extracting insights from the participants’ documentation of existing spaces, as
well as from the diaries and postcards that revealed the spatial needs that were

A typology of creative spaces 63

 not met by the existing spaces. In this way, it was possible to identify addi-
tional space types and spatial qualities, even if they were not currently present
in the environment of the analysed institution. The process resulted in 10 iden-
tified clusters: five ‘types’ and five ‘qualities’ of creative spaces. The typology
developed based on these findings is described in the next section.

3 Typology of creative spaces

3.1 Definitions and overview
A ‘space type’ is a dedicated space for a specific activity at a specific time (e.g.
presentation, teamwork, model-making). Each space has an inherent ‘afford-
ance’ (Norman, 1999, 2002) that suggests the kind of activity for which the
space is mainly intended, which is enforced through its configuration (e.g.
the room layout and furniture). This configuration can be changed, which
means that a space type can also change. However, changing a space type re-
quires some time and effort, whether it be moving chairs or breaking down
walls. The degree of time and effort required to change a space from one
type to another determines its degree of flexibility.

We distinguish between five different types of creative spaces: (1) the per-
sonal space, for working or learning alone; (2) the collaboration space, for
working or learning together with co-workers, classmates or teachers; (3)
the presentation space, for giving presentations, consuming lectures, and dis-
playing or examining creative work examples; and (4) the making space, in
which people are able to experiment, try things out, build stuff, and make
noise. A fifth category emerged from the data: intermission space for transi-
tion and recreation (5). This category includes spaces that are not deliber-
ately intended for creative design work but connect the other space
typesdfor example, hallways, cafeterias, or the outdoorsdand provide
spaces for breaks. These five space types covered all the existing spaces
within the analysed institution.

Orthogonal to the space type, we identified another category: the ‘space

quality’. This is a space’s capacity to facilitate a specific purpose, indepen-
dent from the space type. We distinguish between five different qualities of
a creative space: a given space can be (a) a knowledge processor; (b) it
can be an indicator of organizational culture; (c) it can act as a process
enabler by providing an appropriate infrastructure; (d) it can have a social
dimension; or (e) it can be a source of stimulation. The quality can have a
positive or negative effect on the work process, depending on the respective
process phase, the extent and characteristic of the quality, or individual pref-
erences. Figure 6 illustrates the space types and qualities. Each space type
and spatial quality is described below in detail and illustrated through exam-
ples from the analysed institution.

64 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

Figure 6 Overview of types and qualities of creative spaces

3.2 Space types

3.2.1 Personal space
Just like a monastery, the personal space allows for concentrated working
(thinking, reflection, meditation) and is usually characterized by a silent atmo-
sphere and a lack of distractions. Newport (2016) coined the term ‘deep work’
for this kind of working style. People use these spaces for personal ‘alone time’
and for intense work activities like research, reading, writing, CAD work, or
individual ideation.

The students of the HPI D-School used so-called ‘spy-spots’ for personal with-
drawaldsecluded areas of approximately 5 m2, built at a slight elevation
above the normal workspace, which allow for observation of the entire floor.
These spaces were purposefully designed to provide opportunities for personal
withdrawal (Figure 7). Besides that, there were few venues for individual work.

A typology of creative spaces 65

Figure 7 Personal spaces at HPI D-School: Outdoor tree bench; ‘spy-spot’

Many students mentioned outside areas like a tree bench or a commuter-train

ride for this purpose.

However, at the HPI D-School, such possibilities for individual work were
limited. Many students mentioned their preference for working at home owing
to the lack of spaces for personal withdrawal and concentrated work. The lack
of such individual workstations is evident, attributable to the programme’s
reliance on a collaborative group work model; even so, the participants in
the study emphasized that spaces for individual work and personal withdrawal
were missing.

3.2.2 Collaboration space

This is a creative space type that invites people to work together as a team, ex-
change ideas, and communicate with each other. It is characterized by noise,
playfulness, and team interactions. The layout of the room should allow for
group work and discussions. Consultation spacedwhere students and teach-
ers meet for feedbackdand meeting space with clients also fall into this
category.

Figure 8 shows selected collaboration spaces at HPI D-School. Typical of

design thinking facilities, we see separated work booths with moveable white-
boards and stools instead of normal tables and chairs. Up to eight such team
spaces are located on the main teaching floors. Outside areas are integrated
into the workflow: if the weather permits, students can occupy one of several
outdoor booths that are equipped similarly to the indoor team spaces.

3.2.3 Making space

This is a term for a creative space that allows people to experiment, try things
out, and build stuff. These spaces allow for experimentation, noise, and dirt.

66 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

Figure 8 Collaboration spaces at HPI D-School: Team booths; outdoor pavilions

HPI D-School integrates its making spaces into the main teaching areas. A
workbench with tools is located in one corner of the main teaching floor. Pro-
totyping materials are on hand in shelves and transparent boxes (Figure 9).

3.2.4 Presentation space

Presentation space is a term for a creative space where people passively
consume input (such as lectures) or actively give input themselves (such as pre-
sentations). Usually the layout of such lecture rooms does not facilitate
(active) teamwork, but it does provide for giving and receiving feedback.
This type of space also includes passive display of work results and exhibitions
(e.g. models in showcases or posters on walls).

At HPI D-School, the lecture space in the basic track building is furnished with
moveable sofas on wheels, stacking chairs, and additional seating cubes that
can be arranged according to the size of the audience. In the advanced track
building, theatre-style platforms with cushions are installed in the room, which
did not allow much of a flexible arrangement. Additional sofas, mainly for
guests or speakers, provided some variety. Prototypes from previous projects
were displayed in shelves and boards on the walls were provided for occasional
‘project exhibitions’ (see Figure 10).

Figure 9 Workbench and material storage in the main lecture area of HPI D-School

A typology of creative spaces 67

Figure 10 Various lecture
spaces and the display of proj-
ect results on walls at HPI D-
School

3.2.5 Intermission space

There were some spaces that could not be classified as one of the four
abovementioned space types. Hallways, outdoor spaces like parks or park-
ing lots, the Mensa and students’ cafe, or pathways were obviously not
dedicated areas for creative work; but people nonetheless integrated such
spaces into their creative workflow. Such ‘intermission spaces’ were partic-
ularly characterised by unintended meetings, chance encounters, and op-
portunities to take a short break and reflect on previous work. In
addition, research activities extend the range of creative spaces to areas
beyond the building itself.

At HPI D-School, the main intermission spaces were the pathways between
buildings for the two study tracks, which were about a 10-min walk. These
distances were mentioned negatively, because they impeded exchange be-
tween basic and advanced students. Most students commuted to the insti-
tution by rail; the train was mentioned as a space for thinking, meeting
classmates, and doing research. Staircases within the building or the
elevator were indicated as meeting spots, whereas outdoor areas, such as
parking lots and a bench, were used for recreation and smoking breaks
(Figure 11).

3.3 Spatial qualities

3.3.1 Space as a knowledge processor
One interesting aspect of a space is its capacity to serve as a knowledge facil-
itator or repository. Information can be stored on shelves (in the form of
books, materials, notes, pictures, and so on), or on the walls (e.g. sticky notes
on whiteboards). Physical models or other work results (e.g. posters) from pre-
vious projects or more advanced students incorporate knowledge, which can
be extracted or used as a source of inspiration. Knowledge might be repre-
sented visually, so that other people can access it easily. In that way, the space
can foster the exchange or even generation of knowledge by providing the plat-
form for displaying and accessing it.

68 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

Figure 11 Intermission spaces at HPI D-School used for casual meetings and reflection: Staircase; pathway to parking lot; entrance area

At HPI D-School, there were several types of libraries incorporated into the
teaching spaces: a small book library, a materials library, and a gadget library.
Writeable walls and whiteboards could be used to store notes, pictures, and
sketches to be accessed by other students. A bulletin board with pictures
and skills of coaches gives hints about who is available to help with specific
tasks (Figure 12).

3.3.2 Space as an indicator of culture

A space can serve as an indicator of a specific (corporate or organizational)
culture. Many spaces express expectations for how the user should behave,
either embedded in the layout or just by common sense (e.g. everyone knows
that you have to be quiet in a library or that you are allowed to make noise in a
workshop). Written rules within a space can also serve this purpose. It is
important to establish a specific culture to avoid misuse or to foster a support-
ive atmosphere for creative working and learning purposes. In that sense,
spatial culture can support the ‘affordance’ of a spacedits ability to indicate
how it is supposed to be used or how one should behave in it (Norman, 1999).

Figure 12 Knowledge repositories at HPI D-School: Bulletin board with teachers’ expertise; whiteboards and writeable walls; bookshelves with
a small library

A typology of creative spaces 69

 At HPI D-School the expressed culture was very playful, with lots of toys on
hand. Written rules addressed the design process itself (‘brainstorming rules’;
see Figure 13).

3.3.3 Space as a process enabler

The space can also enforce or even dictate specific procedural behaviours,
mainly based on the provided infrastructure. For example, tables and chairs
affixed to the floor in a lecture hall do not allow group work. In that sense,
the process enabler is an extension of the ‘affordance’ conceptdthe space dic-
tates a specific usage or behaviour, rather than suggests it. The flexibility of a
space or its furniture is important in allowing for different creative activities. A
space’s capacity to change from one type to another with minimal time and
effort determines its flexibility. Moreover, for a smooth workflow it is helpful
if the different types of spaces are aligned next to each other or within short
walking distance (reduced transition spaces).

At HPI D-School, rolling furniture and foldable walls allow for a flexible
teaching style; users can adjust the space to suit the purpose and the number
of people. Dedicated outdoor spaces with sockets and furniture allow for
working in fresh air (Figure 14).

3.3.4 Space as a social dimension

Social interactions among co-workers and between students and teachers are an
important aspect of creative work. By definition, team spaces are usually de-
signed to allow social interactions; but intermission spaces such as cafes or hall-
ways might enforce accidentally running into each other, which might also
support the exchange of information. The strategic placement of central objects,
such as copy machines or water coolers, could facilitate social interactions.

HPI D-School housed many casual meeting spots, such as sofas and coffee cor-
ners that invite social interaction. Furthermore, entrance areas and the

Figure 13 Culture at HPI D-School: Toys, table soccer, and other games on hand indicate a playful culture; written brainstorming rules; a ‘VIP’
sofa for guest critics

70 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

Figure 14 Flexible infrastructure at HPI D-School: Moveable furniture on wheels; outdoor team booth allows working outside; moveable walls
for flexibility

elevator were mentioned as spaces for casual meetings and discussions with
classmates. Transparent walls and bookshelves allowed for visual contact
(Figure 15).

3.3.5 Space as a source of stimulation

The space can act as a source of stimulation by providing noise, smell, views,
colours, and textures; by displaying inspirational posters; or by providing
games and gadgets. That being said, a space may also trigger creativity by
reducing stimulation. The lack of textures and noise might facilitate a creative
flow (Csikszentimihalyi, 1996). Many participants mentioned that silent and
non-distracting atmospheres in nature, or being on a train with passing land-
scapes, facilitated their creative output. In addition, some stimulation, such as
loud noise that impedes concentration, might have a negative effect on creative
workflow.

At HPI D-School, positive stimulation was achieved through natural sounds

and smells while working outdoors, whereas the noise level of co-workers

Figure 15 Social dimension at HPI D-School: Elevator as meeting spot; casual sofas invite personal exchange; transparent walls and shelves
allow visual contact

A typology of creative spaces 71

 was often a cause for distraction and negative stimulation. In addition, the
choice of background music was sometimes grounds for disagreement.
Further stimulation was provided through colourful interiors (Figure 16).

3.4 Summary
The presented typology of creative spaces distinguishes between five space
types and five spatial qualities that appeared to be relevant and sufficient to
cover all required spatial concepts in the analysed institution.

The five identified space typesdpersonal space, collaboration space, presenta-

tion space, making space, and intermission spacedwere categorized based on
the affordance they provided for particular design and learning activities. One
might argue that any space can be used for any designerly activity, which is
certainly true; but usually a space provides some kind of optimization for spe-
cific intended activities. For example, a space in a library could certainly be
used for model-making, or a wood workshop for a lecture; but those spaces
would not be the best choice for these activities. The inherent purpose of a
space is explained with the concept of affordance (Norman, 1999); the pre-
sented typology employs this concept.

The spatial qualities derived from the data suggested a certain range between
positive and negative dimensions of each quality, depending on the extent to
which it is present and on the respective context. For example, the stimulating
quality of a space may be either inspiring or distracting; a space as a knowledge
processor can be accessible or locked; a space as a social dimension can be
inviting or separating; a space as an indicator of culture can be playful or
serious; and a space as a process manifestation can be either flexible or fixed.

Each space type comprises all five spatial qualities, however in different shapes
and degrees. Table 1 outlines the suggested requirements for the spatial qual-
ities according to each space type.

Figure 16 Stimulation at HPI D-School: Open space with loud background noise (negative); colourful interior

72 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

A typology of creative spaces

Table 1 Possible requirements of space types related to spatial qualities

Knowledge processor Indicator of culture Process enabler Social dimension Source of stimulation

Personal space e protect knowledge e indicate privacy e provide secluded e reduce social e be protected from
should/might: e provide access to e provide separation booths interactions external stimulation
explicit knowledge from others e provide appropriate e provide individually
e express individuality equipment adjustable stimulation
Collaboration space e provide access to e indicate rules for e facilitate teamwork e invite and enable e provide visual and
should/might: knowledge usage/behaviour e provide collaboration interactions acoustic stimulation
e display explicit e be accessible furniture e provide meeting e allow higher noise
knowledge e be playful e include flexible and areas level
e enable tacit knowl- e facilitate common moveable furniture e limit noise level to
edge exchange rituals acceptable degree
Making space e provide instructions e invite experimentation e provide materials e facilitate task- e allow higher noise/dirt
should/might: for usage e invite trial-and- error e provide making related social level
e display artefact e allow noise and dirt infrastructure interactions e limit noise/dirt to
knowledge acceptable degree
Presentation space e facilitate knowledge e upvalue/highlight e provide infrastructure e invite feedback/ e reduce external
should/might: transfer presenter or work for presenting discussions distraction
e display artefact e enable/encourage e provide a platform to e presentation should
knowledge feedback display/present work become main
stimulation
Intermission space e facilitate knowledge e be inviting, cosy, e provide outdoor access e facilitate e provide fresh air
should/might: transfer welcoming, or e provide recreation area coincidental and/or food
e display knowledge representative e provide access to meetings e provide reduced
of general interest e facilitate common suppliers e enable collective stimulation
e provide access to rituals e be in proximity to breaks e provide natural
field/user research other spaces stimulation
73
 The participants in the study also indicated that specific characteristics of
spatial elementsdsuch as materials, views, smells, textures, colours, or a
particular piece of furnituredhad positive or negative influences on their cre-
ative workflow, mood, and performance. However, these insights are not part
of this study; they will be investigated further in future work.

4 Validation
To validate the developed typology of creative space types and spatial quali-
ties, as described in the previous section, we conducted a second study at
another institution: an associated institute of the University of Kassel/Ger-
many (‘Uni Kassel Transfer’). This institution is a research facility and co-
working space wherein collaboration between students, staff, start-ups, and
practitioners is facilitated. Hence, this study provided us with the perspective
of additional practitioners and academic teaching staff. The goal of the valida-
tion study was to identify whether the typology is (a) exhaustive, (b) under-
standable, and (c) without unnecessary categories.

4.1 Method
We invited nine participants from different creative backgrounds (design
teachers and research assistants, independent design practitioners, founders
of creative start-up companies, and employees of global companies) to a focus
group workshop, following the procedure laid out in Edmunds (1999). The
institution and participants were chosen based on the following consideration:
to validate the developed typology and to determine whether it can be adapted
for different types of creative environments and stakeholders, we chose to test
it again with non-student participants to obtain more diverse perspectives on
the topic. The type of institutionda university-affiliated research centre and
incubatordprovided additional insights about different possible types of cre-
ative work activities other than those in a design thinking school. Hence, vary-
ing both the target population and the research approach should enhance the
validity of the results.

In preparation for the workshop the participants were asked to document their
own work environments and to provide ideas and suggestions as to how to
design a co-working space for a heterogeneous cohort of creative people.
They were asked to provide pictures of their current workspaces as well as
ideas, thoughts, and statements about their ideal co-working space. The pre-
pared material was delivered to and analysed by three researchers in prepara-
tion for the workshop.

We invited all nine participants to a focus group workshop to discuss their ma-
terial together and to evaluate their provided data compared with the previ-
ously defined typology of creative spaces. During the one-day workshop, the
participants were teamed up in groups of two or three. Each team was asked

74 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 to analyse their material and explain the results to each other. Each team was
supported by one researcher who took notes or made visual sketches from the
most promising statements and insights. Each team then presented its findings
to the entire group. Finally, participants were asked to cluster the notes and
sketches according to different space types and spatial qualities. Although
they had heard a brief presentation about our previously developed typology
at the beginning of the workshop, they were asked to define their own labels
for space types or to create new ones if the provided structure would not suffice
and they identified additional space types and functions. The resulting ideas
and questions were discussed with the goal of sharing the different perspec-
tives. A detailed description of this study is available in a different publication
(Thoring, Luippold, Mueller, & Badke-Schaub, 2015).

4.2 Results
The suggested typology of creative spaces and qualities was mainly validated
through the present study. The participants came up with the same types of
spaces, plus another space type, which they called the ‘virtual space’. This
space type mainly suggested virtual meeting rooms for collaboration with
co-workers in remote locations, as well as access to databases with specific
materials, information, or additional manpower (expertise). Although this
aspect of a space merits further research, we considered it not as an addi-
tional space type, but as a characteristic of the technical infrastructure and
hence a part of the process enabler category. Such a virtual space could be
either a collaborative space (e.g. a virtual meeting room), a personal space
(e.g. a blog for personal thoughts), a presentation space (e.g. a pre-
recorded video lecture), a making space (e.g. a so-called ‘sandbox’ in which
to build digital prototypes), or an intermission space (e.g. Skype or other
video conferencing systems that connect remote locations). Hence, we
consider the virtual aspect a characteristic of a space rather than a space
type of its own.

The study also validated the five spatial qualities. Although individual partic-
ipants identified different characteristics of each quality, the overall findings
confirmed the main categories of spatial qualities as described in our typology.
The participants emphasized one additional characteristic of a spatial quality:
data privacy. The ability to hide data in locked file cabinets or behind blinds
was very important for most practitioners. However, we considered this not
as an additional quality of a space, but as a characteristic of the ‘knowledge
processor’dwhich can be represented in several degrees of accessibility.
Considering the initial question that informed the study, we found that (a)
the typology’s categories were exhaustive, (b) all categories were understood
by the participants, and (c) the typology did not show unnecessary categories.
Hence, this second study serves to validate the proposed typology of creative
spaces.

A typology of creative spaces 75

 5 Discussion
According to the typology described above, some relationships between space
type and quality appear relevant for facilitating creative working and learning
in a design environment. The data suggest that a creative environment needs
all five types of spaces, albeit in different shapes, proportions, and alignments.
A lack of a particular space type resulted in unsatisfied users, leading them to
improvise adaptations of other spaces. Whether a space was deemed good or
bad for creative working and learning activities was mainly determined by the
characteristics of the respective qualities that the space provides. These qual-
ities can be perceived as positive or negative, depending on the respective pro-
cess phase, the individual preferences and needs of the users, or the extent of
the quality in question.

Another aspect to consider is the amount of available resources in terms of

time, budget, and space. Sometimes an institution must economise and remain
in a small space, or it must deal with an existing building that cannot be
extended. With the presented typology, we do not suggest any specifics of
appropriate furniture or appearances, but only systemic guidelines that could
be followed in different degrees with various financial and spatial resources.

Consequently, it is impossible at this point to coherently rank the different

space types and qualities in any particular order of relevance or to suggest spe-
cific design guidelines. Instead, all space types and all qualities should be
considered when designing a creative space, and concrete specifications and
design decisions should be carefully balanced in adjustment with the appli-
cable situation. Nevertheless, the following section presents a few rules of
thumb to consider when designing creative spaces.

5.1 Implications
A space’s capacity to transform from one type to another seems to be an
important merit, because sometimes different activities must occur in a single
space within a short timeframe (e.g. presentations followed by group work).
This flexibility of a space is mainly determined by a flexible infrastructured-
that is, the degree to which the space allows the changeover from one type
to another with minimal effort. The process enabling quality of presentation
spaces and intermission spaces also needs special attention. When presenta-
tions occur only sporadically, a highly flexible infrastructure is preferable to
allow for collaboration or individual work at other times.

A good balance of all different space types seems to be critical for a smooth
workflow and a lack of particular space types might result in unsatisfied users.
Specifically, personal spaces for individual work were underrepresented in the
analysed institution. In addition, it might be necessary to combine several
space types in a single room or to distribute them across the campus according

76 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 to available resources. In either case, designers must consider the problems and
opportunitiesdfor example, rising noise levels when combining space types, or
additional transition time between separated spacesdthat might emerge.

The expressed culture within a space plays an important part in encouraging

active experimentation. For example, a making space that motivates students
to actively take risks and experiment might facilitate experiential learning, ac-
cording to Kolb (1984).

Sensory stimulation (e.g. noise, sound, smell, dirt) can be inspiring, especially
for creative work, but too much of it also presents a risk for distraction. Hence,
reduced stimulation might be desirable in personal and intermission spaces.

Intermission spaces between different space types (e.g. hallways) necessitate

time and effort to transfer from one space type to another. This would suggest
that most space types should be placed in close proximity to each other. How-
ever, this would minimize the potential of intermission spaces for social inter-
action and reflection.

Presentation spaces and lecturing remain important; a lot of teaching and

sharing of ideas still takes place through transfer of explicit knowledge. In
the design context, however, other types of knowledge transfer and knowledge
generation are also important. Specific attention should be given to the design
of consultation spaces (a subcategory of the collaboration space), because
feedback from teachers, classmates, co-workers, and clients is crucial for the
transfer of implicit design knowledge. Furthermore, artefact knowledge
embedded in work models and tools should be present. See Mueller &
Thoring (2010) for an overview of different types of design knowledge.

Furthermore, the literature shows that virtual spaces are becoming more rele-
vant for designers and design students to help them facilitate information
retrieval, connect with co-workers and fellow students, and replace physical
meeting spaces and lecture rooms. This is illustrated in virtual learning spaces,
the rise of massive open online courses (MOOCs) and distance design educa-
tion programmes (Sk€ old, 2011; Weiss, Nolan, Hunsinger, & Trifonas, 2006),
as well as virtual office environments in creative organizations. The virtual as-
pects range from facilitation of remote working (home office) to virtual reality
environments with avatars to simulate team collaboration online. Several as-
pects of virtual workspaces along with advantages and disadvantages have
been discussed, for example, by Thomas (2013), or Zemliansky and St.
Amant (2008). Virtual spaces can provide a place for virtual communities
and a way for geographically distributed people to communicate (Maher,
Skow, & Cicognani, 1999) and facilitate creative activities, such as brain-
storming (Bhagwatwar, Massey, & Dennis, 2013). Bridges and Charitos

A typology of creative spaces 77

 (1997) elaborated on the possible relevance of architectural design knowledge
for designing virtual environments.

Moreover, the increased use of mobile devices by designers and students re-
quires creative spaces with an appropriate technical infrastructure, such as
sockets and wireless internet access, specifically in intermission spaces like hall-
ways or outdoor areas, where those resources are usually under-represented.
Although we do not focus on the specific characteristics and design features
of a virtual space, we do emphasize the relevance of physical spaces to facilitate
virtual access and connectivity as a space’s process enabling quality. The typol-
ogy of creative spaces presented in this article might serve as a foundation for
future research in the area of virtual creative spaces or for developing appro-
priate design specifications for collaborative spaces in the virtual world.

5.2 Comparison with related literature

The literature review described in Section 1 revealed a significant interest in the
topic of creative spaces. We limited our discussion to those sources that sug-
gested frameworks for creative spaces, because this is also the goal of our
study. Table 2 juxtaposes the space types and qualities from our developed ty-
pology with comparable concepts found in the 15 analysed classifications.

The comparison in Table 2 shows that the 15 analysed sources define similar
space types as we do, but mostly not in as much detail as in our proposed ty-
pology. While many studies suggest some sort of personal space and collabo-
ration space, making spaces and presentation spaces are rarely addressed.
Walter (2012) does not distinguish between space types for different activities
but mentions only the creative process as a whole. On the other hand, some
sources suggest unnecessary detail and define several sub-categories for a
concept that could be summarized under one term. For example, Meinel
et al. (2017) distinguish between relaxing space and disengaged space (for
non-work-related activities), which in our view, does not justify a new category
on its own. Most sources suggest some sort of spatial quality, as we do. How-
ever, our quality of spatial ‘stimulation’ is rarely addressed by the analysed
sources, although we consider this a crucial aspect of a creative space. Some
sources suggest additional categories of creative spaces, for example external
influences, such as financing (Moultrie et al., 2007) or specific behaviours of
people within space (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012; Greene & Myerson, 2011;
Williams, 2013), which, however, we do not consider relevant categories for
the physical creative environment. Several sources suggest specific characteris-
tics of creative spaces, such as materials, furniture, colours, smells, sound, etc.
These are certainly a valid amendment to a typology of creative spaces, but we
did not yet incorporate such elements into our typology for the following rea-
sons: We consider those spatial characteristics as such as not relevant for cat-
egorizing a creative space. Any space consists of certain appearances and

78 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

Table 2 Comparison of the presented typology of creative spaces and qualities with classifications found in related literature

Space type Sources

Personal space Setola and Leurs (2014) > The attic (analyse and generalise)
Lawson and Dorst (2009) > Library (study room)
Williams (2013) > Informal spaces at work for privacy
Meinel et al. (2017) > Doodle space
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Home base, focus
Collaboration space Setola and Leurs (2014) > The pub (share and compare)
Setola and Leurs (2014) > The attic (analyse and generalise)
Lawson and Dorst (2009) > Studio, tutoring space, crit room (all address students’
teamwork)
Williams (2013) > Official workspace, semi-official workspace
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Home base, gathering space
Making space Setola and Leurs (2014) > The workplace
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Realization space
Presentation space Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Gathering space
Intermission space Setola and Leurs (2014) > The wild (observe and register)
Williams (2013) > Informal spaces at work for engagement, non-workspace (home,
outdoor, transportation, etc.)
Meinel et al. (2017) > Relaxing space, disengaged space, doodle space
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Thresholds/transitions, reflect
Spatial quality Sources
Knowledge repository Leurs et al. (2013) > Make sense (meaning making)
Lawson and Dorst (2009) > Library (repository of design literature and precedents)
Moultrie et al. (2007) > Data and information
Organizational culture Leurs et al. (2013) > Make place (ownership)
Walter (2012) > Organizational climate for creativity
Moultrie et al. (2007) > Design values and imagery
Lindahl (2004) > Symbolic qualities (corporate image and identity)
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Attitudes
Source of stimulation Meinel et al. (2017) > Unusual/fun space
Meinel et al. (2017) > Complexity (spatial layout)
Process enabler Leurs et al. (2013) > Make place (setup), transparency (accessibility)
Moultrie et al. (2007) > Geographic location, physical scale, real/virtual, flexibility, IT
resources, modelling and visualization resources.
Williams (2013) > Affordances
Meinel et al. (2017) > Spatial layout (flexibility, office size, office layout)
Lindahl (2004) > Spatial configuration (dependencies between activities and spatial
setting)
Lindahl (2004) > Work environment qualities (health and safety)
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Posture, orientation, surface, density, storage, support
structure
Walter (2012) > Flexibility, access (conceptual feature of the workplace)
Social dimension Williams (2013) > Behaviour (engage or disengage with people)
Meinel et al. (2017) > Privacy (spatial layout)
Walter (2012) > Group interaction/solitude (conceptual feature of the workplace)
Lindahl (2004) > Quality and degree of participation

A typology of creative spaces 79

Additional concepts Sources
Spatial characteristics Dul and Ceylan (2011) > 12 characteristics: furniture, indoor plants, calming colors,
inspiring colors, privacy, window views (nature), any window view, quantity of light,
daylight, indoor climate, sound, and smell.
Martens (2008) > Layout, furniture, colour, finishing, and light
Meinel et al. (2017) > Tangible office elements, intangible office elements
Williams (2013) > 6 properties: comfort, sound, sight, spaciousness, movement,
aliveness
Walter (2012) > Physical features of the workplace (light, air, furniture, etc.)
People/behaviour Greene and Myerson (2011) > Types of knowledge workers
Williams (2013) > Behaviour (engage or disengage with ideas)
Doorley and Witthoft (2012) > Actions (synthesize, flare, saturate)
Other influences Moultrie et al. (2007) > External constraints e.g. finances
Moultrie et al. (2007) > Evolution of environment according to companies’ needs
Walter (2012) > Ubiquity, variety (conceptual features of the workplace)

configurations of furniture, materials, colours, and so on. But decisions for

any specification of such elements are not contributing to the understanding
of a creative space, unless they are underpinned by possible causal relation-
ships in the sense that one spatial characteristic might influence the creative
process or outcome in a specific way, which the analysed sources do not pro-
vide. In future work we will tackle the attempt to develop such a theory of the
causal relationships between spatial characteristics and creativity. Refer to
Table 2 for a detailed overview and mapping of the concepts from our typol-
ogy with the analysed sources.

5.3 Limitations and relevance

One limitation of the present study is that it only considers institutions in a sin-
gle country. This raises questions about the possible influence of national cul-
ture on creative environments that will be addressed in future work.

We expect the presented typology to provide valuable insights for designers,

educators, and spatial planners who are involved in designing or optimizing
creative work and study environments. Given that the typology was developed
and tested in two different types of institutions (a design thinking school, and a
university-affiliated research facility), involving participants from both design
practice and design education, we argue that the results are generalizable and
can be transferred to other institutions, as well as to the corporate sector. The
actual design and the characteristics of the particular space types and qualities
might differ according to the needs of the different stakeholders and to per-
sonal preferences, but the space types and qualities as suggested by the typol-
ogy are relevant for any design process and warrant careful consideration
when planning a creative space. However, we are aware that these hypotheses
have to be further investigated through additional studies to cross-validate the
findings.

80 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 Acknowledgements
The research for this article was partially supported by Anhalt University of
Applied Sciences, Germany. We would like to thank the students and faculty
from HPI School of Design Thinking, as well as the staff and external practi-
tioners from UniKasselTransfer for their participation in the studies. We
would also like to express our gratitude to our colleagues Roland M. Mueller
and Carmen Luippold who assisted in conducting the studies and who also
contributed significantly to some parts of this study, which were published
in previous conference papers.

Notes
1. A preliminary version of the ‘typology of creative spaces’ was previously published under
the title ‘Creative space in design education: A typology of spatial functions’ (Thoring,
Luippold, & Mueller, 2012). This paper was not included in our discussion of the related
literature.

References
Bhagwatwar, A., Massey, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2013). Creative virtual environ-
ments: Effect of supraliminal priming on team brainstorming. In 2013 46th Ha-
waii international conference on system sciences (pp. 215e224). Wailea, HI,
USA: IEEE Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.152.
Borges, S., Ehmann, S., & Klanten, R. (2013). Work scape new spaces for new
work. Berlin: Gestalten.
Bridges, A., & Charitos, D. (1997). On architectural design in virtual environ-
ments. Design Studies, 18(2), 143e154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-
694X(97)85457-9.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Csikszentimihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative
collaboration. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design
Studies, 32(6), 521e532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.
Dudek, M. (2012). Spaces for young children: A practical guide to planning,
designing and building the perfect space (2nd revised edition). London: National
Children’s Bureau Enterprises Ltd.
Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergo-
nomics, 54(1), 12e20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.542833.
Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Lincolnwood, Ill: NTC
Business Books.
Ehmann, S., Borges, S., & Klanten, R. (2012). Learn for life: New architecture for
new learning. Berlin: Gestalten.
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions,
6(1), 21e29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235.
Georgi, W., & McNamara, C. (2016). The other office: Creative workplace design
2. Amsterdam: Frame Publishers.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.

A typology of creative spaces 81

 Greene, C., & Myerson, J. (2011). Space for thought: Designing for knowledge
workers. Facilities, 29(1/2), 19e30. https://doi.org/10.1108/026327711111
01304.
Groves-Knight, K., & Marlow, O. (2016). Spaces for innovation: The design and
science of inspiring environments. Amsterdam: Frame Publishers.
Groves, K., Knight, W., & Denison, E. (2010). I wish I worked there! A look inside
the most creative spaces in business. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Jankowska, M., & Atlay, M. (2008). Use of creative space in enhancing students’
engagement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3),
271e279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802176162.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK; Burlington, MA:
Architectural Press.
Leurs, B., Schelling, J., & Mulder, I. (2013). Make space, make place, make sense.
In Proceedings of E&PDE 2013, the 15th international conference on engineering
and product design education. Dublin, Ireland.
Lindahl, G. A. (2004). The innovative workplace: An analytical model focusing
on the relationship between spatial and organisational issues. Facilities, 22(9/
10), 253e258. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770410555977.
Maher, M. L., Skow, B., & Cicognani, A. (1999). Designing the virtual campus.
Design Studies, 20(4), 319e342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)
00043-X.
Martens, Y. (2008). Unlocking creativity with physical workplace. In Proceedings
of the CIB W070 conference in facilities management. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Heriot Watt University.
Mattelm€aki, T. (2006). Design probes (PhD thesis). Helsinki: University of Art
and Design.
Meinel, M., Maier, L., Wagner, T., & Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Designing creativity-
enhancing workspaces: A critical look at empirical evidence. Journal of Tech-
nology and Innovation Management, 1(1), 1e12.
Mirchandani, N. (2015). Future schools: Innovative design for existing and new
build. Newcastle upon Tyne: Riba Enterprises.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U. E., Janssen, S., & Van der
Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation spaces: Towards a framework for understanding
the role of the physical environment in innovation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 16(1), 53e65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00419.x.
M€uller, R. M., & Thoring, K. (2010). A typology of design knowledge: A theoret-
ical framework. In Proceedings of the 16th Americas conference on information
systems (pp. 3426e3436), Lima, Peru.
Newport, C. (2016). Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world.
London: Piatkus.
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3),
38e43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic books.
Setola, B., & Leurs, B. (2014). The wild, the pub, the attic and the workplace: A
tool for negotiating a shared vision on creative learning spaces. In Proceedings
of the 16th international conference on engineering and product design Educa-
tion: Design education and human technology relations (E&PDE) (pp.
178e183). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
Sk€
old, O. (2011). The effects of virtual space on learning: A literature review. First
Monday, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i1.3496.

82 Design Studies Vol 56 No. C Month 2018

 Stewart, M. (2004). The other office: Creative workplace design. Amsterdam:
Frame Publishers; Basel; Boston: Birkh€ auser.
Thomas, S. (2013). Making a space: Transliteracy and creativity. Digital Crea-
tivity, 24(3), 182e190. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.806332.
Thoring, K., Luippold, C., & Mueller, R. M. (2012). Creative space in design ed-
ucation: A typology of spatial functions. In Proceedings of the international
conference on engineering and product design education. Antwerp, Belgium.
Thoring, K., Luippold, C., Mueller, R. M., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2015). Workspa-
ces for design education and practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd international
conference for design education researchers (pp. 330e346). https://doi.org/
10.13140/RG.2.1.1200.7520, Chicago, USA.
van Meel, J., Martens, Y., & van Ree, H. J. (2010). Planning office spaces a prac-
tical guide for managers and designers. London, UK: Laurence King
Publishing.
Walter, C. (2012). A framework for creating creative workspaces. In Proceedings
of the European conference on knowledge management (ECKM), Vol. 2 (pp.
1267e1274). Cartagena, Spain: Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena.
Weiss, J., Nolan, J., Hunsinger, J., & Trifonas, P. (2006)The international hand-
book of virtual learning environments, Vol. 14. Dordrecht; The Netherlands:
Springer.
Williams, A. (2013). A grammar of creative workplaces (PhD Thesis). London,
UK: University of East London.
Zemliansky, P., & St Amant, K. (2008). In Handbook of research on virtual work-
places and the new nature of business practices. Hershey PA: IGI Global.

A typology of creative spaces 83