Keywords

Introduction

As Australian cities have grown in recent decades, municipal governments have been under increasing pressure to provide services to communities, particularly in urban fringe areas where space to build new infrastructure is scarce (Infrastructure Australia, 2019). As a result, there is renewed interest in how school infrastructure may support community services and activities. Current underutilisation of school infrastructure outside of school hours (Cleveland & Woodman, 2009; Infrastructure Australia, 2019) means that opportunity exists to maximise how facilities are used to include community members as users of school environments, aiding their access to vital education, health and wellbeing services and programs, as well as informal gathering and recreation opportunities.

State funded schools across Australia are expected to foster connections with and between families and communities as part of their overall objectives (McShane et al., 2012), yet such connections are not as strong as they could be in many schools.

School infrastructure can provide more than just spaces for children’s education. The shared use of facilities in some outward-looking schools is engaging and connecting communities and service organisations and the potential of Australian schools to operate as environments that are welcoming and supportive of the broader community is increasingly being recognised.

Nevertheless, research into how best to plan, design, govern and manage schools for shared use is limited, particularly with respect to the integration of policy and practice (Cleveland, 2016) and the implications associated with shared infrastructure for community engagement (McShane et al., 2012). More needs to be learned about successful experiences of developing, implementing, and sustaining shared facilities and extended services in schools.

Schools as Community Hubs

Schools play a fundamental role in society regarding knowledge transmission, skills acquisition, and introducing children and young people to social dynamics and community life (Biesta, 2015). For this reason, there is nothing new about schools developing strategies and programs to engage with families and community groups. Yet, different approaches and rationales may be behind the development of schools-community partnerships and community hubs, bringing challenges to defining what constitutes a school as community hub (SaCH). According to Black et al. (2011, p. 4), the development of these initiatives “has been characterised by a pervasive lack of clarity and a troubling lack of consensus about the definition, purposes, best practice implementation and even the terminology of extended service schooling”. Dryfoos (2005, p. 8) also recognised the diversity of community-facing schools, suggesting that “one of the mantras of this emerging field is “no two alike”; each community school evolves according to the needs and resources of the population and the neighbourhood”. Such views were corroborated by an interviewee in the Australian context who commented that relationships between school-based hub operations and infrastructure commonly results in no two hubs being alike:

It really depends on the school. So, you will have hubs that are basically a big room inside one of the [school] buildings. You have other hubs that have a dedicated building just for the hub, but on the school grounds. So, it really depends and varies.

In Australia, the term ‘school as community hub’ is widely used to indicate a spatial, educational, and social planning articulation (McShane et al., 2012). It should be noted that some schools may identify themselves as community hubs, but not necessarily refer to a specific infrastructural arrangement, instead denoting their relationships or programs that are shared with the community.

Infrastructure efficiency is also a governmental concern in the Australian context (McShane et al., 2012). Discourse persists about optimising investment by promoting multipurpose buildings on school sites to support community service provision. Such discourse is leading to action. For example, a recent Victorian government reform (2021) aims to provide a kindergarten on-site or next door to every new primary school that is built. This policy aims to support communities with a high proportion of young families and aid children’s transitions to school (Victorian School Building Authority, 2021).

While a growing number of schools have implemented operational adaptations to promote community use, there remains a lack of understanding about how school facility planning, and design can support shared use. As Matthews et al. (2020) noted, the school design should change when schools are open to the community, similarly with respect to shared governance and management. These challenges associated with sharing facilities were also identified in the latest audit from Infrastructure Australia (2019, p. 419), which stated that “the complexity of systems in place to enable shared use of space can also deter community members from engaging with schools”. New insights are needed into how some schools and partner organisations have overcome such hurdles and collaborated to mutual benefit.

The need for such information has been heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. In Australia and other places around the world, the need for community service provision and support increased as the result of the pandemic. A Melbourne-based informantFootnote 1 described how school-based community hubs in their local area operated outside their normal physical locations during the extended periods of lockdown in the city during 2020 and 2021, highlighting the capacity of local service provision to help meet community needs, even at a time when hub spaces may have become unavailable to users:

By the time the first lockdown finished, there was a fair amount of work going on around connecting families … playgroup activities that you could do in your house. The hubs that already had WhatsApp groups started catch-ups online. By the time the second lockdown came in there was a definite and clear shift to zoom playgroup, zoom English classes, the sorts of things where possible [online], augmented by materials or text messages … but adults couldn’t return to the school grounds. [Instead], playgroup in the park, walking English classes, all sorts of things [were going on to keep people connected].

The Role of Community in the School Context

A range of perspectives exist on school-community relations, along with views about how communities may participate meaningfully and productively in the school context.

At one end of the spectrum, aspirations to improve students’ learning outcomes through strengthening relationships between the school, home and community, may drive interest and action associated with the developing closer school-community relations. Such action may focus on coordination and collaboration between agencies and other service providers to deliver services to community members (Semmens & Stokes, 1997). Some critics of this approach point out that the work with the community in such instances may be guided by ‘exogenous agendas’ and defined without community input (Kerr et al., 2016). Such agendas may minimise the role of parents and community members, underestimating their value as resources for learning in the school context (Hayes & Chodkiewicz, 2006). An interviewee identified such a gap, lamenting the lack of opportunity for ongoing school-community relations once her children had grown up and left the school system. She said:

We’ve got the local primary school just around the corner. I was school council president. I have planted gardens. I was very involved. My kids are now at university, so I don’t go there anymore … There’s no reason for me to go there. It’s not a place that is relevant for me anymore … For a school to effectively be operating as a community facility, I would hope that people in the broader community would see it as a place for them in whatever way that might be.

On the other side of the spectrum, ‘endogenous agendas’ may tend to be guided by the interests and needs of community members (Kerr et al., 2016). In this context, Black (2008) emphasised the role of the community not only as a recipient of programs and benefits but as protagonists of the educational process:

We need new models of schooling that recognise the future of children and young people is the responsibility of the whole community, and which form the basis of a social alliance for all young people to take an active—if not a leading—role in their community. (Black, 2008, p. 15)

Schools working under community-led integrated models may pursue more democratic outcomes regarding their relationship with the community, leading to potentially more transformative agendas (Black, 2008).

The literature also indicates that community perspectives have been largely overlooked in academic research about schools as community hubs, with research more likely to call on expert opinions (Kerr et al., 2016). Kerr et al. (2016) highlighted the need for future research to bring together professional and community perspectives to prevent disconnection between schools’ efforts and community aspirations.

With an emphasis on infrastructure, this challenge was also highlighted by Coulston (2020, p. 41), who pointed out that “ongoing planning for school environments will need to consider a holistic, community-wide view through a considered approach to shared facilities”. Again, future research will need to bridge these gaps and bring together the views of a variety of stakeholders to accurately identify the potential for school as community hubs as integrated socio-spatial settings for whole community education, health, and wellbeing.

A Theoretical Framework to Investigate Schools

Space is a central feature of school-based community hubs. However, as Gruenewald (2003) suggested, the production of space, or place, has largely failed to be recognised for its influence on interactions between schooling and community life.

Since the mid-nineteenth century, sociologists and geographers have embraced new meanings regarding space and its relation to social theory. As Warf and Arias (2009, p. 3) pointed out, space was repositioned in some academic circles from being given to being produced, “calling attention to its role in the construction and transformation of social life and its deeply power-laden nature”.

One of the most prominent scholars in this field has been Henri Lefebvre. His widely cited theoretical perspective offers a research framework that according to Soja (2009, p. 20) provides a “more comprehensive and combinatorial mode of spatial thinking, one that built upon the traditional dualities [of physical and mental/social spaces]”.

Lefebvre: Understanding Space as a Social Production

In The Production of Space, Lefebvre (1991) visited the concept of space throughout different philosophical traditions over time. Through his analysis, he concluded that most scholars have failed in understanding the nature of space, commonly reducing it to an empty abstraction, prior to real experience, which in some way can contain the material. He contended that such conceptualisation might result in compartmentalised views of space, translating into hegemonic ideas of space which prioritise dominant or mental space over physical or social space.

Lefebvre (1991) offered a theoretical perspective that acknowledges the connections between the physical and the social, defining his project as a way “to expose the actual production of space by bringing the various kinds of space and the modalities of their genesis together within a single theory” (p. 16). He suggested that “(social) space is a (social) production” (p. 26). This definition pursued a unitary theory of space, considering space as tridimensional. He proposed thinking about space as “the physical space (nature), mental space (formal abstractions about space), and social space (the space of human interaction)” (Merrifield, 2006, p. 104). These three elements correspondingly are known as the phenomenological dimensions of space: the lived space, conceived space, and perceived space. By bringing together these multiple aspects of space, Lefebvre aimed to understand space and its relations through the “dialectical character of their interaction” (Merrifield, 1993, p. 523). This conceptual understanding of space highlights that space is a social product—the result of social action, practices, and relationships, and at the same time is part of them.

Informed by Lefebvre’s (1991) work, this PhD study looked to engage with schools as community hubs through a spatial lens, seeking to generate new insights into the development, implementation, and sustainability of SaCH.

Lefebvre’s Triad of Space

Lefebvre (1991) proposed a “conceptual triad”, formed by representations of space, spatial practices, and spaces of representation,Footnote 2 to analyse spatial interactions by “exposing and decoding both visible and invisible processes and practices” (Buser, 2012, p. 284). Figure 1 shows how Lefebvre’s triad has been adapted to make sense of the phenomenological dimensions of space associated with SaCHs.

Fig. 1
A cycle matrix diagram represents Lefebvre’s triad of space, defines the relationship between lived, conceived, and perceived space, representations of space, and how the proposed theory can be incorporated as the theoretical framework for schools as a community hub.

Lefebvre’s triad of space adapted as a theoretical framework for schools as community hubs (SaCH) research (Diagram by the author, https://doi.org/10.26188/19316633)

Full size image

By way of explanation, the spaces of representation are lived spaces, spaces as directly lived or experienced in everyday life, a dimension that shapes “the spaces of inhabitants and users” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 39). Spatial practice refers to the material experience and people’s perception of space, which is “lived directly before it is conceptualized” (p. 34). Finally, the representations of space are identified as conceived or conceptualised space which constitutes a form of domination. It is related to knowledge, signs and codes and linked to professionals’ and experts’ voices in different fields.

As suggested by Thomson and Hall (2017, p. 148), using the notion of trialectical space as an “approach to everyday life as spatially-temporally experienced and produced” might be helpful not only to understand schools from an official or expert perspective, but to make the realities of the schools and their inhabitants visible. This approach to studying schools may be valuable in revealing why things are as they are, offering “a potential explanatory power beyond the descriptive” (Thomson & Hall, 2017, p. 150).

Applying the Triad of Space as a Theoretical Framework for SaCH Research

The concept of production may be fundamental to understanding how schools as community hubs emerge from the dialectical interaction of material, symbolic, and lived aspects. In the case of SaCH, the material is represented by the physical settings that are used to welcome students, staff, and the community into the school space. The symbolic aspects of the production may contain the ideal representations of the material forms. In the context of SaCH, this dimension contains architectural briefs and drawings, policy documents, agreements and other forms of conceptualisation that tend to dominate the discourses of space. Both dimensions represent the historic duality of space i.e., the representations of the theory and practice that Lefebvre intended to surpass with his trialectical conception of space. By adding the social space as a primary aspect of the production, Lefebvre (1991) acknowledged that every society, a mode of production itself, will produce its own space. This understanding makes sense in the context of Dryfoos’ (2005, p. 8) mantra of “no two alike” because every SaCH will produce their practice according to the symbolisms, codes, and meanings that the inhabitants experience as part of the space.

The introduction of this third element to the analysis is relevant in the context of this research because it helps address a vital aspect of the research gap: a lack of empirical research related to the experience of SaCH users.

Figure 1 shows how the phenomenological and epistemological dimensions proposed by Lefebvre are understood and how each dimension aligns with the context of schools as community hubs and the proposed research methodology. In this sense, the purpose of using Lefebvre’s understanding of space is twofold. Firstly, this research methodology highlights the impact of spatialised social interactions. Secondly, ideas about the social production of space can help shape a data triangulation process to include the perspectives of those involved in conceiving, delivering, operating, and using schools as community hubs.

The PhD project being undertaken aims to investigate how the interplay of different factors may impact the development, implementation, and sustainability of school-based community hubs. The research will engage through Lefebvre’s triad of space with case study schools to capture not only the voices of experts regarding the initial development of SaCH (conceived space), but also observe the daily reality of SaCH (perceived space) and how users are experiencing these spaces (lived experience). In acknowledging these three dimensions, the research recognises the different perspectives on how space may shape the experience of developing, implementing, and sustaining SaCH.

Use of Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad in Built Environments Research

Lefebvre’s conceptual triad has been applied in empirical research related to this field of inquiry. For instance, Benade (2016) applied Lefebvre’s thinking in an investigation of flexible learning spaces associated with innovative teaching and learning practices. His study utilised the conceptual triad as a theoretical framework to understand the “confluence of practice and space [that] goes beyond mere behavioural observation, or chronological analysis, instead inviting engagement at a deeper, conceptual or theoretical level” (p. 799). For Benade (2016), representations of space included the notions of designers and architects about educational buildings, while spatial practice was related to how schools implement and use their flexible learning spaces.

Another example from built environments research investigated social housing using Lefebvre’s triad as a methodological framework (Baydar et al., 2016). Baydar et al. (2016) organised their data in three categories; implementations, perceptions and lived experience, in keeping with Lefebvre spatial triad. Adopting this model allowed them to articulate everyday practices, administrative decisions and perceptions, and to understand decision making processes in environmental and social planning.

Analysis of the Theoretical Framework in Use

Application of the framework to the SaCH context is illustrated below using an emerging theme, welcoming spaces, from interview data collected during the first phase of the PhD project upon which this chapter is based. Thirteen interviews were conducted with expert informants familiar with the development, implementation, and ongoing operation of SaCHs in the Australian states of Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland. Interviewees included architects, government representatives in school planning and infrastructure, council representatives, non-government organisation personnel (i.e., school partner organisations), school principals, and SaCH coordinators.

Interview analysis explored the relationships between the representations of space and spaces of representation in SaCHs. A subsequent phase of fieldwork will include case studies in three schools operating as community hubs, where the focus will also include spatial practices, as may be observed and recorded on site.

Welcoming Spaces

Interviews began by asking participants to define the characteristics of a school as a community hub. Participants told of their lived experiences, describing varied perspectives, approaches, and aspirations. A common theme that emerged related schools as welcoming spaces, open to sharing with the community. One interviewee commented:

The design has to be very welcoming for families that feel disconnected with society. So, it needs to have … a sense of being a little bit like a cafe … a sense of being like a home … a sense of flowing to outside spaces. So, I think all those things that are familiar to a home need to be in this space within the school, where the community can come and meet.

In terms of the design, a singular entrance was a feature mentioned that might help produce this effect. In the words of a school planner: “I think that in the design you must have one front door. I think that the design needs to show that the school staff are in partnership with the staff of the other services”. From the service delivery point of view, a soft entry approach was found to complement this design concept. Another school planner suggested that “soft entry is very much about making it a warm and welcoming environment for everybody … it’s about relationship building”.

While the idea of schools as welcoming spaces for communities was found to be common to the discourse associated with conceived space, the interviews indicated that the implementation of a single-entry point was not exempt from contradictions. One school planner noted that, “just because things are close together doesn’t necessarily mean that they are integrated”, revealing that even though some schools are sharing a physical space with a community facility, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are collaborating towards a shared vision.

Lefebvre (1991, p. 365) described a contradiction of space as a “conflict between socio-political interest and forces” as becomes effective in space. Through analysing interviewees’ school site experiences, tensions between a desire for schools to embrace the community and the design of school facilities emerged, particularly with respect to safety.

It was found that while schools are trying to provide friendly spaces for community use, are having to do so while dealing with policies and regulations around security and the need to ensure the safety of students and staff.

Some interviewees pointed out that improved school design was the most apparent strategy by which to overcome such a contradiction of space. Some suggested that creating a separate entrance for community use was an alternative solution. Yet, others suggested that such design features may contradict the real purpose of sharing spaces, and that the contradiction of the space might be a barrier to social relations and community participation. In this regard, an architect offered the following perspective:

We take a lot of cues from body language, and we can take cues from buildings. If we see a site … just lots of fences, lots of barriers ... in the messages you know it is somebody else’s space: please don’t come too close, you’re not welcome.

In addition to concerns for safety, the interviews also revealed a tension around ownership, power, and genuine interest in turning schools into a more democratic spaces with communities—highlighting further contradictions of space. To this end, Hayes and Chodkiewicz (2006, p. 17) emphasised that sharing “requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how schools operate within their local communities”. One example of this change of mindset was reflected in the following testimony from a principal who was promoting a more democratic approach in their school as a community hub:

We have a productive garden and we have made the decision to remove the fencing from the productive garden so it can become community use. We are encouraging that … I don’t know why they fence it … most of the site is not fenced … We have a very strong vision and belief around the fact that you don’t keep people safe by keeping people out, you know. That’s not a safe way to operate. That’s just people operating around the edges, you know, in the grey area. So, we’re more about, OK, well, we’ve got a cafe, we’ve got all these beautiful spaces, how do we bring people in?

As this short discussion illustrates, the research framework can help draw attention to key information and insights associated with the multiple types of space that Lefebvre identified (representations of space, spatial practices, and representational space) and its production—all crucial to understanding the spatial relationships shaping school-based community hubs.

Conclusion

This chapter provided an overview of the theoretical and methodological framing of a PhD project being undertaken as part of the Building Connections: Schools as Community Hubs Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage project.

The chapter presented a research framework for investigating how the interplay of different factors may impact the development, implementation, and sustainability of SaCHs. Application of the framework was briefly illustrated using interview data collected during the initial phase of the research.

Shortly, the framework will be applied to case studies to be undertaken in schools operating as community hubs. These will examine; representations of space, as illustrated by policy documents, reports, design guidelines, architectural briefs, and as reported by those involved in developing schools as community hubs; spatial practices, as observed within case study settings; and spaces of representation, as experienced by those working in or with school-based community hubs. Altogether, the framework will guide attention to the socio-material relations at play within schools operating as community hubs, helping to make connections between the built environment and inhabitants’ practices, activities and behaviours. The framework will aid inquiry into the lived experiences of those associated with conceiving, delivering, operating, and using schools as community hubs, privileging the voices of policymakers, planners, designers, operators, and users.

It is also hoped that others interested in school-community relations and other types of community development projects will adopt a spatial perspective and use the proposed framework that has been adapted from the work of Lefebvre (1991) to attend to how the production of space may influence the objectives, practices and lived experiences of those involved.