Spatial structures shape human behaviour, or in the words of Bill Hillier – human behaviour does not simply happen in space, it takes on specific spatial forms. How staff interacts in a cellular office differs significantly from the patterns emerging in an open-plan environment. Therefore the dissertation ‘The Space-Organisation Relationship’ analyses how exactly spatial configuration shapes collective behaviours in knowledge-intensive workplace environments. From an extensive literature review it becomes clear that only few insights exist on the relationship between spatial structures and organisational behaviour, despite several decades of intensive research. It is argued that the discourse suffers from disciplinary boundaries; a lack of rigorous research designs; as well as incoherent and outdates studies. Founded on this diagnosis, the dissertation puts up two contrary hypotheses to explain the current state of knowledge: on the one hand it could be argued that hardly any coherent results were found due to the incoherent use of methods and metrics. If this was true it would mean that different organisations would react comparably to similar spatial configurations, if the same methods were used. On the other hand it could be hypothesised that it was inherently impossible to achieve coherent results even with the use of consistent methods, since each space-organisation relationship was unique. To investigate these ideas further, the dissertation employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, embedded within an explorative research design. Both a comparative analysis of different cases and an in-depth study to understand specific organisational behaviours were aimed at by conducting three intensive case studies of knowledge-intensive workplaces: 1) A University, 2) A Research Institute, 3) A Media Company, all of them accommodated in varying spatial structures. Based on a multi-layered analysis of empirical evidence, the dissertation concludes that the relationship between spatial configuration and organisational behaviours can be described by two principles. Firstly, evidence of generic function was found for example between spatial configuration, the placement of attractors, and collective movement flows. These influences are based on general anthropological behaviours and act independently of specific organisational cultures; yet they are rarely found. Secondly, the majority of evidence, especially on more complex organisational constructs such as knowledge flow, organisational cultures and identity suggests that the space-organisation relationship is shaped by the interplay of spatial as well as transpatial solidarities. This means that relationships between people may be formed by either spatial or social proximity. Transpatial relations can overcome distances and are grounded in social solidarities; as such they are not motivated by spatial structures, even though they often mirror spatial order. In essence organisations may react uniquely to comparable spatial configurations. Those two principles – generic function as well as spatial and transpatial solidarities – come in many different forms and jointly shape the character of the space-organisation relationship. This means both hypotheses are true to a degree and apply to different aspects of the space-organisation relationship. / Raumstrukturen beeinflussen menschliches Handeln, oder in den Worten von Bill Hillier – menschliches Verhalten findet nicht nur zufällig im Raum statt, sondern nimmt eine spezifisch räumliche Form an. Das Interaktionsverhalten von Mitarbeitern in einem Zellenbüro beispielsweise unterscheidet sich grundlegend von den Mustern, die sich in einem Großraumbüro entwickeln. Die vorliegende Dissertation „The Space-Organisation Relationship“ beschäftigt sich daher mit der Frage, wie sich die Verbindung zwischen Raumkonfiguration und kollektivem Verhalten einer Organisation in wissensintensiven Arbeitsprozessen gestaltet. Aus der Literatur wird ersichtlich, dass trotz einiger Jahrzehnte intensiver Forschung nur wenige gesicherte Erkenntnisse existieren zur Frage, wie sich Raumstrukturen auf organisationales Verhalten auswirken. Der Diskurs zeigt deutliche Schwächen durch disziplinäre Grenzen, einen Mangel an wissenschaftlich fundierten Studien, sowie inkohärente und teils veraltete Ergebnisse. Um den aktuellen Kenntnisstand zum Verhältnis von Raum und Organisation zu erklären, stellt die Arbeit zwei entgegengesetzte Hypothesen auf: zum einen wird angenommen, dass der Mangel an vergleichenden Studien sowie methodische Schwächen verantwortlich sind für die uneindeutige Beweislage. Sollte dies der Fall sein, müssten in vergleichenden Studien mit gleichem Methodenansatz übereinstimmende Ergebnisse zu finden sein. Dies würde nahe legen, dass jede Organisation als Kollektiv gleich oder zumindest ähnlich auf vergleichbare Raumstrukturen reagiere. Zum anderen wird die entgegengesetzte Hypothese aufgestellt, dass der Charakter und die inhärente Komplexität des Wissensgebietes exakte Aussagen per se unmöglich mache. Dies könnte verifiziert werden, wenn unterschiedliche Organisationen unterschiedlich auf vergleichbare Raumstrukturen reagieren würden, obwohl dieselben wissenschaftlich fundierten Methoden angewendet wurden. Um dies zu überprüfen benutzt die vorliegende Dissertation eine Kombination aus quantitativen und qualitativen Methoden, eingebettet in einen explorativen Forschungsaufbau, um sowohl vergleichende Analysen zwischen Organisationen durchführen, als auch tiefergehende Interpretationen zu spezifischem organisationalem Verhalten anstellen zu können. Die Arbeit stützt sich auf drei intensive Fallstudien unterschiedlicher wissensintensiver Tätigkeiten – einer Universität, einem Forschungsinstitut, und einem Medienunternehmen, die in jeweils unterschiedlichen räumlichen Strukturen agieren (Zellenbüros, Gruppenbüros, Kombibüros, Großraumbüros). Aufbauend auf der vielschichtigen Analyse empirischer Ergebnisse kommt die Dissertation zur Erkenntnis, dass sich das Verhältnis zwischen Raumkonfiguration und organisationalem Verhalten durch zwei Prinzipien beschreiben lässt. Einerseits sind so genannte generische Einflüsse festzustellen, zum Beispiel zwischen Raumkonfiguration, der Platzierung von Ressourcen und Bewegungsmustern. Diese generischen Einflüsse gehen auf grundlegende menschliche Verhaltensmuster zurück und agieren im Wesentlichen unabhängig von spezifischen Organisationskulturen. Allerdings sind sie selten, und nur wenige Faktoren können als generisch angenommen werden. Andererseits ist die überwiegende Mehrheit der Raum-Organisations-Beziehungen bestimmt vom Wechsel zwischen räumlicher und so genannter trans-räumlicher Solidarität, das heißt Beziehungen zwischen Individuen können sich entweder auf räumliche oder soziale Nähe stützen. Trans-räumliche Beziehungen, die sich aufgrund von sozialer Nähe entfalten können beispielsweise Entfernungen überwinden, und sind daher in erster Linie nicht räumlich motiviert, auch wenn sie sich oft in räumlichen Ordnungen widerspiegeln. Diese beiden Prinzipien – generische Einflüsse sowie räumliche und trans-räumliche Funktionsweisen – treten in vielschichtigen Formen auf und bestimmen den Charakter des Verhältnisses zwischen Raum und Organisation. Damit treffen beide der aufgestellten Hypothesen auf unterschiedliche Aspekte und Teilbereiche des Raum-Organisations-Zusammenhangs zu.

Spatial structures shape human behaviour, or in the words of Bill Hillier – human behaviour does not simply happen in space, it takes on specific spatial forms. How staff interacts in a cellular office differs significantly from the patterns emerging in an open-plan environment. Therefore the dissertation ‘The Space-Organisation Relationship’ analyses how exactly spatial configuration shapes collective behaviours in knowledge-intensive workplace environments. From an extensive literature review it becomes clear that only few insights exist on the relationship between spatial structures and organisational behaviour, despite several decades of intensive research. It is argued that the discourse suffers from disciplinary boundaries; a lack of rigorous research designs; as well as incoherent and outdates studies. Founded on this diagnosis, the dissertation puts up two contrary hypotheses to explain the current state of knowledge: on the one hand it could be argued that hardly any coherent results were found due to the incoherent use of methods and metrics. If this was true it would mean that different organisations would react comparably to similar spatial configurations, if the same methods were used. On the other hand it could be hypothesised that it was inherently impossible to achieve coherent results even with the use of consistent methods, since each space-organisation relationship was unique. To investigate these ideas further, the dissertation employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, embedded within an explorative research design. Both a comparative analysis of different cases and an in-depth study to understand specific organisational behaviours were aimed at by conducting three intensive case studies of knowledge-intensive workplaces: 1) A University, 2) A Research Institute, 3) A Media Company, all of them accommodated in varying spatial structures. Based on a multi-layered analysis of empirical evidence, the dissertation concludes that the relationship between spatial configuration and organisational behaviours can be described by two principles. Firstly, evidence of generic function was found for example between spatial configuration, the placement of attractors, and collective movement flows. These influences are based on general anthropological behaviours and act independently of specific organisational cultures; yet they are rarely found. Secondly, the majority of evidence, especially on more complex organisational constructs such as knowledge flow, organisational cultures and identity suggests that the space-organisation relationship is shaped by the interplay of spatial as well as transpatial solidarities. This means that relationships between people may be formed by either spatial or social proximity. Transpatial relations can overcome distances and are grounded in social solidarities; as such they are not motivated by spatial structures, even though they often mirror spatial order. In essence organisations may react uniquely to comparable spatial configurations. Those two principles – generic function as well as spatial and transpatial solidarities – come in many different forms and jointly shape the character of the space-organisation relationship. This means both hypotheses are true to a degree and apply to different aspects of the space-organisation relationship.:Acknowledgements Table of Contents 1. Introduction – Space and Organisation 2. Literature Review – Space as Intangible Asset of an Organisation 2.1. Organisation Theory – Key Themes and Strands 2.2. Organisation and Space – The Forerunners 2.3. Organisation and Space – The Early Works (1960’s-1980’s) 2.3.1. Contributions Summarising the Discourse 2.3.2. Contributions Providing More Empirical Evidence 2.3.3. The Other Side of the Coin: Neglecting the Role of Physical Space 2.4. Organisation and Space – The Lean Years (1980s-1990s) 2.4.1. Continuous Neglect of Space as an Influence 2.4.2. Filling the Gaps in the Common Knowledge on Space and Organisations 2.4.3. Space Syntax as a New Emerging Theory 2.5. Organisation and Space – Recent Rediscoveries (1995 onwards) 2.5.1. Organisational Behaviour 2.5.2. Organisational Constitutions 2.6. Organisation and Space – Conclusions on a Fragmentary Evidence Base 2.6.1. Disciplinary Boundaries and Disciplinary Cultures 2.6.2. Speculative Presumptions 2.6.3. Vague Operationalisation 2.6.4. Contradictory Evidence 2.6.5. Outdated Studies Lacking Further Articulation 2.6.6. Conclusions 3. Methodology 3.1. Research Design – Inductive and Deductive Approaches 3.2. Case Study Research 3.3. Qualitative Methods 3.3.1. Structured Short Interviews 3.3.2. Semi-Structured In-Depth Interviews 3.3.3. Ethnographic Space Observations 3.3.4. Analysis of Written Documents 3.4. Quantitative Methods 3.4.1. Standardised Online Questionnaires 3.4.2. Space Syntax Analysis 3.4.3. Structured Space Observations 4. Introduction to the Case Studies 4.1. University School – High Quality Teaching and World-Leading Research 4.2. Research Institute – An International Location for Theoretical Physics 4.3. Media Corporation – Business To Business Magazines and Services 4.4. Overview of the Cases 5. Spatial Configuration – The Integration of Buildings, Spaces and Functions 5.1. Spatial Configuration 5.1.1. University School – Pre 5.1.2. University School – Post 5.1.2. Research Institute 5.1.3. Media Corporation: Publisher C – Pre 5.1.4. Media Corporation: Publisher R – Pre 5.1.5. Media Corporation: Information Business W – Pre 5.1.6. Media Corporation: Events Organiser K – Pre 5.1.7. Media Corporation – Post 5.1.8. Spatial Configuration – A Comparative Overview of All Buildings 5.1.9. The Case of Satellite Offices and their Configurational Implications for the Organisations 5.2. Spatial Strategies – Distribution of Resources 5.2.1. Spatial Integration of Facilities and Functions 5.2.2. Distance and Proximity 5.3. Conclusions on the Building Potentials of Configurations-in-Use 6. Organisational Behaviour in Space – Movement Flows and Co-Presence 6.1. Collective Patterns of Movement 6.2. Density of Movement 6.3. Presence and Co-Presence: Intensity of Activities 6.3.1. Publisher C – From Four Separated Floors into One Compact Space 6.3.2. Publisher R – Increasing Interaction Dynamics 6.3.3. Information Business W – Changed Environments in the Same Building 6.3.4. Events Organiser K – The Loss of an Intimate Workplace 6.3.5. Conclusions on Co-Presence and Interactivity 6.4. Conclusions on Spatialised Organisational Behaviours 7. The Space-Organisation Relationship 7.1. How Spatial Configuration-in-Use Shapes Collective Patterns of Movement 7.1.1. Strong and Weakly Programmed Movement – Spatial Configuration as an Influence on the Distribution of Movement in Complex Buildings 7.1.2. Movement and Encounter – Attractors in Space 7.2. How Movement Density Drives Interactivity 7.3. How Proximity Governs Interaction Patterns and Network Densities 7.3.1. Distances between Individuals and Resulting Patterns of Contact 7.3.2. Distances between Individuals – Adjacencies and Neighbourhoods in the Office 7.3.3. Distances within Teams – Evolving Networks of Interaction 7.3.4. Conclusions on Proximity and Interaction 8. Discussion and Conclusions 8.1. Space as Generic Function 8.1.1. Movement as Generic Function in Office Spaces 8.1.2. Generic Function – Contradicting Human Agency? 8.2. Spatiality and Transpatiality 8.2.1. The Preference of Spatial over Transpatial Modes 8.2.2. The Preference of Transpatial over Spatial Modes 8.2.3. Balance and Imbalance of Spatiality and Transpatiality 8.2.4. Different Scales of Spatiality and Transpatiality 8.2.5. Conclusions: Spatial and Transpatial Organisations 8.3. The Interplay between Generic Function and Spatiality/Transpatiality 8.4. Final Conclusions and Future Research Appendix A: How to Construct Netgraphs from Questionnaire Data Appendix B: Used Documents Appendix C: List of Figures Appendix D: List of Tables References / Raumstrukturen beeinflussen menschliches Handeln, oder in den Worten von Bill Hillier – menschliches Verhalten findet nicht nur zufällig im Raum statt, sondern nimmt eine spezifisch räumliche Form an. Das Interaktionsverhalten von Mitarbeitern in einem Zellenbüro beispielsweise unterscheidet sich grundlegend von den Mustern, die sich in einem Großraumbüro entwickeln. Die vorliegende Dissertation „The Space-Organisation Relationship“ beschäftigt sich daher mit der Frage, wie sich die Verbindung zwischen Raumkonfiguration und kollektivem Verhalten einer Organisation in wissensintensiven Arbeitsprozessen gestaltet. Aus der Literatur wird ersichtlich, dass trotz einiger Jahrzehnte intensiver Forschung nur wenige gesicherte Erkenntnisse existieren zur Frage, wie sich Raumstrukturen auf organisationales Verhalten auswirken. Der Diskurs zeigt deutliche Schwächen durch disziplinäre Grenzen, einen Mangel an wissenschaftlich fundierten Studien, sowie inkohärente und teils veraltete Ergebnisse. Um den aktuellen Kenntnisstand zum Verhältnis von Raum und Organisation zu erklären, stellt die Arbeit zwei entgegengesetzte Hypothesen auf: zum einen wird angenommen, dass der Mangel an vergleichenden Studien sowie methodische Schwächen verantwortlich sind für die uneindeutige Beweislage. Sollte dies der Fall sein, müssten in vergleichenden Studien mit gleichem Methodenansatz übereinstimmende Ergebnisse zu finden sein. Dies würde nahe legen, dass jede Organisation als Kollektiv gleich oder zumindest ähnlich auf vergleichbare Raumstrukturen reagiere. Zum anderen wird die entgegengesetzte Hypothese aufgestellt, dass der Charakter und die inhärente Komplexität des Wissensgebietes exakte Aussagen per se unmöglich mache. Dies könnte verifiziert werden, wenn unterschiedliche Organisationen unterschiedlich auf vergleichbare Raumstrukturen reagieren würden, obwohl dieselben wissenschaftlich fundierten Methoden angewendet wurden. Um dies zu überprüfen benutzt die vorliegende Dissertation eine Kombination aus quantitativen und qualitativen Methoden, eingebettet in einen explorativen Forschungsaufbau, um sowohl vergleichende Analysen zwischen Organisationen durchführen, als auch tiefergehende Interpretationen zu spezifischem organisationalem Verhalten anstellen zu können. Die Arbeit stützt sich auf drei intensive Fallstudien unterschiedlicher wissensintensiver Tätigkeiten – einer Universität, einem Forschungsinstitut, und einem Medienunternehmen, die in jeweils unterschiedlichen räumlichen Strukturen agieren (Zellenbüros, Gruppenbüros, Kombibüros, Großraumbüros). Aufbauend auf der vielschichtigen Analyse empirischer Ergebnisse kommt die Dissertation zur Erkenntnis, dass sich das Verhältnis zwischen Raumkonfiguration und organisationalem Verhalten durch zwei Prinzipien beschreiben lässt. Einerseits sind so genannte generische Einflüsse festzustellen, zum Beispiel zwischen Raumkonfiguration, der Platzierung von Ressourcen und Bewegungsmustern. Diese generischen Einflüsse gehen auf grundlegende menschliche Verhaltensmuster zurück und agieren im Wesentlichen unabhängig von spezifischen Organisationskulturen. Allerdings sind sie selten, und nur wenige Faktoren können als generisch angenommen werden. Andererseits ist die überwiegende Mehrheit der Raum-Organisations-Beziehungen bestimmt vom Wechsel zwischen räumlicher und so genannter trans-räumlicher Solidarität, das heißt Beziehungen zwischen Individuen können sich entweder auf räumliche oder soziale Nähe stützen. Trans-räumliche Beziehungen, die sich aufgrund von sozialer Nähe entfalten können beispielsweise Entfernungen überwinden, und sind daher in erster Linie nicht räumlich motiviert, auch wenn sie sich oft in räumlichen Ordnungen widerspiegeln. Diese beiden Prinzipien – generische Einflüsse sowie räumliche und trans-räumliche Funktionsweisen – treten in vielschichtigen Formen auf und bestimmen den Charakter des Verhältnisses zwischen Raum und Organisation. Damit treffen beide der aufgestellten Hypothesen auf unterschiedliche Aspekte und Teilbereiche des Raum-Organisations-Zusammenhangs zu.:Acknowledgements Table of Contents 1. Introduction – Space and Organisation 2. Literature Review – Space as Intangible Asset of an Organisation 2.1. Organisation Theory – Key Themes and Strands 2.2. Organisation and Space – The Forerunners 2.3. Organisation and Space – The Early Works (1960’s-1980’s) 2.3.1. Contributions Summarising the Discourse 2.3.2. Contributions Providing More Empirical Evidence 2.3.3. The Other Side of the Coin: Neglecting the Role of Physical Space 2.4. Organisation and Space – The Lean Years (1980s-1990s) 2.4.1. Continuous Neglect of Space as an Influence 2.4.2. Filling the Gaps in the Common Knowledge on Space and Organisations 2.4.3. Space Syntax as a New Emerging Theory 2.5. Organisation and Space – Recent Rediscoveries (1995 onwards) 2.5.1. Organisational Behaviour 2.5.2. Organisational Constitutions 2.6. Organisation and Space – Conclusions on a Fragmentary Evidence Base 2.6.1. Disciplinary Boundaries and Disciplinary Cultures 2.6.2. Speculative Presumptions 2.6.3. Vague Operationalisation 2.6.4. Contradictory Evidence 2.6.5. Outdated Studies Lacking Further Articulation 2.6.6. Conclusions 3. Methodology 3.1. Research Design – Inductive and Deductive Approaches 3.2. Case Study Research 3.3. Qualitative Methods 3.3.1. Structured Short Interviews 3.3.2. Semi-Structured In-Depth Interviews 3.3.3. Ethnographic Space Observations 3.3.4. Analysis of Written Documents 3.4. Quantitative Methods 3.4.1. Standardised Online Questionnaires 3.4.2. Space Syntax Analysis 3.4.3. Structured Space Observations 4. Introduction to the Case Studies 4.1. University School – High Quality Teaching and World-Leading Research 4.2. Research Institute – An International Location for Theoretical Physics 4.3. Media Corporation – Business To Business Magazines and Services 4.4. Overview of the Cases 5. Spatial Configuration – The Integration of Buildings, Spaces and Functions 5.1. Spatial Configuration 5.1.1. University School – Pre 5.1.2. University School – Post 5.1.2. Research Institute 5.1.3. Media Corporation: Publisher C – Pre 5.1.4. Media Corporation: Publisher R – Pre 5.1.5. Media Corporation: Information Business W – Pre 5.1.6. Media Corporation: Events Organiser K – Pre 5.1.7. Media Corporation – Post 5.1.8. Spatial Configuration – A Comparative Overview of All Buildings 5.1.9. The Case of Satellite Offices and their Configurational Implications for the Organisations 5.2. Spatial Strategies – Distribution of Resources 5.2.1. Spatial Integration of Facilities and Functions 5.2.2. Distance and Proximity 5.3. Conclusions on the Building Potentials of Configurations-in-Use 6. Organisational Behaviour in Space – Movement Flows and Co-Presence 6.1. Collective Patterns of Movement 6.2. Density of Movement 6.3. Presence and Co-Presence: Intensity of Activities 6.3.1. Publisher C – From Four Separated Floors into One Compact Space 6.3.2. Publisher R – Increasing Interaction Dynamics 6.3.3. Information Business W – Changed Environments in the Same Building 6.3.4. Events Organiser K – The Loss of an Intimate Workplace 6.3.5. Conclusions on Co-Presence and Interactivity 6.4. Conclusions on Spatialised Organisational Behaviours 7. The Space-Organisation Relationship 7.1. How Spatial Configuration-in-Use Shapes Collective Patterns of Movement 7.1.1. Strong and Weakly Programmed Movement – Spatial Configuration as an Influence on the Distribution of Movement in Complex Buildings 7.1.2. Movement and Encounter – Attractors in Space 7.2. How Movement Density Drives Interactivity 7.3. How Proximity Governs Interaction Patterns and Network Densities 7.3.1. Distances between Individuals and Resulting Patterns of Contact 7.3.2. Distances between Individuals – Adjacencies and Neighbourhoods in the Office 7.3.3. Distances within Teams – Evolving Networks of Interaction 7.3.4. Conclusions on Proximity and Interaction 8. Discussion and Conclusions 8.1. Space as Generic Function 8.1.1. Movement as Generic Function in Office Spaces 8.1.2. Generic Function – Contradicting Human Agency? 8.2. Spatiality and Transpatiality 8.2.1. The Preference of Spatial over Transpatial Modes 8.2.2. The Preference of Transpatial over Spatial Modes 8.2.3. Balance and Imbalance of Spatiality and Transpatiality 8.2.4. Different Scales of Spatiality and Transpatiality 8.2.5. Conclusions: Spatial and Transpatial Organisations 8.3. The Interplay between Generic Function and Spatiality/Transpatiality 8.4. Final Conclusions and Future Research Appendix A: How to Construct Netgraphs from Questionnaire Data Appendix B: Used Documents Appendix C: List of Figures Appendix D: List of Tables References

This report presents the first intellectual output (IO1) of the Open School Doors project. IO1 has been jointly produced by the whole project consortium. It summarizes the national policies and initiatives among the partnership concerning the parental engagement / involvement of migrant / refugee parents toward school life. To this end literature resources have been collected and then analysed, with the following aims: a) Profile the target group per country, i.e. outline what is the main audience, its specific cultural characteristics (if any), what has to be taken into consideration for the design of a Training Framework that will match both their learning and cultural needs, etc. b) Elaborate on certain cases of successful parental engagement / involvement, i.e. mainly EU, nationally or locally funded projects. The rationale behind the intensive search of such cases was to identify practices that really work but not to ‘reinvent the wheel’, and have a valid starting point for Open Schools Doors (OSD) Training Framework ‐ no doubt that the amplitude and variety of such programs are good indicators of each country policy and posture towards social inclusion and provision of equal opportunities to education. c) Identify the gaps in the current situation among the participant countries and design a Training Framework that will actively facilitate parents’ engagement / involvement to school life in a tangible and long‐term manner. Methodically authors started with desk research and apart from that empirical data was collected from focus groups which were organized with the view to validating what was theoretically concluded from literature resources by asking the main target audience of the project about the Training Framework specifications and features. To this end the last section summarizes findings of both theoretical research and focus groups, providing thus an overview of what is needed and on which directions OSD didactic approach should focus.:Abstract 6 Introduction and scope 7 1 Conceptualising Home School Interaction 9 1.1 Models of Parental Engagement 9 1.2 ‘Hard to reach’ parents or Hard to Reach Schools? 11 1.2.1 Intersectionality 13 1.2.2 Social Class and home ‐ school interaction 13 1.2.3 Ethnicity and home ‐ school interaction 15 1.2.4 Colonialism / Post‐colonialism 16 1.3 Home school interaction and technology 17 1.4 Infusing home ‐ school interaction with Literacies 20 1.4.1 Home ‐ school interaction as literacy work 20 1.5 Refugee Adults and Digital Literacy 22 1.6 Looking forward: Third Spaces and Multi‐Directional Parental Engagement 24 1.6.1 Multi‐directionality 25 1.6.2 Family Learning 26 1.6.3 Family learning and ‘Digital success stories’ ‐ ideas for future engagement? 27 2 The European dimension 29 2.1 European policies on parental involvement 29 2.2 Facts and figures 30 2.3 European and international experiences: interesting cases of parental involvement projects / practices beyond the consortium partner countries 33 2.3.1 Empowerment of Roma: An interesting practice followed in Croatia 33 2.3.2 Toddler: Towards Opportunities for Disadvantaged and Diverse Learners on Early Childhood‐Road ‐ an EU project 34 2.3.3 ASPIRA Parents for Educational Excellence Program (APEX): An ongoing parental involvement project 37 2.3.4 Involve Parents – Improve School – COMENIUS Multilateral Project 38 2.3.5 Language courses for people of a migrant background: An interesting practice from Sweden 41 2.3.6 More chances with parents: An interesting practice from the Netherlands 42 3 National Experiences 46 3.1 Austria 46 3.1.1 National initiatives, projects and articles in the area of parental engagement/involvement of migrant/ refugee parents 48 3.1.2 Recent initiatives and programmes to further language development 49 3.1.3 Political support for initiatives to engage immigrant parents 50 3.1.4 Lessons learnt 52 3.2 Germany 58 3.2.1 Parental involvement among migrants in German education research 58 3.2.2 Projects on parental involvement 59 3.2.3 Research results on (intercultural) parental work 63 3.2.4 Summary 65 3.3 Greece 67 3.3.1 Good practices and research about migrants’ parental engagement 67 3.3.2 Interventions and projects with migrants’ parents in Greece 72 3.3.3 Summarizing Comments 78 3.4 UK 78 3.4.1 Home school interaction and migrant parents 78 3.4.2 Home School Interaction and Roma families 80 3.4.3 Good practice – cultural acknowledgement 82 3.4.4 ‘Good practice at the grassroots’ 84 4 Focus Groups 85 4.1 Organization and scope 85 4.2 Overview about methodical aspects 86 4.3 Trans European focus group 87 4.4 Focus groups in Austria 90 4.5 Focus groups Germany 93 4.5.1 Focus groups Germany 93 4.5.2 Focus Group “German Parental Association” 93 4.5.3 Focus Group “Teacher Training Programme TU Dresden” 95 4.6 Focus groups Greece 99 4.6.1 Organization 99 4.6.2 Analysis and main findings 102 4.7 Focus groups UK 107 4.7.1 Issues and Themes Emerging from Focus Group Discussions 107 5 Conclusions and recommendations for the design of Open Schools Doors training framework 135 5.1 Leadership 135 5.2 Underpinning principles 136 5.3 Priorities for Teacher development: 139 Bibliography 142 Publications recommended for further reading 151 Appendix 152 A.1 Interview Guide 152 A.2 Feedback Template 154 A.3 Attendance List Template 155