Alienation, reception and participative spatial planning on marginalised campuses during transformational processes

Scientific publications acknowledge that geographical setting contributes greatly to the unique identity—and eventual sustainability and distinction—of a higher educational institution. This includes the marginalised campus—the satellite, secondary, branch, remote, rural or regional. Alienation of the marginalised campus from the main/mainstream campus forms an international discourse. This conceptual article aims to make an interdisciplinary contribution to the theoretical basis for spatial planning of a marginalised campus by considering a combination of the participative spatial planning (PSP) approach and theories of alienation and reception from the disciplines of the performing arts, philosophy, sociology, economy, literary history, cultural studies and landscaping. Based on well-established theories of alienation and reception, as well as on the positive outcomes of the PSP approach, this conceptual article provides a novel motivation for considering the influence of participation and non-participation and the long-term consequences of alienation and reception to planning projects. Subjects: Critical Thinking; Group Communication; Higher Education Management; Subcultures; Urban Cultures

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Emmie Smit holds a PhD in Higher Education Studies (UFS, SA); an MA in Drama and Theatre Arts (UFS, SA), a postgraduate diploma in Arts & Culture Management (WITS, SA) and is currently completing an M.A. in Urban and Regional Planning (UFS, SA). She was a postdoctoral fellow in Higher Education Studies at Aarhus University (Denmark) and currently she is appointed at the Postgraduate School of the UFS, where she is mainly responsible for establishing and maintaining the electronic footprint of the PGS.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Scientific publications acknowledge that geographical setting contributes greatly to the unique identity and subculture-and eventual sustainability and distinction-of a higher educational institution (HEI). The main campus is often perceived as superior, because of the better access to resources and its image as better positioned in the globalised higher education sector. The opposite is often perceived of the marginalised campus because it does not fit into the mould of the main campus and has its own identity and subculture. The essence of the marginalised campus and its ability to contribute to the sector often gets lost due to the nonparticipation in planning processes. Two universities that became marginalised campuses of bigger universities due to government reformation (the Emdrup-campus of Aarhus University in Denmark and the QwaQwa-campus of the University of the Free State in South Africa) are discussed in the context of a range of literature relating to alienation and reception as applied to places.

Introduction
It is difficult to design a space that will not attract people.
What is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished.
William Whyte (1917Whyte ( -1999 With all the knowledge-especially in the Relationship Era versus the Industrial Era-planners should find it difficult to design a product that people are not drawn to. Even more so in designing expensive and high profile products like higher education spaces. Therefore, it surely is remarkable how often planners plan spaces that alienate people. In order to understand this phenomenon, I revisited various theories of alienation and reception, as well as the marginalised campuses where I experienced alienation and reception: the Emdrupcampus of the Aarhus University (AU) in Denmark and the QwaQwa-campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) in South Africa. Although these two marginalised campuses are 10,000 km apart, their history and relation with their main campuses (both 400 km distant from the main campus) are very similar and both experience similar transformational-or diachronic-challenges. By adding the participative spatial planning (PSP) approach to a combination of the existing theories of alienation and reception, a framework resulted, easily transferable to the (re)planning project of any marginalised campus. This paper was inspired by my experiences of alienation, while I was on a research fellowship on the mid-transformational Emdrupborg, the AU's satellite campus in Copenhagen and a proposed spatial planning project in the mid-transformational QwaQwa, the UFS's satellite campus in the Maluti Mountains.
Like all expats, I experienced estrangement. However, Emdrupborg's mid-transformational spaces, contributed greatly to excessive experiences of alienation. In addition, the locals on campus, the Emdrupborgians, made no secret of their experiences of alienation; we even shared the awareness of being subalterns. In conversations with staff on the marginalised campus, a variety of suspicions were offered as to why the changes on the Emdrupborg campus came as a surprise; why the leadership excludes the local community, the Emdrupborgians, from the decision-making, planning and even communication processes. The general perceptions are that the AU leadership, and perhaps even the staff of the main campus, see the staff on the marginalised campus as ignorant subalterns and subordinates and that the marginalised campus has been silenced by the AU leadership to streamline leadership and administration processes of the marginalised campus. These issues of power or peripheral neglect are linked to processes that include lower levels of education and lower salaries, and not only physically demarcated places (Regan, 2007, p. 68;Healey, 2011, p. 239).
The Emdrupborgians' concerns can be seen in a series of working papers that critique university transformation and transformational leadership practices, and also document the subaltern status of the Emdrupborgians. The research unit, Transformations of universities and organizations, under the editorship of Susan Wright, is housed on Emdrupborg, and provides a platform for research-inprogress in Denmark and an international network of scholarly work on higher education transformational endeavours (DPU, 2014).
By excluding the community from decision-making and planning of spaces, the reception of the project's end product is jeopardised. In interactive processes, the community is encouraged to participate in spatial transitions. In PSP processes, the community contributes to the project, and they become responsible for the collaborative process as well as co-owners of the project. Involvement of the community raises members' sense of belonging and influences how they receive the final outcome of the project. In opposition to the PSP-model, there is the top-down model of spatial planning that results in alienation and rejection (Riedijk et al., 2006). This paper discusses, firstly, Hegel, Marx and Brecht's theories of alienation, and, secondly, Jauss, Hall and Hunt's contributions to theories of reception. My framework for spatial planning suggests an alternative to non-collaborative transformation processes, and thereby encourages participation before and during decision-making in higher education institutions in order to plan spaces-more specifically, marginalised campuses-that attract people ( Figure 1).
An additional objective is to discuss alienation and reception theories in relation to each other. This provides me with the opportunity whereby I, an alien sojourner and an outsider-insider participant, add my voice to those unheard voices on mid-transformational spaces.
Over the past two decades, the often-complex relationships within multi-campus higher education institutions resulted in a need for increased research. The Arts, Social Sciences, Humanities, Education, Business Administration and Management Sciences and Building and Planning Sciences contributed to a new understanding of identity and culture within higher education (Motter, 1999).

The phenomenon called the marginalised campus
A campus is a private public space, an ambiguous (Carmona, 2010b, p. 169) and complex space, both socioculturally and politico-economically. From a design perspective, it includes most of Carr's functional types of public spaces: public parks, squares and plazas, memorials, markets, streets, playgrounds, community open spaces, greenways and parkways, indoor shopping centres and food courts, everyday spaces and waterfronts or large water features (Carmona, 2010b).
According to Burgers' sociocultural classification of spaces, all of the domains of social sectors and interest groups apply to a campus: it is an erected public space, a displayed space, an exalted space, a coloured space, as well as a marginalised space (Carmona, 2010b). According to Dines and Cattell's sociocultural classification of spaces, all the domains of engagement and meaning-making of users apply to a campus: everyday places, places of meaning, social environments, places of retreat, as well as negative spaces (Carmona, 2010b).
According to Gulick's and Kilian's political-economic classifications of spaces, all of the domains of ownership and responsibility apply to a campus (Carmona, 2010b). In addition, it is a public space that is characterised by safety measures, externally or through third party regulation, but also by internal or self-regulation.
Geographical settings contribute greatly to the unique identity of a higher education institution. The main campus is often perceived as superior because of the better access to technological, educational and recreational resources. The opposite is often perceived of the marginalised, the satellite, secondary, the branch, the remote, the rural or the regional campus, because the marginalised campus does not fit into the mould of the main campus, as it has its own identity, character and culture. The marginalised often aspire to be mainstreamers, and are even expected to aspire to be mainstreamers, as if it would prove their ambition and worth (Keillor, 2007, p. 84). However, the opposite is often true: Mainstreamers-e.g. urbanites-aspire to escape from the tightness of the physical and social features of the space (Carmona, 2010b), with its unbalanced and fast lifestyle, and become marginalised-e.g. "ruralites" (Jordan, 2013, p. 72).
Spatial planning processes and participation in spatial planning processes are usually based on the authentic characteristics and culture of the location in response to the needs of the society, economy and higher education community and may facilitate the attaining of social, cultural and academic goals and the sustaining of the relevant academia and its community. It might provide a vision that will translate into strategic priorities within the national and institutional boundaries of policies and goals (Turkoglu, Bölen, & Gezici, 2012). Designing secondary campuses in a strategic way (e.g. using a participatory process) is necessary to avoid alienation and assure reception (Hague & Jenkins, 2004).
Over the past four decades, the number of secondary-and marginalised-campuses increased dramatically all over the world. Universities often establish secondary campuses to increase revenue and to increase international recognition and local status (Becker, 2009;Kratochvil & Karram, 2014). Some universities establish secondary campuses to support regional development, while others establish secondary campuses to simplify research collaboration. However, the secondary campuses that I am involved in-the Emdrup-campus of the Aarhus University in Denmark and the QwaQwacampus of the University of the Free State in South Africa-were autonomous universities that became secondary campuses due to government reformation of its higher education system. This resulted in the forced merging and incorporation of small universities into larger institutions (AU, 2006;HESA, 2005).
The secondary campus is seldom perceived as a "real" institution. It is often perceived as a faux, a quasi or a wannabe campus, which offers inferior or discounted degrees (Prather & Carlson, 1993), and produces an inferior practitioner (Chung, 2003). Students are less enthusiastic about the secondary campus experience and consider it substandard to the main campus experience (Forster & Rehner, 1998). This perception is enforced by the intent of the secondary campus to serve marginalised students and marginalised staff; students who are on the marginalised campus as a result of limitations and not by choice (Fonseca & Bird, 2007). In addition, internationally, marginalised campuses are often devalued by the perceptions of internal and external stakeholders (Donnelly, 2005;Larimore, 1969;Mulkeen, 2005).
Research confirms that companies and institutions with consistent, distinctive and deeply held values-institutions with a soul-often outperform those with less identified values, and externally directed approaches (Porras & Collins, 1994). In the same way, this reinforces negative experiences of inferiority, disadvantaged-ness and helplessness, of staff and students on the secondary campus. These individuals' motivation, productivity and achievement suffer under the marginalised atmosphere (Motter, 1999). Likewise, they experience alienation when their (in)authentic identity is not recognised and valued (Livingstone & Harrison, 1981).
Geographical separation might not only result in different institutional identities and in neglected strained relationships, but may also result that administration and managerial processes are unadjusted to serve a different campus community (Carmona, 2010a). However, the main influence on a secondary campus's success might not be on how the venture is undertaken, but rather on why (Kratochvil & Karram, 2014). It is necessary that the secondary campuses should not only be seen as an extension of the main campus of the HEI, but should be valued as a peer. As a mere extension of the main campus, the space might result in an under-utilised and lost space that will not contribute to goals of inclusivity and participation (Carmona, 2010a(Carmona, , 2010b. Geographical separation influences the identity of the individuals as well as the institution. Staff and students at the secondary campus have different characteristics than those on the main campus, which include different value and belief systems. This might suggest a different approach to being and achieving, but not necessarily differences in intellectual ability (Exley, Walker, & Brownlee, 2008).
These attitudes and attributes of the authentic identity of individuals are often seen at institutional level as well, as formulated in the following quotation: The ideals of human perfectibility and of achievement are authentic antidotes to the existential anxiety of guilt. What is true for an individual is also true for our institutions. This understanding … will ultimately lead us to measure all institutions by the degree to which they support the development of human potential. (Ind, 2003, p. 219) Although Sartre and Nietzsche emphasised the responsibility of the individual or the institution to take control of its individual authenticity, responsibility, free will, and values, instead of accepting externally imposed limitations and principles, the marginalised campus and its staff are often disempowered to contribute to their own survival (Gu, 2003).
According to Maslow (Newell, 1995), realising one's full potential is only possible when the individual has obtained self-actualisation, which depends on an authentic self-esteem that includes self-worth, self-regard, self-respect and self-integrity as well as the ability to develop and survive adversaries. An established and recognised identity defines an individual and/or an institution, and creates the confidence to be unique and distinct, and to carry oneself in the public domain. To own one's uniqueness increases one's self-esteem (Smit, 2013).

Current concepts: alienation, reception and strategy
Alienation and reception are well-theorised, much-debated and thoroughly written about concepts by some of the most esteemed scholars in an ever-growing variety of disciplines. This article is not an attempt to contribute to these scholarly works, but is rather an attempt to substantiate the application of these theories to the practical issue of spatial planning of a marginalised campus. In order to acknowledge just how diversely the theories of alienation and reception are adopted and valued, and to point out its relevance to this article, I very briefly note the theories as developed and applied in the work of six influential scholars.

Alienation
Alienation is a fundamental concept in present-day thought about the human being and his/her spatial and social environment. Alienation depends on transformation; without change-for-the-better, alienation cannot exist, and therefore the concept of transformation-and not mere changemust be understood before alienation can be understood. The concepts of transformation and alienation have only been current since the nineteenth century. The theories that form the original concept of alienation of this conceptual paper are those of Hegel, Marx and Brecht.
To Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who lived through the French Revolution, alienation was a value-adding process of self-creativity and self-discovery, which is the origin of Hegel's idea of entfremdung (alienation and estrangement) as an action to become other than oneself, to enter into what is other than the spirit or to become an alien to oneself. Hegel saw alienation as an experience with positive or value-adding, long-term consequences.
Hegel focuses on mental phenomena-or images of the mind. Phenomenology of mind or spirit is a study of appearances, images and illusions throughout the history of human consciousness wherein the evolution of consciousness, of which alienation consciousness is one, is discussed. In Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Hegel identified the progression of historic stages in the human Geist (mind or spirit) by which the human mind/spirit progresses from ignorance towards perfect self-understanding.
Within Hegel's domain of "Society and Culture", objective spirit is a synonym for the individual's local culture, or as Hegel summarised it: I that is a We, and the We that is an I (Trejo, 1993).
To be invited into a desired social or cultural space, which is not the individual's local culture, requires extreme discipline in courtesy, education and achievement. Hegel calls the self-sacrifice and strenuous effort it requires alienation. Hegel's alienation is the extra effort needed to raise an individual to another and desired level of culture-like the newly acquired social mobility of the social groupings he observed after the French Revolution. Only a few individuals attain alienation consciousness, because appreciating a foreign culture seems remote and unreachable, and even humiliating for the average individual. However, alienation consciousness bridges the gap(s) between cultures. Hegel's alienation is a conscious and intrinsic choice of an individual with a positive outcome for the individual and his/her society and culture over the long term. It is alienation from fellow human beings, which is different from Marx's iconic response to Hegel's theory of alienation.
To Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883), philosopher, economist and sociologist, alienation was a forced separation of things-not other people-that naturally belong together, or antagonism between those who should be in harmony, with damaging long-term consequences. Marx's well-known illustration describes the alienation of the production-line worker who is alienated-and deprivedfrom the products of his labour: profit, satisfaction, feedback and creativity (Forster, 1999).
Marx attributes alienation to the capitalistic economic system where the worker is a puppet in the hand of the capitalists. The individual workers do not have any choice in what to produce and how to produce and are therefore alienated from the product they produce. (Dogan, 2008, p. 99). Marx's alienation is a negative experience of perpetual deficit.
Hegel's and Marx's alienation refers to unintentional and gradual processes, whereas Brecht's alienation refers to a deliberate and immediate process. Whether alienation is the result of a gradual or an immediate and deliberate process, the experience is the same: an experience of dissonance and a desire to move towards the old or a new space of comfort. To the playwright, Eugen Berthold Friedrich Brecht , alienation is the distancing and estrangement effect or Verfremdungseffekt, when the audience was hindered from simply identifying itself with the actions and utterances of the performers when techniques designed to distance the audience are used or when using innovative theatrical techniques to de-familiarise the familiar in order to provoke a social-critical audience.
The Brechtian approach identifies acceptance or reception as the opposite of rejection or alienation. To alienate is therefore the deliberate choice of an artist on the reaction of the audience: to receive or to not-receive. He describes it as playing in such a way that the audience was hindered from simply identifying itself with the characters in the play. Acceptance or rejection of their actions and utterances was meant to take place on a conscious plane, instead of … in the audience's subconscious. (Willett, 1964, p. 91). The artist challenges the audience-member therefore to venture into an unfamiliar space and to experience alienation in order to encounter the unknown. Brecht's alienation might be an instantaneous distancing experience, which might have a slow-developing positive or negative long-term effect. To Hegel, Marx and Brecht, alienation is the process whereby people become foreign to the world they are living in. Another powerful experience is reception-the opposite of alienation.

Reception
Reception theory addresses the readers' response towards creative work. The act of reception includes to receive, to welcome, to celebrate, to respond, to acknowledge and to recognise. In everyday life, as in law, receivership is being held by a receiver, an appointed person to receive and to take responsibility for others and/or the property of others. In contrast with reception is non-reception or alienation (Bennett, 1990;Eagleton, 1996).
This philosophy values the audience as an essential element to understanding the fuller meaning of the message. It includes the process of interaction and reaction between the sender and the receiver of the message. Reception is more likely within a shared cultural background and the less shared heritage there exists, the less reception will be experienced (Bennett, 1990;Eagleton, 1996).
To Hans-Robert Jauss (1921-1997, a literary historian, reception was related to studies that are concerned with the ways in which readers received literary works. The term reception theory originated from his work, which argued that creative works are not passively received, but that the receivers act on and react to the work. Reception refers to reader-response criticism in general, but it is associated more particularly with the reception-aesthetics that suggests that a literature work is received because the readers are able to see the aesthetics of the literature, and are therefore fulfilling the expectations and presuppositions of the readers (Jauss, 1982).
To Stuart Hall (1932-2014, a cultural theorist, reception is about the scope for negotiation and opposition on the part of the audience in media and communication studies (Hall, 1980). The meaning of a work is not inherent within the work itself, but is created within the relationship between the work and the audience/reader, which interprets the meanings based on their individual cultural background and life experiences. Hall argues that an individual's identity is dynamic and always being shaped by the surrounding environment (Weimann, 1975). Hall also referred to Brecht, when addressing the importance of social positioning in interpretation: the Brechtian alienation effect [is a way] of seeing the messy life that you have lived yourself rehearsed from the place of the Other (Regan, 2007;The Conversation, 2014).
To John Dixon Hunt (born 1936), a landscape historian, public reception of gardens and landscapes is vital to the survival thereof. Mainstream writing on landscapes inclines to focus on the intentions of the designers, the influences on the design and the building process, where reception theory tends to use space-specific descriptions of the landscape and de-emphasise commonly used terms of description of the landscape. The motives of visitors and the factors influencing their visits are important in the reading of a landscape because motives and influences are diverse and a single reading of a landscape cannot articulate every individual's response (Hunt, 2004).
As with alienation theories, reception theories are embedded in cultural identities and historical changes, and are necessary for successful development and even survival of the individual and society. The community's identity influences the planning of a space, equally and spatial planning influences the planning of space. Even though these theories started to evolve more than two centuries ago, it is remarkable how often spaces that will not attract people are designed and how often the planning of spaces is not aligned with the strategic planning of the institution (Lynch, 1960, p. 4).

University of the Free State
The UFS's Strategic Plan 2012-2016 focuses on the transformation of space. Philosophically, the post-2009 UFS is seen as an exciting place to be that captures the imagination of people all around the world. The UFS's uncompromising attitude towards enhancing academic performance is seen as a place-a critical space; a democratic space; an integrated space; a space for discussion, dialogue, and dissent. Challenges are lecture hall space and spaces for integrated student life and academic pursuit: A revitalised university in terms of physical and social infrastructure on all three campuses so that the new and inclusive architecture, buildings, symbols and spaces together create vibrant and interactive communities of staff and students learning and living together. Institutional transformation is also reflected in architecture, buildings, symbols and spaces. The campus needs new residences, new lecture blocks and offices, and these commitments have been made across all three physical campuses. These will be chosen to create vibrant and interactive communities of staff and students learning and living together. (UFS, 2012, p. 55) The UFS's Strategic Plan is based upon the philosophical functions and purposes of physical and social spaces, whereas the basis of the AU's plan is mainly an inventory of functional spaces.

Aarhus University
According to AU's Strategy 2008-2012, top-class facilities and infrastructure and a state-of-the-art infrastructure is vital for an international research university. The university has a considerable amount of building space, as well as advanced laboratories, laboratory equipment, technical equipment, a number of national databases and research ships. Impressive IT networks and library networks cover the different locations around Denmark. Ten buildings count under the most important architectural icons in Denmark in the Canon of Danish Art and Culture (AU, 2008).
The University of Aarhus is in the process of preparing a vision plan for the physical development of AU up to 2028 based on the academic strategies and the foreseen changes in student enrolment and staff. Although the social function of the physical spaces is not mentioned upfront, the emphasis thereof in Danish spatial planning is an internationally known characteristic (AU, 2013;Östergård, 2009).

Motivating a PSP approach
Participation in planning is not just about asking a lot of people questions about what they felt, but a negotiation where the planner has to engage with the contributors. Participation is not abdication of the responsibilities and contributions of the professional, but an on-going exchange where all sides should contribute. That sort of participation needs to be based on trust, and that takes time … (Adapted from Forbes Davidson Planning, 2012).
Participation, engagement, involvement and collaboration (between the researcher and the researched) are the key ideas in the critical theory tradition (Babbie & Mouton, 2010, p. 39). This tradition developed from Hegel, via Marx and eventually via Habermas over more than two centuries. The critical researcher ultimately aims to relate socially and to emancipate politically. The difference between qualitative and quantitative research and critical research is not about the methodologies, but about the interaction between the researcher and the researched (Table 1). The individual researcher within the social phenomena is an outsider in positivism (quantitative paradigm), an insider in phenomenology (qualitative paradigm) and a participant in participative action research (PAR), drawing on the paradigms of critical theory and constructivism (Chisholm & Elden, 1993).
The main justification for defining PAR as a distinct methodology is not methodological, but epistemological. PAR not only creates new theory and knowledge with a different rationale-to promote practical problem solving-but also in a different way (Babbie & Mouton, 2010, p. 61). These include the shift in the nature of knowing when the knowledge is co-constructed between the planner (as researcher) and the researched/students; the shift in the motivation of knowing when the knowledge is constructed for research and political interest; the shift in the results of knowing when science, as well as productive work, are produced; and the shift in the emphasis of knowing when the experiential knowing become as important as theoretical knowing. Contemporary planning approaches are postmodern, post-structuralist and post-positivist; they have developed further than the modernist, structuralist and positivist approaches (Allmendinger, 2002, p. 3). The future of planning theory is probably embedded in a critical-and even post-critical-engagement with a thrust of communicative and collaborative planning.
Apart from the information generated through quantitative and qualitative research, information becomes gradually embedded in the understandings of the actors in the community, through processes in participants, including planners, collectively creat [ing] meanings (Innes, 1998, p. 53). Through communicative, collaborative, and participative planning, conventional information is substantiated by alternative information that does not merely provide evidence, but is embedded in understandings, practices and institutions (Innes, 1998, p. 52). Participative planning implies communicative planning and collaborative planning.
According Albert Einstein, our theories determine what we measure, collaboration and consensus among stakeholders have the potential to pave the way towards more strategic and feasible strategies, as well as borderless tangible and intangible possibilities (Innes & Booher, 1999, p. 412). PAR's repetitive theme of communication, involvement and participation-engagement and encounterincludes the political dimensions of the social sciences: the sharing of power (Babbie & Mouton, 2010, p. 58). With whom the power is shared is determined by the tradition in which the PAR functions: either the Northern tradition-referring to the Global North or First World where power is shared with equals-or the Southern tradition-referring to the Global South or Third World-where power is shared with less-equals (Ferreira & Gendron, 2011;Wilmsen, 2008, p. 10).
An example of one major influence in these traditions is the literacy of the participants. In this article, the Northern tradition applies to the Emdrupborgians of Denmark, a country with a 99% literacy level, whereas the Southern tradition applies to the QwaQwa-campus community of South Africa, a country with a 71% literacy rate (Pretorius, 2015). However, both communities of participants are staff and students from a higher education institution, and the literacy rate of their countries will probably not severely influence the participation and will surely not diminish the value thereof. Different influences add different characteristics, different motivations, different results and different emphases of knowing to the new knowledge and new theories that emerge from the study (Table 1: WORLD 3: Metatheories of Social Sciences). Another example of a major influence is the level of participation of the participants. The planning of participation is therefore of vital importance.
Participation could be at any or at all of the different steps of the project, including planning, coordination, analysis and evaluation, as well as communication and dissemination. Participatory planning aims to engage stakeholders-communities and individuals with an interest in the project or its outcome-on common issues, to identify problems and opportunities, set objectives and to develop actions related to institutional roles and responsibilities. Participative planning encompasses collaborative planning (Healey, 2003;Innes & Booher, 1999), communicative planning (Forester, 1990(Forester, , 1993Healey, 1997), as well as transactive planning (Friedman, 1987); empowered participation, manipulation and non-participation (Arnstein, 1969).
Participation-irrespective of the individuals' position, education or any other factor-encourages creative thinking, holistic decision-making, the development of workable ideas, the taking of ownership in projects and the outcomes thereof. Participation and responsibilities diverge over the life and stages of a project. Equal and continual participation is not necessary throughout the stages of the project; strategic planning processes can identify the stage where participation will be uniquely beneficial to the specific project.
Participatory planning processes provide a mechanism to produce a common mind in the planning process. Participants with interests in regional development, the institution, natural and historic heritage, commerce and tourism, transportation, infrastructure, energy and logistics, housing and quality of life, urban risks and governances will add valuable dimensions and dynamics to the project. By aligning PSP with alienation and reception (Table 2), the resemblance between PSP and reception is 67%. By adding the positive effects of Hegel's alienation, the resemblance is 84%. Participation is seen as normative and vigorous, as can be seen in current literature, with special reference to John Friedman on transactive planning, Sherry Arnstein on empowered participation, Pasty Healey, Judith Innes and David Booher on collaborative planning and Johan Forester on communicative planning. Even though participation is generally uncritically accepted, it might create obstacles in reality. Additionally, the appearance of participation often matters more than the actual participation, as pointed out by the findings of two South African studies (Gumbi, 2012;Ralukake, 2013).
Community participation in planning processes was institutionalised by the South African White Paper on Local Government of 1998 (Ministry of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development) and the South African Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, as well as the Danish Planning Act of 2007 (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2007). All these documents delegate most municipal/community planning responsibilities to local governments, and aim to involve the public in the planning process as much as possible, even stipulating minimum rules on public participation.
Research on the outcomes of the South African document found that conditions were created for public participation and in some cases participation was even encouraged, however, it was not purposeful, nor was it strategically integrated in the process (Gumbi, 2012;Ralukake, 2013).
Research on the outcomes of the Danish document found that the volume of public participation is very low, that the media is a valuable partner to communicate plans and strategies to the community, and that participation through the Internet is especially successful (Hentilä & Soudunsaari, 2008).
To invite participation is politically demanded and socially desired, but often managerially bypassed or inhibited (see Mautjana & Maombe, 2014). Even though participatory planning adds value to different aspects of the outcomes and the process-including accountability and rightfulness, effectiveness, recognition and fairness-it is all too often used to legitimise and fast-track predetermined decisions, especially in the Southern tradition.

Discussion and conclusion
The main objective of this article is to make a cross-disciplinary contribution to the theoretical basis for spatial planning of a marginalised campus. From the disciplines of the performing arts, philosophy, sociology, economy, literary history, cultural studies and landscaping, well-established theories of alienation and reception were identified and assimilated with the PSP approach.
The worldwide, rapid increase in the number of marginalised campuses in the transformation and internationalisation of higher education (often unintentionally) continues to increase the alienation of staff and students. This lack of belonging influences integrated student experience and academic pursuit negatively.
Adopting a PSP approach to spatial planning projects on marginalised campuses might change experiences of alienation (not belonging, antagonising, depriving and rejecting) to experiences of reception (belonging, accepting, celebrating and acknowledging). In addition, the institution will profit through the creative contributions, and the continual ownership and responsibility towards the project and its outcomes.
Participants might experience a spur of Hegel's alienation-a conscious and intrinsic choice of alienation from fellow human beings by individuals-during the initial process, but is highly unlikely to experience the lasting effect of Marx's alienation-an unpremeditated and extrinsic choice of