On third space and critical paralysis

The case for a pragmatic conception of third space to advance Learning Development in higher education

Abstract

The concept of ‘third space’ in HE identifies an emerging area of work and consequent development of roles and practices which exist ‘in-between' academic and professional departments of universities (Whitchurch, 2013). Third space roles and practices can shape, challenge and extend what were previously considered well-defined boundaries in and around HE. As evidenced by the 21 distinct mentions of third space in How to be a Learning Developer (Syska and Buckley, 2024) and its place in the ALDinHE Manifesto (2023), awareness of third space is widespread in our field. In this theoretical analysis, I briefly sketch the origins of Whitchurch’s concept of third space in higher education in broader critical theory perspectives on the social world. This intellectual heritage, often articulated through social justice approaches to learning development (LD), has informed nuanced analyses of problems and tensions in HE institutions. However, inspired (in a bad way) by ‘mystical Marxist’ Soja’s ‘startlingly arcane’ definition of Thirdspace, I argue that aspects of critical theory or critical social justice orientations to LD can lead to contradictions or even paralysis in attempts to actually use the considerable empirical insights provided by Whitchurch, and the metaphor of third space more broadly, to inform practice. I highlight a more pragmatic approach to using the third space concept. This approach involves applying Whitchurch’s practically applicable ideas of ‘four dimensions of blended professional activity’, and three ‘phases of third space processes’. These ideas are exemplified in some aspects of LD research but are rarely elaborated on for use.