The purpose of this paper is to study whether researchers from different disciplines have different requirements for workplaces.,A literature review aimed to understand the academic workplace requirements of different disciplines. The empirical data were gathered by a national survey conducted in Finland. Open-ended questions accumulated answers, which were analysed and clustered.,The analysis implies that the majority of researchers in all the disciplinary categories required places that support both concentration and interaction. When comparing those researchers who asked for a place that only supports either concentration or interaction, the majority of those working in soft-pure disciplines required spaces to support concentration and those in soft-applied disciplines required spaces to support interaction. Researchers from hard disciplines – both applied and pure – consider places supporting concentration or interaction to be equally important.,The weakness of this study is the generalisability, as this survey was conducted in Finland. The analysis emphasised diversity between disciplines without analysing diversity within disciplines.,Facilities and real estate managers can gain a deeper understanding of the academics’ workplace requirements, which in turn can help them to enhance workplace support of productivity at the same time as cutting real estate costs.,This study contributes to the body of research on academic office design.

中文翻译：

---

不同学科的研究人员的工作场所

本文的目的是研究不同学科的研究人员是否对工作场所有不同的要求。文献综述旨在了解不同学科对工作场所的学术要求。经验数据是通过在芬兰进行的一项全国调查收集的。开放式问题积累了答案，并对其进行了分析和归类。该分析表明，所有学科类别的大多数研究人员都需要能够集中注意力和互动的场所。在比较那些要求只支持集中注意力或互动的场所的研究人员时，在纯纯粹学科中工作的大多数研究人员都需要空间来支持专注，而在软应用学科中的工作人员则需要空间来支持互动。来自硬学科（无论是应用学科还是纯粹学科）的研究人员都认为，支持集中或互动的场所同样重要。这项研究的弱点是普遍性，因为这项调查是在芬兰进行的。分析强调了学科之间的多样性，而没有分析学科内部的多样性。设施和房地产经理可以对学者的工作场所要求有更深入的了解，从而可以帮助他们在减少房地产的同时提高工作场所对生产力的支持成本。，这项研究有助于学术办公室设计的研究主体。