FEMINISING ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION?

A review of current trends in UK the architecture studio

Rachel Sara School of Architecture University of Sheffield Arts Tower Sheffield S10 1LA Architectural education in the UK has sustained criticism from many quarters: from the institutions and the profession, from the public and students and from architectural educators themselves. These criticisms have sought to expose an imbalance in the education of architects and their resultant practice. An imbalance which emphasises: individuals over teams; isolation over collaboration; product over process; teaching over learning; homogenisation over pluralism; innovation over appropriate action, prescription over negotiation; specialism over holism; projection over reflection; rational over emotional; inflexibility over versatility; and the list goes on In parallel, it has been argued by feminist writers, that the architectural profession is entrenched within a masculine paradigm and that it is this inequality that is at the root of a current crisis in architecture. In exploring this gender-related crisis, it becomes apparent that the qualities which are traditionally considered to be feminine (such as empathy and collaboration, community and evolution, holism and versatility, negotiation and enabling, emotion, experience and responsiveness) are being undervalued in education. Instead existing mainstream education values competition, isolation, the individual, esoteric professional knowledge bases and singular, one-size-fits-all education paths. This paper explores the proposition that the current movement for change is fundamentally feminising Drawing on literature and observation of change, current practice is analysed in . relation to feminist principles and relevant trends identified. This feminine paradigm is described with the aim of edifying understanding and directing action in three ways: firstly, by exposing the existing system we are able to newly understand it; secondly, this understanding can direct us to an appropriate form of resistance; and thirdly, by helping us to understand in what direction we are heading, we are better positioned to face the future.

Feminising Architectural Education?

Introduction the criticisms How can I go forward when I don know which way I facing?John Lennon t m

Architectural education in the UK has been accused of facing the wrong way and using too much mouth and not enough ear(Doidge, Parnell and Sara, 2000). Architects are described as arrogant, poor listeners, and their education is seen to be to blame. Criticisms have come from many quarters: from the profession (RIBA, 1992, 1993, 1995, Stansfield Smith, 1999, Worthington, 2000), from the construction industry (Andrews and Derbyshire, 1993, Egan, 1998), from the public (Nicol and Pilling, 2000) and students (Archaos, 2001), and from architectural educators themselves (Cuff, 1991, CUDE 1999, TIA, 2000, AEE, 2000).

The analyses concentrate on three main areas: communication and teamwork, lifelong learning and design studio culture. Communication and Teamwork The studio has been described as a hothouse environment, isolated from outside influence and collaboration, and concerned with developing individual star architects. This model is proved to be contradictory to professional practice (Cuff 1991, Worthington, 2000) in which teamwork and collaboration are fundamental. In addition, this isolating tendency is seen to be the centre of our malaise because it allows at architecture to be self-justifying and above criticism(Nicholson, 2000). The Stansfield Smith Review of Architectural Education (1999) described this tendency as encouraging the view that architectural discourse is inherently esoteric and limited in use for communication, thus isolating architecture from the public and diminishing the vitality of the discourse itself. Architecture needs to flourish as a language to engage its public, to generate the demand for architecture and qualities it represents. (Stansfield Smith, 1999)

It is suggested that architectural education shakes off its introspective culture by reexamining itself from the perspective of the client, without threatening the magic which clients look to architecture to provide.(RIBA, 1993) There is also a need for increased responsiveness to user needs and for more effective cross-disciplinary teamwork.

Phase 2 of the Strategic Study of the Profession (Clients and Architects, 1993) reported that architects were not seen as good listeners, communicators or team-workers, which

Feminising Architectural Education?

clients saw as a result of architectsattitudes, beliefs and training. This report was backed up by another, (see Lawson and Pilling, 1996) which also acknowledged that architects themselves were aware of the problem, and by the Egan report (1998), which cited the results of a British Property Federation survey of major clients (1997), showing that more than a third of major clients were dissatisfied with their consultants performance in team co-ordination. Teamworking becomes particularly important in the light of Blau (1984) study of firms which indicates that the more participatory the s office, the more effective it is, both in terms of business and design quality. In response, Egan proposed that the high standard of professional training needed to be matched with a practical understanding of the needs of clients and industry.

How can this be achieved in the studio? According to Lawson (1999), studio in a the design school is in many ways a bad model of design practice. One of the ways in which it is most far removed from practice is the absence of collaborators, whether they be clients, users or other associated professional consultants.(Lawson 1999) He also criticises architectsskills in communicating with others about what we do and find value in. As a result, proposals have been: to develop a focus on communication skills in the studio There is a need to develop two way communication (listening as well as presenting). In response, it has been proposed that the crit or review be reconfigured. Boyer and Mitgang (1996) argue that the review lays the foundations for an adversarial relationship between presenter and listener, which then is repeated in the professionalsdealings with non-architects. Traditional reviews are also seen to encourage the use of architectural jargon (Cuff 1991) and are not as successful at developing communication skills in students as tutors would like to think (Wilkin, 2000). In addition, Nicol and Pilling (2000) propose a systematic development and assessment of communication and interpersonal skills. to promote team-working and co-operative learning; We need to overthrow the myth that as architects, we lead the design process by right and that we can do it on our own (Nicholson, 2000). The use of team-working and co-operative learning can promote better models of practice. The Latham Report (1994) proposed partnering between members of the industry, and between customers and industry. This type of working and learning responds to current trends in education a recent study (cited in Berry & Sharp, 1999) found that co-operative learning tends to promote higher achievement than the other more competitive and individualistic learning modes. to introduce others into the studio. This enables students to experience tailoring presentations to particular groups (e.g. engineers, clients, the public) and may help to lessen the difference in the way architects and the public communicate, perceive, interpret and value the built environment (Brown and Moreau Yates, 2000). Pilling and Lawson (1996) also point out the differences between the design brief as it appears in

Feminising Architectural Education?

the studio (largely from a tutor construct and developed by individual students), and s the way briefs are developed in practice (a negotiation between the client and the architect). Introducing clients and users would help to develop the interactive skills needed to discover client aspirations, values and concerns. s Lifelong Learning Rapid changes in society, information and technology mean that professionals will need to be able to keep learning throughout life to learn how to learn and to reflect on and thus improve their practice, to be adaptable, autonomous, flexible and versatile.

Architectural education can respond by laying the foundations for continuous learning throughout life(Nicol and Pilling, 2000). The literature proposes: allowing for self-responsibility in learning. The studio is not currently structured to enable self-responsibility in learning (Nicol and Pilling, 2000); it doesn lead students t from dependence to independence in learning and not all tutors agree that the studio is the right place to develop these transferable skills. In addition, Wilkin (2000) found traditional crits to be antithetical to independent learning as students rarely have any control over the way in which reviews take place, or the criteria by which they are assessed. emphasising learning over teaching. Educational psychology emphasises the importance of learning over teaching it is easy to assume that learning automatically takes place where there is teaching. The second key emphasis is that learning is most likely to take place when it builds on previous knowledge and understanding. The architecture model has been criticised (Cairns, 1997) for treating the first day of the course as day oneof studentsarchitectural lives. In architectural education, Nicol and Pilling (2000) argue that there are few opportunities to evaluate the actual learning process (as opposed to say the design process), which is a key skill to developing autonomous learners. Dr Wilkin also found traditional crits to be full of teaching but not as effective a learning context as it might be (Lawson, 1999). interdisciplinary learning. An interdisciplinary approach is supported by the Construction Industry Council (Andrews and Derbyshire, 1993), and conferences such as Education for the Built Environment (University of Cambridge, 1991) and Development in Education and Training for Professional in the Built Environment (University of Central England, 1995). providing an education that may allow students to go into other careers. Egan (1998) highlights the need for education for students who may well go into careers in other fields. This implies an education that develops transferable skills, such as communication, teamwork and co-operation, as well as design.

Feminising Architectural Education?

reflection. Just having an experience does not necessarily mean that learning has occurred. The important factor in turning experience into learning is reflection. Critical reflection (Brookfield 1986) helps students to develop awareness of their own thinking, and includes self-questioning activities coined by Schn (1983) as reflection-on-action . Nicol and Pilling (2000) argue that there are few formal opportunities for reflection in the traditional architecture studio. Reflection can also lead to challenging and questioning the nature of orthodoxies acting as social control. (Astley, 1992) Design Studio Culture Other elements of studio practice have come under fire, namely: Product over process. Nicol and Pilling(2000), Cuff (1991) and Lawson (1999) criticise the priority that schools give to design as product (as a visual and graphic output) rather than design as an interactive, dynamic process. The myth of the genius. Lawson (1999) and Anthony (1991) also criticise the overemphasis on mould-breakinginnovation as the goal in all designs. Lawson proposes that we should see thinking as a skill that can be developed and that should be at the heart of all teaching in design. Lack of Context and Contingency. Design studio problems are ideal ones: the problem has potential, an appropriate site has been selected, a reasonable programme has been created, there are no clients, consultants, or planning officers to demand revisions, and the budget is irrelevant. There is little uncertainty about the problem or the process. This is understandable, enabling novices to learn new skills, however, according to Cuff (1991): de-emphasising context, much knowledge and training By that would be useful in architectural practice is unattainable. Cuff and Worthington (2000) also both suggest that architectural education accentuates the qualities of innovation and individuality to the expense of business interests. The studio as its own world. Schon describes the studio as a virtual world that simulates and simplifies practice, relatively free of the pressures, distractions and risks of the real world. This virtual world the student embodies particular ways of for seeing, thinking and doing that tend, over time, to assert themselves with increasing authority.(Nicol and Pilling, 2000) Students learn as much through the social culture and the type of teaching and learning in the school as they do by the content of the course. In order to provide a better preparation for practice, it may be necessary to reassess the relationships, between learners and between learners and teachers that exist in schools. Nicol and Pilling propose that the learning climate be realigned around different relationships that emphasise communication, collaboration and self-reliance, through a combination of active learning, reflection, collaborative learning, authentic learning tasks and self- and peer-assessment.

Feminising Architectural Education?

The above views all place an emphasis on modelling education on the contemporary role of the architect, with particular reference to the skills lacked by the profession. In contrast, are the views of Callicott and Sheil (2000), who suggest that the increasing gap between the concerns of education and of practice does not need to be bridged (instead the unique situation can be seen as an opportunity) and Till (1996) who sees the role of the school environment to act as critical commentator on current models of practice. Feminist position Meanwhile there has been a notable absence in the mainstream (malestream? (Weiner, 1994)) discourse about the role of gender, and indeed race, sexuality, and disability on our profession, our relationships with others and on architectural education. This is particularly shocking given the absence of women and minority groups in architecture: women currently make up only 13% of the architectural profession, which compares very poorly to other professions (ONS, 2000).

Feminist writers have argued that the architectural profession is entrenched within a masculine paradigm and that it is this inequality that is at the root of a current crisis in architecture (see McCorquodale, Ruedi, Wigglesworth, 1996, and Groat and Ahrendtzen, 1996). Indeed, the absence of women from the architecture profession itself supports the argument of a gender-related crisis in architecture. Yet with the obvious need to address the inbalance of women to men in architectural education and the profession, nothing is being done specifically to counter this. Ruedi (1996) argues that both men and women in the architectural profession successfully ignore the current high drop-out rate of female students, the tiny percentages of women practitioners and the small scale of their commissions. The continued dismissal of gender inequality as an issue in architecture means that the taking up of a binary gendered position is still absolutely essential within the discipline. It is only after affirming that gender differences exist within architecture, only after making the subject a public, explicit and contestable one, that the space for a more open-ended relationship between genders, sexualities and desires can, in turn, be created.Yet there is little research on women experience of architectural education in the UK. s According to Wigglesworth (1996), the cause of this can be rooted to the absence of the excluded in the profession as corporate members of the RIBA, as council members, as president, on building sites and in drawing offices thus allowing the phallocentric nature of the profession to remain unchallenged.

What feminist writing there is, has remained very much on the periphery of the discourse, having been all but entirely ignored by reports such as the RIBA Strategic s

Feminising Architectural Education?

Study of the Profession (1992, 1993, 1995), the Stansfield Smith Review of Architectural Education (1999), the Egan report (1998) and under-represented at recent conferences (CUDE 1999, TIA, 2000, AEE, 2000). The following text re-visits the subsections of communication and teamwork, lifelong learning and design studio culture from a feminist perspective, in order to highlight the way in which this perspective may enrich, develop and critique the discourse. Communication and Teamwork Milliner (2000) proposes that the model still promoted is that of Rands hero architect in the Fountainhead, a male, white, middle-class, ruthless architect which conforms to a masculinist model with no room for client or user needs, compromise or collaboration. Whilst mainstream reports emphasise the importance of introducing the client and user into architectural education, the notion that this client and user base will be as socially and culturally diverse as the population itself is never expressed. Dixon (1994) proposes that the profession must reflect the diversity of its client base. How else can the issues of difference be explored in architectural education? to develop a focus on communication skills in the studio Vale (1996) argues for a holistic approach and development of empathy skills, in order to empathise with the future user. She asks what extent is this holistic approach the to more natural gift of the female rather than the male? Is it possible to accept the myth that exists in society that women have the gift of empathy?She suggests that instead we should look to the traditional domestic role of women and how this might relate to empathetic design which is difficult to demonstrate when the building is viewed as only product. The process is invisible, in parallel with the traditional woman role in the s domestic sphere; it is accepted that this work is unregarded and largely hidden. to promote team-working and co-operative learning Competitiveness in the studio is an issue that is found to be particularly negative by female students (Groat and Ahrentzen, 1996), and thus the traditional competitive model is discriminatory to female students. Feminism challenges the notion of the autonomous and rational individual as the main goal of education and describes woman friendly practice as non-hierarchical and cooperative, open, democratic and friendly, less confrontational and competitive and involving participation. (Walkerdine 1990) to introduce others into the studio. An important part of feminist research is to step outside of the circular logic of rationalised theoretical thoughtand to give a voice to the otherover that of the dominant ideology and in the process to erase it (Wigglesworth, 1996).

Feminising Architectural Education?

Morrow (2000) describes the failure of architects to take account of the othernessthat is essential to the creation of inclusive design design that recognises the diversity of users, regardless of their ability, age, gender, income, sexuality, race or culture.She highlights the homogeneity of students and teachers in most architecture schools as being of similar background, social class, aspirations and political affiliations, and the teachers to be predominantly male. As a result, she argues, they typically do not experience exclusion in the built environment and thus do not design to counter exclusion. This needs to be countered, by a conscious attempt to make inclusive design a priority. She argues that people issues are underemphasized in the curriculum and thus have become peripheral.

Lifelong Learning Feminist pedagogy is concerned, in the main, with changing classroom methods to reflect three areas of concern: the role and authority of the teacher, the epistemological challenge of experience source of the claims for knowledge and truth in personal the experience and feelingand the challenge of the new feminisms around questions of difference (specifically from women of colour and feminist postmodernism) (Weiner, 1994). allowing for self-responsibility in learning. Feminism elevates the importance of the self, the personal, which provides a position from which to challenge the homophobia and misogyny of patriarchy (Redi, 1996). This new paradigm which emphasises the personal is diametrically opposed to the patriarchal one, where the personal is seen as a source of contamination. In addition, the feminist challenge to the role and authority of the teacher gives more responsibility to the learner. (Weiler, 1991) emphasising learning over teaching. The current model of the student as empty vessel is criticised by Friere. The teacher is to fill the student with knowledge, acquire the desires of the teacher, and display that knowledge back to the teacher, unchanged by the students own thinking, desires and ways of knowing. He describes this education as an exercise in domination in which , educators role is to regulate the way the world the enters intothe students. (Friere,1989). In contrast Friere proposes a transformative model, in which education is perceived as the practice of freedom and bringing to consciousness the conditions that shape student places in the world.Education is a dialogic process in which s knowledge leads to reflective, deliberative action. In contrast to the student being filled with knowledge, the exchange between student and teacher leads to knowledge being produced. The teacher student relationship is one of mutual exchange and collaboration.

Feminising Architectural Education?

interdisciplinary learning. Alliances of sexuality are necessarily cross-disciplinary and can provide a common language between different cultural practices. Each of us develops or learns a gender, sexualities, and desires, which can constitute powerful shared experiences. patriarchy in general, and the architectural profession in Yet particular, would have us think this is irrelevant to our practices(Redi, 1996). FarrenBradley (1996) describes interdisciplinary working as concordant with a mothering model of architectural production. providing an education that may allow students to go into other careers. A feminist education is necessarily empowering to the student and thus allows the student to create their own learning path. reflection. Feminist praxis is self-reflective and promotes critical reflection in students (Weiler 1991). This reflection can also be used as a transformative practice. Didakalou (1996) describes a form of structured reflection in order to turn studentsattention to the nature of the oppression, symbolic violence and discipline to which they have to subject their minds (and bodies) if they are to be good (i.e. as male as possible) students, and in the end, architects to show that architectural education might also be seen as a sort of virilisation process. Design Studio Culture Architectural production and the design process has been paralleled with the male view of reproduction. The design, or idea, contains the complete programme for the project. The idea or ideal of the project is always superior to the reality and the physical production of the ideal can only either fulfil the potential of the ideal, or fail it through incompetence. The fatheringof the design is perceived as a relatively short term and limited, individual act. The architect maintains dominance over the physical producers of the building using these hierarchies of idea and action(Farren-Bradley, 1996). Education and the design studio in particular is seen to be supportive of this model. Dutton (1991) exposes the hidden curriculum, which refers to the unstated values, attitudes and norms inherent in the process and content of the course, in the design studio. He describes this hidden curriculum as legitimating hierarchic social relations, choking dialogue and promoting the individual, competitive working and the inculcation of acceptableknowledge. He argues that it is in this way that the discriminations found in contemporary society class, gender and race discrimination and asymmetrical relations of power are reproduced in the design studio.

In contrast, Farren- Bradley (1996) proposes that we use the concept of mothering as a new paradigm. This implies a long-term approach, decision making that is highly contextual and accepting of contradictions. It denies the level of control inherent in the fathering model. She also argues that the empowering of women in relation to their own

Feminising Architectural Education?

health and the health of children has been achieved through a combination of the demystification professional knowledge and the education of women by women, with an emphasis on experiential rather than theoretical knowledge. It is this that architectural education needs to achieve. product over process. Didakalou (1996) likens the emphasis on product over process to the male orgasm, which all students are expected to reach (only one will be accepted) by the end of each studio. How many successful, male-like architectural orgasms must a student be able to exhibit in his/her portfolio before he/she can possibly be recognised as an (male) architect?(Didakalou, 1996) She asks why we give so little value to the process (or design foreplay Is it because the product (ejaculation) is )? supposed to provide a safe criterion of comparison and evaluation of male potency that we compare our studentsperformances (and thus, neutralise their differences) by focusing on the visible, measurable products? Is failure to produce (ejaculate) a visibly decent finished product to be considered and treated as a sign of incompetence (impotence) or, on the contrary, as a sign of, conscious or unconscious, resistive indifference to this kind of competitive game? Feminist writers have also criticised the studio preoccupation with the novel, the s exotic and innovative solutions for their own sake. (Morrow, 2000, Vale, 1996) In response, they propose that everyday life be explored, in order to develop skills in finding inspiration in the most mundane of places, and that the vernacular be drawn upon to produce self-effacing and environmentally responsive architecture. Parallels can be drawn between these approaches to architecture and involvement of men and women within different spheres of the arts Historically, women have tended to be involved in the arts that concentrate on the process of the experience, whereas men have created the artistic products.(Vale, 1996) She goes on to describe how the art of process includes the user in a way that the art of the product never will, and that this inclusion is fundamental to environmentally responsible architecture. Morrow (2000) proposes the rebalancing of process with product by acknowledging process in assessment, for example, by inviting user involvement in assessment of work. She argues that too much focus is placed on the visual, the idea and the organisation of space, to the expense of other sensory stimuli and the experiential qualities and proposes that students be encouraged to explore other means of representation. The myth of the genius. Farren-Bradley (1996) proposes that the idea of the architect as hero, male or female, must be rejected. She argues that for the architect, the development of modernist methodology offered a new myth of total knowledge and total control of the design product. This completed the commodification of architecture because it set it within a

Feminising Architectural Education?

framework of classical economic models. The star system retains this myth and colludes in the public perception of architecture as commodity.(Farren-Bradley, 1996)

Lack of Context and Contingency. Fundamental to feminist thinking, is the notion that there is no one truth, solution or objective method that leads to the production of pureknowledge. (Spender, 1985) Knowledge is necessarily contested and this acknowledgement may be more supportive of a contingent reality. Context becomes essential. The importance of how we look at site is explored by Kahn (1996). She proposes that we should feminise the way we look at sites by practising Site Construction, termed so to acknowledge that site is always constructed through the conventions of, and according to the values inherent in, analysis methods Instead of pretending to be an . objective analysis it adopts partial - incomplete and biased points-of-view. The studio as its own world. Didakalou (1996) proposes that by participating in the world of the studio, by internalising architecture knowledges and practices, women have to reconstruct s themselves as s/he in the image of the neutered, homophobic male. She argues that s, an ideologically neutered masculine figure forms the only dominant architectural role model. Thus, whilst woman has used broader economic and cultural empowerment to enter architectural education, at the end of the process, she has exited into practice a decimated figure. Discussion It has become apparent that there are many parallels in the critiques. Both groups support the introduction of the other the approaches of collaboration, compromise and , communication, team-working and co-operation and new models of teaching and learning. Both groups support the re-positioning of process and product, the reemphasis of context, and the erosion of the myth of the genius. This supports the argument that the current conception of architectural education is a masculine model, and that the movement for change is fundamentally feminising.

In addition, it becomes apparent that qualities traditionally considered to be feminine (such as empathy and collaboration, community and evolution, holism and versatility, negotiation and enabling, emotion, experience and responsiveness) are being undervalued in education. Instead, existing mainstream education values competition, isolation, the individual, esoteric professional knowledge bases and singular, one-sizefits-all education paths.

Feminising Architectural Education?

The explicit exposure of this gendered binary opens it up to contest. It allows us to assess the current movement for change and become more critically aware of what may be lacking. It is ironic that while the overall trend is feminising, the notion of gender or equality issues has been almost entirely ignored by the mainstream texts.

A feminist perspective on the movements for change highlights the need for amendments and developments to the proposals. For example the feminist literature introduces the notion of empathy into the proposal for improved communication and listening skills; it emphasises the critical possibilities inherent in introducing others into the studio and in promoting reflection; it also highlights the power relations inherent in the teaching and learning environment. Thus the exposure of the movement for change as feminising has the potential both to critique and enrich the developments.

At the same time as this feminisinginfluence is being put forward, university education is being affected by a supremely masculine top down rationalisation, commodification, commercialisation and accountability. The new language of efficiency, standards, costeffectiveness is defined by dominant groups (typically those with the funding) and thus has the potential to push aside concerns for a more feminist educational model. This must be resisted.

It is hoped that through this analysis, we are able to understand in what direction we are heading and thus are better positioned to face the future.

Conclusions The feminist analysis leads to the following broad proposals for development of the current movement for change: That gender issues be brought to the forefront of the proposals for change Acknowledgement that the current crisis in architecture is fundamentally gender based That there is an urgent need for research into the experience of women in architectural practice, the profession and in education The diversity of architecture students and staff (and ultimately the profession) needs to become more like that of the national population if we are to improve our relations with clients, users and the public.

Feminising Architectural Education?

The proposed changes to architectural education need to be developed to include the promotion of critical perspectives.

I firmly believe that all students and tutors not just women and minorities will ultimately benefit from a reassessment of our pedagogical conventions. Ultimately the future of the profession may depend on taking on this challenge.

References
Agyris, C (1981) Teaching and Learning in Design Studio Settingsin Consortium of East Coast Schools of Architecture, Architectural Education Study, vol. 1: The papers New York: Andrew Mellon Foundation Andrews, J and Derbyshire, A (1993) Crossing Boundaries.London: Construction Industry Council (CIC) Anthony K (1991) Design Juries on Trial. The Renaissance of the Design Studio Van Nostrand . Reinhold Appleton, I (1999) Introduction to the Conference on Design Education Proceedings.Edinburgh: RIAS p2. Archaos (2001) http://www.archaos.org/ Astley, J (1992) Knowledge and Practicein Bines, H and Watson, D Developing Professional Education: a polytechnic perspective.Buckingham: SHRE and OU Press. Berry, J and Sharp, J. 1999, Developing Student-Centred Learning in Mathematics through Cooperation, Reflection and Discussion.Teaching in Higher Education, 4(1). pp. 27-40 Blau (1984) Boyer, E L and Mitgang, L D (1996) Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education. Princeton NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Enhancement of Teaching. Boys, J (1996) in McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Desiring Practices.London: Black Dog Publishing. Brown, R and Moreau Yates, D (2000) Seeing the World Through Another Person Eyesin Nicol, D s and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism London: Spon , Press Cairns, 1997, Newsletter No.2 May 1997, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, the University of York. Callicott and Sheil (2000) in Nicol, D and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism London: Spon Press , Cuff, D (1991) Architecture: the story of practice Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press De Bono, E. (1971) Practical Thinking. London: Jonathon Cape. Dutton, T A (1991) The Hidden Curriculum and the Design Studioin Dutton, T A (ed) Voices in Architectural Education: cultural politics and pedagogyNew York: Bergin and Garvey. Didakalou A (1996) in McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Desiring Practices. London: Black Dog Publishing. Dixon, J (1994) White, Gentleman Profession?Progressive Architecture. Nov. pp54-61 A s Doidge, C. Parnell, R. and Sara, R (2000) The Crit: an architectural students handbook Oxford: , Architectural Press, p.112. Egan, Sir J (1998) Rethinking Construction: The report of the Construction Task Force London: , Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Farren Bradley, J (1996) Architecture and Obstetrics: Buildings as Babiesin McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Op cit. Friere, P (1989) Pedagogy of the oppressedNew York: Continuum Follett, G (1999) How Design is Learned BConference on Design Education Proceedings Edinburgh: RIAS Gallop, J (1982) The Immoral Teachers, Yale French Studies 63, 118 Groat, L and Ahrentzen, S (1996) Reconceptualising Architectural Education for a more Diverse Future: Perceptions and Visions of Architectural students.Journal of Architectural Education 49/3. Kahn, A (1996) Overlooking: A Look at How we Look at Site or site as discrete objectof desirein McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Desiring Practices.London: Black Dog Publishing.

Feminising Architectural Education?

Latham, Sir M (1994) Constructing the Team: Final Report of the Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK.London: HMSO Lawson, B (1999) Design Education: The Issues Conference on Design Education Proceedings , Edinburgh: RIAS Lawson, B and Pilling, S (1996) The Cost and Value of Design Architectural Research Quarterly, 1 (4) , pp82-9 Maver, T (1999) Communicating With Computers Conference on Design Education Proceedings , Edinburgh: RIAS McCallum, C (1999) How Design is Learnt A Conference on Design Education Proceedings , Edinburgh: RIAS McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) (1996) Desiring Practices.London: Black Dog Publishing. Milliner, L (2000) Delight in Transgressionin Nicol, D and Pilling, S Op cit. Morrow, R (2000) Architectural Assumptionsin Nicol, D and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism London: Spon Press , Nicholson, R (2000) foreword to Nicol, D and Pilling, S, Op cit. Nicol, D and Pilling, S (2000) Architectural education and the profession: Preparing for the futurein Nicol, D and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism London: , Spon Press ONS Office for National Statistics (2000) Labour Force Survey, cited in Littlefield D (2001) Action group sets five-year equality in architecturegoal Architects Journal 5 July no.1 vol.214 p5.RIBA (1993) . Strategic Study of the Profession Phase 2: Clients and Architects. London: RIBA Publications RIBA (1993) Phase 2 of the Strategic Study of the Profession, Clients and Architects London:RIBA , Ruedi, K (1996) in McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Desiring Practices.London: Black Dog Publishing. Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner London: Temple Smith. . Sim, D (1999) Teaching Architectural Design: A Swedish ExperienceConference on Design Education Proceedings Edinburgh: RIAS Spender, D (1985) the Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist KnowledgeLondon: For Women Press. s Stansfield Smith, C (1999) Review of Architectural Education. London: RIBA University of Cambridge (1991) Education for the Built Environment.Cambridge: Ove Arup Foundation. University of Central England (1995) Developments in Education and Training of Professional in the Built Envrionment.Birmingham: University of Central England Vale, B (1996) Gender and an architecture of environmental responsibilityin McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Desiring Practices.London: Black Dog Publishing. Walkerdine, V (1990) School Girl FictionsLondon: Verso Weiler, K (1991) Friere and the feminist pedagogy of difference, Harvard Educational Review, 61 (4) p459 Weiner, G (1994) Feminisms in Education: an introduction OU Press Buckingham Wigglesworth, S (1996) Practice; The Significant Others.In McCorquodale, D Ruedi, K and Wigglesworth, S (eds) Desiring Practices.London: Black Dog Publishing. Wilkin, M (2000) Reviewing the Review: an account of a research investigation of the .In in Nicol, crit D and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism London: Spon , Press Worthington, J (2000) The changing context of professional practicein Nicol, D and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism London: Spon Press ,