Contradictions of Practice
One of the most enduring questions that architects have faced throughout their history is whether what they practise should be defined as an art or a profession. The two are treated as incompatible opposites. We are told that this practice is a blend of fine and applied arts, of sciences and humanities but the exact mix of these is never agreed upon. The contested nature of architectural practice can be extended to the make up of architects themselves; they are the site of contested values that provoke heated debate.
 |
| Dialectical Tension Diagram based on the work of Dana Cuff. |
The architect, and thus by extension the architectural profession, can be defined by a series of “dialectical dualities” (1) that are in a constant state of tension but, more often than not, one of these ‘poles’ will be favoured more heavily than the other. In this model the two positions are pictured as being at the opposite ends of a spectrum and if one extremity is favoured over the other it can only be to the detriment of the opposite. The internal dualities can even be extended to the meaning of the word “architecture”, as it refers to both the practice of a professional activity and also to the outputs of that activity. (2) Attempts to examine architecture as either an art or a science, or an art or a profession have been labelled as “inadequate” methods with which to judge such a complex entity. (3) Moving towards a model that accepts the tension between these dialectics enables the complexities of the profession to be properly considered whilst it also offers an opportunity to rebalance these tensions and find a state of equilibrium that is beneficial to all concerned in the built environment.
In her explanation of these dialectics Dana Cuff identifies four sets of dualities that embody the contradictions within the profession; in many cases “practitioners recognise the inescapable links” between the extremities but ”it is by no means a happy marriage.” (4) First, is the contrast between the autonomous artist and the collective team of professionals required to bring a project to completion. Second, is the separation of design and art from business and management concerns. Third, is design as decision marking versus design as making sense of a situation, this includes the way in which architectural problems are constructed. Finally, is the image of the architect as a generalist countered by a movement towards specialisation within the built environment industry. (5)
The modern incarnation of these contradictions can be traced back to the origins of a profession that was attempting to distinguish itself amongst a maelstrom of change. Positions taken two hundred years ago are still defining the British architectural profession today and to better understand the origin of these dualities further discussion is required.
The Rise of the Professional
In the 19th century the profession of architecture was formalised and consolidated, bringing to an end a period of patronage that that had persisted for hundreds of years. In an act of self-protection groups of architects banded together, in the face of new competitors and vociferous criticism from a rapidly changing construction industry, (6) to present a unified approach and be identified with a service of quality. Claiming to present a “uniquely impartial and independent service” these groups hoped that by having professional status their services would be differentiated from builders, surveyors (who also professionalised in the 19th century), (8) and other specialists that were emerging. Although “a long process recognizable in outline but blurred in detail” (9) the route to professionalisation can be traced back to two primary factors: the transition from medieval to modern processes of thought that gave rise to the “inter-disciplinary character of the modern architectural designer”; and the industrial revolution (which shifted society from agrarian to a capitalist-based model) and resulted in the “professional organization through which [the architect] fulfils an increasingly specialist role.” (10) These two factors were a source of major conflict for the embryonic architectural profession and remain so today.
The origins of professionalism in Britain begin in the 18th century as the informal relationship between patrons, their advisers and craftsmen was formalised in the wake of economic growth and the emergence of both new building typologies and larger buildings. The aristocratic patrons of the previous era were being replaced with building committees of “middle-class laymen” that in turn forced architects into more clearly defined roles, selling their ideas and designs in direct competition with their peers. (11) Furthermore, the skills required to erect these buildings were “too diverse and technical for the old habits to deal with” so new specialists began to emerge alongside a new breed of general contractors and professional builders. (12) At the forefront of the specialisation in building were figures like Sir William Chambers and Sir John Soane (13) whilst professional builders like Thomas Cubitt offered early versions of ‘design and build’ services. (14) It was not just builders who laid claim to areas previously under the architects sphere of influence but also engineers, surveyors, cabinet makers (who in some cases developed into fledgling interior designers) and house agents.
 |
| Sir John Soane, painting by Thomas Lawrence (Image: Sir John Soane's Museum) |
From 1750 onwards a number of groups brought together architects (and artists), one of the earliest being the 1761 The Society of Artists, which included Sir William Chambers as one of its directors. (15) This first group was followed by the Royal Academy of Arts, after quarrelling between Chambers and James Paine, and was founded by 34 individuals (four of whom were architects, including Chambers) who “were determined to achieve professional standing for British art and architecture.” (16) The role of architects in the Royal Academy though was nominal (with the exception of Chambers who acted as Treasurer) and of far greater significance for the future of architects was the Architects’ Club established in 1791. This was a highly exclusive group, with membership restricted to Royal Academicians, holders of the Academy’s Gold Medal, and members of distinguished foreign institutions, and various topics were discussed at the dining table over the Club’s thirty year existence, including professional qualifications, fire-proof construction, and professional fees. (17)
It was, however, the formation of the Institute of British Architects in 1834 that was the “first major act of exclusion and prime move towards professional solidarity”. The institute, awarded its Royal Charter in 1837 (but not formally bestowed until 1866 to become the Royal Institute of British Architects – RIBA), was “founded for facilitating the acquirement of architectural knowledge, for the promotion of the different branches of science connected with it, and for establishing an uniformity and respectability of practice in the profession.” (18) It is worth here observing that in the title of the Institute the “A” stands for “Architects” and not “Architecture” yet the charter sets forth the advancement of architecture. Jeremy Till states that this has created a curious instance of circular logic where “the knowledge as to what constitutes architecture is defined by architects, who in turn are therefore deemed to be the only people capable of delivering that self-defined architecture.” (19) Although all professions are established on the basis of self protection he is highly critical that “under the worthy cloak of the charter…there is a barefaced cheek in hiding the expediency of private gain behind the mask of public good”. (20)
The early Victorian profession had a preoccupation with business ethics, formulating rules for fees, practice and conduct. This new codified profession was also highly concerned with the architects’ status. Members were classified as either fellows, associates or honorary fellows, this third type, crucially, were to be gentleman “unconnected with any branch of building as a trade or business” and served to underline the tension between architects and the rapidly expanding building industry. (21) In the formation of the RIBA the long association between architects and artists was also ruptured, where they were once considered the same, being part of the same organisations, architects now positioned themselves separately. However despite this self imposed professional isolationism architects still wanted to be considered artists and clung to the autonomy that patronage had brought them since the Renaissance.
In the first half of the 19th century the profession could not be kept afloat on design work alone, there were too few large buildings and projects, so they continued with a range of other laborious activities such as arranging leases, assessing rents, measuring property or taking out quantities, to ensure a guaranteed income in an otherwise highly competitive field. However, as populations boomed, there was an “unparalleled expansion of professional functions” (22) and new building typologies, so that “as fast as they could afford to do so, architects shed their less congenial tasks” (23) in favour of the highly esteemed, literate, skill of design.
During this period of change, Architects at the ‘top of the tree’ found security in “the idea of art in building as the special province of the architect” and this would trickle down though the ranks of the profession. (24) However as the muddied water of professional responsibilities cleared in the second half of the 19th century, and architects found it easier to make a living, the importance of art or learned design skills persisted, to the point that architects could trade solely on their skills as an ‘artist’. As Andrew Saint observes “this widening rift between ‘art’ and ‘professionalism’ was a feature in some degree peculiar to Britain, and it had large consequences for British architecture.” (25) This question of ‘art’ remains a “red herring” in architectural politics to this day. (26)
 |
| The Royal Institute of British Architects Headquarters in Portland Place, London (Image: Luke Butcher) |
Attempts to legislate the architectural profession began in the late 1880s and early 1890s with registration seen as a way to create a closed and more regulated profession. A group of young architects, suspecting the RIBA of dragging its heals on the issue, formed the Society of Architects in 1884 and introduced the first registration bills to Parliament in the 1880s. Although unsuccessful the RIBA was forced to adopt registration as its official policy in 1890. (27) It would take until 1931 though for the title of ‘Registered Architect’ to be granted legal protection and a ‘Register of Architects’ drawn up to be handled by a statutory body, the Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK). The subsequent Architects Registration Act of 1938 changed the protected title to simply ‘Architect’ and it wasn’t until 1997 that there were any serious changes in the regulation of the architects’ profession in the UK, such as ARCUK being replaced by the Architect’s Registration Board (ARB). (28)
That it took over forty years for the first Act to be passed was in part due to “a reluctance to legislate over the ability to design” (29) as well as groups who opposed registration on “eccentric grounds that art and professionalism were incompatible”. (30) These opposition groups included Thomas Graham Jackson and Norman Shaw, who authored ‘Architecture, A Profession or an Art’ in 1892 and those who feared that registration would lead to further fragmentation of the building industry. Opponents like Shaw were not members of the RIBA and by the end of the 19th century RIBA membership accounted for only ten percent of the profession. These figures increased to roughly one quarter in 1911 and by the 1920s an organization that had previously been dismissed as nothing more than “a highly respectable trades union”, by The Times in 1870 accounted for half of all architects in Britain. (31) Once the RIBA could be seen to represent the majority of architects it “took up cudgels in earnest” and legal registration soon followed with little opposition. (32)
Having achieved protection of title, architects would appear to have successfully demarcated the area of architectural knowledge for themselves and thus the practice and end product of architecture. However in Britain protection of title is just that, a title, there is no legal protection afforded to an architect’s function or the services they offer. The ARB is simply charged with protecting the consumer (the public) by recognising the qualifications needed to become an architect and ensuring that those on the register meet a set of prescribed standards for conduct and practice. (33) In many ways this leaves the profession just as weak and vulnerable to intrusion from other disciplines as it was in the 19th century; there is nothing in the statutory regulations to stop an individual (or indeed profession) offering the services of an architect, as long as that individual does not call themselves an architect.
Professions are built on the basis of practising expert knowledge and architects are not alone in trying to self perpetuate their own knowledge base however, unlike doctors or lawyers, architects have no control of that knowledge base. This weak position has come about in part because architects have attempted to tie themselves to architecture through a system that “conflates architect (as expert) with architecture (as profession) with architecture (as practice) with architecture (as product).” (34) The final link in this sequence, the buildings or products of architecture, is too complex to come under the control of architects because it is dependent upon other external forces, from society to politics, including other professions who also established their own areas of expertise in the 19th century. In the end this results in a conflicted profession and a professional organisation, the RIBA, that is forced to wear so many hats at the same time it doesn’t know what or who to represent; is it a body responsible “for the direction and maintenance of the national character for taste” (35) or a learned body to promote the knowledge of its experts or is it a trades union? A professional body should be a representation of its members; the RIBA’s conflicts are certainly representative of those architects face daily.
The Educated Architect
Closely tied with the rise of professionalism is how future architects are trained and educated. Formalising education allows the profession to ensure levels of competence within its’ rank and file and also, by dictating what is taught, what tasks those professionals are trained to carry out and thus the tasks the profession is skilled at doing.
One of the earliest forms of formal architectural education was Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s Académie de L’Archtiecture in 1671 (extended to an adjunct in Rome in 1720). The atelier system at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, established by J.F. Blondel in 1743, later augmented this style of education. (36) Until its closure in 1968, the Ecole was the oldest school of art and architecture north of the Alps and “maintained a remarkable continuity of style and teaching methods throughout the years of its existence.” (37) A centralised, government-supported school, it had a well-organised curriculum where students progressed from the entry examination to becoming diplômé par le gouvernement by winning design competitions worked out in the atelier or studio, which was led by practising architects, before a period of practical experience. “Beaux-Arts” itself means fine art and the school is associated with architects “who firmly believed that architecture was an Art”. (38) By advocating that any intelligent person could be systematically taught a series of universal principles that underlined architecture it attracted attention from those outside of France, principally students from the United States who exported the methods back there, widening its influence as a teaching style.
In Britain, however, the emerging practice of articled pupilage in an architect’s office was the only formal training available to aspiring architects, a form of apprenticeship, it was originally introduced by Sir Robert Taylor. (39) Although there was some formal architectural training offered through the inception of the Royal Academy Schools in 1768, the irregular standards of articled pupilage, augmented by lectures at the Royal Academy and travel abroad (principally the Grand Tour), continued well into the 19th century as the mainstay of British architectural education. (40) Pupilage traditionally started at fifteen or sixteen, with pupils “expected to have a background in languages and some knowledge of mathematics, geometry and drawing,” it would last between three and seven years although five to six years were most common. All pupils were expected to be trained in measuring, site work and the general running of the office and the articles “merely stated that the pupil was to learn the ‘art of profession of an architect’.” (41) However, because it was unregulated the pupilage system was prone to exploitation, which led to fictional accounts of particularly bad pupilage such as those experienced by the character Pecksniff in Charles Dicken’s Martin Chuzzlewit (1844). By the time that the RIBA issued a model form for articles in 1890 new formalised methods of institutional education were emerging.
The first serious attempt to provide specialised instruction took place in the 1840s at King’s College and University College, London. In 1841, T. L. Donaldson, first Secretary of the RIBA, was appointed Professor of Architecture at University College and gave two courses of lectures for part-time students – “Architecture as a Science” and “Architecture as an Art”. (42) However, on the whole the leaders of the Victorian profession were indifferent to the need for educational reform, so it was the students themselves who championed this reform. Pressure came in the form of the Association of Architectural Draftsmen in 1842 (becoming the Architectural Association – the AA – in 1847), a group of junior architects excluded from the RIBA for not having been in practice for the requisite number of years, who campaigned for an equivalent of the French Diplôme d’Architecte. Eventually the RIBA was persuaded to hold the first voluntary examination for entry to its Associate Membership in 1863, with the AA setting up a “Voluntary Examination Class” that established for the first time “the modern concept of systematic study test by examination as the basis of the architect’s education” in Britain. (43) The RIBA systemised its examination into three parts—Preliminary, Intermediate, and Final—by 1887, with the last being obligatory for Associateship, with a full-time three year course in architecture starting at King’s College, London five years later in 1892. Liverpool was the first provincial school, opening in 1895, and it offered a BA Honours course from 1900 that exempted students from the RIBA Intermediate examination, followed by a five-year course in 1920 that gave full exemption from the RIBA examinations. (44) In between the two World Wars numerous other schools were established and by this point a considerable proportion of entrants into the profession were receiving training in a full-time, formal environment.
Architectural education in Britain has not been stagnant since then; it has obviously changed and adapted to suit the needs of the situation it finds itself in, much like the wider architectural profession. Notable forums on architectural education in Britain looked at changing aspects of it, including the 1924 Congress on Architectural Education, noting that “the pupilage system has practically passed in most of the larger centres of population” and placing an emphasis on full-time training in schools, and the 1958 Oxford Conference on Architectural Education that set forth a number of recommendations to maintain the relevance of that education. (45) In 2008 a second Oxford Conference aimed to ‘reset the agenda’ for architectural education that had been established over fifty years previously. (46) Debates about architectural education also included those of British Government when, in the early 1990s, they considered cutting funding for architectural education to a maximum of four years, although this ultimately didn’t take place. (47)
Despite these changes there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not the academic environment is the correct one in which to educate future architects. The current climate of budget cuts to higher education spending and rises in tuition fees have heightened this debate at present, with students and architects alike calling into question the value of spending five years in full time education, particularly when salary levels are so low. Some practitioners want ‘oven ready chickens’, trained in the latest piece of computer software, whilst the educationalists see the academic environment as a place to foster creativity and ‘design thinking’ – there is a tension between education as training and education as academic learning. One of the main issues is that in its current guise the design studio is treated as a replica of an architectural office when in fact “there is little in common between them not least because [one is] in the business of learning, and not earning”. (48) The relationship between the profession and education is more complex than one simply being equivalent to the other, despite how much either side might like it to otherwise because “the actions of the academy do not directly influence the profession and the profession does not directly control education.” (49)
 |
| Desks at the Yale Art and Architecture Building (Image: Creative Commons / Ragesoss, 29th Sept. 2008). |
If architecture is a quasi-vocational subject to be taught as a mixture of arts, sciences and humanities further questions are raised when you consider how architectural schools fit into the academic structure. An analysis of architectural schools across reveals a wide range of different faculties and departments in which architecture is placed. The majority of UK institutions have an 'Architecture School/Department' with a number of these operating as independent faculties in their own right. However, there are also a number of institutions with no architecture department and instead it sits, as a subject, within a wider faculty, for example 'Art, Architecture and Design'. Further divergence is also revealed in the degrees offered by institutions, either a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science for undergraduate level, and although architecture is not unique in lacking a unified and sole degree classification, the range of degrees on offer to students is another sign of the difficulties in defining architectural education academically in the UK. As Necdet Teymur, in his series of papers on architectural education in 1992, observes "the desire to identify architecture as, say, technology and/or craft and/or science and/or art throughout the centuries betrays the very paradox of the idea of architecture both as a multi-disciplinary, multi-skilled, multi-dimensional and multi-media practice and a self-sufficient profession that behaves as if it already possess all the knowledge that it needs." (50)
Unhelpful Oppositions
The contradictions that exist within architectural practice are something that modern day practitioners have to learn to deal with daily but whilst they are perceived to favour one extreme over another they can never hope to deal with these tensions. The unhelpful 19th century oppositions that persist to this day have come to define architectural practice or at least how it is perceived. Like the self serving circular logic of ‘expert equals profession equals practice equals product it is perceptions of the architect as an autonomous individual that perpetuates this in the educational setting, which encourages this autonomy when those students enter into the profession, unprepared for the collective actions required to shape the built environment. Education and the profession may not directly influence one another but one can see how the profession can inform education which in turn informs the profession.
The duality of the individual versus the collective can be seen in the move to cordon off the architectural profession from the rest of the building industry in 1834. Architects though were also all too willing to shake off tasks in favour of ‘specialising’ in design but then why do many people still consider them to be generalists? Or why in education is the individual championed when in practice architects, particularly on larger, more complex projects, work in teams. Generalising that the root of all the architectural professions problems lies in the 19th century and the initial formation of the ‘modern profession’ of course fails to fully comprehend the complex nature of architecture. What it does do, however, is highlight that the issues facing architectural practice today are not new and in fact are all a wide set of shared experiences. These issues have been tackled for two hundred years, and whilst some progress has been made no resolution appears to be imminent. The first step though must surely be for architects, the wider profession, the academy, and the public to acknowledge that architecture can not simply be one or the other but it can oscillate between both positions quite comfortably. There are surely plenty of architects out there who would happily call themselves artists and businessmen, so why must we always be forced to perceive architects as one or the other, why can’t they be both? What has not yet been considered though is why anyone would want to enter into such a conflicted profession in the first place.
Notes
The above extract is taken from Chapter One of The Architecture of the Profession, a thesis project submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism course 2010-2011. For information about how to purchase a copy of the research please follow this link.
1. Dana Cuff, Architecture: The Story of Practice, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), p. 11.
2. The Oxford English dictionary gives the following definitions of architecture: i. The art or practice of designing and constructing buildings; ii. The style in which a building is designed and constructed, especially with regard to a specific period, place, or culture. Oxford English Dictionary Online, architecture, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/architecture.
3. Gary Stevens, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), p. 82. cited in Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 156.
4. Cuff, loc. cit.
5. Ibid., pp. 11, 250.
6. “Allegations of deficient or fraudulent practice were often vociferously expressed by the emerging new species of client industrialists, entrepreneurs, corporations and boards of guardians, some of them less than scrupulous.” Sarah Lupton (ed.), RIBA Handbook of Practice Management, (London: RIBA Publishing, 7th edition, 2001), p. 235.
7. Ibid.
8. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, founded in 1868 and granted it’s Royal Charter in 1881, now claims that it is “the mark of property professionalism worldwide.” Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Home Page, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.rics.org. The RIBA by contrast has this to say about itself “The Royal Institute of British Architects champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members.” Royal Institute of British Architects, About Us, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/AbouttheRIBA.aspx.
9. Andrew Saint, The Image of the Architect, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 57.
10. John Wilton-Ely, The Rise of the Professional Architect in England, in Spiro Kostof (ed.) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, 2nd ed. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 180.
11. Ibid., p. 195.
12. Saint, loc. cit.
13. “They stand at the head of a vast diversification and fragmentation in building organization which has gathered pace from that day to this.” Ibid.
14. Osborne House, built directly for Victoria and Albert in 1845-50 by Thomas Cubitt, is one example which used these ‘design and build’ services without an independent architect. Other professional builders included William Cubitt and Company, C.J. Freake and William Willett. They ran “capable” architectural offices within their businesses. Ibid, p. 60.
15. The Society of Artists held a series of public exhibitions of work carried out by living painters, sculptors, architects and other artists, similar to the long established Paris salons. The exhibition included a charitable endeavour to support artists whose “age and infirmities, or other lawful hindrances, prevent them from being any longer candidates for fame.” W. Chambers is listed as one it’s directors and it is assumed that this was in fact William Chambers. Algernon Graves, The Society of Artists of Great Britain, 1760-1791; the Free Society of Artists, 1761-1783: a Complete Dictionary of Contributors and their Work from the Foundation of the Societies to 1791, (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1907), pp. 303-5.
16. Royal Academy of Arts, About the Royal Academy of Arts, 2011, [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://royalacademy.org.uk/about.
17. The Architects Club was established by George Dance, James Wyatt, Henry Holland, and S.P. Cockerell, later joined by Chambers, Robert Adam, and others. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 192.
18. Ibid. The RIBA’s website states that it was founded for “…the general advancement of Civil Architecture, and for promoting and facilitating the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith…” Royal Institute of British Architects, Our History, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/Ourhistory.aspx.
19. Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), pp. 153-4.
20. Ibid.
21. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 193.
22. Ibid., p. 197.
23. Saint, op. cit., p. 58.
24. Ibid., p. 66.
25. Ibid., pp. 63, 66.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 66.
28. The Architects Act 1997, (London: HMSO).
29. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 203.
30. Saint, loc. cit.
31. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., pp. 202-4.
32. Saint, The Image of the Architect, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 66.
33. Architects Registration Board, About Us, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.arb.org.uk/about_us/ .
34. Till, op. cit., pp. 154-5. This sequence can even be found in the RIBA’s domain name—www.architecture.com—if you want to find an architect you need to find architecture first.
35. Royal British Institute of Architects, Transactions of the RIBA, vol. I/I (London: John Weale, 1836), p. vii cited in Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 154.
36. The return of the term atelier or studio has once again become increasingly popular among architects as opposed to office. Cuff, op. cit, p. 28.
37. Joan Draper, The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural Profession in the United States: The Case of John Galen Howard, in Spiro Kostof (ed.) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, 2nd ed. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 209.
38. Ibid., p. 210.
39. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 191.
40. Ibid., p. 197.
41. Mark Crinson and Jules Lubbock, Architecture—art or profession?: Three hundred years of architectural education in Britain, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), p. 45.
42. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 198.
43. Ibid., pp. 198-9.
44. Ibid., p. 204.
45. Leslie Martin, RIBA Conference on Architectural Education: Report by the Chairman, Oxford, April 11th-13th 1958. Available at http://www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk/1958conference.pdf [retrieved 10th August 2011].
46. The Oxford Conference 2008 was held on the 22nd-23rd July 2008. Oxford Conference 2008, Home Page, 2008, [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk.
47. Francis Duffy and Les Hutton, Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession (London: Spon, 1998), pp. 190-3.
48. Necdet Teymur, Architectural Education: Issues in educational practice and policy, (London: ?uestion Press, 1992), p. 35.
49. Till, op. cit., p. 17.
50. Ibid.