Architectural Education:
Challenges and Opportunities
The
traditional understanding of a university is a place where research
and teaching occur under one roof. The academic staff
represent the pinnacle of their discipline, their research informs
their teaching and invigorates and inspires the students, setting
new standards that ultimately benefit the discipline as a
whole.
Questions
arise when that discipline is vocational in nature. Certain
disciplines are developed and advanced through practical work in
the field. The challenges of day to day activity are critical
in their development, and theoretical research has decreasing
relevance. A profession such as Law is a classic example of
this, where both legislation and case law set the framework
underpinning and informing day to day practice. There is
clearly room for theoretical study and critique of these processes,
and a law professor can, even if not actively practicing, offer a
valuable insight and overview to students, while participating in
the debates of the profession.
In the case
of architecture, the value of abstract research is more strongly
called into question. If we study those innovations that have
most influenced the direction of the profession, only a small
proportion could be attributed to the research activities of
architectural academics. Of those that are derived from this
source, most are not research in the conventional sense but the
practical architectural work of academics with ongoing practice
commitments.
Clearly,
there is a place for academic study of the history of architecture,
including interpretation of contemporary trends. This form of
academic pursuit is analogous to art history, however in areas of
technical practice there is a relatively small amount of academic
research coming out of the architecture departments of universities
that offers substantial benefits the profession. Innovations
in building materials are occurring mainly within companies
specializing in the supply of these materials. Standards are
set through the engineering disciplines, and by the research
divisions of institutes set up to promote particular materials and
techniques, be they in the use of concrete, brick or steel.
Technical issues of building assembly, development of new space
planning techniques, development of green building technologies and
development of project management practice are occurring either in
the field, or reviewed under the auspices of the architectural
institutes, all informed by their practicing members. Real
technical advancements in building technologies are occurring at
the CSIRO and in the engineering faculties, not at the architecture
departments. Urban design practice is informed by marketplace
demands balanced against government policies. The urban
design approach of those major development companies creating
subdivisions and new towns is informed by overseas study tours and
the engagement of overseas urban design practices, not by referral
to the expertise on offer at Australia’s universities.
Looking at
the research projects of the Faculties of Architecture at some of
Australia’s most respected Universities is indeed depressing.
While the projects often relate to issues that are of real
importance to the general community they are compressed by the
academic format into research exercises that often have negligible
real impact on either architectural practice or public policy
formation. The need to be seen as academically respectable
can sometimes lead to overly complex language in the declaration of
the aims and objectives of research, and overstatement of their
real practical relevance and impact. This is not to denigrate
the role of research in Universities generally, but simply points
up the fact that a degree course that is in some ways incompatible
with a University structure will be overanxious to justify its
presence there.
The dilemma
posited by the nature of the profession, as to the best ways to
train its members have informed some long standing debates.
Architectural practices often decry what they see as the lack of
practical skills of graduates, yet the more an architectural
faculty at a university teaches practical skills such as drafting
and building detailing, the more the activities of the faculty slip
away from the academically respectable and theoretical towards
craft based practicalities that could be better taught at a
technical college. So in a sense the very fact that
architecture is essentially a craft places it in conflict with the
nature of the academic pursuit as defined by the idea of a
university.
It is best to simply accept this,
and start to look at how the education and research settings can be
adapted and changed to better suit to the nature of the profession.
Historically, there are many models of architectural
education, from the profession based apprenticeship models typical
in England during the nineteenth century, to the State sponsored
Ecole de Beaux Arts model in France. In the latter case a
highly regulated, autocratic system was balanced to some extent by
work within the ateliers of recognized, respected practicing
architects. In this model, the main progenitors of
architectural theory and debate were practicing architects, and
students developed practical skills working on actual projects
within the ateliers. Today there would be problems with the
concept of unpaid labour towards commercial ends, yet on the other
hand a trainee is a drain on the efficiency of any business,
particularly in the early period of traineeship, and the advantage
of having such workers at a low cost to the business would be
offset to a large degree by the commitment of practice directors to
providing their knowledge and skill in lecturing and tutoring
students.
In recent
years there has been an attempt to more strongly engage the
profession to participate in the universities, and this is to be
commended. Similarly, universities are either encouraging or
requiring students to undertake a break in their coursework, and
spend a year working in an architectural practice to obtain a more
practical grounding. However there are problems with this
approach, the quality of the practical experience obtained should
not be left to the luck of the student in finding a position in a
supportive office environment, and there is a need for the
practical learning to be more seamlessly blended with more formal
tuition where the lessons learned in day to day work can be
discussed and broadened through interaction with a wider student
group and formal teaching processes. It is a challenge to the
basic academic structures that exist at present, to effectively
achieve the levels of integration with the profession that is
necessary. The concern is whether the universities as they
are constituted would be particularly comfortable with such a
dilution of formal academic processes. This is why a new
paradigm for architectural education and research is
necessary.
If we imagine
an alternative format for architectural education, with full
integration with the profession, one could imagine research
projects growing out of the identification of real design and
policy challenges found in the field, with research outcomes
finding tangible and immediate application. We would also
find that such an integration of research and practice would both
expand the dimensions of the research project, draw in more
participants allowing it to be better tested, and thereby help
focus the project on useful and achievable outcomes. The need
to find pathways to practical implication of research activities
would apply the blowtorch to ill considered research
projects. The opportunity is open to Universities to continue
on the path many have already chosen, to closer participation not
only with the profession but also to the community
generally.
Back
|
