Discussion Paper
Discussion Paper
Building a Culture of Scholarship in a College of Architecture
Prepared for presentation at the Fall 1995 ARCC Panel Discussion on "Building a Research Culture" held in conjunction with the ACSA Administrators Conference, Milwaukee, WI, November 1995.
Walter V. Wendler, Ph.D., AIA
Dean and William M. Pena Professor
College of Architecture
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-3137
409-845-1221 (O)
409-845-4491 (F)
http://archone.tamu.edu/
PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS AND SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THEIR CULTURE
Students, faculty and administrators in professional schools serve two masters. First, they serve the university community to which they belong. The community should recognize and value the vocation of teaching and the dissemination of knowledge that will make students and faculty of the programs able citizens of the university. This is absolutely essential. Coupled with citizenship as teachers in the academic community is the need for student and faculty scholarship that pushes forward the boundaries of knowledge. Work of this nature should be subject to critical assessment and peer review. Second, they must serve the professions represented. Service includes the production of qualified aspirants, as well as the generation of leadership, knowledge and insights that are significant in the practices of the professions. One or the other of these pursuits will not spawn programs that are responsive to both constituencies. The bifurcation of commitment is present in many disciplines represented on university campuses, but is particularly profound in professional practice disciplines, such as ours, where regulation of activity occurs at the state and national level through accreditation and licensure requirements.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO INTEGRATE TEACHING AND SCHOLARSHIP
Teaching and scholarship should converge. My intent is to clarify the mission of a professional college in the perspective of a university. I should like to accomplish this very simply by forwarding to you what I consider to be the most important goal for a college of architecture. That goal is stated as follows:
Colleges of architecture should seek fully integrated teaching, scholarship and service missions.
First, to attain this goal, it means that requests from students, faculty members, departments, and research centers and laboratories must be valued on the basis of how the request integrates the scholarly missions of the faculty with the academic programs of a college.
Second, to attain this goal, it means that we must recognize that the individual missions of the faculty members in their efforts to extend the boundaries of knowledge are driven largely by personal preference, but simultaneously, curriculum and academic programs are primarily corporate initiatives. The blending together of the private and public aspects of faculty citizenship is central to accomplishing the goal.
Third, to attain this goal, it means that research, creative and scholarly activities should not be seen as parallel to teaching, but rather integrated with our efforts in the classroom, the studio, and the laboratory.
Fourth, to attain this goal, it means that a special kind of responsibility is needed. A kind of responsibility that is congruent with the idea of good citizenship. We must take responsibility for the well-being of the student through our collective efforts.
Fifth, to attain this goal, it means that our view of ourselves may have to be different. If we attempt to educate students in the caste that we ourselves experienced, we will fall short. The demands on students are changing, the demands on our professions are changing, the construct of our corporate curricula are changing, and our personal missions are changing.
Sixth, to attain this goal it means that we must satisfy ourselves with building an institution, a culture, not a program. This process is incremental.
Seventh, to attain this goal, it means that we must agree that our disciplines fit into a class of activity that can be loosely called problem solving. There is a fundamental order to design, and we must seek to better understand that order. It is a matter of scholarship.
Eight, to attain this goal, it means that specialization within our programs will grow stronger, not weaker.
Ninth, it means that we take some risks with regard to how we are perceived. I do not want to suggest that we do not attend to the traditional measures of excellence in professional programs, but rather that we stretch the envelope. Most vexing in the equation is the view that we hold of ourselves. We believe it to be informed, rational, forward looking, and absolutely correct for the student. In fact, many times our self-view is myopic. Most difficult.
Tenth, to attain this goal it means that a great deal of cooperation is required in the various aspects of our programs. Including, but not limited to, a fully integrated sense of teaching, scholarship and service.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO ENCOURAGE UNIVERSALLY APPRECIATED SCHOLARSHIP IN INDIVIDUAL CASES
People from outside the discipline, no matter the quality of the scholarship that they carry out, will not understand the depth of the architectural questions that need to be addressed through processes that generate reliable knowledge. Design professionals know what design professionals need to know, no one else can know better.
As educators, most of us exist in institutions where scholarship is required as a natural facet of our responsibility to the institution, its students, our peers, and the professions we serve. The research act is analytic, the practice act synthetic. Natural divisions or labor within the profession require that some do both, and that some specialize in various components of the professional practice process. Scholarship that is not applied to a single act of design is a fundamental component of professional responsibility. It becomes knowledge rather than a solution.
The future of the professions, their backbone, lies in being able to verify, in one form or another, the knowledge that we apply to the problems we solve. Think for a minute about the opposite concept, that we should not be responsible for the knowledge that we apply to the solution of problems. Clearly, this posture is untenable.
Traditional definitions of scholarship do not always work in colleges of architecture. They do not work for a number of reasons, but primary among these is that they are often driven by positivist thought about what is legitimate science. While it is true that legitimate science should be the goal of all architectural scholarship, it is also true that universities will recognize and classify a whole range of activity as scholarship that will not work its way into the frameworks constructed by logical positivism on the one hand, and post positive, post structural thought on the other.
There are four activities that we should be willing to loosely call scholarship in colleges of architecture.
One: Constructed thought that creates a new understanding of our world and generalizes it for use in a number of settings is a form of scholarship.
Two: An historian studying the impact of a school of thought on present practices is a form of scholarship.
Three: Creative work, or the production of original ideas to solve stated problems is a form of scholarship.
Four: Public outreach, the application of new knowledge to existing problems, extension work, technology transfer, the concept of public service, is a form of scholarship.
While these definitions of scholarship would not satisfy all audiences, they do not have to. They have to satisfy professionals and students engaged in the early stages of the development of a discipline. They must make some sense in the context of an institution of higher education. That is the context from which I construct the thoughts presented in this paper.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO ENCOURAGE TEAMWORK IN SCHOLARSHIP WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE DISCIPLINE, AND ACROSS TRADITIONAL PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC BOUNDARIES
A complex college, in a complex university, should provide options for interdisciplinary work for students and faculty. Avenues to capitalize on the strengths of the university and the college through interdisciplinary work should be uncovered and developed. The nature of the profession's resident in the colleges of architecture is that they are becoming more accountable, more effected by state and national legislation, responsible to better informed clients and constituents, and more diversified. In order to respond positively to such forces it is critical to develop programs and options that allow for a greater integration of knowledge and skill across many traditional boundaries.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO INTEGRATE KNOWLEDGE GENERATING IDEAS INTO THE STUDIO ENVIRONMENT
The architectural studio in the university has remained substantially unchanged for the past century. The process of writing a program and generating a response to it through the critique is as old as architectural education itself.
Every project that is presented to students in design studios at every level must posses as part of its formulation a testable, traditionally defined hypothesis. This would mean that design students would need to be familiar with the scientific method, and the way in which ideas are traditionally tested. Presently, every project has a concept, stated or unstated, and a hypothesis stated or unstated, but never formally tested in a way which allows the student to say at the end of the project, "I have discovered an architectural truth which is laid out for others to investigate further, but here is my conclusion based on my experiment."
Projects are not Called Projects, They are Called Experiments. This distinction, as minor as it may seem, is fundamental to changing the way we think in schools. A professional school needs to have a set of concerns which is different than from a purely academic endeavor. Every project must become an experiment where the results of the work can be catalogued by the student, and carried forward as architectural knowledge.
The Studio is a Laboratory. Design studios should de-limit the thinking on an individual project so that a concise statement of hypothesis can be tested. The need in each design studio to educate someone to be an architect is misbegotten at best, and counterproductive to the idea of scholarship, at worst.
The conclusion of these thoughts is that architectural design can be taught as scholarship, with creative spark, and dislocated ideas playing part in the hypothesis generation. Architectural design can be taught as a discipline in which particular architectural ideas are generated and tested along traditional lines of scientific thought, using deduction and induction, empiricism, and categorization of observation, in a way which leads to the development of a recognized body of thought. But this can happen only to the extent that architectural educators are willing to look at how they teach architectural design.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO BECOME GOOD AT TWO THINGS, DESIGN AS PROBLEM SOLVING, AND SOMETHING ELSE. THE DESIGNER IS NOT A SPECIAL KIND OF PERSON. THE PERSON IS A SPECIAL KIND OF DESIGNER
Architectural education has remained steadfast over the past century in its perspective of what a graduate should be. This perspective is fueled by the profession itself, the educators who are affiliated with academic institutions, the academic institutions in which architectural education takes place, the agencies that govern accreditation processes and licensure, and the students who enter the professional degree programs. I will present a few points. First, about 90% of the students who enter programs leading to professional degrees view their final destination as a drawing board where they create buildings individually, usually as a sole practitioner. Second, 90% of the faculty that teach in programs entered schools with a similar predisposition, left with it, struggled with it, and continue to possess it as the most desirable form of practice. Third, curricula in architectural programs are shaped by accrediting agencies and testing processes that are oriented towards the same image. Fourth, these images have little to do with more than 90% of the architectural practice that is carried out. These images of a professional do not accurately reflect the reality of a profession. The image and the reality must be brought to better registration.
Examples are easily constructed. A general rule exists to suggest that as long as a good general foundation in architectural basics exists, any efforts to specialize beyond that foundation will lead to increased marketability for the graduate, increased utility for firms that produce architecture, and increased flexibility in the kinds of organizations in which the graduate may work.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO ENCOURAGE SPECIALIZATION
The future of professional capability will become, for most practitioners more specialized rather than less specialized. Knowledge generation is what leads to special capabilities. We must be able to assist students in developing specialized bases of knowledge from which they can practice the discipline of architecture. Some fear that this will lead to a generation of very specialized activities and that we will sacrifice capability in design, or problem solving, or the synthetic side of our craft. However, if we retain the capability to synthesize knowledge, and simultaneously create the capability to generate specific kinds of knowledge, we will be well positioned to practice the craft; we will be well positioned to relate to other specialists; and we will be well positioned to guide the complex teams of professionals that are needed for all but the most simple of design problems.
In order for a college of architecture to be successful there must be a clear focus in its mission. Scholarship, by definition, implies a focus. Describing the focus and coming to terms with how the focused mission impacts educational programs in a college is critical to the success of the unit. Focus, knife-edge focus, of intellectual activity does not always peacefully coexist with the ideas of generalist practice. The conflict between analysis and synthesis presents itself in these processes.
In developing a culture of scholarship, invariably the discussion turns towards appropriate focus. Appropriate focus is something that must be determined on the local level. The context in which a particular program finds itself must be factored into decisions regarding focus. Clear example was evidenced at Mississippi State University a number of years ago. Mississippi State University is located in Starksville. A small town. When the college was founded, a focus area was developed that attended to architectural and planning issues that focused on the issues of small towns. Why this was the case is not clear to me. I believe it was simply a matter of a visionary dean asking the question, what needs to be done, and what can we do that will add to the body of knowledge? It was a context-driven decision to make the most of a situation. The focus is always important and more difficult to achieve in smaller programs. Possibly, the smaller the program the more difficult specialization becomes, and simultaneously, the more necessary. This is a confounding problem.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO DEVELOP POST PROFESSIONAL STUDY OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEAMS OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS
The students and faculty in degree programs in a college of architecture must have the opportunity for advanced scholarship in existing and new areas of study. Academic degrees must be a cogent part of the professional education that is available in the college. To that end, programs should provide advanced research potential through rigorous study. Research-oriented, advanced degrees are critical. A capstone Ph.D. program, allowing students from many disciplines a course of study that would engender scholarship and knowledge generation, seems a logical step. The need for a sound first professional degree is paramount, emphasized by the introduction of post professorial study. Specialization at the master's level for professional practice education is integral. A Ph.D. degree, to serve all the disciplines in a college, rounds out the degree offerings and allows a proactive response to the general university community and the professions represented in a given college.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO HIRE FACULTY WHO HOLD NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL REGISTRATION BOARD CERTIFICATION, AND A PH.D. OR OTHER POST PROFESSIONAL, RESEARCH-BASED DOCTORATE
While the challenges of hiring qualified faculty with appropriate professional qualifications are real, colleges of architecture intent on creating a culture of scholarship must increase the intensity with which they seek faculty who hold both professional and academic qualifications. This is important for a number of reasons. In order to sustain the development of new knowledge that has utility for the discipline, it is necessary to create a faculty population who can create reusable knowledge. In the university, this means that they hold degrees for which the generation of new ideas is an integral part, such as the Ph.D.
Second, in order to be able to work effectively with people from other disciplines, it is important to be on an equal footing with them. The sources of support for scholarship universally recognize the Ph.D. as the cross-cutting qualification that leads to acceptable scholarship. Clearly, people without such preparation can contribute to the body of knowledge, but in the community, this credential is recognized as being the one that develops the skills and expertise bred to generate useful knowledge.
Third, a role model is created for students when they see and work with faculty who hold dual qualifications, professional and academic. The future of our profession recognizes the importance of education in all its forms. The life-long learning initiative of the American Institute of Architects is evidence of such a commitment.
While these kinds of hiring practices create difficulty at first, they also lead to the creation of a culture that values equally the development and use of reliable knowledge to solve problems.
DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO REWARD AND RECOGNIZE SCHOLARSHIP IN ANNUAL REVIEW, TENURE, AND PROMOTION PROCESSES, AND PROMOTE THE CONCEPT OF FACULTY MEMBERS AS CONSUMMATE EDUCATORS
Typically, faculty in universities that offer professional programs of higher education in the construction, planning and design industries have leaned heavily on professional activity, hence consulting or traditional practice is a primary measure of excellence. With the paradigm shift occurring in these disciplines, this will simply not suffice, especially in research universities.
There are some fundamental principles for assessing faculty in professional colleges. These principles are the basis for an evaluation system that monitors excellence within a diverse faculty setting and values scholarship.
These include:
All of these objectives must be weighted against a faculty member's ability to develop and apply knowledge. The foundation for the evaluation system and the principles outlined should be developed by the faculty.
One of the primary emphasis of any evaluation system is to assist faculty in their own development. The system should have a number of indicators of excellence in three general areas -- teaching, research, creative works and service. Discussion with faculty indicate that generally the breadth required to perform well in teaching and in scholarship should be a value built into the system. The third category -- service -- is important, but secondary to the primary missions of the university and the college.
Coupled with the idea of different foci, different ranks of faculty might choose different areas of evaluation. Professorial ranks might be encouraged through formative review to emphasize activity in service through well established linkages to professional and scholarly societies. Younger, junior faculty might be encouraged to develop a set of teaching skills or a scholarly agenda that will eventually position them for excellence.
Growth of the faculty in numerous directions recognizes that interests can change as faculty develop. While the general categories of performance may be fixed, activities that are recognized as meritorious can change over time. This provides all faculty the chance to re-align direction and consequent evaluation as their careers develop and their interests and capacities grow.
Interdependence is a value built into this idea. Because of the thoroughness of documentation, a good, clear understanding about what areas various faculty excel in is available. People who are performing well in a particular area can be cited and used to assist other faculty in gaining direction. This is crucially important if full professors are asked to assume their position as the intellectual mentors of the programs within a college.
The leadership qualities of the faculty are an important aspect of generating an active, energetic organization. Similar to the interdependence techniques mentioned above, an evaluation system should allow for the identification of leaders in each of the areas of excellence. Through the use of role models, faculty can be given real targets. It allows the faculty who desire to excel the opportunity of a real, well-known example, one of their peers. Secondly, it allows an individual who is performing well in a particular area the pleasure of sharing and directing other interested people. In a sense it is a type of extended teaching, leadership.
These ideas for annual review of faculty are used for the College of Architecture at Texas A&M University. This presents principles and techniques that allow for equitable analysis of faculty activity that is tied to the goals of the college. It bridges the gap between evaluative techniques used in other academic disciplines and the conventional techniques levied in professional programs of architecture and the allied disciplines. One system should be used to provide a basis for linking merit pay evaluations with the more cumbersome, less frequent, more important, promotion and tenure decision-making process. The system should be the same for all processes. It provides ways for strengths and weaknesses of the faculty to be identified so that they may be rewarded on the one hand, and dealt with in a positive, productive fashion on the other. It lays out clearly the expectation of the faculty in a way which is consistent with the general university policies. A good evaluation process that values all parts of a college mission should assist in breeding scholarship. And lastly, it should serve as a basis for future professional development of the faculty.
A consummate educator is a faculty member who understands the balance between the global missions of an institution of higher education. Typically this would mean that a faculty member would participate in teaching, scholarly activities and service to the profession and institution. Traditionally in our programs certain activities are valued by certain segments of the population more highly than others.
For example, many faculty, frequently senior faculty, were hired to carry out teaching on a full-time basis, with little credit, and equally little incentive directed towards scholarship. This will not work in the contemporary context. Conversely, new faculty who see their agenda for scholarship as superseding the importance of excellence in teaching, or service, become imbalanced.
The service component for most of us is always less important than the teaching or scholarship component, but equally important no matter which of the two perspectives outlined above are followed by the faculty member.
To create a culture of scholarship in an architectural college it seems imperative that faculty recognize a division of labor, and the importance of teaching and scholarship in achieving the overall goals of the college. This means that a design instructor who teaches large numbers of contact hours will need to value the specialist, who teaches less contact hours, but supervises a greater number of directed studies for graduate students.
Conversely, the specialist who spends a great deal of time in focused study, and who works diligently with a smaller number of graduate students will need to better understand the value of the design process and studio education. When they understand both worlds, they are consummate educators. The culture must support and value both activities.
In a rush to be responsive to university and profession driven edicts, many colleges of architecture have established programs of research and scholarship that are focused on a few individuals. These few people become the "research program" in a particular college. This may satisfy the university perspective or the practice perspective, but does not change the culture in which students and faculty of architecture engaged in professional study live. In addition, it does little to inculcate the vast majority of the faculty population in a college of architecture into the general university environment.
SUMMARY
In building a culture of scholarship in any academic organization it must be realized that no single effort will produce the desired result. The creation of a culture implies that traditions change, standard practices change, relationships change, goals and missions change, and the very fabric of the day-to-day existence of the group, the students, the faculty, and the administration, change. This is a difficult challenge as many of our initiatives and ideas are judged by their immediate impact on the organization. Things that have an immediate impact may not change the culture.
The few ideas that I have elaborated in this paper, taken individually, are not new. Taken individually they may have little impact on the educational enterprise of a college of architecture. In fact, taken individually I am not sure that any one of them, pursued with vigor, would have much impact on the culture of scholarship in a professional college. But collectively they will have some impact. Ideas like these, this is to imply that this set is not exhaustive, will have some impact on how we view ourselves, how our university views us, and how our profession views us. Any efforts to improve the reality and perception of our capability to produce professionals with high utility and value to the larger social order will have great value.
Send a
response: The purpose of the ARCC research exchange is to
foster dialog and networking. If you would like to publicly
respond to or comment on this paper, please send an e-mail with
your thoughts to gzik@polaris.net.
Your feedback will be posted on the ARCC Web site and linked to
this page.
Back to ARCC Homepage
| Back to "Discussion
Papers"
Back to "Research
Exchange" | 
To top of page
This page was last updated 1 July 1997.