Social

Women, architecture and education

Experiences of Women in the UK’s Architectural Space

Photo by TienDat Nguyen on Unsplash

To understand how gender impacts on work, resulting in men’s and women’s differential participation across occupations, we need to understand the notion of gender. We need to ask to what extent the way we do things at work considers the physical differences between men and women. We also need to understand how the discourses of masculinity and femininity shape workplace experiences. Theories of gender as a social construction is significant in this context. Developing the notion of gender as a social construct, Bradley (2007: 4) proposes that: “gender is at the same time both a material and a cultural phenomenon. It refers both to the lived experiences of men and women in relation to each other and to the ideas we develop to make sense of these relations and to frame them. Material experiences inform cultural meanings, which in turn influence the way lived relations change and develop.” Bradley (2007: 21) defines the sex/gender distinction: “one is born with a body that is immediately ascribed a male or female identity, within a set of cultural understandings about femininity or masculinity.” The role of masculinities in establishing organisational norms is significant because the norms of masculinity affect women’s experiences of work. However, masculine identities may be challenged by men performing female-dominated occupations.

The theory of social construction of gender can be beneficial to understand the women’s experiences of work in the UK architectural profession. Previous research on gender and architecture indicated that gender inequality has significant implications for the UK architectural profession. The fact that UK architecture profession is Male dominated. Previous researchers identified that women architects face difficulties while integrating into the UK architectural profession. Women remain significantly under-represented in UK architecture (table 1). The alarming fact is that less than 30% of all registered architects are women. In many cases, female architect’s hard-earned qualifications are often devalued in the labour market. For example, in many cases, the architectural design skills she has acquired from architecture school (apart from drafting skills or computing skills) are less valued in the labour market. Some female architects may find alternative work opportunities in non-architectural jobs within the construction or built environment industry in the UK. In this contest, many small-scale architectural practices in the UK intend to create offshoot companies with separate identities. For example, to reach more diverse markets, they branch into landscape design, lighting design, product design, interior design, industrial design, installation design, branding and community consultation. In this line, if a female architect had subsequently gone into alternative work in a non-architectural sector, her qualification would be under-used.

Some of the RIBA’s publications (such as De Graff-Johnson et al.,2003,2005; Brown et al., 2019) addressed the issue regarding women’s position in the UK architectural industry. For example, these studies indicated that the key factors linked with the underrepresentation of women in the architecture profession are: low pay, no scope for creativity, long working hours, macho working culture, side-lining, motherhood and childcare responsibility. For example, I turn my attention to childcare issues and long working hours.

Previous literature indicates that childcare responsibility in the architectural profession can have a detrimental impact on a woman architect’s career with the long working-hours culture posing a significant challenge (De Graft‐Johnson et al., 2005; Sang et al., 2014).

A survey conducted by The Architects’ Journal (AJ) reported that almost 90% of female architects say having children puts them at a disadvantage in terms of their career growth (Mark, 2015). Furthermore, previous academics (De Graft‐Johnson et al., 2005; Mairs, 2017; Sang et al., 2007) also suggest that many pregnant women noticed a change of attitude of their employers or colleagues towards them. Their commitment to work has been questioned. Many female architects are concerned about “having been made redundant while on maternity leave or shortly after returning to work” (Tether, 2017: 1). In the context of the long working-hours culture in the UK architectural line of work, professionals face challenges in terms of their work-life balance. Architects are generally expected to work approximately 60 to 75 hours per week, including weekends (Sang et al., 2014). The average working hours in the architecture profession is more than other similar professions. In this context, women having childcare responsibility might be under more pressure because they have other caring responsibilities beyond studies.

The higher representation of female architectural educators in academia, particularly in design studios, is significantly important to raise women’s profile in the architectural industry or labour market. Previous studies suggest that ‘women educators in architecture are disadvantaged more than men and that there is a gendered division of academic labour’ (Troiani,2016;p 223). Some findings indicate that, ‘there is a clear bias against women’s employment in the university (cited in -Troiani,2016 ;p 223).

Architectural education is based on a ‘masculine model of academic thinking and production that favours masculinity, particularly in the theatre of the design studio’(Troiani,2016;p 229). ‘Genderisation in architectural education’ in the studio occurs through the favouring of hierarchically institutionalised stereotypical masculine traits — confidence, ambition, singular focus, competition, endurance (intellectual and physical), hard work, productivity, not having children, and understanding the rules of ‘how to play the game’ — and impacts on a student’s and educator’s capacity for social mobility (Ahrentzen, S. and Anthony, K.H., 1993. [cited in -Troiani,2016 ;p 229]).

In this line, according to Niculae, (2014, p149), while the architectural education and curriculum is evolving, the contemporary architectural education can be still defined by a masculine paradigm, with some features such as ‘the proliferation of the masculine paradigm that questions women’s authority in the architectural profession, the persistence of patriarchal architectural canons as aesthetic and methodological architectural repertoire, lack of women role models in architectural history, the perpetuation of the masculine design principles since Antiquity and the architectural design studio does not provide a healthy equitable education environment for women to study in.’ 51% of RIBA Part-1 students are female, and only 28% of registered architects were women in 2018 (Mirza & Nacey, 2018). Brown et al. (2019: 64) indicated that female drop-out students in the architectural education (table 2) are at a faster rate than male students and “the long-hours culture in the architectural education process” has a role in it. Furthermore, previous academics suggest that women drop-outs in architectural education are also related to the “macho environment” of the architecture, which is closely associated with the profession’s culture of male domination (De Graft‐Johnson et al., 2003). The design studio is one of the important sites in which a student is prepared to become an architect, where he/she learn about the profession. In this context, female architectural educators in architectural design studio can help to increase the representation of female architectural students, by promoting inclusive strategies of architectural education. Current architectural education and the profession should not be gender-biased. Furthermore, the contribution of women architect’s work needs to be formally documented. However, the construction of architectural history disregards the works of most women architects from mainstream architectural history books (Willis, 1998; Wright, 1977). Previous academics argued that ‘only the buildings of the great male masters have been categorised as “architecture” and included in architectural history’ (Rendell et al., 2000: 227). In this context, Kingsley (1991) pointed out, ‘Why are there so few women architects? Why are the few who were architects, invisible?’ (Willis, 1998: 58). As a result, the higher representation of female architectural educators in academia can play a significant role in improving the representation of female architects in the industry and improving the profile of women architects.

References:

• Ahrentzen, S. and Anthony, K.H., 1993. Sex, stars, and studios: A look at gendered educational practices in architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 47(1), pp.11–29.
• ARB Annual report (2011–2019), n.d., available from: http://www.arb.org.uk/publications/publications-list/annual-report/ (accessed on 10.08.2020)
• Brown, J.B., Harriss, H., Morrow, R. and Soane, J. eds., 2019. A Gendered Profession. Routledge.
• Bradley, H. (2007), Gender, Cambridge, Polity Press.
• De Graft-Johnson, A., Manley, S. and Greed, C., 2003. Why do women leave architecture. RIBA/University of West of England Research Project. London, RIBA.
• De Graft‐Johnson, A., Manley, S. and Greed, C., 2005. Diversity or the lack of it in the architectural profession. Construction Management and Economics, 23(10), pp.1035–1043.
• Kingsley, K., 1991. Rethinking architectural history from a gender perspective. Voices in Architectural Education, pp.249–64.
• Mairs J,2017, Gender pay gap is broadening shows Women in Architecture survey, available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2017/02/10/gender-pay-gap-widening-architecture/ (accessed on: 1.1.2020)
• Mark L, 2015,Almost 90% of female architects say having children puts them at disadvantage, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/almost-90-of-female-architects-say-having-children-puts-them-at-disadvantage/8675349.article
• Mirza & Nacey,2018- RIBA Education Statistics, 2018, available from: https://www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/education-statistics/additional-documents/educationstatistics201617pdf.pdf (accessed on 10.10.2019)
• Niculae, R.L., 2014. Gender analogies in architecture. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 4(1), pp.474–490.
• Rendell, J., Penner, B. and Borden, I. eds., 2000. Gender space architecture: an interdisciplinary introduction. Psychology Press.
• Sang, K.J., Dainty, A.R. and Ison, S.G., 2007. Gender: a risk factor for occupational stress in the architectural profession?. Construction Management and Economics, 25(12), pp.1305–1317.
• Sang, K.J., Dainty, A.R. and Ison, S.G., 2014. Gender in the UK architectural profession:(re) producing and challenging hegemonic masculinity. Work, employment and society, 28(2), pp.247–264.
• Tether B, 2017, How architecture cheats women: results of the 2017 Women in Architecture survey revealed, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/how-architecture-cheats-women-results-of-the-2017-women-in-architecture-survey-revealed/10017497.article (accessed on 01.01.2020)
• Troiani, I., 2016. Gender, architectural education, and the accruing of capital. RIBA Publishing.
• Willis, J., 1998. Invisible contributions: the problem of history and women architects. Architectural Theory Review, 3(2), pp.57–68.
• Wright, G., 1977. On the fringe of the profession: Women in American architecture. in: the architect: chapters in the history of the profession. edited by s. kostof. p. 280–308. 7 illus. bibliog.(General).