Males and Females in the Architectural Profession by MJ O

Mateusz Jakub Orzeł Males and Females in the Architectural Profession. Female underrepresentation, male dominance and stereotypes removal process. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of MArch, 2010

Abstract This study focuses on gender disproportions within the architectural industry. The study investigates opinions on psychological and socio‐ cultural factors associated with female under‐representation and male dominance within architecture. The project discusses opinions of various scientists, regarding differences between males and females, and their assumed association with gender disproportion. The study investigates to what extent, if at all, gender‐related differences can be responsible for female underrepresentation; and how the socio‐ cultural background, tradition and stereotypes influence the disproportion. The study, furthermore, collected data from students of the Welsh School of Architecture regarding gender related assumptions within the industry and reasons for the gender disproportion. The collected data were analysed and compared regarding male and female opinions.

The findings of the study question the significance of the psychological

differences between the sexes regarding architecture. The study argues

the social and cultural factors to be of greatest importance with regard to

gender disproportions and juxtaposes the findings with various scientific

opinions.

The study argues that achieving numerical equality on its own is not a

solution to the equality problem within the profession. The problems are

much deeper and are related to sexism, discrimination or limited family‐

friendly working arrangements.

The stereotypes removal process should begin within architecture schools

and continue in offices by encouraging females to stay in the profession,

limiting discriminative practices and providing more family‐friendly

solutions. The power of architecture is its diversity, therefore allowing

more females to successfully build their careers as architects can only

benefit the profession.

Acknowledgments I am greatly indebted to my project supervisor Karin Bronstering for guiding me through the research. The critical advice received allowed me to build a project, that would not come into being without this guidance. My sincere thanks also go to the 32 students of the Welsh School of Architecture who submitted the questionnaire, which was the vital base for this project. Even though the number of participants was limited, the honest and comprehensive answers allowed me to research and reflect to the existing scientific findings on gender disproportion in the architectural industry.

III

Contents:

2.4 Hormonal environment...................................................................... 9

Abstract.........................................................................................................I Acknowledgments..................................................................................... III

2.5 The relationship to female underrepresentation in architectural

Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................... 1

industry .................................................................................................. 11

Introduction 1.1 Statement of Aim ............................................................................... 1

2.5.1 Differences in cognitive abilities 2.5.2.Conclusion ‐ the confusion.

1.2 Research Questions ........................................................................... 2

Chapter 3.................................................................................................... 14

1.3 Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................. 3

Socio‐cultural factors and sex‐related stereotypes influencing female

1.3.1 Literature review

underrepresentation in architecture.

1.3.2 Methodology

3.1 The story of male domination.......................................................... 15

1.3.3 Results

3.2 Spreading the word. Society versus biology. ................................... 16

1.3.4 Discussion

3.3 Stereotypes against science............................................................. 17

1.3.5 Conclusions

Chapter 4.................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................... 4

Method: Analysis of opinions of students of architecture and their

Analysis of psychological differences between women and men.

relationship to female underrepresentation, male domination and

2.1 Psychological sex differences............................................................. 5

stereotypes.

2.2 Brain gender?..................................................................................... 7

4.1 Participants....................................................................................... 19

2.3 Core gender identity .......................................................................... 9

4.2 Procedure ......................................................................................... 20

Chapter 5 ................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 6.................................................................................................... 39

Results ‐ Education

Discussion

5a.1 Reasons for choosing architecture. ............................................... 21

6.1 Educational issues ............................................................................ 39

5a.2 Ratio assessment............................................................................ 23

6.1.1 Confidence.

5a.3 Favouring males/females............................................................... 24

6.1.2 Equality issues and stereotypes in education

5a.5 Job prospects. ................................................................................ 28

6.1.3 Self‐estimated stereotypes?

5a.6 Plans regarding becoming a registered architect .......................... 29 Results – Employment............................................................................... 30

6.2 Employment issues. ......................................................................... 42 6.2.1 Females facing the industry and the consequences of it.

5b.1 Privileges ........................................................................................ 30

6.2.2 The indecision and misinformation.

5b.1.1 Getting a job ............................................................................... 31

6.2.3 Can you name at least 3 female architects?

5b.1.2 Getting a promotion ................................................................... 32

Chapter 7.................................................................................................... 47

5b.1.3 Becoming a director.................................................................... 33

Conclusions

5b.1.4 Being treated seriously ............................................................... 34

References ................................................................................................. 50

5b.3 Plans regarding employment in architectural offices.................... 36

Appendix 1: Questionnaire ....................................................................... 53

5b.4 Can you name 3 female architects?............................................... 37

List of figures

Graph A1: Sex Differences in Human Behaviour

Graph 1a/1b: Reasons for choosing architecture

Graph 2a: WSA students ratio assessment ‐ male opinion

Graph 2b: WSA students ratio assessment ‐ female opinion

Graph 3: Assessment of privileges in education

Table 1: Student skills

Graph 4: Comparison of self‐assessed skills

Graph 5: Employment opportunities assessment

Graph 6: Architect registration plans

Graph 7abcd: Assessment of privileges in employment

31‐34

Graph 8: Reasons for females leaving architecture

Graph 9: Plans regarding employment in an architectural office

Graph 10: Can you name 3 female architects?

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Statement of Aim The aim of this dissertation was to investigate reasons for gender disproportion in architecture in the United Kingdom (UK), which featured the analysis of psychological and socio‐cultural backgrounds and researched their association with female underrepresentation and male dominance in the field. The dissertation concentrated on a notion of possible background factors, such as sex differences influencing gender disproportion, and problems related to deeply‐ingrained stereotypical approaches of persons associated with architecture. Of particular interest was to investigate if there are gender differences within architectural students with regard to their opinions about female underrepresentation in the architectural industry, male dominance and stereotypes.

Though highly hypothetical, the project aimed to reveal possible reasons

2. Are there differences in male and female perception regarding studying

for gender disproportion in architecture, including stereotypes,

architecture and future plans?

discriminative practices and unfriendliness of the industry. The study



focused on the United Kingdom, therefore the problems and figures are UK‐specific, however with relation to global issues.

architecture? 



the study was guided by the following research questions:

1. What is the background and what are the reasons for female

underrepresentation in architecture?

predispositions to study architecture or to be successful architects, and if so, to what extent? 

Is there a factor that varies regarding gender, that would have an impact on gender disproportions?

Focused on gender issues within the architectural industry and education,

Do psychological sex differences influence females’

Is there a gender difference in how do students assess their skills, situation and perspectives?

1.2 Research Questions



Do males and females have different reasons for choosing

How socio‐cultural background contributes to gender disproportions in the industry?

analysed in order to locate the most important factors regarding the

1.3 Structure of the Dissertation

problem of gender disproportion in architectural industry.

1.3.1 Literature review

1.3.3 Results In this section the results are presented and described using relevant

The dissertation begins with an introduction to the problem and

graphs for the comparison of male and female opinions as well as

background regarding psychological differences between the sexes and

students’ general points of view.

socio‐cultural factors that might effect gender disproportion within the architectural industry.

1.3.4 Discussion

1.3.2 Methodology

Results presented in the previous section are collated, analysed and

In the following parts the social factors are investigated in a search for

stereotypes by surveying personal opinions and observations of students of the Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University. The questionnaire is used to collect data with regard to stereotypes and assumptions related to gender issues in architecture. The data are

juxtaposed with evidence from the literature.

1.3.5 Conclusions In the closing part of the dissertation, the findings are appointing final conclusions regarding gender disproportion in architecture.

Males and Females in the Architectural Profession.

Female underrepresentation, male dominance and stereotypes removal

process.

Chapter 2 Analysis of psychological differences between women and men. Researching past events, it is clearly visible that the 20th century was a great switchover in equality issues (Cornell 1998) Female emancipation, voting rights, equality among the races, nationalities, and males and females, became priorities of all democratic countries. Although the process started decades ago, in some fields the results are appearing less significant than could be expected. The architectural profession is one of the fields where women are still far less represented than men. Only around 20% of practicing architects are females (Mirza and Nacey 2009), and the number might be used as an indication of an equality problem within the profession structures. However, the blind longing for equality might make societies forget about basic differences between the genders. Today’s world is so deeply ingrained in issues of equal rights for

men and women, and generally equality of both sexes, that people tend to reject the scientific evidence on differences between male and female

2.1 Psychological sex differences

cognition, skills or abilities (Caplan et al. 1997).

Some scientists (Moir and Jessel 1992; Caplan et al. 1997) tend to classify

differences between males and females into two groups. Sex differences

This chapter will analyse the reasons why society is aiming for equality

would be biologically determined and come from anatomical,

while abolishing stereotypes regarding male and female skills,

physiological or chromosomal properties. Gender differences would be

predispositions and roles; it will also investigate how to cope with sex

associated with the socio‐cultural background, and linked to a number of

differences in order to benefit the profession rather than trying to reject

non‐biological variables, such as environment or upbringing.

them or, on the contrary, exaggerate their significance. The analysis will

also include juxtapositions of professional opinions on how sex

The ongoing nature‐nurture debate gathers scientists of various fields

differences influence male and female performance in architecture.

trying to distinguish to what extent sex differences are determined by

psychological or socio‐cultural background (Pinker 2004). There are,

however scientists that claim that the distinction between sex and gender

is not possible, as we cannot objectively assess which differences are due

to socio‐cultural or psychological variables. Furthermore, the differences

between the sexes seem to be a compilation of both (Hines 2004).

Consequently, the terms sex and gender are used interchangeably in this

project.

The largest psychological sex difference lies in core gender identity (the sense of oneself as a male or female) and sexual orientation. The vast majority of people have a core gender identity consistent with their genetic sex and sexual orientation toward the sex other than their own. However, this is not true for everyone. A small percentage of men have a female core gender identity and a small percentage of women resemble men in that their core gender identity is male. Also 2‐6% of the population has a sexual orientation towards the same sex as their own (Hines 2004). Other psychological sex differences appear to be less significant than core gender identity and sexual orientation. One way to better understand the

The ‘d’ value provides a standardized estimate of the size of sex differences in various

magnitude of sex differences is by comparing females and males with

characteristics by expressing them in standard deviation units. ‘d’ values of 0.8 and above

regard to the physiological difference of height. Melissa Hines in Brain

are considered large, those of about 0.5 are considered moderate and those below 0.2

Gender (2004) refers to a comparison of differences regarding 3‐D rotations, math problems, math concepts, verbal fluency, physical

are considered negligible. Figures above zero represent areas where males outperform females, and those below zero represent areas where females outperform males. In terms of toy preferences the result is associated to more ‘male’ toy preferences (Hines

aggression, and toy preferences. Graph A1 shows the combined

2004).

information regarding the differences. The ‘d’ value is calculated by

Graph A1 shows that the largest difference, where male participants

dividing the difference in means of male and female scores by an average

scored higher than female participants, was the 3‐D rotation task, while

of standard deviations (measure of variability) within the groups.

the only task where female participants scored higher than male

participants was the test on verbal fluency. There is no doubt that these results could easily be misinterpreted in a way that could lead to

2.2 Brain gender?

generalisations about male and female performance.

Throughout the decades there were various approaches trying to

investigate the role of psychological sex differences, find reasons for them

The mental rotation tests performed by Linn and Petersen (1985) that

and their impact on brain differentiation, behaviour and intelligence

claimed male superiority in the ability to rotate three‐dimensionally

(Hines 2004, p. 220).

within the mind, used a representative sample of the general population.

As the results of the tests indicate that males outperform female

One of the most obvious differences lies in the size of the brain, which

participants, it is common to hear people citing these results as a reason

might easily lead to the incorrect conclusion that women could be less

for the fact that there are fewer female architects or engineers. (Moir and

intelligent than men. There are some arguments regarding this issue as

Jessel 1992; Stossel 1998; Glaser 2003).

some researchers claim the difference is only associated with the size of

the body (Hines 2004)), while others state it also has a psychological

impact (Lynn, 1994, 1999).

In the 19th century women were thought to be less intelligent than men

societies, or can take a form of a joke. Hines (2004) argues that these

and the reason was supposed to lie in a smaller brain. As quoted by Hines

ideas were supposed to scientifically support unequal achievements

(2004), Gustave le bon, one of the founders of social psychology, wrote in

among the races and the sexes and are therefore subject of serious

1879:

doubts.

In the most intelligent races [..] there are a large number of women

More recent scientific research refutes those ideas and states that the

whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most

size of the brain is related to the overall size of the body and that there is

developed male brains.[..]

Furthermore, in 1861, Paul Broca, founder of the Anthropological Society of Paris, wrote: In general, the brain is bigger in mature adults than in the elderly, in

no correlation between the brain size and intelligence. In addition, the female brain is more packed with neurons than the male brain, which would support the idea that women would perform intellectual tasks at least as successfully as men (Hines 2004, pp. 183‐188). Furthermore, there are opinions that if the size was crucial, humans could be less

men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in

intelligent than big‐brained animals such as elephants. Instead, science

superior races than in inferior races…

focuses on brain structure rather than its size (Deacon 1990).

Other things being equal, there is a remarkable relationship between

the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain. (Broca,

1861, then p. 186, quoted in Hines ,2004)

These ideas of the 19th century scientist now appear racist, sexist and unfair, however some of them turned into stereotypes that still exist in

2.3 Core gender identity

2.4 Hormonal environment

Another approach focused on investigating the impact of sex

As no associations were found between the brain structure and

chromosomes. Men and women were supposed to have different

chromosomes, scientific research and analysis turned to hormonal

abilities, qualities or intelligence quotients (IQ) due to the difference in

environment as a contributing factor for the difference. There is evidence

their chromosomal variation. The research took into account males,

that the differences may be linked to a variety of hormones in male and

females, and individuals with genetic sex inconsistent with their gender

female bodies. Gonadal hormones have profound influences on

identity. The results showed that sex chromosomes play a minimal role in

behaviours that show sex differences in non‐human mammals (Hines

sexual differentiation of brain and behaviour, and refuted the gender as

2004). However, it cannot be concluded that hormones influence all

the main factor for the psychological sex differences (Hines 2004, p.220).

natural and behavioural characteristics that show sex differences in

humans in the same way as in other mammals. This does not mean that

hormones do not have an impact on human development, as the early

hormone environment has been found to control many male and female

characteristics, such as children’s toy choices (Hines 2004; Glaser 2003).

The early hormone environment (prenatal activation of hormones such as

testosterone or oestrogens) has been claimed responsible for

psychological differences between males and females in play. This could

be a groundbreaking discovery as the difference that seemed to be

attributed to the social background turned into a starting point for further

research on hormonal impact on differences between males and females.

abilities, that can bring boys ‘streets ahead’ of the girls (Gripaios 2003;

Research has shown that boys tend to chose vehicles and guns as their

Glaser 2003). On the other hand there are probably as many opinions that

toys, while girls choose dolls and pets. According to the research, the toy

claim that the early hormone environment has no or only minimal impact

preferences are not necessarily determined by the upbringing, yet mostly

on female predispositions that would be responsible for their

by the early hormone environment (Hines, 2004).

underrepresentation in professional fields such as science, engineering or

architecture (Caplan et al. 1997). There are also opinions that claim the

Following this idea, Lawrence H. Summers, the former president of

differences are a result of social background and upbringing of children

Harvard University, in his 2005 speech ‘Diversifying the science and

and youth (Barnett and Rivers 2004; Ceci et al. 2009).

engineering workforce’ remarked:

Yet again the debate on the origins of gender differences remains on‐ I think, while I would prefer to believe otherwise, I guess my experience with my

going and whichever approach is closer to the truth, it is not about

two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were

proving someone being right. Possibly the nature of the differences is not

given trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is carrying the baby truck, tells me something.

However convincing the findings of Hines’ research and other professionals’ opinions may seem, the impact of the early hormone environment on future predispositions remains rather unknown. There are only assumptions that it might influence boys interests for building with blocks or playing with machines, which has such impact on future

even important, nor is its size. Thus, the impact on female performance, and eventually gender disproportion in architecture remains unknown. There seem to be as many opinions as there are researchers, which makes it virtually impossible to decide which one is right. Consequently, the architectural industry should rather focus on providing equal opportunities and benefiting from the difference rather than analysing it.

2.5 The relationship to female underrepresentation in architectural industry

2.5.1 Differences in cognitive abilities

According to Hines (2004) early hormone environment leads to

superiority of spatial cognitive abilities in males. In contrast, Barnett and

Rivers (2004) in their feministic approach, state that advanced cognitive

abilities in men can be simply explained by, for example, a comparison to

professional tennis players. It seems as if the determination of parents is

one of the most important factors that develops the skills. Intense

practice makes children perform better and better in the field and when

they grow up they can turn into stars like Venus or Serena Williams. This

could mean that if young females were given more attention in order to

develop their spatial cognition skills, they would achieve the same level as

males, and the difference would not exist anymore. This approach

however is an attempt to reject the scientific findings on brain differences in order to show that social factors are the only ones impacting female performance in fields such as engineering, architecture or mathematics.

Yet still, as cited in Gender Differences in Human Cognition (1994),

have been translated into physical brain characteristics, such as neurons,

according to Caplan and Caplan (1994), skills tested in mental rotation

synapses, and neurochemicals. Thus, the distinction between biological and

tasks are those that are based on stereotypically male abilities and therefore could result in being more comfortable for males: If tests of spatial ability included the ability to judge how much flour is in a cup,

social/cultural causes is false.(Hines 2004, p. 213)

Thus, considering the difference in male and female brains, what is the impact on performance in architecture? Can the female

or how to use a dress pattern in sewing, the results might look quite different.

underrepresentation be explained by the brain structure, and

Spatial abilities may very well be based on stereotypically male abilities. The

consequently cognitive abilities?

wonder is that in spite of this, the few differences found between females’ and

males’ spatial abilities are small and unreliable. (Caplan& Caplan, 1994, p.34)

Following the study of Linn and Petersen(1985), more recently, Voyer,

Whichever approach we take, probably the truth lies in between. Both psychological and social factors have an impact on how male and female brains develop (Hines 2004, pp. 213‐214). It is certain that male and female brains are different, but this does not mean that one works better than the other. They are different, and different skills of males and females make the society work. Hines in Brain Gender(2004) says: All of our psychological and behavioural characteristics .. have a biological basis

Voyer and Bryden (1995) conducted a meta‐analysis of 286 studies regarding the spatial cognition tests including those of Linn and Petersen. Their findings show that simply by changing the rules, scale, or the procedure of the tasks, the gender differences can appear larger or smaller. However, their results confirmed the main finding of those of Linn and Petersen, and showed that males scored higher in most tests than did females. The study of Voyer et al. (1995) appears to be the most reliable research on cognitive abilities. However it does not reveal where

within our brain. No matter whether hormones or other factors, including social

the differences in spatial performance come from, nor can it predict if the

factors, caused to develop in a certain way, the hormonal or social influences

differences have any impact on performance in everyday lives.

2.5.2.Conclusion ‐ the confusion.

an impact on men’s and women’s skills, and gender disproportion in

It seems as if within the literature there is a tendency to either show that

differences could be devastating to female performance in architecture.

males have better cognitive skills than females or to refute the existence

The next chapter will focus on the analysis of social factors attributable

of any differences. In fact it is difficult to compare the studies, as each of

for the disproportion between female and male architects.

the sources uses different research methods and also claims different

architecture. However, the effects of the myths related to the sex

outcomes. Whichever attitude is closer to the truth, it can be assumed that the relatively small differences in spatial cognition cannot be taken as an explanation for female underrepresentation in architecture, where only 20% of registered (and also newly registered in years 2006‐1009) architects are female (Mirza and Nacey 2009), while 42% of architectural students are female (Mirza and Nacey 2008). The problems go far beyond the sex differences. Although Barnett and Rivers (2004) could be criticised for their feminist approach, trying to entirely reject the sex differences, there is certainly an important reflective thought in their study. It might not be possible to correctly assess if the differences are due to either biological or socio‐cultural factors and to what extent (if at all) they have

Chapter 3

Socio‐cultural factors and sex‐related stereotypes influencing female underrepresentation in architecture.

The previous chapter described psychological differences in cognition and questioned their significance in association with the number of female architects. Thus, if psychological differences fail to explain female underrepresentation in architecture, one could argue that the socio‐ cultural background is responsible. Any analysis needs to take into account several issues: underrepresentation can come from tradition and history, or it can be driven by contemporary discriminative practices. There is also the possibility that women prefer to choose different careers just because they feel better in other fields which, yet again could be linked to social factors such as upbringing, culture or environment. The first part of this chapter will focus on the historical background for female underrepresentation in architecture. The further parts of this chapter will analyse attitudes and stereotypes of today’s society and their impact on gender disproportions.

3.1 The story of male domination.

opportunities for women developed despite (or perhaps due to) the

Although female underrepresentation in architecture might be an

alarming issue, the problem is not new at all. The Royal Institute of British

These figures show that the issue of underrepresentation of female

Architects was founded in 1834, however the very first woman, was not

architects in the UK could be based on socio‐cultural background, and

admitted to the organisation until 1898 when Ethel Charles joined

hence depends on country specific factors. Thus why is it for the United

(Anthony 2001, p. 51).

Kingdom that women are underrepresented in architecture?

The Architectural Association that used to be the centre for architectural

Firstly, architecture in the UK has traditionally been a domain of men

education in Britain, opened its structures to women in 1917. However

(Anthony 2001), and while the process of changing the tradition requires

for many years British schools remained male‐dominated institutions and

time, the results come with delay only. Secondly it could be argued that

in the 1970s female students made up for only 1% of all architecture

not enough has been done to encourage females to consider careers in

students. Since then the numbers of female students in British

architecture. Thirdly, and probably most likely there are a number of

architectural education have risen considerably to 42% in 2008 (Mirza and

interacting factors that can affect women not to choose architecture or

Nacey 2008). Although this increase is very significant, it could be argued

make them resign (Barnett and Rivers 2004, pp. 149‐171).

if it is as successful as it could be. In comparison, by 1990, 50% of

Norwegian students and one third of practicing architects were female.

Similar numbers are found in former Soviet Union Countries where

communist regime (Anthony 2001, p. 56).

3.2 Spreading the word. Society versus biology.

The authors also indicate another important issue. Male dominance in

Even though, as concluded in the first chapter, biological factors are not

disregard of the problem. A co‐relation can be found by looking at

enough to explain the disproportionally low number of female architects

mathematics, where boys tend to be more successful than girls. In fact,

when compared male ones or even to the number of female architectural

boys usually outperform girls in math‐related subjects, however

students, it is still widely claimed that, in fact, biology determines

suggesting that there is a ‘math gene’ that often makes males perform

architectural skills. In 1998, John Stossel in the ABC Special Broadcast,

better than females, is certainly an exaggeration (Moore 2006; Barnett

‘Boys and Girls are Different’ suggested that girls should probably not

and Rivers 2004).

choose architecture due to biological inferiority in the field. More recently

this field is often taken as fact in people’s opinions, which may lead to

in 2003, an article titled Designer Genes was published in Building Design,

We know that there is no gene for math, just like there is no gene for religious

that might be considered as highly suggestive in terms of superior male

faith, writing ability, or any other complex trait. (Bartnet and Rivers 2004)

biological predispositions for architecture.

Such opinions, which occasionally appear in the media, are unlikely to

have a positive impact on female ambition. Barnett and Rivers, in Same

Difference (2004) blame the media for spreading stereotypes, which

eventually may lead to discouraging females from taking courses related

to mathematics, engineering or architecture.

3.3 Stereotypes against science.

Q: What about the rest of the world. Are we keeping up? Physics, France, very

In 2006, Dr. Lawrence Summers, resigned from continuing as a Harvard

high powered women in science in top positions. Same nature, same hormones,

University president after he shared his opinion on female

same ambitions we have to assume. Different cultural, given.

underrepresentation in science. In his speech, Summers remarked that

LHS: Good question. Good question. I don't know much about it. My guess is

women have ‘different availability of aptitude at high end’ and mostly

that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to

dismissed the social factors (Summers 2005):

work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States. And

therefore it is easier to balance on both sides. But I thought about that, and I think that you'll find that's probably at least part of the explanation.

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented

before with respect to the presence of women in high‐end scientific professions.

Summers’ example shows how easy it is to be manipulated by scientific

One is what I would call [..] the high‐powered job hypothesis. The second is what

evidence that claims to explain underrepresentation. It could be argued

I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a

that the problem comes from biologically determined abilities, however

search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the

on the other hand there is enough evidence to prove social origins of

order that I just described.

female underrepresentation, in science, engineering, and also

architecture (Haworth 2009). Historical background is a strong factor for

Summers’ speech, although referenced with scientific background, rose

females being underrepresented, and although the problem slowly

great disapproval. It is easy to undermine his opinion, which, in fact, was

decreases since 1970s, there is still a lot of prejudice in people’s opinions.

done during the conference by one of the listeners during the questions

and answers section:

In order to investigate how deeply stereotypes could be ingrained within architectural societies, this project investigated opinions of students of the Welsh School of Architecture. The next chapter will describe the method of data collection.

Chapter 4

Method: Analysis of opinions of students of architecture and their relationship to female underrepresentation, male domination and stereotypes.

4.1 Participants The participants of the study were 32 students of Architectural Studies at the Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University. Of the students, 16 were male and 16 were female and there were four students of each sex in each year. The participants were students of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th year of Architectural Studies. The age ranged from 18 to 25 years depending on the year of studies. The data were collected during the first term of the academic year 2009/2010. Currently, there are 329 students enrolled in Architectural Studies course at the Welsh School of Architecture (WSA). Of these, 168 (51%) are male and 161 (49%) are female. Participants were chosen in regards to being a convenient sample for a comparison of opinions and expectations. As

students are about to join the industry in the coming years, it was

The second section consisted of a series of questions regarding the

assumed that they were highly concerned about the current employment

participants’ skills and education. Students were asked to rate their

situation and education issues related to equal opportunities.

personal skills and interests as well as give opinions regarding their

course. The aim of the section was to investigate potential differences

4.2 Procedure To investigate the stereotypes about females and female underrepresentation in the architectural industry within the UK, participants were given a questionnaire. The questionnaire contained a brief introduction, which explained the general aim of the study. The underlying assumption was that male and female students would answer the questions differently, and therefore help to identify factors connected to female underrepresentation in architecture, or in other words, male domination in the industry.

between males and females that could have an impact on gender disproportion in the industry. The third section focused on employment and aimed to reveal students’ opinions on gender segregation and stereotypes present in the architectural industry. The answers were to help in finding reasons for the underrepresentation of women. On average it took 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was ethically approved by the School Ethics Committee. Please, see Appendix 1 for the questionnaire.

The questionnaire consisted of three sections of which the first collected data on the socio‐demographic background of the participants, such as sex, age and year of studies. The background section was crucial for the distinction between male and female opinions.

Chapter 5

Results ‐ Education

5a.1 Reasons for choosing architecture. To begin with, participants were asked why they had chosen to study architecture. They were given a list of possible reasons that included personal interests, promising job prospects, promising salary opportunities, prestige and other reasons with a space for brief description provided. Multiple answers were possible. As can be seen from Graph 1a (100% males) and 1b (94% females), the majority of students had chosen to study architecture because of their personal interests. It might be concluded that the reasons for choosing architecture are similar for both sexes, however, there are differences that could be argued to be associated with female underrepresentation.

reasons for choosing architecture and among these were coincidence or field‐related working experience. As mentioned earlier, the reasons seem similar for both genders, however they are more diverse in case of females. This could lead to a conclusion that males appear to be more certain than females regarding the reasons for choosing architecture, or that females are more open for other opportunities. Fewer females (25%) than males (38%) choose architecture because of promising job prospects, which could be associated with females being uncertain about future career opportunities. Also, a noteworthy number of males (38%) chose architecture regarding the prestige of the profession while only 19% of females considered prestige to be one of the reasons for studying architecture. The same number of females claimed different

5a.2 Ratio assessment

As can be seen from Graph 2, students demonstrated a diversity of

Participants were then asked to estimate the ratio of male and female

believed that the course hosts the same number of male and female

students in the Welsh School of Architecture, which currently is 168 (51%)

students. However the remaining part estimated the numbers quite

males and 161 (49%) females. Graphs 2a and 2b represent the opinions

differently. Although the percentage of students assessing the ratio

regarding the ratio of students.

correctly was similar for males and females, it is easy to conclude that

males and females who estimated incorrectly, had more diverse opinions.

opinions with regard to gender ratio. 43% of males and 44% of females

In general, the majority of males assessing the numbers incorrectly thought that there were less male than female students, while the majority of mistaken females tended to underestimate the number of females in the course. Although this finding could lead to conclusions that students tend to underestimate numbers of students of the same gender as themselves, the figures do not differ enough from those who overestimate the numbers.

5a.3 Favouring males/females. In the next question students were asked to give their opinion regarding equality in treatment of students in terms of attention, grades, support and time provided by tutoring staff. Students were asked to indicate which gender they thought would be privileged regarding these categories; neutral answers were possible. Although some students (6‐19%) declared that either males or females were favoured, the majority of students (88‐94%) did not notice any inequality issues related to education at the WSA. The following graphs summarise the collected data. It can be therefore concluded that students do not experience any major gender‐related equality issues within education at the Welsh School of Architecture.

5a.4 Self‐assessment of skills

The skills were divided into 3 categories:

neutral factors (related to intelligence and predispositions)

One of the questions in the education section asked students to assess

skills related to gained knowledge and experience

their own skills with regard to architectural education. The answer

skills related to motivation and performance.

options ranged from 1 to 5 where 1 represented poor, 3 stood for average

The following table shows the combination of all the skills regarding these

and 5 for excellent (Appendix 1). The aim of the task was to juxtapose

categories.

males’ and females’ opinions on their own abilities. The data collected

was used to calculate ‘d’ values in order to be able to compare the skills

Neutral factors

Knowledge factors

Motivation factors

using a standardized value. The ‘d’ values were calculated as a difference

Design talent

Drawing skills

Diligence

in means between male and female scores divided by an average of

Ability to learn new things

Computer skills

Being adventurous

Creativity

Model making skills

Working with people

Writing skills

Problem solving skills

Technology knowledge

Self – confidence

standard deviations (a measure of within group variability) for the two groups (Hines 2004, p. 10).

Communication skills

Social awareness

Table 1: Student skills

Graph 4 shows the comparison of the results regarding the scores of

The first category of skills includes design talent, creativity and ability to

students. Following the Hines’ analysis of psychological differences (Hines

learn new things. These skills could be associated with general

2004, p. 11) it could be assumed that the ‘d’ values around 0.2 could be

intelligence and predispositions of students. It is therefore important to

considered negligible, while scores around 0.5 could be considered

remark that there is no difference in scores of males and females

moderate. The results of the test can be simply compared by looking at

regarding their design talent and ability to learn new things; and the score

the graph.

favouring males regarding creativity is of negligible value.

Consequently it can be assumed that male and female students appear to

have the same level of general predispositions to study architecture.

The second category is associated with skills related to knowledge and

experience. These skills can be gained during education or be driven by

personal interests. In general males scored higher in comparison to

females, excluding drawing skills where the score favoured females.

Males assessed their own skills moderately higher than females did,

regarding technology knowledge, writing skills and model making skills;

and slightly higher regarding computer skills.

The third category includes skills that can be associated with motivation

and performance. Such skills could be dependent on personal enthusiasm

and would not be directly determined by experience. In this category females estimated their skills higher regarding diligence, social awareness, being adventurous and working with people (being a part of a team). The highest score related to working with people and was of moderate value. Males assessed their skills moderately higher regarding problem solving, communication and self‐confidence.

5a.5 Job prospects. The next question in the education section of the questionnaire asked students to assess their job prospects following the graduation. The question was included in the education section so that the results would not interfere with opinions related to the employment section that asked about gender‐related privileges at work. Similar to the self‐assessment of skills, students were given a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 stood for poor, 3 foe average and 5 for excellent. The results of the task were analysed according to year‐specific scores in order to investigate possible patterns of male and female expectations at different points in time during their education. Although there were only few participants in each study year, the patterns are represented in Graph 5.

As can be seen, the scores for each year varied slightly, however

remained between average and over average on the scale. Interestingly,

with an average value of 3.5 the scores for the first year students of

Architectural Studies were the same for both genders ‐ halfway between

average and over average. The male score increased in the second year while female score remained unchanged compared to the first year. This

5a.6 Plans regarding becoming a registered architect

means that males became more confident regarding their job prospects in

The last question of the education section asked students to share their

their second year, while females did not. The pattern changed in the third

plans regarding becoming a registered architect. The majority of males

year when it dropped significantly for both males and females.

(75%) and females (69%) were certain of becoming registered architects,

Confidence of the third year students seems to decline while having a

however the rest of the participants assessed themselves as undecided.

year in practice ahead of them. Considering the current situation in the

There were no participants certain of not becoming a registered architect

industry, regarding the financial crisis and its consequences within the

(Graph 6).

industry, and possible anxiety related to first work experience, such attitude appears to be justified by a major dose of uncertainty. The score of the fifth year students rose again compared to the third year. Males score rose only slightly however females score increased rapidly and reached the level of over average on the scale. It appears that fifth year students regained their confidence regarding job prospects after their year in practice. It is worth mentioning that females seem to become much more confident than ever before after their work experience and assessed their job prospects higher than males for the first time.

Results – Employment

The next section of the questionnaire focused on employment issues

within the architectural profession. The section related to students’

opinions regarding stereotypes and discrimination in the profession and

potential reasons for this diversity.

5b.1 Privileges

The first question was related to privileges in architectural employment

relating to receiving a job offer, a promotion, becoming a company

director and being treated seriously as an employee. The question asked

students to share their opinions and answer who they thought could be

privileged and gave them 3 options to choose from in each of the

categories; the possible options were ‘males’, ‘females’ or ‘neither’.

5b.1.1 Getting a job As can be seen in the Graph 7a, more than half of the male participants (56%) claimed there were no privileges regarding job offers, however 38% of male claimed that males were privileged when receiving a job offer and 6% claimed that females were privileged. Female answers represented a different point of view as 56% claimed that males were privileged while the rest did not share that view and claimed there were no equality issues regarding receiving a job offer. None of the female students claimed that females were privileged regarding job offers (Graph 7a).

5b.1.2 Getting a promotion Regarding the promotion opportunities, 47% of male respondents declared that neither males or females were privileged, however 46% stated that males were in a more privileged position and 7% claimed that females had better promotion opportunities (Graph 7b). In contrast, the vast majority of female students (69%) consider males to be privileged regarding promotions within the architectural industry. The remaining 31% claimed that neither sex was privileged. No female participant claimed that females are privileged (Graph 7b).

5b.1.3 Becoming a director 75% of female students, compared to 67% of male students stated that males were privileged while becoming a company director. The remaining 33% of males and respectively 25% of females claimed there was no equality issue regarding the company director positions. None of the respondents thought that females were privileged while becoming a company director. The data are summarised in Graph 7c.

5b.1.4 Being treated seriously The last section of the first question asked students to assess who they think was privileged in relation to being treated seriously within the profession. Similar numbers of males and females indicated males as privileged (47% of males and 44% of females), although only males indicated females to be privileged regarding this category (7%). 47% of males and 56% of females did not recognize any difference regarding equality in being treated seriously within the profession (Graph 7d)

5b.2 Reasons for females leaving the profession. In the following question students were given a short introduction presenting numbers of female students and architects in the UK. It was assumed that females leave architecture and students were asked to list possible reasons for females leaving. Although students listed altogether somewhat around 50 reasons for females leaving the profession, significant number of reasons was repeated by the participants. The reasons listed most often are represented in the Graph 8. The most common answer given by 50% of the participants was that

females left as they wanted to start a family. The second most repeated

reason was a change of mind, which included exploring other fields, and

was stated by 34% of the students. Stress, the third most common listed

reason was mentioned by 28% of the participants. Other commonly listed

reasons included not being treated seriously by males, male dominance,

bringing up children, low self‐confidence, glass ceiling (inability to develop

in the career), tough competition in the industry and time issues in relation to private life.

5b.3 Plans regarding employment in architectural offices.

In the next questions students were simply asked if they were planning to

Apart from answers regarding females leaving architecture, there were

work in an architectural office after graduation. Possible answers included

opinions that claimed that females were not leaving but the number of

positive, negative or undecided options. Students who would answer

registered architects was caused by the historical male‐dominance in the

negatively or would be undecided were given an opportunity to choose

industry, and would change eventually in future due to higher number of

up to 3 various options regarding their future plans (i.e. setting up own

female students compared to figures in previous years.

business, continuing education, moving to a different field). The vast majority of students (94% of males and 81% of females) were planning to work in an architectural office following the graduation, 6% of males and 19% of females had not yet decided, there were no negative answers to the question (Graph 9). Students who had not decided whether they intended to work in an architectural office after graduating from the university, declared interests in working for other design‐related businesses, or opening own business also related to design.

5b.4 Can you name 3 female architects?

The most popular choices of female architects included Zaha Hadid and

The last set of questions in the employment section of the questionnaire

Smithson, Alison Brooks or Ash Sakula. The results are represented by

asked students to name 3 male and 3 female architects or respectively

Graph 10.

Sarah Wigglesworth. Other names included Irena Bauman, MUF, Alison

male and female‐led practices. Generally students did not have any problems listing male architects and only 2 persons did not list 3, of which one listed 2, and the other listed only one. The most popular choices of male names included Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, and David Chipperfield. Further choices included Daniel Libeskind, Feilden, Clegg & Bradley, Renzo Piano, or OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture). In case of female architects, students represented a variety of answers. Only 38% of all students were able to name 3 female architects, and majority of these answers came from the 3rd and 5th year students. The remaining 62% were not able to name at least 3 female architects or practices and of these 20% could not name any, 50% could name one and 30% were able to list 2 female names. There were no noteworthy differences in male and female ability to name either male or female architects.

Student’s who were not able to list at least 3 female architects were asked to explain the reasons for their inability to do so. The most common reason listed by students was related to a disproportional number of female architects or female led practices in comparison to male ones. Further reasons mentioned were that the university did not focus on female architects enough, or that female architects received much less press attention. The next chapter will analyse the results and compare the outcomes with other studies and findings.

Chapter 6

Discussion

6.1 Educational issues

6.1.1 Confidence. The results presented in the education section showed that the majority of students chose architecture due to their personal interests. However as females’ responses were more diverse in juxtaposition to male ones, it could be argued that females are generally less certain about their decision to study architecture. Confidence might be the issue not only regarding the choice to become an architect. Female participants assessed their self‐confidence levels generally lower than males; and regarding job prospects, they assessed them lower than males until they experienced working in an office.

On the other hand females more often have other reasons for choosing

the official average ratio of male and female students in architecture),

architecture than listed in the task and this could lead to a conclusion that

however the results proved this idea wrong. Similarity of the results for

they are generally more open for other options.

both sexes shows that unfamiliarity with the accurate ratio of male and

female students might be related to observational or counting abilities

6.1.2 Equality issues and stereotypes in education This study found that generally students are not concerned by equality issues with regard to architectural education. In the task regarding privileges related to support, attention, time and grades only few students declared that in their opinion there were sex‐related problems regarding these categories. Therefore, it appears that students believe that the Welsh School of Architecture is objective in terms of the latter

rather than have anything in common with stereotypes, prejudicing or discrimination. Also the weighted average of opinions proves that thesis, as for both males and females equals the actual ratio of the WSA students. Therefore it could be concluded that there are no general concerns regarding gender issues in the WSA.

regarding the gender of students.

6.1.3 Self‐estimated stereotypes?

The scale of the skills self‐assessment task was based upon Hines’(2004)

Confirmation of this thesis comes from the ratio assessment task. The

comparison of sex differences in human behaviour. Following the ‘Brain

task was included in the questionnaire in order to investigate if students

Gender’ author, ‘d’ values were used to standardize the outcomes for an

were aware of the actual ratio of male and female students in the Welsh

uncomplicated comparison.

School of Architecture. There was a possibility that students would follow

the stereotypical notion of male dominance in architectural courses (also

It appears that the results of the skills self‐assessment task confirm

Thus looking back to the task results, the relation to Rammstedt and

stereotypes about male and female skills, however without careful

Rammsayer’s findings appears straightforward. There is no difference

analysis it could be possible to misinterpret the data. Males scored higher

between males and females regarding their design talent or ability to

regarding model making, problem solving or technology knowledge, that

learn new things, however males’ skills related to spatial or mathematical

could be stereotypically classified as ‘male’ skills, while females scored

abilities were rated higher than females’, while females rated their skills

higher in working with people category which could appear to be a

related to interpersonal abilities higher than males (communication skills

‘female’ skill. Therefore there is a possibility that the results were driven

were related to presentation abilities and ability to communicate the

by stereotypes and consequently the answers have to be analysed more

ideas rather than to interpersonal abilities).

thoroughly so as their meaning would be entirely understood.

Another important finding of Rammstedt and Rammsayer was evidence

that the estimates could be susceptible to sex‐related stereotypes.

Beatrice Rammstedt and Thomas H. Rammsayer in their study ‘Sex

Therefore it could be assumed that the moderate difference in self‐

differences in self‐estimates of different aspects of intelligence’ analysed

assessed abilities may have a stereotypical background rather than be

various characteristics of male and female self‐estimated intelligence.

related to actual abilities (Rammstedt and Rammsayer 2000).

Their research outcomes confirmed that males and females do not

overestimate their general intelligence. However males tend to estimate

However, if females assessed their skills most closely related to

their mathematical, spatial or reasoning skills higher than females, while

architecture lower than males, this could again lead to confidence issues.

females rate their musical and interpersonal abilities higher than males

Females appear to be far less confident than males in the architectural

(Rammstedt and Rammsayer 2000).

field and the low confidence can result in their resignation later in their

careers, or prevent them from aiming to lead successful lives as architects.

6.2 Employment issues.

In the educational section of the questionnaire students answered

It needs to be restated however, that the study focused on students, their

questions regarding gender related privileges in education. In the

expectations and opinions regarding education and employment. The

employment section students were given a similar task regarding

result of the task regarding the assessment of job prospects showed that

assessment of gender related privileges at work. It needs to be remarked,

females in the 5th year, after gaining work experience in architectural

that although no inequality issues were experienced during university

offices, became much more positive regarding their career opportunities’

education, students’ expectations regarding the industry were much more

expectations than before, and, which is important, than males. The levels

concerning. In all categories males were in privileged positions in opinion

of confidence therefore rise, while females become familiar with the

of a significant number of females, furthermore, many males assessed

profession. It is hence an important finding that could lead to a conclusion

their position regarding these categories in a similar way. Therefore

that experiencing the industry can be a crucial factor in becoming more

students generally are not concerned by equality issues during their

confident. On the other hand, as will be shown in the further part of the

education but the employment data might be worrying.

analysis, female confidence levels may decrease during their careers in

Thus, how do females feel, being aware how male‐dominated profession

architecture due to discriminative atmosphere in the industry.

they are entering? If males are privileged in regards to job offers,

promotions or becoming a director this might have an impact on female

performance.

6.2.1 Females facing the industry and the consequences of it.

Looking at the family issue it needs to be remarked that in students’

One of the tasks asked students to assess reasons for females leaving

would not be so problematic if the industry was more family‐friendly. The

architecture. As noted before the most commonly listed reasons were

RIBA report confirmed that the industry has limited family‐friendly

family, change of mind or stress. In the summary of the 2003 RIBA and

working arrangements. The family factor can lead to other problems, as

University of West England report ‘ Why Do Women Leave Architecture’

stated in the report: stress, and deskilling due to career breaks. Another

we read:

important aspect, partially responsible for females resigning, is that of

opportunities for training and promotion. 25% of females, participating in The research found that there is no single reason why women architects leave the profession. Rather, it is as a result of a combination of factors, including poor employment practice, limited family‐friendly working arrangements, few opportunities for training and promotion, tokenism, paternalistic attitudes and difficulties in maintaining skills and professional networks during career breaks. These factors contribute to gradual erosion of confidence and de‐skilling, leading to reduced self‐esteem and poor job satisfaction. The research found that women’s decision to leave the profession was not linked to academic or practical ability or to poor career choice. Respondents were generally successful as students and were clear that architecture was their chosen career, and one that they abandoned with regret.

opinions females leave as they want to start a family, however this issue

the study, chose architecture regarding promising career opportunities, however as stated in the report, in reality they might experience problems regarding their career development. Glass ceiling was also one of the factors listed by students, that might be important regarding gender disproportion in the industry. As mentioned

before, in students’ opinions males were privileged regarding promotion

The findings of the University of West England report, in juxtaposition to

opportunities, and becoming practice owners or directors. These might be

students opinions, clarify the real problems within the profession.

just opinions, however even if these were only stereotypes regarding

Although the report focused on females, its findings showed that males

male dominance, as mentioned by Barnett and Rivers in Same

might leave the profession due to the same reasons as females.

Difference(2004), such opinions can have a destructive impact on female

performance, confidence and in result the hopelessness can lead to

were 6% undecided males and 19% undecided females. This means that

career change decisions (Moore 2006, p. 67).

94% of males and 81% of females want to work in architectural offices,

In order to make the profession more equal, females should receive

however still a quarter of males and almost 1/3 of females are unsure if

additional support to stay in the profession. Also promoting diversity is

they want to register. The number of undecided students is quite

important and, which was stated in the RIBA report, the organisation

significant, and it may come from students’ unfamiliarity with career

treats these issues seriously and holds actions that would stimulate

stages, as many students plan to continue their education until RIBA Part

equality and reduce gender and minority‐based disproportions in the

3 qualifications, however at the same time are undecided regarding the

industry (RIBA 2003).

registration.

6.2.2 The indecision and misinformation.

6.2.3 Can you name at least 3 female architects?

Generally, the majority of students planed to become registered

The majority of the study participants of the Welsh School of Architecture

architects. There were slightly more undecided females than males (31%

were not able to name 3 female architects or practice directors, however

females as compared to 25% males), however this cannot be taken as a

there were no problems in regards of listing 3 male architects. As

strong evidence of males being more confident, or females more

mentioned before there were no differences regarding this question

undecided. Interesting evidence comes from a comparison to a similar

dependent on the gender of participants. In general students explained

question in the employment section of the questionnaire where students

their inability to list 3 female architects, as there were not many of them,

were asked if they were planning to work in an architectural office. Here

which is true considering the numbers of registered architects (only 20%

also the majority of students were certain of doing so, however there

of females in the UK). The other important factor mentioned by the

participants was that females did not get enough attention in press and

architects. Women interviewed in Not Only Zaha noted that publicity is

during lectures.

very important, especially when starting out. Jennifer Luce, AIA, of San

Diego, owns a studio that is 75% female and many clients assume the firm All architects we learn about in school are male, and there are not many female

only does interiors. Awards and press appearances dispel this notion

appearances in press either.

slightly, and bring new clients, however it is difficult to change people’s

Female, 19, 2nd year

Suzanne Stephens in the article titled: Not Only Zaha interviewed several female practice owners about various issues regarding gender‐related problems associated with architecture. Deborah Berke, one of the interviewed practice owners noticed that there are developers who remain elusive to female architects and the ones who called her office were already an open, preselected group. Other interviewed women, noticed also that some clients do not feel comfortable with a female. If you don’t get a job, you are never quite sure whether gender was behind it’

Audrey Matlock

Press attention, as mentioned by participants of the study is an important

stereotypical way of thinking (Stephens 2006). Problems regarding gender, faced by women, are therefore coming not only from the inside of the profession, where they experience difficulties with career development, but also from the outside – developers and clients. Consequently, in order to change the perception of the profession as male‐dominated, architectural organizations such as RIBA should establish a schedule of priorities that could help to promote equality within the industry. More needs to be done for them [females] to crash through the famous glass ceiling, and it should happen first in architecture schools. After school the decision is up to women. They can have successful, happy lives within larger firms, or as partners with men. or they can go it alone. But [..] architects who

factor, responsible for students having difficulties listing female

want to run their own businesses need specific personal qualities: ambition,

persistence, grit, determination, passion, and a thick skin.

(Stephens 2006)

Chapter 7 Conclusions Considering the results of the study, it could be concluded that problems related to gender disproportions in architecture come from both psychological and socio‐cultural backgrounds. The literature review showed that there are no significant psychological sex differences regarding predispositions to study architecture, nor to become a registered architect. However, the results of the study revealed that there is a problem regarding females’ confidence levels. Females tend to be far less confident than males, although this notion could be argued to be a result of social and cultural factors. The literature review provided clear evidence that female underrepresentation in architecture comes from a ‘tradition’ of male dominance in the field as well as is driven by the stereotypes still present in the society. The research on students’ opinions proves that architecture remains a male‐dominated field where males are privileged regarding

employment and females face a number of difficulties that might make

represent only a partial review of the problem of equality within

them change their careers.

architecture.

In case of education, the problem appears much less significant. In

general the Welsh School of Architecture is a good example of promoting

Results of the study show that students are concerned about their future.

equality among students of both genders. Students do not generally

Although females are the group that is subject to discriminative practices,

experience that males or females are privileged in terms of attention,

it appears that male students are aware of the problem, furthermore,

grades, support or time. Therefore it could be assumed that the school’s

many males notice that the problems lie deeper than just in the

attitude to teaching is neutral. However, on the other hand, the school

concerning number of 20% registered female architects.

does not promote female architects during lectures, nor does support

As stated in the first chapters, achieving the 50:50 ratio and blind running

females in order to encourage them to stay in the industry later in their

for equality is not an issue. The study revealed that the problems come

careers.

from deeply‐ingrained stereotypes, and females are subject to

There are opinions, that claim that architecture schools should give more

‘traditional’ sexism and discrimination.

attention to females in order to support them in their career choices. This

does not mean giving more general attention to females but providing

I strongly disagree with the arbitrarily defined 50:50 campaign for numerical

relevant career information and encouraging them to stay in the industry.

gender equality in the profession.

It needs to be remarked that the study was based on a very limited number of participants, therefore the results, although noteworthy,

Male, 28, 5th year

Achieving the numerical equality on its own does not solve the problems within the profession. The aim therefore should not be to achieve an equal number of male and female architects. More important is therefore

to provide such working conditions, family‐friendly solutions and atmosphere devoid of stereotypes, sexism and discrimination, that would prevent females from leaving the profession due to family issues or inability to develop in the field. It is certain that the industry can only benefit from diversity. The RIBA annual reports prove that the process has already given positive results. Since 2003, when the problem was first analysed, the percentage of female architects increased from 13% to 20%. In 2009 (Mirza and Nacey 2003 and 2009) We are already following the path of the stereotypes removal process. Let it be.

References Adams, A., Tancred P. 2000. Designing Women: Gender and the Architectural Profession, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Agassi, J. B. 1982. Comparing the Work Attitudes of Women and Men. Toronto: Lexington Books. Anthony, K. H. 2001. Designing for Diversity: Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Architectural Profession. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Berkeley, E.P. 1989. Architecture: a Place for Women, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Berreto, M., Ryan, M. K., Schmitt, M. T. eds. 2008. The Glass Ceiling in the 21st Century: Understanding Barriers to Gender Equality, APA Division 35 Book Series: American Psychological Association. Bloomfield, R. 2009. Women ‘hit the hardest’ as profession endures slump. Building & Design 1866, p. 3. Caplan, P. and Caplan, J. 1997. Do Sex‐Related Differences Exist and Why do People Seek Them Out?. In: Caplan J. et al. Gender Differences in Human Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 52‐80.

Ceci, S., Williams, W. and Barnett S. 2009. Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations. In Psychological Bulletin 135(2), pp. 218–261. Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., Murphy, K. R. 2000. Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Cornell, D. 1998. At the heart of freedom: feminism, sex, and equality. Chichester: Princeton University Press. Deacon, T. 1990. Rethinking Mammalian Brain Evolution. Available at http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/629 [Accessed: 10 December 2009] Glaser, K. 2003. Written in the Womb. Building Design 1580, p. 10. Graft‐Johnson, A. de, Manley, S., Greed, C. 2003. Why do women leave architecture? Bristol: University of the West of England. Available at: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Education/ DiscussionPapers/WhyDoWomenLeaveArchitecture.pdf [Accessed: June 2009] Gripaios, S. 2003. Celebrating Differences. Building Design 1571, p. 10. Haworth, C., Dale, P., and Plomin, R. 2009. Sex differences and science: the etiology of science excellence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50(9), pp. 1113‐1120.

Hills, H. ed. 2003. Architecture and the Politics of gender in Early Modern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Hines, M. 2004. Brain Gender. New York: Oxford University Press. Summers, L. H. 2005. Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. Conference Transcript. Available at: http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php [Accessed: 28 October 2009] Kahn‐Hut, R. 1982. Women and Work, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Linn M. C. and Petersen, A. C. 1985. Emergence and Characterization of Sex differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta‐Analysis. In Child Development, Society for Research in Child Development Inc. pp. 1479‐1498. Lorenz, C. 1990. Women in Architecture : A Contemporary Perspective. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Lynn, R. 1994. Sex Differences in Intelligence and Brain Size: A Paradox Resolved. In Personality and Individual Differences, pp. 257‐271. Lynn, R. 1999. Sex Differences in Intelligence and Brain Size: A Developmental Theory. In Intelligence, pp. 1‐12. Mirza and Nacey Research. 2008. RIBA Education Statistics 2007/08. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.

Mirza and Nacey Research. 2009. Architects’ Earnings 2009. Ford, West Sussex: The Fees Bureau. Moir, A. and Jessel, D. 1992. Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and women. New York: Dell Publishing. Moore J. 2006. Women in Construction Management: Creating a Theory of Career Choice and Development. PhD Thesis, Colorado State University. Pinker, S. 2004. Why nature & nurture won’t go away. Dædalus Fall 2004, 133(4), pp.5‐17. Rammstedt B., Rammsayer T. H. 2000. Sex Differences in Self‐Estimates of Different Aspects of Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 29, pp. 869‐880. RIBA. 2003. Why do women leave architecture? Report Response & RIBA Action. Available at: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Education/ DiscussionPapers/WhydoWomenleave‐RIBAresponse.pdf [Accessed: November 2009] Roberts, M. 1991. Living in a Man‐made World: Gender Assumptions in Modern Housing Design, London: Routledge. Searing, H. 1998. Equal partners : Men and Women Principals in Contemporary Architectural Practice. Massachusetts: Mansir/Holden Company.

Shelton, B. A. 1992. Women, Men, and Time : Gender Differences in Paid Work, Housework, and Leisure. New York: Greenwood Press. Stephens, S. 2006. Not Only Zaha. Architectural Record 194(12), pp. 60‐ 68. Stossel, J. 1998. Boys and Girls are Different. ABC Special Transcript. Toy, M. ed. 2001. The Architect: Women in Contemporary Architecture. Chichester: Wiley‐Academy. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., Bryden, M. P. 1995. Magnitude of Sex Differences in Spatial Abilities: A Meta‐Analysis and Consideration of Critical Variables. In Psychological Bulletin 117, pp. 250‐270.

The answers in the questionnaire will be used to support my research on gender

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

representation in architecture by finding the most important issues regarding equality in

Gender representation in architecture

Introduction

Dear student, I am undertaking a research study on gender representation in architecture. As part of the project I need to gather opinions of people related to the subject. My chosen target group are students of all classes from the Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University. I would therefore very much appreciate if you could fill in the questionnaire attached. Completion of the questionnaire should not take longer than 10 minutes. The questionnaire is anonymous, confidential and voluntary. However, if there are any questions you do not want to answer, please feel free to omit them. Please complete the questionnaire and seal it in the envelope provided, and return it to the architecture reception. The completed questionnaire will not be seen by any WSA staff, students or any other third party.

architectural professions. A copy of the collated responses and major findings will be available from July 2010 onwards, by contacting me, to all WSA students and staff. Thank you for your time and co‐operation, Mateusz Orzeł If you have any queries about this questionnaire please use my contact details to contact me. e‐mail: mattorzel@hotmail.com

Background 1. Sex o Male o Female 2. Age ……………………………… 3. Year of studies

Please progress to the next section

Education 1. What is the reason why you have chosen architecture? Tick all the reasons that apply  Personal interests  Promising job prospects  Promising salary opportunities  Prestige  Other, please specify ………… ……………………………………………… 2. What do you think is the ratio of male/female students in your course? males…………….% / females ……………% 3. Do you think your course favours males/females in terms of the following: (For each of the items given, please tick one of the boxes only) Attention  Males  Females  Neither Grades  Males  Females  Neither  Males  Females  Neither Support Time  Males  Females  Neither

4a. Please assess your own skills using the following scale: (1 – poor, 2 – below average, 3 – average, 4 – over average/good, 5 –excellent) Design talent‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Technology knowledge‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Social awareness‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Writing skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Communication skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Model making skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Self‐confidence‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Problem solving skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ability to learn new things‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent Working with people (being part of a ‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent team)

Creativity‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Being adventurous‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Computer skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Drawing skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent

Diligence (being hard working)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4b. How do you assess your job prospects after graduation? (1 – poor, 2 – below average, 3 – average, 4 – over average/good, 5 –excellent) poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent 5. Please state which level of RIBA qualifications is your target. Tick one box only.  RIBA part 1  RIBA part 2  RIBA part 3

6. Are you planning to become a registered architect?  yes  no  have not yet decided If you are not going to become a registered architect, please explain in few words why: ……………………………………………………………………………………..

Please progress to the next section.

Employment 1. Please mark who in your opinion is in a privileged position in architectural profession: a) When getting a job  Males

 Females

 Neither

b) When getting a promotion  Males

 Females

c) When becoming a company director or owner.  Males

 Females

 Neither

 Females

d) For being treated seriously  Males

2. RIBA statistics claim that in the UK there is approximately 42% female students in architectural courses, however only 20% of registered architects are female. Theses figures show that women leave architecture. What in your personal opinion could be the main reasons for women leaving architecture? Please write keywords. a)……………………………………… b)…………………………………….... c)………………………………………. d)……………………………………….

 Neither

Please turn the page

3. When you graduate, are you planning to work in an architectural office?

 yes

 no

do not know yet

If you are not planning to work in an architectural office, what are the closest choices

you would make after graduation? Please tick up to 3 boxes.

 employment in an interior design company

 employment in other design company (such as product or graphic design)

 employment in an engineering company

 employment in a field not closely related to architecture

 employment at an educational institution

 own business, architectural office

 own business, related to architecture, design or engineering

 own business, not closely related to architecture, design or engineering

 further education in architecture

 further education in a field related to architecture, design or engineering

 further education in a field not related to architecture

 other, please explain ………………………………………………….

Please turn the page.

4. Please name 3 male led architectural practices or male practice directors / owners. o

……………………………..

o …………………………….. 5. If you cannot name or do not know at least 3, please explain what in your opinion is the reason for that. ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

Please, turn the page.

6. Please name 3 female led architectural practices or female practice directors / owners. o …………………………….. o …………………………….. o …………………………….. 7. If you cannot name or do not know at least 3, please explain what in your opinion is the reason for that. ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you! If you have any personal remarks or comments on the questionnaire or the project, please use the space provided below. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………….……………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ….…………………………………………………………………………………………………