[Papers] [HOME]
BUILDING EDUCATION: FROM FRAGMENTATION TO INTEGRATION
Mustafa Pultar
Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University, Ankara, Türkiye
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the present fragmented structure of building education is neither based on appropriate premises nor sufficient in scope to cover the diverse problem areas of building. The need for integration in building studies is stressed, and an approach is proposed for integrated education comprising two stages: basic building studies, and specialized studies.
Keywords: Education, building, architecture, engineering.
INTRODUCTION
Building is one of the predominant activities of man and buildings constitute the most salient aspects of man’s existence on earth. This dichotomy of process and product inheres in the word “building” which has a multitude of meanings: First, building is an activity conducted by humans to answer the most basic need of shelter as well as other social individual and abstract needs; in this sense, it is a process of production and use. Secondly, building is the product of that process, the facility or structure that man builds. And thirdly, it is a complex, interacting set of physical, psychic, social and cultural phenomena that is observable in both the process and the product.
This diversity of meaning is indeed a reflection of the immense scope of building. It should not be surprising, therefore, that within this scope are involved as many different professional parties as the breadth of the word implies. What is surprising and problematic, however, is the fact that, usually, these parties have been educated in widely divergent backgrounds. Thereby results a professional congregation of culturally alienated groups struggling to cooperate in circumstances where little basis for common understanding exists.
PROFESSIONAL FRAGMENTATION
The fact that there are distinctly discernible stages in building may explain why, in our day, building professions have been compartmentalized into groups such as architects, various engineers, surveyors, contractors, realtors and facility managers. But, “the design, construction and management of buildings ... suffers the most fragmented decision-making process ... The separation of architecture, architectural/engineering ... and engineering of the built environment is counterproductive” (Loftness 1995: 144). Each of building’s professional groups has formed its own terminology and modes of operation, amplifying the consequences of this fragmentation. Peters points out, for example, that “[a]lthough architectural and engineering designers both deal with building, they each think very differently about the same subject matter. ... [n]either profession often even cares to make the effort to understand each other” (1991, 23-24). Much of this alienation may have to do with the historical development of specializations in building. But even in themselves, specialized professions are further restricting their remit. For example, “[w]e witness an historical evolution where architect becomes more and more distanced from the forces that govern the production of buildings today” (Tschumi 1995: 25).
As if fragmentation were not of serious concern, some groups have lost all sense of purpose in their profession. “Dwellings and buildings are meant to be lived in, to be enjoyed, to provide enchantment and psychic wellness for their users. ... Yet, mainstream architecture seems propelled by ... ideas awkwardly adapted from literary criticism such as post-modern, deconstructivist, retro-nostalgic, neo-classic and post-structuralist. ... New approaches to making shelters and buildings [should] ... appear out of real needs and social shifts, not from self serving ‘statements’ or ‘gestures’ by celebrity-architects” (Papanek 1994: 10). This trend has gone so far that one such celebrity-architect, Peter Eisenman, feels himself totally justified in saying: “I do my work for me; there are no other ‘people’ for the architect. ... my best work is without purpose. I invent purpose afterwards. ... Who cares about function? That is the reduction of architecture to mindless convenience” (qt. Cuff 1989: 66-67). A similar condition of professional deformation exists with engineers: “The knowledge base of a building engineer is within the areas of science, technology and mathematics. But what is the use of an engineer, who has little concept of buildability, cost, time, quality and the employment of resources to achieve the desired structure?” (Chandler 1994: 355)
EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS
Fragmentation and professional alienation are also visible, might even have their roots, in the many different institutions of higher education dealing with building. Problems in the spatial organization of buildings with respect to functional, visual and semantic requirements are considered to be the domain of architects; this understanding finds its reflection in the organization of these aspects as autonomous programs in schools of architecture. Topics related to the structural, sanitary and environmental systems of buildings, on the other hand, are conceived as the domain of various engineers. The education of these specialists has been structured in schools of engineering, along lines originating in disciplines outside building and which often remain marginal in that field itself. Not only are these two different educational milieus, they are two different cultures: “The potential differences between architectural and engineering students are recognized, magnified, and made more rigid by the difference in their education” (Salvadori 1991, xiv).
Beyond architecture and engineering lie construction, maintenance and management which are undertaken either by entrepreneurs with no background in building or by professionals who have learnt these problems on the job. Often, policy makers, administrators and legislators dealing with building have little educational background in it. Educational programs in these areas are still rare, and those that are available are often not well established and developed sufficiently from either an academic or a professional perspective.
Because education with such compartmentation takes place in hermetically closed environments, the respective fields have developed distorted approaches of their own. With a tradition of describing building decisions mainly in drawings, education in architecture has visual design as its essential basis and medium. Architectural schools are often organized within or in close relation with fine arts and have at the foundation of their studies a design fetishism based on visual elements and principles. Ghirardo argues that this “mode of teaching architecture virtually dictates ... a ... sensibility about architecture as the formal elaboration of a spatial language independent of social and cultural issues, not to mention material ones. In this curriculum, matters having to do with infrastructure, technology, landscape, materials and structure are purely secondary, indeed, are often viewed as intrusions into an otherwise pure system of form and space” (1998: 29-30).
Mathematical models of the physical world, on the other hand, lie at the foundation of engineering studies. For example, “[i]n most European engineering schools, education is oriented towards the development of skills that are (i) well defined in quantitative terms, (ii) formulated in a well-defined deterministic environment and (iii) identified as belonging to a particular branch of the applied sciences (mechanics, electronics, thermodynamics, management etc.) ” (Installé 1996: 341). Through this understanding, building design has been transformed into a process of computation, devoid of all other notions.
Building is a technical field as few others may claim to be. Yet, schools of architecture or engineering often give no, or at best minimal, attention to either principles such as efficiency, feasibility and buildability, or to stages of building such as construction, use and maintenance. In a study on the education of building professionals, it has been found that “[t]his is especially true for architectural schools that de-emphasize the use of technology in ... construction methods, materials, and systems in favor of teaching broad design subjects” and that “[t]echnology has been largely eliminated from the engineering curriculum in most schools so as to focus on science, math, and basic engineering principles” (Committee 1995, 2). Often this appears as a problem of integration, rather than omission: “Although most architecture courses around the world do have ... ‘technology of the built environment’ as part of their curricula, the perennial problem is the lack of integration of these ‘technological’ subjects within the architectural design process” (Banarjee and DeGraff 1996: 185).
A further area of serious concern relates to the social and managerial effectiveness of building professionals. “Most architectural and engineering students leave school with little knowledge of business, economics, and management, adversely affecting graduates’ ability to serve their clients, understand the concerns of their employers, manage projects effectively, and qualify for more responsible positions” (Committee 1995, 2).
There have been many attempts at overcoming some of these deficiencies of the present structures of education. They have taken the form of close departmental cooperation as described by Loftness (1995), architectural/building engineering departments (Fritchen and Tredway 1998) or joint programs between architecture and engineering. But many of these have contributed little to the resolution of fragmentation because they do not address the essential problem of cultural dichotomy. Billington, describing a joint engineering-architecture program states that “it is not in the least interdisciplinary. You never once experience a course taught by both an architect and an engineer. Rather, you go between two different cultures. When you go from the engineering school to the architecture school, you clearly enter a completely different world” (Discussion: 50).
”Practitioners are needed who understand the interdisciplinary nature of decisions affecting the built environment, are competent in complex fields of knowledge and decision-making, and are able to lead multidisciplinary teams designing and constructing the built environment with common, performance-oriented goals” (Loftness 1995: 144). How, then, are we to achieve what she sees as imperative?
A RADICAL APPROACH TO INTEGRATED STUDIES
The need for change in the present structures of building education is being increasingly voiced. One source of such concerns is the many deficiencies of present approaches in fulfilling the demands of the modern world: “The ever-increasing speed of technological change in the twentieth century calls for a drastic reorientation of technical design practices, i.e. for a paradigmatic change in the way engineers work. ... To reach this goal, it is crucial to introduce changes in the training of engineers” (Jelsma and Wondstra 1997: 277). Another source is the present limitations in educational scope: “Hermetic debates within architecture need to be ... infected with other disciplines. ... I call for a break in tradition. Architectural education should no longer be limited to the purely architectural project” (Leach 1995: 28)
Also of concern is the restriction of approach to training: “Would it not be a positive step ... if architectural education could expand its remit beyond professional training, and develop, together with other disciplines, more universally applicable ways of studying the world—albeit with a bias towards the built form and space?” (Teymur 1992: 92).
Yes, indeed it would; but not in the form of an expansion of architectural education. A crucial prerequisite would be to recognize the autonomy of building, freeing it from all biased conceptions as a form of art or as a branch of engineering. Within universities, a new institution should be established independent of schools of architecture and engineering. The term “Faculty of Building” should be preferred; firstly because it connotes a center of university studies rather than one of professional training and, secondly, because it disavows all traditional associations through the use of the professionally and educationally value-laden terms “architecture” and “engineering.”
In light of the educational problems discussed above, four guiding principles may be set for this program: (i) Commonality of purpose and background. (ii) Comprehensive coverage of all building areas. (iii) Analysis before synthesis. (iv) Adaptive specialization.
A major cause of fragmentation in education is the lack of a common conception of building. This can be remedied by initiating studies for all aspects of building from a common base, through a program of basic building studies, which would also serve for comprehensive coverage of all aspects of building in the faculty.
Often, encouraging specialization at the start of one’s education in building, as is done through a choice of architectural or engineering programs, is counterproductive. The design fetishism of present-day architectural education is one of the primary stumbling blocks in this respect. Early specialization needs to be overcome by putting analysis before synthesis, by devoting the initial years of education to a complete understanding of the multitudinous aspects of building. Mark and Billington have found, for example, that students “often have difficulty in deciding on engineering or architecture during their early college years, and [a joint] program allows them to put off that decision until their junior year” (1995: 95). By delaying the onset of specialization, students could develop awareness of their own talents and interests.
Building cannot be effected without specialists because of its vast scope, but such specialists must be in a position to understand and deal with the concerns of other specialists. This should be brought about by allowing specialization in a common educational milieu and growing out of a common background.
An university program congruous with these principles can be structured in a two-tiered form consisting of an initial program of basic building studies leading into subsequent specialized building studies. Basic building studies should cover instruction in the analysis of all fundamental aspects of building and provide, as well, an introduction to general university studies. Specialized studies, on the other hand, should be so designed as to respond to the intellectual interests and capabilities of individual students which may be channeled into professional training or towards further advanced studies in building. The latter part of specialized studies may be conducted in the form of graduate studies.
BASIC STUDIES
The aim of basic studies is to acquaint the student with the world of the intellect as is requisite in higher education, and with the fundamental issues of building. These should extend over two years and should be required of all students enrolled in the faculty of building. They should be exposed to the general factors that affect building, to design, communication and production issues, and to the basic modes of thought directed at understanding the building.
The first year of basic studies, devoted to general studies, should aim to form and develop the student's awareness of and attitude to the built environment. In the second year, concentration should be on understanding buildings. Studies should develop the analytic capacities of the student through discussions of the issues involved on examples specifically chosen from the accessible environment.
SPECIALIZED STUDIES
Specialized studies in building allow students to have further education in building suited to their own interests and talents. Therefore, these studies should have a pluralistic structure of multiple tracks, allowing specialization in either the different professional aspects of building such as design, construction, management or in academic studies in depth in specific areas such as history, and physical or social building science.
The duration, phasing and requirements of specialized studies may vary depending on the attributes of the track. It is important to assure that these specialization tracks are not organized as autonomous departments as this would run contrary to the spirit of integrated education and would end in a reversion to previous forms of fragmentation.
Four specialization tracks appear to be appropriate for covering the major areas of building: design, construction, management and building science.
Specialization in design is essentially professional training that aims at equipping the student with knowledge and skills necessary for designing buildings. It would be convenient to effect this training in a master-apprentice mold on designs of real projects. Accordingly instruction may take place in design studios that form the backbone of this program; the topics handled in these studios should be progressively more complex. The principle of using successful and influential professional designers as studio instructors should be considered a strength of this training. Students in the design specialization track may choose to organize their studies towards one aspect of design, such as spatial, structural or services design.
Specialization in construction consists of professional training that aims at equipping the student with knowledge and skills necessary for constructing high quality buildings in an efficient manner. Instruction should be structured around construction projects that would form the backbone of this program. The principle of using successful and influential construction professionals as instructors in these projects should also be implemented.
Specialization in building management is aimed at equipping the student with knowledge and skills necessary for formulating and administering policies on the development and use of the built environment. Instruction should be so structured that graduates of the program may easily continue their graduate studies in building management or, alternatively, work as consultants, facility managers, realtors, administrators in policy making positions or in careers of building legislation.
Specialization in building science aims at equipping the student with the knowledge and skills necessary for furthering their studies in building at an advanced level. Instruction should be so structured that graduates of the program may easily continue their graduate studies in building and work as researchers in academia or professional research centers, or as other specialists.
CONCLUSION
Among all of the fundamental activities of man, there is no other that answers as many needs and has as many different aspects as does building. It is perhaps because of this variety of aspects that education in building is conducted in a fragmented manner and has not been able to develop an integrated approach.
Such an approach has been proposed in this paper in the expectation that it may bring solution to the many problems that have arisen in building education over time. The particular approach taken may vary depending on circumstances, but the guiding principles outlined should be observed. The success of the approach will depend to a very great extent on the initiators of the program, who should be careful not to bring along with them the educational biases of their own background into the program.
REFERENCES
Banarjee, H.K. and E. DeGraff: 1996, Problem-based learning in architecture: problems of integration in technical disciplines, European Journal of Engineering Education, 21.2: 185-195.
Chandler, Ian E.: 1992, The study of management subjects in building engineering courses, European Journal of Engineering Education, 17.4: 355-359.
Committee on Education of Facilities Design and Construction Professionals: 1995, Education of Architects and Engineers for Careers in Facility Design and Construction, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Cuff, Dana: 1989, Through the looking glass: seven New York architects and their people, Architects’ People, Eds. Russell Ellis and Dana Cuff, Oxford University Press, New York, 64-102.
Discussion, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking the Relationship of Architect and Engineer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Fritchen, David R. and Timothy C. Tredway: 1998, Kansas State University architectural engineering, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 4.1, 34-39.
Ghirardo, Diane: 1998, Form and the occluded other, Forum II: Architectural Education for the 3rd Millenium, Eds. Ay?e ?entürer and Fevzi Özersay, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Northern Cyprus, 29- 34.
Installé, Michel: 1996, How to educate future engineers toward a better understanding of the relationship between technology, society and environment, European Journal of Engineering Education, 21.4: 341-345.
Jelsma, Jaap and Egbert Wondstra: 1997, Integrated training of engineers for a changing society, European Journal of Engineering Education, 22.3: 277-293.
Leach, Neil: 1995, Fractures and breaks, Educating Architects, Eds. Martin Pearce and Maggie Toy, Academy Editions, 26-29.
Loftness, Vivian: 1995, Architectural/engineering education at Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 1.4, 144-146.
Mark, Robert and David P. Billington: 1995, Architecture and engineering at Princeton University, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 1.2, 93-96.
Papanek, Victor: 1994, Foreword, Earth to Spirit: In Search of Natural Architecture, by David Pearson, Gaia Books, London.
Peters, Tom F.: 1991, Architectural and engineering design: two forms of technological thought on the borderline between empiricism and science, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking the Relationship of Architect and Engineer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 23-35.
Salvadori, M.: 1991, Introduction: architect versus engineer, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking the Relationship of Architect and Engineer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, xii-xv.
Teymur, Necdet: 1992, Architectural Education: Issues in Architectural Practice and Policy, ?uestion Press, London.
Tschumi, Bernard: 1995, One, two, three: jump, Educating Architects, Eds. Martin Pearce and Maggie Toy, Academy Editions, 24-25.
[Papers] [HOME]