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
I
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.
II
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.
III
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.
IV
Contents:
Abstract.........................................................................................................I
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... III
Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................... 1
Introduction
1.1 Statement of Aim ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Questions ........................................................................... 2
1.3 Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................. 3
1.3.1 Literature review
1.3.2 Methodology
1.3.3 Results
1.3.4 Discussion
1.3.5 Conclusions
Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................... 4
Analysis of psychological differences between women and men.
2.1 Psychological sex differences............................................................. 5
2.2 Brain gender? ..................................................................................... 7
2.3 Core gender identity .......................................................................... 9
2.4 Hormonal environment......................................................................9
2.5 The relationship to female underrepresentation in architectural
industry ..................................................................................................11
2.5.1 Differences in cognitive abilities
2.5.2.Conclusion ‐ the confusion.
Chapter 3....................................................................................................14
Socio‐cultural factors and sex‐related stereotypes influencing female
underrepresentation in architecture.
3.1 The story of male domination..........................................................15
3.2 Spreading the word. Society versus biology. ...................................16
3.3 Stereotypes against science. ............................................................17
Chapter 4....................................................................................................19
Method: Analysis of opinions of students of architecture and their
relationship to female underrepresentation, male domination and
stereotypes.
4.1 Participants.......................................................................................19
4.2 Procedure .........................................................................................20
V
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................... 21
Results ‐ Education
5a.1 Reasons for choosing architecture. ............................................... 21
5a.2 Ratio assessment............................................................................ 23
5a.3 Favouring males/females............................................................... 24
5a.5 Job prospects. ................................................................................ 28
5a.6 Plans regarding becoming a registered architect .......................... 29
Results – Employment............................................................................... 30
5b.1 Privileges ........................................................................................ 30
5b.1.1 Getting a job ............................................................................... 31
5b.1.2 Getting a promotion ................................................................... 32
5b.1.3 Becoming a director.................................................................... 33
5b.1.4 Being treated seriously ............................................................... 34
5b.3 Plans regarding employment in architectural offices.................... 36
5b.4 Can you name 3 female architects?............................................... 37
Chapter 6....................................................................................................39
Discussion
6.1 Educational issues ............................................................................39
6.1.1 Confidence.
6.1.2 Equality issues and stereotypes in education
6.1.3 Self‐estimated stereotypes?
6.2 Employment issues. .........................................................................42
6.2.1 Females facing the industry and the consequences of it.
6.2.2 The indecision and misinformation.
6.2.3 Can you name at least 3 female architects?
Chapter 7....................................................................................................47
Conclusions
References .................................................................................................50
Appendix 1: Questionnaire .......................................................................53
VI
List of figures
Graph A1: Sex Differences in Human Behaviour 6
Graph 1a/1b: Reasons for choosing architecture 22
Graph 2a: WSA students ratio assessment ‐ male opinion 23
Graph 2b: WSA students ratio assessment ‐ female opinion 23
Graph 3: Assessment of privileges in education 24
Table 1: Student skills 25
Graph 4: Comparison of self‐assessed skills 26
Graph 5: Employment opportunities assessment 28
Graph 6: Architect registration plans 29
Graph 7abcd: Assessment of privileges in employment 31‐34
Graph 8: Reasons for females leaving architecture 35
Graph 9: Plans regarding employment in an architectural office 36
Graph 10: Can you name 3 female architects? 37
1
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.
2
Though highly hypothetical, the project aimed to reveal possible reasons
for gender disproportion in architecture, including stereotypes,
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.
1.2 Research Questions
Focused on gender issues within the architectural industry and education,
the study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the background and what are the reasons for female
underrepresentation in architecture?
Do psychological sex differences influence females’
predispositions to study architecture or to be successful
architects, and if so, to what extent?
How socio‐cultural background contributes to gender
disproportions in the industry?
2. Are there differences in male and female perception regarding studying
architecture and future plans?
Do males and females have different reasons for choosing
architecture?
Is there a gender difference in how do students assess their
skills, situation and perspectives?
Is there a factor that varies regarding gender, that would have
an impact on gender disproportions?
3
1.3 Structure of the Dissertation
1.3.1 Literature review
The dissertation begins with an introduction to the problem and
background regarding psychological differences between the sexes and
socio‐cultural factors that might effect gender disproportion within the
architectural industry.
1.3.2 Methodology
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
analysed in order to locate the most important factors regarding the
problem of gender disproportion in architectural industry.
1.3.3 Results
In this section the results are presented and described using relevant
graphs for the comparison of male and female opinions as well as
students’ general points of view.
1.3.4 Discussion
Results presented in the previous section are collated, analysed and
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.
4
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
5
men and women, and generally equality of both sexes, that people tend
to reject the scientific evidence on differences between male and female
cognition, skills or abilities (Caplan et al. 1997).
This chapter will analyse the reasons why society is aiming for equality
while abolishing stereotypes regarding male and female skills,
predispositions and roles; it will also investigate how to cope with sex
differences in order to benefit the profession rather than trying to reject
them or, on the contrary, exaggerate their significance. The analysis will
also include juxtapositions of professional opinions on how sex
differences influence male and female performance in architecture.
2.1 Psychological sex differences
Some scientists (Moir and Jessel 1992; Caplan et al. 1997) tend to classify
differences between males and females into two groups. Sex differences
would be biologically determined and come from anatomical,
physiological or chromosomal properties. Gender differences would be
associated with the socio‐cultural background, and linked to a number of
non‐biological variables, such as environment or upbringing.
The ongoing nature‐nurture debate gathers scientists of various fields
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.
6
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
magnitude of sex differences is by comparing females and males with
regard to the physiological difference of height. Melissa Hines in Brain
Gender (2004) refers to a comparison of differences regarding 3‐D
rotations, math problems, math concepts, verbal fluency, physical
aggression, and toy preferences. Graph A1 shows the combined
information regarding the differences. The ‘d’ value is calculated by
dividing the difference in means of male and female scores by an average
of standard deviations (measure of variability) within the groups.
The ‘d’ value provides a standardized estimate of the size of sex differences in various
characteristics by expressing them in standard deviation units. ‘d’ values of 0.8 and above
are considered large, those of about 0.5 are considered moderate and those below 0.2
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
2004).
Graph A1 shows that the largest difference, where male participants
scored higher than female participants, was the 3‐D rotation task, while
the only task where female participants scored higher than male
7
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
generalisations about male and female performance.
The mental rotation tests performed by Linn and Petersen (1985) that
claimed male superiority in the ability to rotate three‐dimensionally
within the mind, used a representative sample of the general population.
As the results of the tests indicate that males outperform female
participants, it is common to hear people citing these results as a reason
for the fact that there are fewer female architects or engineers. (Moir and
Jessel 1992; Stossel 1998; Glaser 2003).
2.2 Brain gender?
Throughout the decades there were various approaches trying to
investigate the role of psychological sex differences, find reasons for them
and their impact on brain differentiation, behaviour and intelligence
(Hines 2004, p. 220).
One of the most obvious differences lies in the size of the brain, which
might easily lead to the incorrect conclusion that women could be less
intelligent than men. There are some arguments regarding this issue as
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).
8
In the 19th century women were thought to be less intelligent than men
and the reason was supposed to lie in a smaller brain. As quoted by Hines
(2004), Gustave le bon, one of the founders of social psychology, wrote in
1879:
In the most intelligent races [..] there are a large number of women
whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most
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
men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in
superior races than in inferior races…
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
societies, or can take a form of a joke. Hines (2004) argues that these
ideas were supposed to scientifically support unequal achievements
among the races and the sexes and are therefore subject of serious
doubts.
More recent scientific research refutes those ideas and states that the
size of the brain is related to the overall size of the body and that there is
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
intelligent than big‐brained animals such as elephants. Instead, science
focuses on brain structure rather than its size (Deacon 1990).
9
2.3 Core gender identity
Another approach focused on investigating the impact of sex
chromosomes. Men and women were supposed to have different
abilities, qualities or intelligence quotients (IQ) due to the difference in
their chromosomal variation. The research took into account males,
females, and individuals with genetic sex inconsistent with their gender
identity. The results showed that sex chromosomes play a minimal role in
sexual differentiation of brain and behaviour, and refuted the gender as
the main factor for the psychological sex differences (Hines 2004, p.220).
2.4 Hormonal environment
As no associations were found between the brain structure and
chromosomes, scientific research and analysis turned to hormonal
environment as a contributing factor for the difference. There is evidence
that the differences may be linked to a variety of hormones in male and
female bodies. Gonadal hormones have profound influences on
behaviours that show sex differences in non‐human mammals (Hines
2004). However, it cannot be concluded that hormones influence all
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
10
research on hormonal impact on differences between males and females.
Research has shown that boys tend to chose vehicles and guns as their
toys, while girls choose dolls and pets. According to the research, the toy
preferences are not necessarily determined by the upbringing, yet mostly
by the early hormone environment (Hines, 2004).
Following this idea, Lawrence H. Summers, the former president of
Harvard University, in his 2005 speech ‘Diversifying the science and
engineering workforce’ remarked:
I think, while I would prefer to believe otherwise, I guess my experience with my
two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were
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
abilities, that can bring boys ‘streets ahead’ of the girls (Gripaios 2003;
Glaser 2003). On the other hand there are probably as many opinions that
claim that the early hormone environment has no or only minimal impact
on female predispositions that would be responsible for their
underrepresentation in professional fields such as science, engineering or
architecture (Caplan et al. 1997). There are also opinions that claim the
differences are a result of social background and upbringing of children
and youth (Barnett and Rivers 2004; Ceci et al. 2009).
Yet again the debate on the origins of gender differences remains on‐
going and whichever approach is closer to the truth, it is not about
proving someone being right. Possibly the nature of the differences is not
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.
11
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.
12
Yet still, as cited in Gender Differences in Human Cognition (1994),
according to Caplan and Caplan (1994), skills tested in mental rotation
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,
or how to use a dress pattern in sewing, the results might look quite different.
Spatial abilities may very well be based on stereotypically male abilities. The
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)
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
within our brain. No matter whether hormones or other factors, including social
factors, caused to develop in a certain way, the hormonal or social influences
have been translated into physical brain characteristics, such as neurons,
synapses, and neurochemicals. Thus, the distinction between biological and
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
underrepresentation be explained by the brain structure, and
consequently cognitive abilities?
Following the study of Linn and Petersen(1985), more recently, Voyer,
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
the differences in spatial performance come from, nor can it predict if the
differences have any impact on performance in everyday lives.
13
2.5.2.Conclusion ‐ the confusion.
It seems as if within the literature there is a tendency to either show that
males have better cognitive skills than females or to refute the existence
of any differences. In fact it is difficult to compare the studies, as each of
the sources uses different research methods and also claims different
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
an impact on men’s and women’s skills, and gender disproportion in
architecture. However, the effects of the myths related to the sex
differences could be devastating to female performance in architecture.
The next chapter will focus on the analysis of social factors attributable
for the disproportion between female and male architects.
14
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.
15
3.1 The story of male domination.
Although female underrepresentation in architecture might be an
alarming issue, the problem is not new at all. The Royal Institute of British
Architects was founded in 1834, however the very first woman, was not
admitted to the organisation until 1898 when Ethel Charles joined
(Anthony 2001, p. 51).
The Architectural Association that used to be the centre for architectural
education in Britain, opened its structures to women in 1917. However
for many years British schools remained male‐dominated institutions and
in the 1970s female students made up for only 1% of all architecture
students. Since then the numbers of female students in British
architectural education have risen considerably to 42% in 2008 (Mirza and
Nacey 2008). Although this increase is very significant, it could be argued
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
opportunities for women developed despite (or perhaps due to) the
communist regime (Anthony 2001, p. 56).
These figures show that the issue of underrepresentation of female
architects in the UK could be based on socio‐cultural background, and
hence depends on country specific factors. Thus why is it for the United
Kingdom that women are underrepresented in architecture?
Firstly, architecture in the UK has traditionally been a domain of men
(Anthony 2001), and while the process of changing the tradition requires
time, the results come with delay only. Secondly it could be argued that
not enough has been done to encourage females to consider careers in
architecture. Thirdly, and probably most likely there are a number of
interacting factors that can affect women not to choose architecture or
make them resign (Barnett and Rivers 2004, pp. 149‐171).
16
3.2 Spreading the word. Society versus biology.
Even though, as concluded in the first chapter, biological factors are not
enough to explain the disproportionally low number of female architects
when compared male ones or even to the number of female architectural
students, it is still widely claimed that, in fact, biology determines
architectural skills. In 1998, John Stossel in the ABC Special Broadcast,
‘Boys and Girls are Different’ suggested that girls should probably not
choose architecture due to biological inferiority in the field. More recently
in 2003, an article titled Designer Genes was published in Building Design,
that might be considered as highly suggestive in terms of superior male
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.
The authors also indicate another important issue. Male dominance in
this field is often taken as fact in people’s opinions, which may lead to
disregard of the problem. A co‐relation can be found by looking at
mathematics, where boys tend to be more successful than girls. In fact,
boys usually outperform girls in math‐related subjects, however
suggesting that there is a ‘math gene’ that often makes males perform
better than females, is certainly an exaggeration (Moore 2006; Barnett
and Rivers 2004).
We know that there is no gene for math, just like there is no gene for religious
faith, writing ability, or any other complex trait. (Bartnet and Rivers 2004)
17
3.3 Stereotypes against science.
In 2006, Dr. Lawrence Summers, resigned from continuing as a Harvard
University president after he shared his opinion on female
underrepresentation in science. In his speech, Summers remarked that
women have ‘different availability of aptitude at high end’ and mostly
dismissed the social factors (Summers 2005):
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.
One is what I would call [..] the high‐powered job hypothesis. The second is what
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
search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the
order that I just described.
Summers’ speech, although referenced with scientific background, rose
great disapproval. It is easy to undermine his opinion, which, in fact, was
done during the conference by one of the listeners during the questions
and answers section:
Q: What about the rest of the world. Are we keeping up? Physics, France, very
high powered women in science in top positions. Same nature, same hormones,
same ambitions we have to assume. Different cultural, given.
LHS: Good question. Good question. I don't know much about it. My guess is
that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to
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.
Summers’ example shows how easy it is to be manipulated by scientific
evidence that claims to explain underrepresentation. It could be argued
that the problem comes from biologically determined abilities, however
on the other hand there is enough evidence to prove social origins of
female underrepresentation, in science, engineering, and also
architecture (Haworth 2009). Historical background is a strong factor for
females being underrepresented, and although the problem slowly
decreases since 1970s, there is still a lot of prejudice in people’s opinions.
18
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.
19
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
20
students are about to join the industry in the coming years, it was
assumed that they were highly concerned about the current employment
situation and education issues related to equal opportunities.
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.
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.
The second section consisted of a series of questions regarding the
participants’ skills and education. Students were asked to rate their
personal skills and interests as well as give opinions regarding their
course. The aim of the section was to investigate potential differences
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.
21
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.
22
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
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.
23
5a.2 Ratio assessment
Participants were then asked to estimate the ratio of male and female
students in the Welsh School of Architecture, which currently is 168 (51%)
males and 161 (49%) females. Graphs 2a and 2b represent the opinions
regarding the ratio of students.
As can be seen from Graph 2, students demonstrated a diversity of
opinions with regard to gender ratio. 43% of males and 44% of females
believed that the course hosts the same number of male and female
students. However the remaining part estimated the numbers quite
differently. Although the percentage of students assessing the ratio
correctly was similar for males and females, it is easy to conclude that
males and females who estimated incorrectly, had more diverse opinions.
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.
24
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.
25
5a.4 Self‐assessment of skills
One of the questions in the education section asked students to assess
their own skills with regard to architectural education. The answer
options ranged from 1 to 5 where 1 represented poor, 3 stood for average
and 5 for excellent (Appendix 1). The aim of the task was to juxtapose
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
using a standardized value. The ‘d’ values were calculated as a difference
in means between male and female scores divided by an average of
standard deviations (a measure of within group variability) for the two
groups (Hines 2004, p. 10).
The skills were divided into 3 categories:
- neutral factors (related to intelligence and predispositions)
- skills related to gained knowledge and experience
- skills related to motivation and performance.
The following table shows the combination of all the skills regarding these
categories.
Neutral factors Knowledge factors Motivation factors
Design talent
Ability to learn new things
Creativity
Drawing skills
Computer skills
Model making skills
Writing skills
Technology knowledge
Diligence
Being adventurous
Working with people
Problem solving skills
Self – confidence
Communication skills
Social awareness
Table 1: Student skills
26
Graph 4 shows the comparison of the results regarding the scores of
students. Following the Hines’ analysis of psychological differences (Hines
2004, p. 11) it could be assumed that the ‘d’ values around 0.2 could be
considered negligible, while scores around 0.5 could be considered
moderate. The results of the test can be simply compared by looking at
the graph.
The first category of skills includes design talent, creativity and ability to
learn new things. These skills could be associated with general
intelligence and predispositions of students. It is therefore important to
remark that there is no difference in scores of males and females
regarding their design talent and ability to learn new things; and the score
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.
27
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.
28
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
29
average and over average. The male score increased in the second year
while female score remained unchanged compared to the first year. This
means that males became more confident regarding their job prospects in
their second year, while females did not. The pattern changed in the third
year when it dropped significantly for both males and females.
Confidence of the third year students seems to decline while having a
year in practice ahead of them. Considering the current situation in the
industry, regarding the financial crisis and its consequences within the
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.
5a.6 Plans regarding becoming a registered architect
The last question of the education section asked students to share their
plans regarding becoming a registered architect. The majority of males
(75%) and females (69%) were certain of becoming registered architects,
however the rest of the participants assessed themselves as undecided.
There were no participants certain of not becoming a registered architect
(Graph 6).
30
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’.
31
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).
32
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).
33
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.
34
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)
35
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
36
in the career), tough competition in the industry and time issues in
relation to private life.
Apart from answers regarding females leaving architecture, there were
opinions that claimed that females were not leaving but the number of
registered architects was caused by the historical male‐dominance in the
industry, and would change eventually in future due to higher number of
female students compared to figures in previous years.
5b.3 Plans regarding employment in architectural offices.
In the next questions students were simply asked if they were planning to
work in an architectural office after graduation. Possible answers included
positive, negative or undecided options. Students who would answer
negatively or would be undecided were given an opportunity to choose
up to 3 various options regarding their future plans (i.e. setting up own
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.
37
5b.4 Can you name 3 female architects?
The last set of questions in the employment section of the questionnaire
asked students to name 3 male and 3 female architects or respectively
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.
The most popular choices of female architects included Zaha Hadid and
Sarah Wigglesworth. Other names included Irena Bauman, MUF, Alison
Smithson, Alison Brooks or Ash Sakula. The results are represented by
Graph 10.
38
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.
39
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.
40
On the other hand females more often have other reasons for choosing
architecture than listed in the task and this could lead to a conclusion that
they are generally more open for other options.
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
regarding the gender of students.
Confirmation of this thesis comes from the ratio assessment task. The
task was included in the questionnaire in order to investigate if students
were aware of the actual ratio of male and female students in the Welsh
School of Architecture. There was a possibility that students would follow
the stereotypical notion of male dominance in architectural courses (also
the official average ratio of male and female students in architecture),
however the results proved this idea wrong. Similarity of the results for
both sexes shows that unfamiliarity with the accurate ratio of male and
female students might be related to observational or counting abilities
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.
6.1.3 Self‐estimated stereotypes?
The scale of the skills self‐assessment task was based upon Hines’(2004)
comparison of sex differences in human behaviour. Following the ‘Brain
Gender’ author, ‘d’ values were used to standardize the outcomes for an
uncomplicated comparison.
41
It appears that the results of the skills self‐assessment task confirm
stereotypes about male and female skills, however without careful
analysis it could be possible to misinterpret the data. Males scored higher
regarding model making, problem solving or technology knowledge, that
could be stereotypically classified as ‘male’ skills, while females scored
higher in working with people category which could appear to be a
‘female’ skill. Therefore there is a possibility that the results were driven
by stereotypes and consequently the answers have to be analysed more
thoroughly so as their meaning would be entirely understood.
Beatrice Rammstedt and Thomas H. Rammsayer in their study ‘Sex
differences in self‐estimates of different aspects of intelligence’ analysed
various characteristics of male and female self‐estimated intelligence.
Their research outcomes confirmed that males and females do not
overestimate their general intelligence. However males tend to estimate
their mathematical, spatial or reasoning skills higher than females, while
females rate their musical and interpersonal abilities higher than males
(Rammstedt and Rammsayer 2000).
Thus looking back to the task results, the relation to Rammstedt and
Rammsayer’s findings appears straightforward. There is no difference
between males and females regarding their design talent or ability to
learn new things, however males’ skills related to spatial or mathematical
abilities were rated higher than females’, while females rated their skills
related to interpersonal abilities higher than males (communication skills
were related to presentation abilities and ability to communicate the
ideas rather than to interpersonal abilities).
Another important finding of Rammstedt and Rammsayer was evidence
that the estimates could be susceptible to sex‐related stereotypes.
Therefore it could be assumed that the moderate difference in self‐
assessed abilities may have a stereotypical background rather than be
related to actual abilities (Rammstedt and Rammsayer 2000).
However, if females assessed their skills most closely related to
architecture lower than males, this could again lead to confidence issues.
Females appear to be far less confident than males in the architectural
field and the low confidence can result in their resignation later in their
42
careers, or prevent them from aiming to lead successful lives as
architects.
It needs to be restated however, that the study focused on students, their
expectations and opinions regarding education and employment. The
result of the task regarding the assessment of job prospects showed that
females in the 5th year, after gaining work experience in architectural
offices, became much more positive regarding their career opportunities’
expectations than before, and, which is important, than males. The levels
of confidence therefore rise, while females become familiar with the
profession. It is hence an important finding that could lead to a conclusion
that experiencing the industry can be a crucial factor in becoming more
confident. On the other hand, as will be shown in the further part of the
analysis, female confidence levels may decrease during their careers in
architecture due to discriminative atmosphere in the industry.
6.2 Employment issues.
In the educational section of the questionnaire students answered
questions regarding gender related privileges in education. In the
employment section students were given a similar task regarding
assessment of gender related privileges at work. It needs to be remarked,
that although no inequality issues were experienced during university
education, students’ expectations regarding the industry were much more
concerning. In all categories males were in privileged positions in opinion
of a significant number of females, furthermore, many males assessed
their position regarding these categories in a similar way. Therefore
students generally are not concerned by equality issues during their
education but the employment data might be worrying.
Thus, how do females feel, being aware how male‐dominated profession
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.
43
6.2.1 Females facing the industry and the consequences of it.
One of the tasks asked students to assess reasons for females leaving
architecture. As noted before the most commonly listed reasons were
family, change of mind or stress. In the summary of the 2003 RIBA and
University of West England report ‘ Why Do Women Leave Architecture’
we read:
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.
The findings of the University of West England report, in juxtaposition to
students opinions, clarify the real problems within the profession.
Although the report focused on females, its findings showed that males
might leave the profession due to the same reasons as females.
Looking at the family issue it needs to be remarked that in students’
opinions females leave as they want to start a family, however this issue
would not be so problematic if the industry was more family‐friendly. The
RIBA report confirmed that the industry has limited family‐friendly
working arrangements. The family factor can lead to other problems, as
stated in the report: stress, and deskilling due to career breaks. Another
important aspect, partially responsible for females resigning, is that of
opportunities for training and promotion. 25% of females, participating in
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
opportunities, and becoming practice owners or directors. These might be
just opinions, however even if these were only stereotypes regarding
male dominance, as mentioned by Barnett and Rivers in Same
Difference(2004), such opinions can have a destructive impact on female
44
performance, confidence and in result the hopelessness can lead to
career change decisions (Moore 2006, p. 67).
In order to make the profession more equal, females should receive
additional support to stay in the profession. Also promoting diversity is
important and, which was stated in the RIBA report, the organisation
treats these issues seriously and holds actions that would stimulate
equality and reduce gender and minority‐based disproportions in the
industry (RIBA 2003).
6.2.2 The indecision and misinformation.
Generally, the majority of students planed to become registered
architects. There were slightly more undecided females than males (31%
females as compared to 25% males), however this cannot be taken as a
strong evidence of males being more confident, or females more
undecided. Interesting evidence comes from a comparison to a similar
question in the employment section of the questionnaire where students
were asked if they were planning to work in an architectural office. Here
also the majority of students were certain of doing so, however there
were 6% undecided males and 19% undecided females. This means that
94% of males and 81% of females want to work in architectural offices,
however still a quarter of males and almost 1/3 of females are unsure if
they want to register. The number of undecided students is quite
significant, and it may come from students’ unfamiliarity with career
stages, as many students plan to continue their education until RIBA Part
3 qualifications, however at the same time are undecided regarding the
registration.
6.2.3 Can you name at least 3 female architects?
The majority of the study participants of the Welsh School of Architecture
were not able to name 3 female architects or practice directors, however
there were no problems in regards of listing 3 male architects. As
mentioned before there were no differences regarding this question
dependent on the gender of participants. In general students explained
their inability to list 3 female architects, as there were not many of them,
which is true considering the numbers of registered architects (only 20%
of females in the UK). The other important factor mentioned by the
45
participants was that females did not get enough attention in press and
during lectures.
All architects we learn about in school are male, and there are not many female
appearances in press either.
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
factor, responsible for students having difficulties listing female
architects. Women interviewed in Not Only Zaha noted that publicity is
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
only does interiors. Awards and press appearances dispel this notion
slightly, and bring new clients, however it is difficult to change people’s
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
46
want to run their own businesses need specific personal qualities: ambition,
persistence, grit, determination, passion, and a thick skin.
(Stephens 2006)
47
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
48
employment and females face a number of difficulties that might make
them change their careers.
In case of education, the problem appears much less significant. In
general the Welsh School of Architecture is a good example of promoting
equality among students of both genders. Students do not generally
experience that males or females are privileged in terms of attention,
grades, support or time. Therefore it could be assumed that the school’s
attitude to teaching is neutral. However, on the other hand, the school
does not promote female architects during lectures, nor does support
females in order to encourage them to stay in the industry later in their
careers.
There are opinions, that claim that architecture schools should give more
attention to females in order to support them in their career choices. This
does not mean giving more general attention to females but providing
relevant career information and encouraging them to stay in the industry.
It needs to be remarked that the study was based on a very limited
number of participants, therefore the results, although noteworthy,
represent only a partial review of the problem of equality within
architecture.
Results of the study show that students are concerned about their future.
Although females are the group that is subject to discriminative practices,
it appears that male students are aware of the problem, furthermore,
many males notice that the problems lie deeper than just in the
concerning number of 20% registered female architects.
As stated in the first chapters, achieving the 50:50 ratio and blind running
for equality is not an issue. The study revealed that the problems come
from deeply‐ingrained stereotypes, and females are subject to
‘traditional’ sexism and discrimination.
I strongly disagree with the arbitrarily defined 50:50 campaign for numerical
gender equality in the profession.
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
49
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.
50
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.
51
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.
52
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.
53
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Gender representation in architecture
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.
The answers in the questionnaire will be used to support my research on gender
representation in architecture by finding the most important issues regarding equality in
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: [email protected]
Introduction
54
Background
1. Sex
o Male o Female
2. Age ……………………………… 3. Year of studies 1 2 3 4 5
Please progress to the next section
55
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
Support
Males Females Neither
Time Males Females Neither
56
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
Problem solving skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Ability to learn new things‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Working with people (being part of a ‐‐‐‐‐team)
poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Creativity‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Being adventurous‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Computer skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Drawing skills‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Diligence (being hard working)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent 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
57
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.
58
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 Neither
c) When becoming a company director or owner.
Males Females Neither
d) For being treated seriously
Males Females Neither
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)……………………………………….
Please turn the page
59
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.
60
4. Please name 3 male led architectural practices or male practice directors / owners.
o ……………………………..
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.
61
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. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………….……………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ….…………………………………………………………………………………………………