Prem Chandavarkar Bangalore, first posted on IN-Enaction 24 December 2003

SOME PRINCIPLES RELATED TO REGULATING ARCHITECTURE:

1. PREAMBLE:

I am told that writing of the Chinese word for ‘crisis’ incorporates two pictographs – one that denotes the word ‘danger’ and the other that denotes the word ‘opportunity’. In this spirit the recent events that have shaken up the regulation of architecture in India, which have often been described as a ‘crisis’, also offer an opportunity for reassessment. This note seeks to put forward a few fundamental principles that could be kept in mind during the debate that ensues.

The profession of architecture needs to regulate two issues – the licensing of professionals that entitles them to practice, and the regulation of education. A principle common to both of these issues is that regulation is best conducted by peers. This is preferable for two reasons. Firstly, peers are best positioned to understand the complexities and working of the profession as a discipline of knowledge. Secondly, the major manner in which architects assess their success is in perceiving the level of peer recognition that is achieved.

The need for peer review therefore carries a concomitant requirement that the peers in charge of regulation should represent a level of achievement that is commensurable with the highest standard of the profession. Rather than being selected for their abilities for administration or political networking, it should be a requirement that the head of the regulatory authority should have a prior track record of excellence either through reputed design practice, or published scholarship. We need to define in detail how we will establish and enforce such a benchmark.

Apart from the need for peer review, licensing and education impose drastically different focus, principles and requirements for regulation. Therefore, the two are discussed separately below:

1. LICENSING:
2. Architecture, as a cultural and aesthetic artifact, should not be regulated from above. Culture and art evolve in all their richness when there is no restriction on their operation. Therefore any regulation through licensing should make no attempt to impose design standards related to design, aesthetics or culture.
3. The purpose of licensing is to set a minimum standard so that the practicing architect does not impose a danger or disadvantage to the public in terms of the tangible and explicit issues of safety standards, building codes and building systems. In other words, the purpose of licensing is to set the bar for the ‘lowest common denominator’.
4. The need to integrate such issues within a design project is the reason why licensing examinations continue to centre on an examination in design (even though most colleges have abandoned such a practice). Other components of the licensing exam would be tests of knowledge in professional practice, building systems, and construction procedures involved in executing projects such as contracts, tenders, etc.
5. Since the focus of licensing is on practical issues, it should also ensure that candidates for licensing hold a minimum quantum of practical experience. We should abandon the assumption that a person fresh out of college is worthy to practice. A candidate should be eligible to take the licensing examination only after a minimum of three years of experience in a licensed architect’s office after graduation from college.
6. EDUCATION:
7. The academic institution, since it remains comparatively detached from the practical exigencies of practice, is the site best positioned to support cutting edge reformative or stimulating thought on architecture. Unlike the regulation of practice, which seeks to establish the lowest common denominator, the regulation of education should seek to push institutions to the highest possible standard of discourse on architecture.
8. A rich cutting edge discourse cannot be enforced through top down control. Therefore we should abandon the current template based approach of check box auditing with a process-based approach that stimulates each college to push the ‘limits of the box’.
9. The first change should come through faculty standards. We unfortunately assume that in an educational institution the only persons who are coming to learn are the students. Academic institutions achieve excellence when the faculty members are also learners, and the entire college is structured as a community of learners. So it should be mandatory that faculty demonstrate an ongoing commitment to learning. The ‘publish or perish’ culture that is adopted by universities all over the world should be adopted here. We should insist that every faculty member should publish either a work of design, theory, history or criticism in a national or international professional journal at least once every two years. While it could be argued that given the editorial standard of journals in India this is not a very high standard, it is at the least a worthwhile starting point. Awards in design or theory competitions could also be accepted in lieu of published work.
10. The second change required is in reforming our attitude towards curriculum. The debate in India defines this term very loosely, and mistakenly often identifies it with syllabus. Curriculum should encapsulate the philosophy of education that an academic institution adopts, and consists of three major components – values, pedagogy and content (or syllabus). Values relate to how the college views the goals and ethics of architecture and education; its philosophy on what architecture should set out to achieve; its ethics of how a community of learners is constituted. Pedagogy relates to the methods by which the college produces learning; how it sets up the environment conducive to learning; how it assesses learning. A committed pedagogy seeks to shift the paradigm of education away from delivering instruction towards producing learning (and learners). Content relates to that core body of knowledge and skills through which the discipline of architecture can be practiced.
11. A rich and effective tradition of curriculum in our colleges of architecture can only be achieved if colleges are given the autonomy to construct their own vision. Therefore the process of regulation should change. Rather then a predefined template driven process of check box auditing, regulation should be based on firstly driving the college towards producing vision on curriculum, and subsequently auditing the college against the goals it has defined for itself.
12. The inspection process begins 12 to 18 months in advance of the inspection event. At the beginning of the process the college has to put forward its vision on curriculum in the form of a document that covers all the aspects of curriculum. A dialogue begins with the regulatory authority aimed towards converting this vision into a set of goals that can be documented and measured. The final inspection (it goes without saying that the members of the inspection team should meet a certain standard in established credentials of scholarship) then seeks to evaluate the following:
    • The extent to which the college has performed against the goals it has defined for itself.
    • The extent to which the college has a faculty made up of learners, reflected in the track record of published work.
    • An evaluation of the work of students of the college in order to certify that the standard of the work reflects what should occur in a college of architecture.
    • An evaluation of the facilities the college has to ensure that it is in a position to conduct the course, with particular emphasis directed towards studios, libraries, computer labs, and workshops.
13. The regulatory process should drive a culture where colleges can compete with each other in terms of their vision and the extent to which they are able to achieve that vision. It should aim towards pushing towards the highest possible standard, and not think solely in terms of ensuring the lowest common denominator.
14. CONCLUSION:
15. From the entirely different focus required to regulate education and architecture, it is best if the two are conducted by different organizations. The Council of Architecture is probably best positioned to regulate licensing. It is best that we have a National Architectural Education Accreditation Board that is solely focused on education. If for legal or logistical reasons, this cannot be separated from the CoA, then it should be an autonomous wing with its own head who is qualified for the role.
16. It may be argued that these principles are idealistic (and therefore naïve). But I would argue that if it is excellence we seek (and if we are willing to accept mediocrity, then the whole situation is different) then we have to keep principles in focus. Principles should drive pragmatics, not the other way round.