by Gregory Walker, AIA, LEED-AP
Principal, Houser Walker Architecture

Summary: Participants at the 2007 YAF Summit identified “how emerging architects define professional credibility” as an important topic for further exploration. Over two days and through a series of follow-up communications, five attendees—Ronda Wang, AIA; Stuart Magruder, AIA; Michael Kelly, AIA; Michael Eberle, AIA; and author Gregory Walker, AIA,—tackled this timely issue. We sought to identify those professional and cultural factors that affect the overall credibility and perception of architects in general and young architects in particular.

A definition of credibility is difficult to pin down accurately. It is formed through an amalgamation of many different viewpoints. It can be extremely localized but still represent a broad perspective, seem rock solid and yet slowly be eroded by a thousand small yet persistent challenges. The questions we asked ourselves include:

• What is the general perception of architects?
• Why aren’t we more respected in the construction industry?
• Does credibility have any concrete link to compensation?

Defining credibility
For our research purposes, we defined credibility as “worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy; respected as a professional.”

We found that issues of professional credibility were concentrated within three arenas:

• The community or general public, i.e., the end users of our efforts
• Allied disciplines and collaborators within the construction industry: engineers, contractors, construction and project managers, facilities managers, interior designers, vendors, manufacturers, etc.
• The profession itself: fellow architects, professionals, and professional organizations dedicated specifically to architecture.

The public
Within the general public, numerous sources show architects enjoying generally high marks relative to credibility and admiration. For example, a September 2006 poll by Forbes found that architects ranked 12th among the nations’ most admired professionals, along with doctors, nurses, teachers, and engineers (though sadly ranking just below members of Congress). The same year, a Harris Interactive poll found that architects had an 80 percent rating of “some prestige” or above. Architecture and architects regularly are covered and evaluated by leading business and consumer publications. Business Week, Fast Company, and Inc. magazines all have regular features on architecture, as well as entire annual issues devoted to design. Superstar architects and their noteworthy buildings are celebrated routinely in even the most mainstream of media. We can safely say the profession’s credibility remains high with the public.

Allied professions
Yet, the profession has been subjected to enormous internal pressures, especially from allied professions, including engineers, interior designers, and program/construction managers, who have breached traditional professional boundaries that architects had until recently enjoyed. Reasons for this pressure are diverse, but include the increasingly complex manner in which buildings are designed, constructed, and evaluated. This complexity has led to an increasing specialization within the industry and has begun to flatten some of the traditional hierarchies of the classic ‘Owner–Architect–Contractor’ triad. These encroachments—both perceptually and legally—take on a larger importance in this discussion because, in many ways, the credibility of any profession can in large part be defined by its ability to define clearly a role within society and how ethically it pursues the fulfillment of that obligation.

The profession
Delineating a clear boundary or role within society is crucial to defining a territory that can make a unique claim to a particular body of knowledge. And, the more clearly a boundary can be defined, the more likely a practitioner of the art will be viewed as a defining authority within that body of knowledge. This authority is fundamental to creating an atmosphere (both perceptual and real) by which a professional will be received as contributing something of genuine value. This perception of value, quite simply, is “credibility” itself. So, what are the unique claims we, as architects, routinely make that define our “hard core,” and how can we rebuff some of the pressures working to erode it?

Any response from the profession should be aligned around a reaffirmation of our core tenets: protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the general public; sustainability; and the art of creating inhabited structures. It is the synthesis of these elements that gives us a unique voice within the vast industry of constructing buildings. Perhaps it is the art of our practice that has become our most visible calling card to the general public. Yet, as one example, it could be argued that instead of expanding a more professional understanding of what “design” (the art of our profession) embodies, we have allowed it to be more steadily defined by others outside the discipline.

The admittedly subjective nature of design too often has lapsed back into the realm of “mere” aesthetic taste. This opens up one of the key components distinguishing our contribution as professionals to a kind of intellectual leveling, allowing almost everyone to believe their opinions are as equally valid as any other. In addition, architecture, like many contemporary professions, faces access to seemingly limitless amounts of information that give lay people of all backgrounds a belief that they are working from, or even possess, the same body of knowledge as a professional.

If defining this body of knowledge constitutes the first part of our claim on credibility, the second is how ethically we pursue practice, which will determine the degree to which we can generate trust within the public. The AIA has a strong code of ethics, and most states embrace variations of this code in their professional practice laws. Because credibility is fundamentally and intimately rooted in notions of trust and honesty, we not only must possess a technical competency, but also must assume a level of responsibility for our actions equal with that of our society’s most trusted sources. If we rebuff this call, others will pick it up and continue to claim even more professional territory once held in our common trust.

So, how real are the challenges the architecture profession faces, and can our credibility be strengthened?

Toward a way forward
Perhaps one way forward is to rethink our engagement with other allied professions and eventual collaborators in practice, especially at the level of the academy itself. For too long, as a general practice, we have sought to insulate ourselves and our discourse—to an increasing detriment in the arena of practice. Simultaneously, this positioning has, in some ways, given pause to our historic claim to a place at the center of the construction process.

Another solution worth examining is engaging our local communities more actively, becoming deeply rooted as part of the social, business, and cultural landscapes. This kind of close interaction can help improve our overall standing as professionals eager to help solve some of our most pressing issues. Engaging (and leading) collateral professional groups in a common dialogue on how to best solve some of our most pressing social concerns will also help raise our overall credibility. There are many other suggestions that can follow these.

A response to concerns described here needs a commitment on both an individual and institutional level. The factors contributing to the erosion outlined here have occurred slowly, steadily, and almost imperceptibly. It will take time, diligence, and continued dialogue to repair the breach and broaden the impact of our professions’ credibility.