 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Questions, answers and thoughts Q. You’ve mentioned the American Institute of Architecture. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? A. I think everybody may not have heard the question. It was kind of an inquiry as to the terminology of the American Institute of Architecture rather than the American Institute of Architects. I think that was a way of saying that we’ve kind of built our industry around licensing law instead of a full integration of all the disciplines that create architecture. If we broaden the definition of the Institute to be more inclusive, more collaborative, it would enhance the research environment that we’re looking for as well as the collective knowledge to address the research problems that we need to propose to be credible in the marketplace research model. To elaborate on the Institute of Architecture, just so it doesn’t get lost, this would be an idea of bringing together all the disciplines that relate to construction and rebuilding of the natural environment rather than separating by current disciplinary divisions. And consider bringing education into the practice group so that there is not a separate planning educators’ and architecture educators’ organizations as well as separate professional organizations. We also went around the room a little bit, and they thought about other professional organizations like the American Oncology Association or the American Planning Association. By having them titled by the role of the person versus the nature of the issue or the problem and by thinking about the creation of our profession, that may make us rethink what the organization could be about—such as the notion of more educational, professional, and industry integrated within a profession instead of silos. |
 |
