2009 accreditation requirements: comparison of … compared to differentiate the specialized, ......
TRANSCRIPT
P E R S P E C T I V E
FROM THE EDITOR
This Perspective was based, in part, on a paper presented at the 2009 annual IDEC conference in St. Louis,Missouri.
2009 Accreditation Requirements:Comparison of CIDA and NAAB
Caren S. Martin, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, andMichael D. Kroelinger, Ph.D., Arizona State University
PurposeThis investigation studied interior design and architecture education with respect to their specialized andshared knowledge areas (KAs). Education, formalized via accreditation requirements, is available to bothdisciplines. KAs within discipline-specific accreditation requirements content were identified, categorized, andthen compared to differentiate the specialized, parallel, and shared knowledge gained by students graduatingfrom accredited programs. The findings of this study could contribute to the dialog about what makes interiordesign and architecture unique professions.
BackgroundAs a profession, interior design has a documented body of knowledge (BOK), which defines its professionalboundaries (Guerin & Martin, 2001; Poldma, 2008). Like every profession, interior design’s BOK includesabstract knowledge that is unique to its practice and other knowledge that it shares with or has gleaned fromother professions (Abbott, 1988).
Interior design knowledge gained through education and practice, and shared with allied professions, namelyarchitecture, has created challenges. Right to practice issues and advocacy for regulation by the interior designprofession have heightened efforts by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Institute for Justice, andothers to claim that interior design does not possess specialized knowledge and is, therefore, not a uniqueprofession (AIA, 2008; AIA, 2009; Carpenter, 2006). An analysis of formalized education via accreditationrequirements could differentiate interior design’s specialized knowledge from that of architecture.
Education is the initial step in the career cycle for interior designers taking them to entry-level professionalpractice (Guerin & Martin, 2001). Formal interior design academic programs are accredited by the Council forInterior Design Accreditation (CIDA, 2008; formerly the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research,FIDER). In the CIDA Professional Standards 2009 (Standards) ‘‘Preamble,’’ the importance of interior designand the role accredited education plays is communicated (CIDA, 2008, p. 2).
Similarly, the Boyer and Mitgang (1996) report established a blueprint for architectural education, buildingon an earlier Boyer (1990) report regarding scholarship. Formal architecture education is accredited by theNational Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB, 2009). In the NAAB 2009 Conditions of Accreditation
© Copyright 2010, Interior Design Educators Council,Journal of Interior Design 35(2), ix–xxxiiJournal of Interior Design ix
P E R S P E C T I V E
For both CIDA and NAAB, the accreditation process is well established and routinelyrefined to be reflective of professional practice.
(Conditions), the critical influence of accredited education and the role of the architect is communicatedwithin the ‘‘Response to the Five Perspectives’’ (NAAB, 2009, pp. 10–11).
CIDA is recognized in the United States and Canada and NAAB is recognized in the United States. The degreelevel of education on which accreditation is focused varies for interior design and architecture, though thisanalysis focuses on the ‘‘first-professional degree’’ by CIDA or a ‘‘professional degree’’ by NAAB, namely, thedegree that is required to enter professional practice. First-professional interior design programs culminate ina bachelor’s degree (typically 4- or 5-year undergraduate programs and to a lesser extent master’s programs)(CIDA, n.d.). Architecture programs culminate in either 5-year undergraduate programs or ‘‘4 + 2,’’ ‘‘3+,’’and less commonly, professional doctorates for architecture (NAAB, n.d.). As the purpose of this studyis to determine the KAs required within the accredited program’s curriculum for both interior design andarchitecture, the level of degree, per se, is not addressed.
Description of the Accreditation ProcessFor both CIDA and NAAB, the accreditation process is well established and routinely refined to be reflectiveof professional practice. The accreditation requirements themselves are the outcome of a routinized processthat began in 1970 for CIDA (then FIDER) and 1940 for NAAB. Both agencies require a self-study reportto be completed by the program to be evaluated and prescribe the composition of the visiting team andthe format of the report they write regarding the evidence they review during their visit. Both agencies putthe accreditation decision in the hands of highly experienced, vetted volunteers at the agency level (CIDA:Accreditation Commission; NAAB: Board of Directors). The visiting team members are to act as the eyes andears of the agency, scrupulously documenting their findings. Candidacy status is offered by both agencies forprograms working toward first-time accreditation. Table 1 presents overarching characteristics related to theaccreditation process; much more information is available from the agencies’ Web sites (www.accredit-id.organd www.naab.org). Though different in some respects, overall processes for CIDA and NAAB are moresimilar than they are different.
MethodUsing content analysis, an examination of the educational content requirements for interior design andarchitecture students, graduating with a first-professional/professional degree was conducted utilizing theCIDA Standards (CIDA, 2008) and the NAAB Conditions (NAAB, 2009). This method was pilot tested by asimilar investigation that compared the CIDA 2009 Professional Standards with the NAAB 2004 Conditionsof Accreditation, conducted in 2008 (Martin & Kroelinger, 2009). The pilot study and comments frompaper presentation attendees at the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) 2009 Annual InternationalConference, including attendees of the Inside/Out: Architecture and Interior Design Curricula II conferencesession held in conjunction with the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) conference, formed the basisof and refinements for this study.
Content AnalysisThe basis of content analysis is the systematic, objective condensation of communication materials. It affordsexamination of classification of content, an insight to emerging trends, comparisons over time, and replication
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010x
P E R S P E C T I V E
Description/Process Interior Design ArchitectureEstablished 1970 (FIDER), 2006 (CIDA) 1940 (NAAB)
Accredited Programs 177 (US and Canada) 151 (US; within 117 schools)
Professional Degree BS/BFA/BA/BD/BID/BIA (154), MA/MIA/MID/MFA (9), Other (14 ; phased out as structured 1/1/10)
BArch (64), MArch (94), DArch (1)
Self-Study Report Program Analysis Report (PAR) Architecture Program Report (APR)
Site Visit Report Visiting Team Report (VTR) Visiting Team Report (VTR)
Accreditation Decision
Accreditation Commission Board of Directors
Term of Accreditation Maximum of 6 years; interim visit/shorter term possible
Maximum of 6 years; interim visit/ shorter term possible
Composition of Visiting Team
3 members (the chair is a member of the Evaluation Committee, an experienced site visitor); minimum of one educator and one practitioner; observers can be requested by CIDA; members may/may not have any organizational affiliation
At least 4 members (one is chair) with one representative each from AIA, AIAS, ASCA, and NCARB; team also may include up to 2 observers agreed upon by program/visiting team chair; NAAB may also suggest observers;observers do not participate in formal team decisions
Description ofAccreditation
Standards: 16 standards within four sections: (section 1; 1 standard)mission, goals, and curriculum, (section2; 6 standards & section 3; 7 standards) interior design, and (section 4; 2 standards) program administration
Conditions: two parts: (1) institutional support and commitment to continuousimprovement and (2) educational outcomes and curriculum with three educational realms containing 32 student performance criteria
Qualifiers Student Learning Expectations* identified as "awareness," “understand/understanding,” or “apply/ability/able.”
Student Performance Criteria (SPC) identified as “ability” or “understanding”
Table 1. Description of the Accreditation ProcessSources: CIDA (2009; www.accredit-id.org; M. Scanlan, CIDA, personal communication) and NAAB (2009; www.naab.org)
* Student Learning Expectations are referenced in this study as Student Performance Criteria (SPC) (CIDA, 2008, p. 8). See the Method for more information.
(Berg, 1989; Stemler, 2001). Findings are descriptive, indicating ‘‘what’’ is present in the material as its focus.The ‘‘why,’’ ‘‘how,’’ and ‘‘to what effect’’ of the meaning of the content is drawn from analysis of the dataas they have been categorized (coded) and through additional research methods, such as observation andsurvey coupled with the findings of the content analysis (Babbie, 2010; Sommer & Sommer, 2002; Stemler,
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xi
P E R S P E C T I V E
2001). Content analysis can be either qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both, using frequency ornon-frequency coding, respectively. Non-frequency content analysis is appropriate when the types of contentare the focus of the content analysis versus, say, determining the count or quantity of content (Zeisel, 2006).
Analysis of manifest and latent content is often used within a single study. Manifest content is that which is‘‘physically present and countable’’ and has strength in its representation of specificity and reliability. Latentcontent is ‘‘an interpretative reading of the symbolism underlying the physically presented data’’ (Berg, 1989,p. 107).
Guidelines for the process of coding and analysis are established through creation of ‘‘explicit rules called‘criteria of selection’’’ (Berg, 1989, p. 106). Also termed ‘‘decision rules’’ (Sommer & Sommer, 2002), theymust be ‘‘rigidly and consistently applied’’ (Berg, 1989, p. 107). Clarifying and documenting the purpose andcontextual framework of the study in context with decision rules prior to commencing coding and recordingis essential to the validity and reliability of the analysis (Berg, 1989).
To increase reliability of the findings, it is recommended that coding and analysis are accomplishedindependently by multiple raters/coders and coding must create categories that are exhaustive and mutuallyexclusive (Babbie, 2010; Sommer & Sommer, 2002; Stemler, 2001). Categories are determined once the ratersreview the data, analyze the content independently, discuss findings, mutually determine final categories, andmonitor results for reliability, a process referred to as ‘‘emergent coding’’ (Stemler, 2001). Pretesting thecoding via a pilot study can reduce subjectivity (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). It is essential that content analysisis reproducible; therefore, it is appropriate to code and recode data to ensure inter-rater reliability (Babbie,2010; Stemler, 2002). Finally, coding decisions that were difficult during the process should be documentedin the findings, thereby adding richness and increased validity (Babbie, 1989; Creswell, 2009).
ProcessThe process used to conduct this study was guided by content analysis protocol and the decision rules. Thetwo researchers, one a certified interior designer (CID), the other a registered architect (RA), served as theraters/coders. Details related to each step in the process, noted below, can be found in the ‘‘Decision Rules,’’contained in the following segment:
1. Reviewed process and protocols of content analysis; established a journal to document all work.2. Discussed known limitations, scope of analysis, implications, and clarified the purpose of the study.3. Knowledge gained from the pilot study and comments from presentation of its findings were applied to
the process and formation of decision rules.4. Decision rules were established and documented.5. The KAs contained within the accreditation requirements were determined to be the unit of analysis.6. The KAs contained within the NAAB Conditions were aligned as closely as possible with the KAs
contained within the CIDA Standards by both researchers using manifest and latent content analyses,working separately. All three steps of the coding process were undertaken independently (see ‘‘Rulespertaining to analysis: Levels of coding’’).
7. Discrepancies/difficult decisions were discussed and final coding decisions were collaboratively identified.8. At each step of the coding process, decision rules were re-evaluated and others added; interpretations
were considered, and documentation guidelines and format (tables) were determined. Data were evaluatedmultiple times to increase accuracy of the findings.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xii
P E R S P E C T I V E
Decision RulesDecision rules were created collaboratively by the researchers to guide the coding of the data. A briefdescription of decision rules applying to scope and analysis follows:
Rules Pertaining to ScopeDocuments used in the examination. A sample limited to the current CIDA 2009 Standards and NAAB2009 Conditions was selected for coding and analysis.Pre-testing. The researchers’ pilot study allowed examination of the process and development ofsubsequent modifications to be applied to this study. For example, findings of the 2008 analysisidentified three distinct KA (the unit of analysis) categories: specialized, parallel/equal but different, andspecialized to a degree; however, data currently being analyzed vary from the pilot study, causing thesecategories to be modified, as will be shown.Extent of documents coded for analysis. The process focused on identifying, coding, and aligning KAs tofulfill the study’s purpose. These data were identified from within the documents as noted below:
Coding of CIDA Standards. The student ‘‘performance criteria’’ (see explanation below) were onlyaddressed specifically in Sections II and III; section I ‘‘1. Mission, Goals, and Curriculum’’ did notspecifically address accreditation requirements that had student performance criteria (SPC) as theoutcome. Likewise, section IV ‘‘Program Administration’’ describes institutional and programmaticissues of structure, facilities, resources, and faculty, also not directly relevant to SPC as outcomes.Therefore, only section II ‘‘Interior Design: Critical Thinking, Professional Values, and Process’’ andsection III ‘‘Interior Design: Core Design and Technical Knowledge’’ (pp. 11–20) were examinedwithin this study (see Table 2).Identification of CIDA KAs. The CIDA Standards note, ‘‘Student learning and program expecta-tions provide the instrument, or performance criteria, for determining whether a program complieswith the standard’’ (2008, p. 8, emphasis added). As both the ‘‘Student Learning Expectations,’’represented by outcomes evident in ‘‘various forms of student work. . .’’ (2008, p. 8) and ‘‘ProgramExpectations,’’ represented by learning inputs evident in ‘‘opportunities, experiences, or informationpresented to students. . .’’ (2008, p. 9, italics added for emphasis) contribute KA content via thecurriculum; both types of ‘‘expectations’’ were coded for analysis. Furthermore, as CIDA’s categorieswere indicative of SPC parallel to NAAB’s SPC, it was determined that NAAB’s term (SPC) would beused when referring to CIDA and NAAB KA content. This convention adds clarity to the discussionby simplifying use of terms.Coding of CIDA ‘‘guidance’’ information. CIDA provides ‘‘Guidance’’ information boxes for manyexpectations (i.e., SPC) within the Standards. They provide illustrative information to ‘‘assist withunderstanding the expectation’’ (2008, p. 8). For example, Standard 12c reads, ‘‘Students understandthe principles of acoustical design.2’’ It is clarified by this guidance: ‘‘2 Examples include noise control,sound distribution, speech privacy’’ (CIDA, 2008, p. 18). In this study, ‘‘Guidance’’ information wasincorporated into the SPC, so that, using this example, the SPC reads, ‘‘Students understand theprinciples of acoustical design (e.g., noise control, sound distribution, speech privacy)’’ (see Table 5).Exclusion of the ‘‘Guidance’’ information would force an increased degree of interpretation (latentcontent analysis), compromising the findings.Coding of NAAB Conditions. The 46-page document addresses many issues beyond ‘‘SPC.’’ Mission,goals, the role of the institution in support of the program, administrative structure and governance,reporting requirements, curricular framework, and other assorted information regarding aspects of
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xiii
P E R S P E C T I V E
Section II. Interior Design: Critical Thinking, Professional Values, and Processes
2. Global Context for Design (a-f)3. Human Behavior (a-d)4. 5. Collaboration(a-d)6. Communication (a-e)7. Professional and Business Practice (a-j)
Section III. Interior Design:Core Design and Technical Knowledge
8. History(a-e)9. Space and Form (a-c)
10. Color and Light (a-d)11. Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment, and Finish Materials
(a-d)12. Environmental Systems and Controls (a-h)13. Interior Construction and Building Systems (a-g)14. Regulations (a-i)
Design Process (a-i)
Table 2. CIDA 2009 Standards Overview as Representative of Knowledge Areas (CIDA, 2008, p.6)
the accreditation process are included. Part Two (II): ‘‘Educational Outcomes and Curriculum’’includes in section 1 ‘‘Student Performance—Educational Realms & Student Performance Crite-ria’’ (pp. 20–25) form the basis of the information in the Conditions that addresses accreditationrequirements examined in this study (see Table 3).Liberal arts and sciences/general requirements. CIDA and NAAB accreditation requirements focuson professional interior design and architecture studies, respectively. Liberal arts and sciences contentrequirements for both are institutionally governed, and therefore are beyond the scope of this study.
Rules Pertaining to AnalysisQualitative examination. Non-frequency, emergent coding was used to focus on an examination ofcommunication content types or themes.Unit of analysis. The KAs contained within the SPC was the unit of analysis. For both CIDA and NAAB,SPC were included verbatim for coding and analysis, with the following types of exceptions—as they didnot specifically convey KA content:
CIDA introductory phrases to ‘‘Program Expectations.’’ Phrases such as ‘‘The interior design programincludes. . .’’ (as applied within Standard 4f-4i, 2008, p. 13) and ‘‘The interior design program includeslearning experiences that engage students in. . .’’ (as applied within Standard 5c-5d, 2008, p. 14).
Manifest content analysis. This was the primary form of analysis used to identify the KAs (e.g., colortheory, sustainability) within the SPC.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xiv
P E R S P E C T I V E
Realm A: Critical Thinking and Representation
A.1 Communication Skills A.2 Design Thinking Skills A.3 Visual Communication Skills A.4 Technical Documentation A.5 Investigative Skills A.6 Fundamental Design Skills A.7 Use of Precedents A.8 Ordering Systems Skills A.9 Historical Traditions and Global Culture
A.10 Cultural DiversityA.11 Applied Research
Realm B: Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills andKnowledge
B.1 Pre-DesignB.2 AccessibilityB.3 SustainabilityB.4 Site DesignB.5 Life SafetyB.6 Comprehensive DesignB.7 Financial ConsiderationsB.8 Environmental SystemsB.9 Structural Systems
B.10 Building Envelope SystemsB.11 Building Service SystemsB.12 Building Materials and Assemblies
Realm C: Leadership and Practice
C.1 CollaborationC.2 Human BehaviorC.3 Client Role in ArchitectureC.4 Project ManagementC.5 Practice ManagementC.6 LeadershipC.7 Legal ResponsibilitiesC.8 Ethics and Professional JudgmentC.9 Community and Social Responsibility
Table 3. NAAB 2009 Conditions Overview as Representative of Knowledge Areas (NAAB, 2009, p. 20-25)
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xv
P E R S P E C T I V E
Latent content analysis. This type of analysis was used on a limited basis to assist in the classification ofunclear or complicated data, often due to the language used (see ‘‘Language Issues’’ within ‘‘Implications’’later in this paper for additional information regarding consequences of language use). Examples of latentcontent requiring interpretation are documented in the findings.Levels of coding. Coding was applied to analyze the KA content in three distinct, sequential processsteps:
Step 1: KAs (e.g., color theory, sustainability) within the SPCs (from CIDA and NAAB) were identified,considered/interpreted (see Latent Content Analysis, above), and aligned. Sorting of KAs was alsorequired in several instances using latent content analysis in instances where KAs from one set ofaccreditation requirements were divided or combined in different ways from one agency’s (i.e., CIDA,NAAB) accreditation requirements as compared to the other agency’s accreditation requirements. Also,initial coding of KAs found occurrences when the same KA was presented within multiple SPCs fromeither or both agencies’ accreditation requirements.
Step. 2: Student achievement qualifier levels, manifest content within CIDA’s Standards and NAAB’sConditions, were recorded relative to their respective KAs. CIDA refers to this form of classification as‘‘Student Learning Levels’’ (CIDA, 2008, p. 8) and NAAB refers to them as ‘‘Levels of Accomplishment’’(NAAB, 2009, p. 21). They both describe the extent to which a SPC is achieved as a requirement ofaccreditation. The researchers have included the qualifier level in the text of the SPC and that level isgraphically represented, in both instances to aid comprehension. Qualifier levels and how they werecoded within the study are indicated in Table 4.
However, there were some SPC not assigned qualifier levels by CIDA, but assigned by the researchers. Theyare discussed below:
KAs contained within CIDA’s ‘‘Program Expectations’’ (see previous discussion under ‘‘Extentof Documents Reviewed for Analysis: CIDA Standards’’) were not categorized by CIDA relativeto student achievement qualifier levels. Therefore, qualifier levels were assigned and identified
Achievement Level Qualifier Alignment
Lower Level CIDA level “aware” had no NAAB equal; as a unique qualifier, it was retained through the analysis.
Median Level CIDA’s use of “understand/understanding” and NAAB’s use of “understanding” was common and was retained through the analysis.
Upper Level CIDA’s use of terms “apply,” “ability,” and “able” and NAAB’s use of “ability” were determined by the researchers asequivalent, and were therefore retained through the analysis.
Table 4. Student Achievement Qualifier Levels: Comparison and Alignment
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xvi
P E R S P E C T I V E
by an asterisk (*) in Table 5. This mark identifies them as coding decisions, based on latentcontent analysis. Examples of how qualifier levels were assigned to ‘‘Program Expectations’’(aka SPCs) are indicated below (italics have been added for emphasis):
• 2d: ‘‘. . . exposure to contemporary issues. . .’’; qualifier level: awareness (p. 11)• 2f: ‘‘opportunities for developing knowledge of other cultures’’; qualifier level assigned:
understanding (p. 11)• 4f: ‘‘opportunities to solve simple to complex design problems’’; qualifier level assigned: able (p. 13)• 5c: ‘‘engage students in collaboration, consensus building. . .’’; qualifier level assigned: able (p. 14)• 7g: ‘‘. . . exposure to the role and value of legal recognition for the profession’’; qualifier level
assigned: understanding (p. 15).
Step 3: Comparison and stratification coding of KAs were based on the (1) manifest KA content analysisand (2) the CIDA/NAAB qualifier levels discussed above. To accomplish this final level of coding, fivedistinct types and/or levels of KAs were identified (the pilot study contained three):
• shared/common KA requirements• shared/common KA but unequal qualifier level of requirements (CIDA or NAAB noted as ‘‘higher
level,’’ ‘‘more comprehensive,’’ or both)• parallel (but different) KA, equal qualifier level requirements• parallel (but different) KA requirements, unequal qualifier levels (e.g., NAAB ‘‘ability,’’ CIDA
‘‘understanding’’)• specialized KA requirements (CIDA or NAAB).
Findings and ConclusionsFindingsThe findings of this content analysis research are summarized in Table 5. The researchers conducted thecontent analysis following the decision rules described earlier in the Method segment of this paper. Theorganization of the table is based on an identification of each SPC as sequenced by CIDA with NAAB SPCaligned to them. Both the text of the SPC and reference numbers assigned by the accreditation agencies arenoted. Results of the comparison and stratification by the five distinct types and/or levels of KAs, which servedas the third and final level of coding for the study, are noted in the far right-hand column, labeled ‘‘AnalysisRemarks.’’ The SPC discussed below represent primarily manifest content analysis and to a lesser extent latentcontent analysis, based on the decision rules discussed earlier. CIDA’s SPC 5c is an example of coding wherelatent content analysis was applied; it is described below.
Student achievement qualifier levels are keyed in the header of Table 5. As explained in Step 2 ofthe levels of coding segment of the method, they are visually identified by font variations: lower(awareness), median (understanding)., and upper (ability) levels (see Table 4 for further explanation).Examples of application of the five coding decisions as findings of the study are identified in the followingdescriptions. This discussion is not exhaustive due to limitations of space but presents a sampling of thefindings.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xvii
P E R S P E C T I V E
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e co
ncep
ts,
prin
cipl
es, a
nd th
eori
es o
f sus
tain
abil
ity
as th
ey
pert
ain
to b
uild
ing
met
hods
, mat
eria
ls, s
yste
ms
and
occu
pant
s.
2aB
.3Su
stai
nabi
lity:
Abi
lity
to d
esig
n pr
ojec
ts th
at o
ptim
ize,
con
serv
e, o
r re
use
natu
ral a
nd b
uilt
reso
urce
s, p
rovi
de h
ealth
ful e
nvir
onm
ents
for
oc
cupa
nts/
user
s, a
nd r
educ
e th
e en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
cts
of b
uild
ing
cons
truc
tion
and
oper
atio
ns o
n fu
ture
gen
erat
ions
thro
ugh
mea
ns
such
as
carb
on-n
eutr
al d
esig
n, b
iocl
imat
ic d
esig
n, a
nd e
nerg
y ef
fici
ency
.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
Und
erst
and
glob
aliz
atio
n an
d im
plic
atio
ns o
f co
nduc
ting
the
prac
tice
of d
esig
n w
ithi
n a
wor
ld
mar
ket.
2bA
.10
Cul
tura
l Div
ersi
ty:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
div
erse
nee
ds, v
alue
s,
beha
vior
al n
orm
s, p
hysi
cal a
bili
ties
, and
soc
ial a
nd s
pati
al p
atte
rns
that
cha
ract
eriz
e di
ffer
ent c
ultu
res
and
indi
vidu
als
and
the
impl
icat
ion
of th
is d
iver
sity
on
the
soci
etal
rol
es a
nd r
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
of
arch
itec
ts.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Und
erst
and
how
des
ign
need
s m
ay v
ary
for
diff
eren
t so
cio-
econ
omic
pop
ulat
ions
. 2c
A.9
His
tori
cal T
radi
tion
s an
d G
loba
l Cul
ture
: U
nder
stan
ding
of p
aral
lel
and
dive
rgen
t can
ons
and
trad
itio
ns o
f arc
hite
ctur
e, la
ndsc
ape
and
urba
n de
sign
incl
udin
g ex
ampl
es o
f ind
igen
ous,
ver
nacu
lar,
loca
l, re
gion
al, n
atio
nal s
etti
ngs
from
the
Eas
tern
, Wes
tern
, Nor
ther
n, a
nd
Sout
hern
hem
isph
eres
in te
rms
of th
eir
clim
atic
, eco
logi
cal,
tech
nolo
gica
l, so
cioe
cono
mic
, pub
lic
heal
th, a
nd c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
Exp
osur
e to
con
tem
pora
ry is
sues
(e.
g., s
ocia
l, po
litic
al, e
cono
mic
, eco
logi
cal)
aff
ectin
g in
teri
or
desi
gn.*
2dA
.9H
isto
rica
l Tra
diti
ons
and
Glo
bal C
ultu
re (
see
CID
A 2
c fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B A
.9)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
and
hig
her
leve
l).
Exp
osur
e to
a v
arie
ty o
f bu
sine
ss, o
rgan
izat
iona
l (e.
g.,
for-
prof
it, n
on-p
rofi
t, pu
blic
ly v
s. p
riva
tely
hel
d,
hier
arch
ical
, fla
t, or
oth
ers)
, and
fam
ilial
(e.
g., c
o-ho
usin
g, n
ucle
ar, e
xten
ded
fam
ily, o
r ot
hers
) st
ruct
ures
.*
2e--
[Non
e]Sp
ecia
lized
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A).
Opp
ortu
niti
es fo
r de
velo
ping
kno
wle
dge
of o
ther
cu
ltur
es (
e.g.
, stu
dy a
broa
d, o
n-ca
mpu
s cu
ltur
al
exch
ange
s an
d in
tera
ctio
n w
ith
visi
ting
pro
fess
ors)
.*
2fA
.10
Cul
tura
l Div
ersi
ty (
see
CID
A 2
b fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B A
.10)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9
2: Global Context for Design
Und
erst
and
that
soc
ial a
nd c
ultu
ral n
orm
s m
ay v
ary
from
thei
r ow
n an
d ar
e re
leva
nt to
mak
ing
appr
opri
ate
desi
gn d
ecis
ions
.
3aA
.10
Cul
tura
l Div
ersi
ty (
see
CID
A 2
b fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B A
.10)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Und
erst
andi
ng a
nd th
e ab
ility
to a
ppro
pria
tely
app
ly
theo
ries
of
hum
an b
ehav
ior
(i.e
., ho
w in
teri
or d
esig
n im
pact
s oc
cupa
nt w
ell b
eing
and
per
form
ance
).
3bC
.2H
uman
Beh
avio
r:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n hu
man
be
havi
or, t
he n
atur
al e
nvir
onm
ent a
nd th
e de
sign
of t
he b
uilt
en
viro
nmen
t.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
hi
gher
leve
l).
Abi
lity
to s
elec
t, in
terp
ret,
and
appl
y ap
prop
riat
e er
gono
mic
and
ant
hrop
omet
ric
data
.3c
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).U
nder
stan
ding
and
the
abili
ty to
app
ropr
iate
ly a
pply
un
iver
sal d
esig
n co
ncep
ts (
i.e.,
desi
gn f
or a
ll pe
ople
in
clud
ing
thos
e w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
—ph
ysic
al,
cogn
itive
, or
emot
iona
l—w
hich
may
be
pres
ent f
rom
bi
rth,
acq
uire
d th
roug
h ill
ness
or
inju
ry, o
r un
ique
to
child
ren
or th
e el
derl
y).
3dB
.2A
cces
sibi
lity:
Abi
lity
to d
esig
n si
tes,
fac
ilitie
s, a
nd s
yste
ms
to p
rovi
de
inde
pend
ent a
nd in
tegr
ated
use
by
indi
vidu
als
with
phy
sica
l (i
nclu
ding
mob
ility
), s
enso
ry, a
nd c
ogni
tive
disa
bilit
ies.
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts, u
nequ
al le
vels
(N
AA
B
acce
ssib
ility
, CID
A u
nive
rsal
des
ign)
.
3: Human BehaviorT
able
5:
Com
pari
son
of C
IDA
and
NA
AB
Stu
dent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a K
now
ledg
e A
reas
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xviii
P E R S P E C T I V E
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9
A.2
Des
ign
Thi
nkin
g Sk
ills:
A
bilit
y to
rai
se c
lear
and
pre
cise
que
stio
ns,
use
abst
ract
idea
s to
inte
rpre
t inf
orm
atio
n, c
onsi
der
dive
rse
poin
ts o
f vi
ew, r
each
wel
l-re
ason
ed c
oncl
usio
ns, a
nd te
st a
ltern
ativ
e ou
tcom
es
agai
nst r
elev
ant c
rite
ria
and
stan
dard
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
B.1
Pre-
Des
ign:
Abi
lity
to p
repa
re a
com
preh
ensi
ve p
rogr
am f
or a
n ar
chite
ctur
al p
roje
ct, s
uch
as p
repa
ring
an
asse
ssm
ent o
f cl
ient
and
us
er n
eeds
, an
inve
ntor
y of
spa
ce a
nd e
quip
men
t req
uire
men
ts, a
n an
alys
is o
f si
te c
ondi
tions
(in
clud
ing
exis
ting
build
ings
), a
rev
iew
of
the
rele
vant
law
s an
d st
anda
rds
and
asse
ssm
ent o
f th
eir
impl
icat
ions
fo
r th
e pr
ojec
t, an
d a
defi
nitio
n of
site
sel
ectio
n an
d de
sign
as
sess
men
t cri
teri
a.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
A.5
Inve
stig
ativ
e Sk
ills:
A
bilit
y to
gat
her,
ass
ess,
rec
ord,
app
ly, a
nd
com
para
tivel
y ev
alua
te r
elev
ant i
nfor
mat
ion
with
in a
rchi
tect
ural
co
urse
wor
k an
d de
sign
pro
cess
es.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
A.1
1A
ppli
ed R
esea
rch:
U
nder
stan
ding
the
role
of a
ppli
ed r
esea
rch
in
dete
rmin
ing
func
tion
, for
m, a
nd s
yste
ms
and
thei
r im
pact
on
hum
an
cond
itio
ns a
nd b
ehav
ior.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
hi
gher
leve
l).
Abl
e to
eva
luat
e, s
elec
t, an
d ap
ply
info
rmat
ion
and
rese
arch
fin
ding
s to
des
ign.
4cA
.5
Inve
stig
ativ
e Sk
ills
(see
CID
A 4
b fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of
NA
AB
A.5
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts.
4dA
.2D
esig
n T
hink
ing
Skill
s (s
ee C
IDA
4a
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f N
AA
B A
.2)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
B.1
Pre-
Des
ign
(see
CID
A 4
a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of
NA
AB
B.1
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
NA
AB
hi
gher
leve
l).
Abl
e to
dem
onst
rate
cre
ativ
e th
inki
ng a
nd o
rigi
nalit
y th
roug
h pr
esen
tatio
n of
a v
arie
ty o
f id
eas,
app
roac
hes,
an
d co
ncep
ts.
4eA
.3V
isua
l Com
mun
icat
ion
Skill
s:
Abi
lity
to u
se a
ppro
pria
te
repr
esen
tatio
nal m
edia
, suc
h as
trad
ition
al g
raph
ic a
nd d
igita
l te
chno
logy
ski
lls, t
o co
nvey
ess
entia
l for
mal
ele
men
ts a
t eac
h st
age
of th
e pr
ogra
mm
ing
and
desi
gn p
roce
ss.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Opp
ortu
nitie
s to
sol
ve s
impl
e to
com
plex
des
ign
prob
lem
s.*
4fB
.6C
ompr
ehen
sive
Des
ign:
A
bilit
y to
pro
duce
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
ar
chite
ctur
al p
roje
ct th
at d
emon
stra
tes
each
stu
dent
’s c
apac
ity to
m
ake
desi
gn d
ecis
ions
acr
oss
scal
es w
hile
inte
grat
ing
the
follo
win
g SP
C. A
.2. D
esig
n T
hink
ing
Skill
s; A
.4. T
echn
ical
Doc
umen
tatio
n;
A.5
. Inv
estig
ativ
e Sk
ills;
A.8
. Ord
erin
g Sy
stem
s; A
.9; H
isto
rica
l T
radi
tions
and
Glo
bal C
ultu
re; B
.2. A
cces
sibi
lity;
B.3
. Sus
tain
abili
ty;
B.4
. Site
Des
ign;
B.5
. Lif
e Sa
fety
; B.7
. Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms;
B.9
. St
ruct
ural
Sys
tem
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Exp
osur
e to
a r
ange
of d
esig
n re
sear
ch a
nd p
robl
em
solv
ing
met
hods
.*4g
A.1
1A
ppli
ed R
esea
rch:
U
nder
stan
ding
the
role
of a
ppli
ed r
esea
rch
in
dete
rmin
ing
func
tion
, for
m, a
nd s
yste
ms
and
thei
r im
pact
on
hum
an
cond
itio
ns a
nd b
ehav
ior.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r in
nova
tion
and
crea
tive
thin
king
.*4h
A.2
Des
ign
Thi
nkin
g Sk
ills
(see
CID
A 4
a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of
NA
AB
A.2
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts.
4a 4b
4:Design Process
Abl
e to
iden
tify
and
defi
ne r
elev
ant a
spec
ts o
f a
desi
gn
prob
lem
(go
als,
obj
ectiv
es, p
erfo
rman
ce c
rite
ria)
.
Abl
e to
gat
her
appr
opri
ate
and
nece
ssar
y in
form
atio
n an
d re
sear
ch f
indi
ngs
to s
olve
the
prob
lem
(ev
iden
ce-
base
d de
sign
).
Abl
e to
syn
thes
ize
info
rmat
ion
and
gene
rate
mul
tiple
co
ncep
ts a
nd/o
r m
ultip
le d
esig
n re
spon
ses
to
prog
ram
mat
ic r
equi
rem
ents
. [M
ike
can
you
get r
id o
f th
e bo
rder
line
und
er 4
d? I
trie
d…]
Opp
ortu
nitie
s to
dev
elop
cri
tical
list
enin
g sk
ills
(i.e
., ev
alua
te w
hat t
hey
are
hear
ing
from
sev
eral
poi
nts
of
view
, inc
ludi
ng b
ut n
ot li
mite
d to
: spe
aker
cre
dibi
lity,
lo
gic
and
mea
ning
of
the
mes
sage
, und
erly
ing
assu
mpt
ions
of
the
mes
sage
, and
val
ue o
f th
e m
essa
ge).
*
4iA
.1C
omm
unic
atio
n Sk
ills:
Abi
lity
to r
ead,
wri
te, s
peak
and
list
en
effe
ctiv
ely.
Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts.
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xix
P E R S P E C T I V E
NA
AB
2009
Stu
de
nt
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e C
rite
ria
(S
PC
)N
o.
No
.S
tud
en
t P
erf
orm
an
ce
Cri
teri
a (
SP
C)
An
aly
sis
Re
ma
rks
Fo
nt
No
tes
: A
bili
ty;
Un
de
rsta
nd
ing
;
Aw
are
ne
ss.
(* =
In
terp
reta
tio
n)
CID
A 2
009
Aw
are
ne
ss o
f te
am
wo
rk s
tru
ctu
res a
nd
dyn
am
ics.
5a
C.1
Co
llab
ora
tio
n:
Ab
ility
to
wo
rk in
co
llab
ora
tio
n w
ith
oth
ers
an
d in
mu
lti-
dis
cip
lina
ry t
ea
ms t
o s
ucce
ssfu
lly c
om
ple
te d
esig
n p
roje
cts
.
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
bu
t
un
eq
ua
l le
ve
l o
f re
qu
ire
me
nts
(N
AA
B
hig
he
r le
ve
l).
Aw
are
ne
ss o
f th
e n
atu
re a
nd
va
lue
of
inte
gra
ted
de
sig
n p
ractice
s.
5b
C.1
Co
llab
ora
tio
n (
se
e C
IDA
5a
fo
r co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
NA
AB
C.1
)S
ha
red
/co
mm
on
kn
ow
led
ge
are
a b
ut
un
eq
ua
l le
ve
l o
f re
qu
ire
me
nts
(N
AA
B
hig
he
r le
ve
l).
5c
C.1
Co
llab
ora
tio
n (
se
e C
IDA
5a
fo
r co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
NA
AB
C.1
)S
ha
red
/co
mm
on
kn
ow
led
ge
are
a
req
uire
me
nts
.
C.6
Le
ad
ers
hip
: U
nd
ers
tan
din
g o
f th
e t
ech
niq
ue
s a
nd
skill
s a
rch
ite
cts
use
to
wo
rk c
olla
bo
rative
ly in
th
e b
uild
ing
de
sig
n a
nd
co
nstr
uctio
n
pro
ce
ss a
nd
on
en
viro
nm
en
tal, s
ocia
l, a
nd
ae
sth
etic issu
es in
th
eir
co
mm
un
itie
s.
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
bu
t
un
eq
ua
l le
ve
l o
f re
qu
ire
me
nts
(N
AA
B
mo
re c
om
pre
he
nsiv
e).
Inte
ractio
n w
ith
mu
ltip
le d
iscip
line
s r
ep
rese
ntin
g a
va
rie
ty o
f p
oin
ts o
f vie
w a
nd
pe
rsp
ective
s (
e.g
., m
ulti-
dis
cip
lina
ry t
ea
m p
roje
cts
, o
r in
vo
lvin
g e
xp
ert
s in
oth
er
dis
cip
line
s t
o c
on
su
lt o
n p
roje
cts
or
se
rve
as g
ue
st
critics).
*
5d
C.1
Co
llab
ora
tio
n (
se
e C
IDA
5a
fo
r co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
NA
AB
C.1
)S
ha
red
/co
mm
on
kn
ow
led
ge
are
a
req
uire
me
nts
.
Ap
ply
a v
arie
ty o
f co
mm
un
ica
tio
n t
ech
niq
ue
s a
nd
tech
no
log
ies a
pp
rop
ria
te t
o a
ra
ng
e o
f p
urp
ose
s a
nd
au
die
nce
s.
6a
A.1
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n S
kill
s:
Ab
ility
to
re
ad
, w
rite
, sp
ea
k a
nd
lis
ten
eff
ective
ly.
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
req
uire
me
nts
.
Ab
le t
o e
xp
ress id
ea
s c
lea
rly in
ora
l a
nd
writt
en
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n.
6b
A.1
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n S
kill
s (
se
e C
IDA
6a
fo
r co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
NA
AB
A.1
)S
ha
red
/co
mm
on
kn
ow
led
ge
are
a
req
uire
me
nts
.
Ab
le t
o u
se
ske
tch
es a
s a
de
sig
n a
nd
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
too
l (id
ea
tio
n d
raw
ing
s).
6c
A.3
Vis
ua
l C
om
mu
nic
atio
n S
kill
s (
se
e C
IDA
4e
ro
w f
or
co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
A.3
)
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
req
uire
me
nts
.
Ab
le t
o p
rod
uce
co
mp
ete
nt
pre
se
nta
tio
n d
raw
ing
s
acro
ss a
ra
ng
e o
f a
pp
rop
ria
te m
ed
ia.
6d
A.3
Vis
ua
l C
om
mu
nic
atio
n S
kill
s (
se
e C
IDA
4e
ro
w f
or
co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
A.3
)
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
req
uire
me
nts
.
Ab
le t
o p
rod
uce
co
mp
ete
nt
co
ntr
act
do
cu
me
nts
inclu
din
g c
oo
rdin
ate
d d
raw
ing
s,
sch
ed
ule
s a
nd
sp
ecific
atio
ns a
pp
rop
ria
te t
o p
roje
ct
siz
e a
nd
sco
pe
an
d s
uff
icie
ntly e
xte
nsiv
e t
o s
ho
w h
ow
de
sig
n
so
lutio
ns a
nd
in
terio
r co
nstr
uctio
n a
re r
ela
ted
.
6e
A.4
Te
ch
nic
al D
ocu
me
nta
tio
n:
Ab
ility
to
ma
ke
te
ch
nic
ally
cle
ar
dra
win
gs,
write
ou
tlin
e s
pe
cific
atio
ns,
an
d p
rep
are
mo
de
ls illu
str
atin
g a
nd
ide
ntify
ing
th
e a
sse
mb
ly o
f m
ate
ria
ls,
syste
ms,
an
d c
om
po
ne
nts
ap
pro
pria
te f
or
a b
uild
ing
de
sig
n.
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
req
uire
me
nts
.
A.1
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n S
kill
s (
se
e C
IDA
6a
fo
r co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
NA
AB
A.1
)S
ha
red
/co
mm
on
kn
ow
led
ge
are
a
req
uire
me
nts
.
A.3
Vis
ua
l C
om
mu
nic
atio
n S
kill
s (
se
e C
IDA
4e
fo
r co
mp
lete
te
xt
of
NA
AB
A.3
)
Sh
are
d/c
om
mo
n k
no
wle
dg
e a
rea
req
uire
me
nts
.
6f
5: Collaboration
Ab
le t
o in
teg
rate
ora
l a
nd
vis
ua
l m
ate
ria
l to
pre
se
nt
ide
as c
lea
rly.
6: Communication
Co
llab
ora
tio
n,
co
nse
nsu
s b
uild
ing
, le
ad
ers
hip
, a
nd
tea
m w
ork
.*
[Mik
e,
ca
nn
ot
ge
t o
ut
the
bo
rde
r lin
e
un
de
r m
idd
le o
f 5
c.
He
lp!]
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xx
P E R S P E C T I V E
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9 Und
erst
and
the
cont
ribu
tion
s of
inte
rior
des
ign
to
cont
empo
rary
soc
iety
.7a
C.9
C
omm
unit
y an
d So
cial
Res
pons
ibil
ity:
U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he
arch
itec
t’s
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
wor
k in
the
publ
ic in
tere
st, t
o re
spec
t hi
stor
ic r
esou
rces
, and
to im
prov
e th
e qu
alit
y of
life
for
loca
l and
gl
obal
nei
ghbo
rs.
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
, eq
ual l
evel
req
uire
men
ts.
Und
erst
and
vari
ous
type
s of
des
ign
prac
tice
s (e
.g.,
sole
pro
prie
tor,
par
tner
ship
s, e
tc.)
.7b
C.5
Pra
ctic
e M
anag
emen
t:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
bas
ic p
rinc
iple
s of
ar
chit
ectu
ral p
ract
ice
man
agem
ent s
uch
as fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t an
d bu
sine
ss p
lann
ing,
tim
e m
anag
emen
t, ri
sk m
anag
emen
t, m
edia
tion
and
arb
itra
tion
, and
rec
ogni
zing
tren
ds th
at a
ffec
t pra
ctic
e.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Und
erst
and
the
elem
ents
of b
usin
ess
prac
tice
(b
usin
ess
deve
lopm
ent,
fina
ncia
l man
agem
ent,
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng, a
nd v
ario
us fo
rms
of c
olla
bora
tion
an
d in
tegr
atio
n of
dis
cipl
ines
).
7cC
.5P
ract
ice
Man
agem
ent
(see
CID
A 7
b fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B C
.5)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Und
erst
and
the
elem
ents
of p
roje
ct m
anag
emen
t, pr
ojec
t com
mun
icat
ion,
and
pro
ject
del
iver
y m
etho
ds.
7dC
.4P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
met
hods
for
com
peti
ng
for
com
mis
sion
s, s
elec
ting
con
sult
ants
and
ass
embl
ing
team
s, a
nd
reco
mm
endi
ng p
roje
ct d
eliv
ery
met
hods
.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Und
erst
and
prof
essi
onal
eth
ics.
7eC
.8
Eth
ics
and
Pro
fess
iona
l Jud
gmen
t:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
eth
ical
is
sues
invo
lved
in th
e fo
rmat
ion
of p
rofe
ssio
nal j
udgm
ent r
egar
ding
so
cial
, pol
itic
al a
nd c
ultu
ral i
ssue
s in
arc
hite
ctur
al d
esig
n an
d pr
acti
ce.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
.
Exp
osur
e to
var
ious
mar
ket s
ecto
rs a
nd c
lient
type
s (i
.e.,
clie
nt o
rgan
izat
ion
stru
ctur
e an
d fa
cilit
y ty
pe).
*7f
C.3
Cli
ent R
ole
in A
rchi
tect
ure:
U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he r
espo
nsib
ilit
y of
the
arch
itec
t to
elic
it, u
nder
stan
d, a
nd r
econ
cile
the
need
s of
the
clie
nt,
owne
r, u
ser
grou
ps, a
nd th
e pu
blic
and
com
mun
ity
dom
ains
.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
The
rol
e an
d va
lue
of le
gal r
ecog
niti
on fo
r th
e pr
ofes
sion
.*7g
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies:
U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he a
rchi
tect
’s r
espo
nsib
ilit
y to
the
publ
ic a
nd th
e cl
ient
as
dete
rmin
ed b
y re
gist
rati
on la
w, b
uild
ing
code
s an
d re
gula
tion
s, p
rofe
ssio
nal s
ervi
ce c
ontr
acts
, zon
ing
and
subd
ivis
ion
ordi
nanc
es, e
nvir
onm
enta
l reg
ulat
ion,
and
his
tori
c pr
eser
vati
on a
nd a
cces
sibi
lity
law
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
The
rol
e an
d va
lue
of p
rofe
ssio
nal o
rgan
izat
ions
.*7h
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).
The
rol
e an
d va
lue
of li
fe-l
ong
lear
ning
.*7i
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).T
he r
ole
and
valu
e of
pub
lic
and
com
mun
ity
serv
ice.
*7j
C.9
C
omm
unit
y an
d So
cial
Res
pons
ibil
ity
(see
CID
A 7
a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of
NA
AB
C.9
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts.
7: Professionalism and Business Practice
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxi
P E R S P E C T I V E
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9 Und
erst
and
the
soci
al, p
olit
ical
, and
phy
sica
l in
flue
nces
aff
ecti
ng h
isto
rica
l cha
nges
in d
esig
n of
the
buil
t env
iron
men
t.
8aA
.9H
isto
rica
l Tra
diti
ons
and
Glo
bal C
ultu
re:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f par
alle
l an
d di
verg
ent c
anon
s an
d tr
adit
ions
of a
rchi
tect
ure,
land
scap
e an
d ur
ban
desi
gn in
clud
ing
exam
ples
of i
ndig
enou
s, v
erna
cula
r, lo
cal,
regi
onal
, nat
iona
l set
ting
s fr
om th
e E
aste
rn, W
este
rn, N
orth
ern,
and
So
uthe
rn h
emis
pher
es in
term
s of
thei
r cl
imat
ic, e
colo
gica
l, te
chno
logi
cal,
soci
oeco
nom
ic, p
ubli
c he
alth
, and
cul
tura
l fac
tors
.
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
, eq
ual l
evel
req
uire
men
ts.
Abl
e to
iden
tify
mov
emen
ts a
nd p
erio
ds in
inte
rior
de
sign
and
fur
nitu
re.
8b--
[Non
e]Sp
ecia
lized
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A).
Abl
e to
iden
tify
mov
emen
ts a
nd tr
aditi
ons
in
arch
itect
ure.
8cA
.9
His
tori
cal T
radi
tion
s an
d G
loba
l Cul
ture
(se
e C
IDA
8a
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f NA
AB
A.9
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
NA
AB
hi
gher
leve
l).
Abl
e to
iden
tify
styl
istic
mov
emen
ts a
nd p
erio
ds o
f ar
t.8d
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).A
ble
to u
se h
isto
rica
l pre
cede
nt to
info
rm d
esig
n so
lutio
ns.
8eA
.7U
se o
f Pr
eced
ents
: A
bilit
y to
exa
min
e an
d co
mpr
ehen
d th
e fu
ndam
enta
l pri
ncip
les
pres
ent i
n re
leva
nt p
rece
dent
s an
d to
mak
e ch
oice
s re
gard
ing
the
inco
rpor
atio
n of
suc
h pr
inci
ples
into
ar
chite
ctur
e an
d ur
ban
desi
gn p
roje
cts.
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
, eq
ual l
evel
req
uire
men
ts.
A.6
Fund
amen
tal D
esig
n Sk
ills:
A
bilit
y to
eff
ectiv
ely
use
basi
c ar
chite
ctur
al a
nd e
nvir
onm
enta
l pri
ncip
les
in d
esig
n.Pa
ralle
l (bu
t dif
fere
nt)
know
ledg
e ar
ea,
equa
l lev
el r
equi
rem
ents
.
A.8
Ord
erin
g Sy
stem
s Sk
ills
: U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he fu
ndam
enta
ls o
f bot
h na
tura
l and
form
al o
rder
ing
syst
ems
and
the
capa
city
of e
ach
to
info
rm tw
o- a
nd th
ree-
dim
ensi
onal
des
ign.
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts, u
nequ
al le
vels
(C
IDA
"a
bilit
y,"
NA
AB
" u
nder
stan
ding
").
A.6
Fund
amen
tal D
esig
n Sk
ills
(see
CID
A 9
a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of
NA
AB
A
.6)
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
, eq
ual l
evel
req
uire
men
ts.
A.8
Ord
erin
g Sy
stem
s Sk
ills
(se
e C
IDA
9a
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f NA
AB
A
.8)
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts, u
nequ
al le
vels
(C
IDA
"a
bilit
y,"
NA
AB
"un
ders
tand
ing"
).
Abl
e to
ana
lyze
and
dis
cuss
spa
tial d
efin
ition
and
or
gani
zatio
n.9c
A.8
Ord
erin
g Sy
stem
s Sk
ills
(se
e C
IDA
9a
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f NA
AB
A
.8)
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts, u
nequ
al le
vels
(C
IDA
"a
bilit
y,"
NA
AB
"un
ders
tand
ing"
).
9a 9b
8: History
App
ly th
e el
emen
ts, p
rinc
iple
s, a
nd th
eori
es o
f de
sign
to
two-
dim
ensi
onal
des
ign
solu
tions
.
App
ly th
e el
emen
ts, p
rinc
iple
s, a
nd th
eori
es o
f de
sign
to
thre
e-di
men
sion
al d
esig
n so
lutio
ns.
9: Space and Form
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxii
P E R S P E C T I V E
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9 Und
erst
andi
ng o
f col
or p
rinc
iple
s, th
eori
es, a
nd
syst
ems.
10a
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
inte
ract
ion
of li
ght a
nd c
olor
and
th
e im
pact
they
hav
e on
one
ano
ther
and
inte
rior
en
viro
nmen
ts.
10b
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).
App
ropr
iate
ly s
elec
t and
app
ly c
olor
with
reg
ard
to it
s m
ultip
le p
urpo
ses
(e.g
., fu
nctio
nal,
beha
vior
al,
aest
hetic
, per
cept
ual,
cultu
ral,
and
econ
omic
).
10c
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).
Abl
e to
app
ly c
olor
eff
ectiv
ely
in a
ll as
pect
s of
vis
ual
com
mun
icat
ion
(pre
sent
atio
ns, m
odel
s, e
tc.)
.10
d--
[Non
e]Sp
ecia
lized
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A).
Aw
aren
ess
of a
bro
ad r
ange
of
mat
eria
ls a
nd
prod
ucts
.11
aB
.12
Bui
ldin
g M
ater
ials
and
Ass
embl
ies:
U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he b
asic
pr
inci
ples
uti
lize
d in
the
appr
opri
ate
sele
ctio
n of
con
stru
ctio
n m
ater
ials
, pro
duct
s, c
ompo
nent
s, a
nd a
ssem
blie
s, b
ased
on
thei
r in
here
nt c
hara
cter
isti
cs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce, i
nclu
ding
thei
r en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
ct a
nd r
euse
.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel a
nd m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Aw
aren
ess
of ty
pica
l fab
rica
tion
and
inst
alla
tion
met
hods
, and
mai
nten
ance
req
uire
men
ts.
11b
B.1
2B
uild
ing
Mat
eria
ls a
nd A
ssem
blie
s (s
ee C
IDA
11a
for
com
plet
e te
xt
of N
AA
B B
.12)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel a
nd m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Sele
ct a
nd a
pply
app
ropr
iate
mat
eria
ls a
nd p
rodu
cts
on th
e ba
sis
of th
eir
prop
ertie
s an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
crite
ria,
incl
udin
g en
viro
nmen
tal a
ttrib
utes
and
life
cy
cle
cost
.
11c
B.7
Fin
anci
al C
onsi
dera
tion
s:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
fund
amen
tals
of
buil
ding
cos
ts, s
uch
as a
cqui
siti
on c
osts
, pro
ject
fina
ncin
g an
d fu
ndin
g, fi
nanc
ial f
easi
bili
ty, o
pera
tion
al c
osts
, and
con
stru
ctio
n es
tim
atin
g w
ith
an e
mph
asis
on
life
-cyc
le c
ost a
ccou
ntin
g.
Para
llel (
but d
iffe
rent
) kn
owle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts, u
nequ
al le
vels
(C
IDA
"a
bilit
y,"
NA
AB
"un
ders
tand
ing"
).
Abl
e to
layo
ut a
nd s
peci
fy f
urni
ture
, fix
ture
s, a
nd
equi
pmen
t.11
d--
[Non
e]Sp
ecia
lized
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A).
10: Color and Light11: Furniture, Fixtures,
Equipment, and Finish Materials
Und
erst
and
the
prin
cipl
es o
f nat
ural
and
ele
ctri
cal
ligh
ting
des
ign
(e.g
., co
lor,
qua
lity
, sou
rces
, use
, co
ntro
l).
12a
B.8
Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms:
U
nder
stan
ding
the
prin
cipl
es o
f en
viro
nmen
tal s
yste
ms’
des
ign
such
as
embo
died
ene
rgy,
act
ive
and
pass
ive
heat
ing
and
cool
ing,
indo
or a
ir q
uali
ty, s
olar
ori
enta
tion
, da
ylig
htin
g an
d ar
tifi
cial
illu
min
atio
n, a
nd a
cous
tics
; in
clud
ing
the
use
of a
ppro
pria
te p
erfo
rman
ce a
sses
smen
t too
ls.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Com
pete
ntly
sel
ect a
nd a
pply
lum
inai
res
and
light
so
urce
s.12
b--
[Non
e]Sp
ecia
lized
kno
wle
dge
area
re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A).
Und
erst
and
the
prin
cipl
es o
f aco
usti
cal d
esig
n (e
.g.,
nois
e co
ntro
l, so
und
dist
ribu
tion
, spe
ech
priv
acy)
.12
cB
.8E
nvir
onm
enta
l Sys
tem
s (s
ee C
IDA
12a
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f NA
AB
B
.8)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Und
erst
and
appr
opri
ate
stra
tegi
es fo
r ac
oust
ical
co
ntro
l (e.
g., m
ater
ial s
elec
tion
; w
hite
noi
se;
spac
e pl
anni
ng;
floo
r, w
all a
nd c
eili
ng s
yste
ms)
.
12d
B.8
Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms
(see
CID
A 1
2a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
B.8
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Und
erst
and
the
prin
cipl
es o
f the
rmal
des
ign
(e.g
., m
echa
nica
l sys
tem
des
ign,
air
flow
, occ
upan
t rea
ctio
n to
ther
mal
var
iabl
es).
12e
B.8
Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms
(see
CID
A 1
2a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
B.8
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
NA
AB
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Und
erst
and
how
ther
mal
sys
tem
s im
pact
inte
rior
de
sign
sol
utio
ns.
12f
B.8
Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms
(see
CID
A 1
2a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
B.8
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
NA
AB
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Und
erst
and
the
prin
cipl
es o
f ind
oor
air
qual
ity
(e.g
., po
llut
ant s
ourc
e co
ntro
l, fi
ltra
tion
, ven
tila
tion
var
iabl
es,
CO
2 m
onit
orin
g, m
old
prev
enti
on).
12g
B.8
Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms
(see
CID
A 1
2a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
B.8
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Und
erst
and
how
the
sele
ctio
n an
d ap
plic
atio
n of
pr
oduc
ts a
nd s
yste
ms
impa
ct in
door
air
qua
lity
.12
hB
.8E
nvir
onm
enta
l Sys
tem
s (s
ee C
IDA
12a
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f NA
AB
B
.8)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
hi
gher
leve
l).
12:Environmental Systems and Contols
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxiii
P E R S P E C T I V E
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9 Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
that
des
ign
solu
tion
s af
fect
and
are
impa
cted
by
stru
ctur
al s
yste
ms
and
met
hods
(e.
g., w
ood-
fram
e an
d st
eel-
fram
e).
13a
B.9
St
ruct
ural
Sys
tem
s:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
bas
ic p
rinc
iple
s of
st
ruct
ural
beh
avio
r in
wit
hsta
ndin
g gr
avit
y an
d la
tera
l for
ces
and
the
evol
utio
n, r
ange
, and
app
ropr
iate
app
lica
tion
of c
onte
mpo
rary
st
ruct
ural
sys
tem
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
that
des
ign
solu
tion
s af
fect
and
are
impa
cted
by
non-
stru
ctur
al s
yste
ms
incl
udin
g ce
ilin
gs, f
loor
ing,
and
inte
rior
wal
ls.
13b
B.1
0B
uild
ing
Env
elop
e Sy
stem
s:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
bas
ic p
rinc
iple
s in
volv
ed in
the
appr
opri
ate
appl
icat
ion
of b
uild
ing
enve
lope
sys
tem
s an
d as
soci
ated
ass
embl
ies
rela
tive
to fu
ndam
enta
l per
form
ance
, ae
sthe
tics
, moi
stur
e tr
ansf
er, d
urab
ilit
y, a
nd e
nerg
y an
d m
ater
ial
reso
urce
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
that
des
ign
solu
tion
s af
fect
and
are
impa
cted
by
dist
ribu
tion
sys
tem
s in
clud
ing
pow
er, m
echa
nica
l, H
VA
C, d
ata/
voic
e te
leco
mm
unic
atio
ns, a
nd p
lum
bing
.
13c
B.8
Env
iron
men
tal S
yste
ms
(see
CID
A 1
2a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
B.8
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
NA
AB
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve).
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
that
des
ign
solu
tion
s af
fect
and
are
impa
cted
by
ener
gy, s
ecur
ity,
and
bu
ildi
ng c
ontr
ols
syst
ems
(e.g
., en
ergy
man
agem
ent
incl
udin
g H
VA
C, s
afet
y, a
nd s
ecur
ity)
.
13d
B.1
1B
uild
ing
Serv
ice
Syst
ems:
U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he b
asic
pri
ncip
les
and
appr
opri
ate
appl
icat
ion
and
perf
orm
ance
of b
uild
ing
serv
ice
syst
ems
such
as
plum
bing
, ele
ctri
cal,
vert
ical
tran
spor
tati
on, s
ecur
ity,
and
fire
pr
otec
tion
sys
tem
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
that
des
ign
solu
tion
s af
fect
and
are
impa
cted
by
the
inte
rfac
e of
furn
itur
e w
ith
dist
ribu
tion
and
con
stru
ctio
n sy
stem
s.
13e
--[N
one]
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
).
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
that
des
ign
solu
tion
s af
fect
and
are
impa
cted
by
vert
ical
cir
cula
tion
sys
tem
s (e
.g.,
stai
rway
s an
d el
evat
ors)
.
13f
B.1
1B
uild
ing
Serv
ice
Syst
ems
(see
CID
A 1
3d fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
B.1
1)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
NA
AB
hi
gher
leve
l).
Abl
e to
rea
d an
d in
terp
ret c
onst
ruct
ion
draw
ings
and
do
cum
ents
.13
gA
.1C
omm
unic
atio
n Sk
ills:
Abi
lity
to r
ead,
wri
te, s
peak
and
list
en
effe
ctiv
ely.
Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
high
er le
vel)
.
13: Interior Construction and Building Systems
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxiv
P E R S P E C T I V E
Tab
le 5
: C
ontin
ued
NA
AB
200
9St
uden
t P
erfo
rman
ce C
rite
ria
(SP
C)
No.
No.
Stud
ent
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a (S
PC
)A
naly
sis
Rem
arks
Fon
t N
otes
: A
bilit
y; U
nder
stan
ding
; A
war
enes
s. (
* =
Int
erpr
etat
ion)
C
IDA
200
9 Aw
aren
ess
of s
usta
inab
ility
gui
delin
es (
e.g.
, LE
ED
, C
HPS
, Ene
rgy
Polic
y A
ct 2
005,
Cal
ifor
nia
0135
0).
14a
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies:
U
nder
stan
ding
of t
he a
rchi
tect
’s r
espo
nsib
ilit
y to
the
publ
ic a
nd th
e cl
ient
as
dete
rmin
ed b
y re
gist
rati
on la
w, b
uild
ing
code
s an
d re
gula
tion
s, p
rofe
ssio
nal s
ervi
ce c
ontr
acts
, zon
ing
and
subd
ivis
ion
ordi
nanc
es, e
nvir
onm
enta
l reg
ulat
ion,
and
his
tori
c pr
eser
vati
on a
nd a
cces
sibi
lity
law
s.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
high
er le
vel)
.
Aw
aren
ess
of in
dust
ry-s
peci
fic
regu
latio
ns (
e.g.
, hea
lth
code
s, r
egul
atio
ns f
or g
over
nmen
t pro
ject
s,
regu
latio
ns f
or e
duca
tion
proj
ects
incl
udin
g da
ycar
e,
and
regu
latio
ns g
over
ning
wor
k in
his
tori
c di
stri
cts
or
on h
isto
ric
prop
ertie
s).
14b
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
(see
CID
A 1
4a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
C.7
)Pa
ralle
l (bu
t dif
fere
nt)
know
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
, une
qual
leve
ls (
NA
AB
"u
nder
stan
ding
," C
IDA
"aw
aren
ess"
).
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
of la
ws,
cod
es,
stan
dard
s, a
nd g
uide
line
s th
at im
pact
fire
and
life
sa
fety
, inc
ludi
ng c
ompa
rtm
enta
liza
tion
: fi
re s
epar
atio
n an
d sm
oke
cont
ainm
ent.
14c
B.5
Lif
e Sa
fety
: Abi
lity
to a
pply
the
basi
c pr
inci
ples
of
life-
safe
ty s
yste
ms
with
an
emph
asis
on
egre
ss.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve, N
AA
B h
ighe
r le
vel)
.
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
of la
ws,
cod
es,
stan
dard
s, a
nd g
uide
line
s th
at im
pact
fire
and
life
sa
fety
, inc
ludi
ng m
ovem
ent:
acc
ess
to th
e m
eans
of
egre
ss in
clud
ing
stai
rwel
ls, c
orri
dors
, exi
tway
s.
14d
B.5
Lif
e Sa
fety
(se
e C
IDA
14c
for
com
plet
e te
xt o
f N
AA
B B
.5)
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(C
IDA
m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve, N
AA
B h
ighe
r le
vel)
.
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
of la
ws,
cod
es,
stan
dard
s, a
nd g
uide
line
s th
at im
pact
fire
and
life
sa
fety
, inc
ludi
ng d
etec
tion
: ac
tive
dev
ices
that
ale
rt
occu
pant
s in
clud
ing
smok
e/he
at d
etec
tors
and
ala
rm
syst
ems.
14e
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
(see
CID
A 1
4a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
C.7
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Dem
onst
rate
s un
ders
tand
ing
of la
ws,
cod
es,
stan
dard
s, a
nd g
uide
line
s th
at im
pact
fire
and
life
sa
fety
, inc
ludi
ng s
uppr
essi
on:
devi
ces
used
to
exti
ngui
sh fl
ames
incl
udin
g sp
rink
lers
, sta
ndpi
pes,
fire
ho
se c
abin
ets,
ext
ingu
ishe
rs, e
tc.
14f
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
(see
CID
A 1
4a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
C.7
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
Sele
ct a
nd a
pply
app
ropr
iate
fed
eral
, sta
te/p
rovi
ncia
l, an
d lo
cal c
odes
(e.
g., I
nter
natio
nal B
uild
ing
Cod
e an
d th
e N
atio
nal B
uild
ing
Cod
e of
Can
ada)
.
14g
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
(see
CID
A 1
4a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
C.7
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
and
hig
her
leve
l).
Sele
ct a
nd a
pply
sta
ndar
ds (
e.g.
, fla
mm
abili
ty a
nd
Am
eric
an N
atio
nal S
tand
ards
Ins
titut
e).
14h
C.7
Leg
al R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
(see
CID
A 1
4a fo
r co
mpl
ete
text
of N
AA
B
C.7
)Sh
ared
/com
mon
kno
wle
dge
area
but
un
equa
l lev
el o
f re
quir
emen
ts (
CID
A
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
and
hig
her
leve
l).
Sele
ct a
nd a
pply
acc
essi
bilit
y gu
idel
ines
.14
iB
.2A
cces
sibi
lity:
Abi
lity
to d
esig
n si
tes,
fac
ilitie
s, a
nd s
yste
ms
to p
rovi
de
inde
pend
ent a
nd in
tegr
ated
use
by
indi
vidu
als
with
phy
sica
l (i
nclu
ding
mob
ility
), s
enso
ry, a
nd c
ogni
tive
disa
bilit
ies.
Shar
ed/c
omm
on k
now
ledg
e ar
ea b
ut
uneq
ual l
evel
of
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
).
[Non
e]
[Mik
e, w
e ne
ed a
hea
vy li
ne s
epar
atin
g ro
w 9
0 (B
.4)
from
row
abo
ve]
--B
.4Si
te D
esig
n:
Abi
lity
to r
espo
nd to
site
cha
ract
eris
tics
such
as
soil,
to
pogr
aphy
, veg
etat
ion,
and
wat
ersh
ed in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f a
proj
ect d
esig
n.
Spec
ializ
ed k
now
ledg
e ar
ea
requ
irem
ents
(N
AA
B).
14: Regulations
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxv
P E R S P E C T I V E
Shared/common KA requirementsCIDA SPC 4g and NAAB SPC A.11 are shared/common KAs. CIDA requires ‘‘Exposure to a range of designresearch and problem solving methods’’ while NAAB requires ‘‘Applied Research: Understanding the roleof applied research in determining function, form, and systems and their impact on human conditions andbehavior.’’ Both SPC are required to be at the same ‘‘understanding’’ level.
Shared/common KA but unequal level of requirements (CIDA or NAAB noted as ‘‘higher level,’’‘‘more comprehensive,’’ or both)Three variations of coding are documented within this type and/or level of analysis of findings. An exampleof each is offered.
Shared/common knowledge but unequal qualifier levels of requirements. An example of KAs thathave shared/common knowledge but unequal qualifier levels of requirements are CIDA’s 5b and NAAB’sC.1. CIDA requires ‘‘Awareness of the nature and value of integrated design practices,’’ while NAAB requires‘‘Collaboration: Ability to work in collaboration with others and in multi-disciplinary teams to successfullycomplete design projects.’’ NAAB requires a higher level in this SPC (‘‘ability’’), whereas CIDA is at a lowerqualifier level (‘‘awareness’’). This comparison illustrates a situation where the researchers used latent contentanalysis in Step 2 of the coding to assign a qualifier level to CIDA’s SPC, as it was categorized as a ‘‘ProgramExpectation’’ and therefore was not identified by a qualifier level by CIDA (see discussion of this protocol inthe ‘‘Decision Rules’’).
Shared/common knowledge with unequal comprehension levels Comparisons of CIDA’s 12d toNAAB’s B.8 and of CIDA’s 13a to NAAB’s B.9 illustrate how frequently differing accreditation requirementsoccur in SPC that are shared/common knowledge with equal qualifier levels (awareness, understanding, etc.)of KA but unequal comprehension levels. CIDA’s 12d requirement to ‘‘Understand appropriate strategies foracoustical control (e.g., material selection; white noise; space planning; floor, wall and ceiling systems)’’ isa more comprehensive requirement than NAAB’s B.8 acoustical KA requirement, ‘‘Environmental Systems:Understanding the principles of environmental systems’ design such as embodied energy, active and passiveheating and cooling, indoor air quality, solar orientation, daylighting and artificial illumination, and acoustics;including the use of appropriate performance assessment tools.’’ It is also important to note that thecomparison of KAs within CIDA’s 12d and NAAB’s B.8 is illustrative of the sorting challenges presentedby the nature of both agencies’ SPC. NAAB’s B.8 is applicable to all SPCs of CIDA’s Standard 12 (athrough h).
The opposite situation regarding comprehension is true when comparing CIDA’s 13a to NAAB’s B.9.CIDA’s 13a SPC requires that the student ‘‘Demonstrates understanding that design solutions affect and areimpacted by structural systems and methods (e.g., wood-frame and steel-frame) whereas NAAB’s B.9 requires‘‘Structural Systems: Understanding of the basic principles of structural behavior in withstanding gravity andlateral forces and the evolution, range, and appropriate application of contemporary structural systems.’’ Inthis instance, NAAB’s SPC requires a more comprehensive understanding of principles of structural behaviorand systems while CIDA’s SPC expects an understanding that design solutions affect and are impacted bystructural systems and methods.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxvi
P E R S P E C T I V E
The study determined that interior design and architecture share or have parallelknowledge but often require either unequal qualifier levels or unequal comprehension
levels of requirements.
Shared/common knowledge with unequal comprehension and unequal qualifier levels A final setof KAs demonstrate shared/common knowledge with one accrediting agency expecting a more comprehensiveSPC while the other agency required a KA at a higher qualifier level. CIDA’s 14c, ‘‘Demonstrates understandingof laws, codes, standards, and guidelines that impact fire and life safety, including compartmentalization:fire separation and smoke containment,’’ and NAAB’s B.5, ‘‘Life Safety: Ability to apply the basic principlesof life-safety systems with an emphasis on egress’’ both address life safety. CIDA requires a greater degreeof comprehension but at the ‘‘understanding’’ qualifier level, whereas NAAB requires application (‘‘ability’’level) of life-safety systems with emphasis on egress. (CIDA’s language for this SPC is similar to 2a, which isdiscussed in ‘‘Language Issues’’ within ‘‘Implications for the Future.’’)
Parallel (but different) KA, Equal Qualifier Level RequirementsCIDA’s 7a requirement, ‘‘Understand the contributions of interior design to contemporary society’’ is aparallel, but different KA as compared to NAAB’s C.9, requirement, ‘‘Community and Social Responsibility:Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to work in the public interest, to respect historic resources, andto improve the quality of life for local and global neighbors.’’ Both these KAs have equal requirements at the‘‘understanding’’ level.
Parallel (but different) KA requirements, unequal qualifier levels (e.g., NAAB ‘‘ability,’’ CIDA‘‘understanding’’)CIDA’s 9a requirement to ‘‘Apply the elements, principles, and theories of design to two-dimensional designsolutions’’ is a parallel, but different KA as aligned with NAAB’s A.8 requirement, ‘‘Ordering Systems Skills:Understanding of the fundamentals of both natural and formal ordering systems and the capacity of each toinform two- and three-dimensional design.’’ CIDA’s KA is expected at the higher qualifier level, ‘‘ability,’’while NAAB’s KA is at a median qualifier level (‘‘understanding’’).
Specialized KA requirements (CIDA or NAAB)CIDA’s 3c requirement, ‘‘Ability to select, interpret, and apply appropriate ergonomic and anthropometricdata’’ is a specialized KA not identified in the manifest or latent content analysis of NAAB’s SPC. Thisspecialized KA is unique to CIDA’s SPC requirements and represents one example of many CIDA KAs that arenot required within NAAB’s SPC. A review of Table 5 identifies these specialized KA findings within CIDA’sSPC: 2e, 7h, 7i, 8b, 8d, and 10a through 10d. Conversely, NAAB’s B.4 requirement, ‘‘Site Design: Ability torespond to site characteristics such as soil, topography, vegetation, and watershed in the development of aproject design’’ is a specialized KA that is unique to NAAB’s SPC.
Content contained within the Analysis Remarks of Table 5 indicate findings resulting from coding the SPCwithin the five distinct types and/or levels of KAs. Readers are encouraged to review and compare theresearchers’ interpretation of the content analysis to obtain additional insight about the findings.
ConclusionsAn understanding of the specialized, shared, and parallel KAs contained within the CIDA and NAAB-accreditation requirements will inform the current discussion among educators, interior designers, architects,legislators, code officials, and the public. The study determined that interior design and architecture share orhave parallel knowledge but often require either unequal qualifier levels or unequal comprehension levels ofrequirements. In other cases, shared knowledge is at the same level. Conversely, both professions’ accreditationagencies require specialized knowledge that is clearly unique to each profession.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxvii
P E R S P E C T I V E
Categorization of these types of knowledge illuminates to what degree and how these professions differ froman educational standpoint, the initial attainment of KAs that comprise the basis of the profession’s BOK(Guerin & Martin, 2001). Further exploration of the findings could contribute to the delineation of interiordesign and architecture as unique, but related, professions. This content analysis study has found that eachis unique due to specialized and parallel but different KAs and both are related due to the shared knowledgeidentified.
The findings also help clarify differences in approach between CIDA’s Student Expectations and ProgramExpectations versus NAAB’s Student Performance Criteria. NAAB defines outcomes within educationalRealms and specific SPC, without defined requirements about how each SPC is achieved or how the experienceis provided. As noted in the NAAB Conditions (NAAB, 2009, p. 21), ‘‘The school must provide evidencethat its graduates have satisfied each criterion through required coursework.’’ CIDA is more prescriptive. Forexample, CIDA (2009, p. 8) indicates ‘‘Student learning and program expectations provide the instrument,or performance criteria, for determining whether a program complies with the standard.’’ An example ofthis is CIDA 4i versus NAAB A.1 (see Table 5). CIDA requires ‘‘Opportunities to develop critical listeningskills (i.e., evaluate what they are hearing from several points of view, including, but not limited to: speakercredibility, logic and meaning of the message, underlying assumptions of the message, and value of themessage.’’ This shared/common KA for NAAB states: ‘‘Communication skills: Ability to read, write, speak,and listen effectively.’’ Only outcomes are described; processes by which to achieve them are not.
Coding content was complex in some instances when sorting requirements for KAs or identifying categories,within the CIDA and NAAB SPC. Three classification issues offer evidence of this difficulty: overlapping data,combined data, and double-dipping (Sommer & Sommer, 2002).
Overlapping data in CIDA 4g creates difficulty in content analysis. CIDA requires ‘‘Exposure to a range ofdesign research and problem solving methods.’’ A shared/common SPC for NAAB is A.11: ‘‘Applied Research:Understanding the role of applied research in determining function, form, and systems and their impact onhuman conditions and behavior.’’ The researchers’ analysis is based on the keyword ‘‘research’’ and not onother keywords in each agency’s SPC. The combined data issue is illustrated by CIDA’s 10b requirement:‘‘Understanding of the interaction of light and color and the impact they have on one another and interiorenvironments.’’ The overlapping data are light and color. Likewise, NAAB’s B.8, ‘‘Environmental Systems,’’or NAAB’s C.7, ‘‘Legal Responsibilities’’ are so all-inclusive that analysis required segregating each by itsmultiple KAs during coding to enable alignment with CIDA KAs.
Double-dipping also occurs within the SPC. CIDA 10b, noted above, is double-dipped with CIDA 12a, whichrequires: ‘‘Understand the principles of natural and electrical lighting design (e.g., color, quality, sources, use,control).’’ Both 10b and 12a include color. One focuses on ‘‘interaction’’ (10b) and the other on ‘‘principles’’(12a). This issue is more evident in CIDA SPC than in NAAB SPC in part due to CIDA’s SPC organizationmethods.
These coding issues should be considered by both accrediting agencies as they further define SPC. While thesedata issues are problematic for content analysis researchers, these issues also might increase the difficulty forprogram administrators and faculties to anticipate compliance with accreditation requirements. Finally, thetask for the accreditation team member is also more complex.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxviii
P E R S P E C T I V E
How can [interior design and architecture] embrace and enhance collaboration and stillempower future design professionals with a specific [Body of Knowledge]?
LimitationsBased on the backgrounds and experience of the researchers, the findings could be biased as these characteristicshave shaped their interpretations of the data (Creswell, 2009). However, it is hoped that having both interiordesign and architecture professions represented by the researchers and the CID’s experience as a CIDA sitevisitor and the RA’s experience as a program administrator involved in CIDA and NAAB site visits at variousinstitutions have created a balance and minimized inherent biases. Coding decisions in some instances weredifficult; the researchers have made every effort to identify those areas in the findings.
Specifically, only the CIDA and NAAB SPC were analyzed. so no other portions of the accreditation require-ments or procedures were considered. The findings cannot be generalized beyond these data. Also, this studydoes not describe the SPC KA content of any specific interior design or architecture program’s educationalcurriculum. Moreover, these SPC define the minimum levels of learning necessary to meet accreditationrequirements; how individual programs meet and/or exceed these requirements was not studied.
It is possible that CIDA’s and NAAB’s abilities to communicate what they require students to learn and howthey qualify levels of learning (via language/terms used) through these accreditation requirement documentscould be limiting in context of this study’s purpose and might have skewed the findings relative to what isactually required to be learned as interpreted by program faculty and accreditation site visitors.
And, though the findings are descriptive in nature, understanding the effects of the findings—a desirableoutcome of qualitative research (Babbie, 2010)—has been undertaken. Through interpretation of the findings,the researchers’ biases are influencing the discussion.
Topics Not CoveredThere were numerous tangential research questions that were not addressed by this study due to the complexityof the comparison that was the focus of this inquiry, though many of them could have added significantly tothis topic. This study did not focus on assessment aspects regarding institutional mission, economics, facilities,or faculty or details of the accreditation process per se. Also, this study did not go into depth describing thevarious and different degrees and their structures, which has been done by others, as the focus was on theaccreditation requirements that culminate in first-professional/professional interior design and architecturedegrees, respectively.
Additionally, there was no consideration or discussion of other components of curriculum (i.e., liberal studiesrequirements) outside of the KAs required via these professional accreditation requirements, though theircontributions to education are significant. And finally, the philosophical underpinnings of interior design andarchitecture professional practice beyond how they were manifest in the accreditation requirements were notaddressed.
Implications for the FutureBroad IssuesThere are key implications for the future resulting from the findings of, and method used in, this research studythat may be of importance to the accrediting agencies and to the professions. The findings identify and add defi-nition to the foundation of the BOK for each profession. Respective foundations are a combination of distinctly
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxix
P E R S P E C T I V E
This study has afforded the researchers a unique perspective of the [CIDA and NAAB]accreditation requirements that will hopefully be considered, discussed, and debated. . .
different, shared/common, and parallel but different KAs that might define how each evolves and, at the sametime, form the basis of amplified collaboration. These BOKs are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the same.
However, for either an interior designer or an architect to engage in the educational or professional setting,enrich the conversation, and enhance the dialog, each must bring a depth of understanding (i.e., specialized orunique knowledge), which is developed and understood at a level beyond a casual or limited exposure. Howcan the two professions embrace and enhance collaboration and still empower future design professionalswith a specific BOK? Findings from this study could also be used as a basis of additional conversations aboutcollaboration across and among the faculties teaching interior design or architecture.
Accreditation requirements need to continue to evolve to best serve the professions. Since most accreditationprocesses are primarily based on analysis of practice, are the requirements then, by design, reactive? Shouldrequirements be proactive, since education is the foundation of KAs comprising the BOK for each/bothprofession’s practice?
Language IssuesThe purpose of this study differs in critical ways from the purpose of accreditation. Therefore, the languageissues described below did present issues of concern regarding the researchers’ ability to identify KAs withinboth CIDA and NAAB documents, but may not be issues of operational concern to those agencies in howrequirements are applied by accredited programs and evaluated by site visitors. Thus, these comments arepresented solely in light of the purpose of this study.
In many cases, specificity of language used by CIDA and NAAB is critical in identifying and applyingrequirement qualifier levels. For example, use of the phrase ‘‘demonstrates understanding’’ seems to be aconfounding and unclear statement, as evidenced, for example, in CIDA’s 2a, ‘‘Demonstrates understandingof the concepts. . .’’ For clarity, it could be more appropriate and accurate to state ‘‘Applies the concepts. . .’’Via the analysis, it seems that the qualifier level of 2a has the same meaning as that of 4e, ‘‘Able to demonstratecreative thinking. . . ,’’ which represents the ‘‘ability’’ qualifier level. 2a and 4e also represent examples ofoverlapping data, discussed earlier. Also, CIDA’s combination of multiple significant KAs (11a through 11d)as contained in Standard 11. Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment, and Finish Materials serve to diminish thedistinct aspects of finishes and materials used in interior furnishings, fixtures, and equipment versus thefinishes and materials used in the construction of the building.
NAAB’s SPC also contain confounding or unclear language usage. An example of unclear language fromNAAB is C.3, which requires ‘‘Client Role in Architecture: Understanding of the responsibility of the architectto elicit, understand, and reconcile the needs of the client, owner, user groups, and the public and communitydomains.’’ This SPC appears to be describing the architect’s responsibilities to the client and other notedentities. Also, NAAB’s C.7 is not clear in its intent, as written: ‘‘Legal Responsibilities: Understanding ofthe architect’s responsibility to the public and the client as determined by registration law, building codesand regulations, professional service contracts, zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental regulation,and historic preservation and accessibility laws.’’ It is not clear to the researchers, after they conductedlatent content analysis, whether this SPC means that the student will understand law, codes, ordinances, etc.,but rather that the student understands the concept that he/she has responsibility for applying them. Theseinterpretations, via latent content analysis, yield two, very different meanings, and subsequently impacted thequalifier level in addition to the comprehensive level when analyzing this SPC in comparison to the CIDA
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxx
P E R S P E C T I V E
SPC. Therefore, identifying the KAs contained within this SPC is difficult for these researchers and perhapsfor programs applying this requirement as well as site visitors gathering evidence of learned KAs.
Other examples of potentially confusing language exist in both CIDA’s and NAAB’s SPC. Additionally, arethe CIDA requirements too prescriptive or are they prescriptive enough? This latter question was beyond thescope of the present study but is an area worthy of future research and discussion.
NoteThe NAAB 2009 Conditions incorporate studio culture in a more comprehensive way than previous condi-tions, in part, a result of a study by the American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) Studio CultureTask Force (AIAS, 2002). While CIDA considers studio culture, perhaps more comprehensive incorporationinto the Standards is needed. In recent history, NAAB has articulated a requirement to set goals and increasediversity of faculty and students. CIDA has not taken a similar action and should more concretely addressthe requirements in this area. This study has afforded the researchers a unique perspective of the accreditationrequirements that will hopefully be considered, discussed, and debated in the coming months in discussion ofaccreditation requirements, professional education and practice, and the professions’ respective BOKs as bothinterior design and architecture move forward in their important roles to society.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on thedivision of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
American Institute of Architects. (2008). Interior design law causeslawsuit in Oklahoma. AIA Angle, 6(21). Retrieved October 23,2008, from http://www.aia.org/gov/angle/angle_nwsltr_current.
American Institute of Architects. (2009). AIA Tennessee volunteers fortough legislative duty. AIA Angle, 7(15). Retrieved August 25,2009, from http://info.aia.org/nwsltr_angle.cfm?pagename=angle_nwsltr_20090716&archive=1.
American Institute of Architecture Students. (2002). The redesign ofstudio culture: A report of the AIAS studio culture task force.Washington, DC: Author.
Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Berg, B. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the socialsciences. Needham, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of theprofessoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E., & Mitgang, L. (1996). Building community: A new futurefor architecture education and practice. Princeton, NJ: TheCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Carpenter, D. M., II. (2006). Designing cartels: How industryinsiders cut out competition. Retrieved October 21, 2006, fromhttp://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/Interior-Design-Study.pdf.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). (2008). Professionalstandards 2009. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.accredit-id.org/June%202008%20Standards_changes09.pdf.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). (n.d.). Frequentlyasked questions. Retrieved February 25, 2009, fromhttp://accredit-id.org/faqs.php#10.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, andmixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Guerin, D., & Martin, C. (2001). The interior design profession’sbody of knowledge: Its definition and documentation. Toronto,Ontario, Canada: The Association of Registered InteriorDesigners of Ontario (ARIDO).
Martin, C., & Kroelinger, M. (2009). Comparison of CIDAprofessional standards and NAAB conditions. Proceedings of theInterior Design Educators Council Annual InternationalConference (pp. 538–548). St. Louis, MO.
National Architectural Accrediting Board. (2004). 2004Conditions. Retrieved February 25, 2009, fromhttp://naab.org/accreditation/2004_Conditions.aspx.
National Architectural Accrediting Board. (2009). 2009 Conditionsfor accreditation. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents\Accreditation.
National Architectural Accrediting Board. (n.d.). FAQs. RetrievedFebruary 23, 2009, from http://www.naab.org/faq/results.aspx.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxxi
P E R S P E C T I V E
Poldma, T. (2008). Interior design at a crossroads: Embracingspecificity through process, research, and knowledge. Journal of
Interior Design, 33(3), iii–xvi.
Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioralresearch: Tools and techniques (5th ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. PracticalAssessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 1–11. RetrievedAugust 11, 2009, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.
Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environmental/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning.New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Caren S. Martin, Ph.D., CID-MN is an Assistant Professor of interior design at theUniversity of Minnesota. Before joining the academy, she practiced non-residentialinterior design and project management for nearly 20 years. Martin served two termson Minnesota’s professional licensing board and is a CIDA site visitor. In 2009 shewas inducted into the ASID College of Fellows and she serves on ASID’s Legislativeand Codes Advisory Council. Her scholarship focuses on opportunities and threatsfacing the interior design profession. Martin authored ‘‘Rebuttal of the Report bythe Institute for Justice Entitled ‘Designing Cartels: How Industry Insiders CutOut Competition’’’ (Journal of Interior Design) and the book Interior Design: FromPractice to Profession (ASID). With Denise Guerin, she co-authored The InteriorDesign Profession’s Body of Knowledge, 2005 edition. Together, they co-createdInformeDesign®, and Martin serves as its Director. Martin is also co-editor of TheState of the Interior Design Profession to be published in early 2010 (Fairchild).
Michael D. Kroelinger, Ph.D., FIIDA, AIA, LC, is a Professor and the ExecutiveDean of the newly created Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts at ArizonaState University. Kroelinger has lectured extensively on various aspects of the builtenvironment and has conducted research projects that evaluate how buildingsperform and how they should be designed. He maintains relationships withuniversities throughout the world and is a frequent lecturer on architectural lightingand daylighting. Prior to his faculty appointments, Kroelinger practiced full timeand was previously an officer in the US Army. A partner in MK Design Associatesin Tempe, Arizona, the firm provides daylighting, energy, and architectural lightingconsultation and research. Kroelinger is a Registered Architect in Arizona and isalso Lighting Certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the LightingProfessions. Kroelinger has a doctoral degree from the University of Tennessee andan M.Arch. from the University of Arizona.
Journal of Interior Design Volume 35 Number 2 2010xxxii