gender and the architectural design process

1

GENDER IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF GENDER ON THE DESIGN PROCESS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF DESIGN STUDENTS? _____________________________________________________________________________________ BY MAGRIET STEYNBERG_814295 Abstract This research paper investigates the influence of gender on the architectural design process of various students within an architectural school. It will study the effects of the students existing epistemological views of gender and space as well how gender effects students approaches towards, and perceptions of learning in an architectural studio. It highlights the interpersonal nature of student and lecturer and how students have learnt and still learn based on their views of the world because of their social context. Lastly, the study aims is to understand where its findings fit in current feminist theory and sociological perspectives on architecture and to use this information to offer recommendations for a more gender-aware architectural pedagogy and architectural designer.

INTRODUCTION

Research on gender and architecture was largely written by women and from an overtly political feminist angle and started to appear in the late 1970s (Rendell, Penner, & Borden, 2000). This research is commonly divided into gender based theories, gender equality and gender differences (Morton, 2004). In this paper I will focus on gender differences in the architectural design process, the nature of which I see as being emotion-laden and self-analytical and therefore deeply influenced by our gendered identities.

In Gender Space Architecture the author states that gender is not just a biological truth but is a social construction which implies that being female or male is not grounded on any ontological truth but that the different conducts of genders are shaped by physical and socio-cultural settings (Rendell, Penner, & Borden, 2000). In the design process we construct what we know, and these constructions are deeply influenced by our early experiences and by the nature of our underlying relationship to the world. As the early experiences of women and men and their relationship to the world differ in significant ways, so too will our characteristic ways of knowing and analysing (Rendell, Penner, & Borden, 2000).

The first part of this paper reviews the literature which investigates issues of gender as

they pertain to architectural design from three theoretical orientations: sociology, epistemology and pedagogy. Empirical studies about gender and the creative process will also be discussed. Biological differences in gender will not be the focus of the document as the research shows it is not a determining factor in the creative process (Demirkan & Demirba, 2010).

THE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED NATURE OF SPACE

From the second we are born, physical space begin to shape how we function as a specific gender and who we ultimately become. The social structures of our context, space and place create the social roles and relations that govern how we live, work and play. Gender and space is not independent of each other, and social constructions are in part responsible for this relationship (Poldma, 1999).

From a sociological perspective, Leslie Kanes Wiesman investigates the interplay of space to status. Weisman explores the implications of gender in work, play and home. She believes that status has been instilled in us in the ways of thinking of different genders and have been present throughout history. Weisman also investigates how different spatial configurations define the status of genders. Her investigations are grounded in feminist theory and she postulates that

2

the spaces we live in and the power relationships of roles between women and men are intertwined. In Discrimination by design (1994) she Weisman suggests that, Boys are raised in our society to be spatially dominant. She goes on to say that boys are encouraged to discover and explore their surroundings, and to experience a wide range of environmental settings. By being exposed to the world in this way male youths therefore claim more space than girls. This also manifests through their body posture, she explains that boys arms spill over sides while girls sit in restrained ladylike positions; verbal assertiveness (boys are taught to speak up, girls to be diffident): and superior social status (males in the family have more access to automobiles than females, be they teenagers or adults). Weisman also discusses the socially constructed nature of space. She believes that the way certain buildings are designed segregate women from men and this has an influence on the knowledge that women have access to (Weisman, 1994).

If the beliefs of Weisman are true, then the spaces that we know as work and as home are intertwined in the depiction of social relationships. She states that mens spaces have been given a higher grading to that of the mans workplace. This means that the designers of these spaces, specifically influence these relationships.

WAYS OF KNOWING

We as human beings should have a definite understanding of how we pursue knowledge and truth. However Poldma states that our very assumptions about the nature of human relationships, truth and knowledge are grounded in constructs that are fundamentally different in mens and womens ways of knowing (Poldma, 1999). For the interest of this paper I will be investigating the ways of knowing of different genders and how the differences between them. I will also cover what is the impact of them on how we design.

In A Feminist Approach to Architecture: Acknowledging Womens Ways of Knowing the

author states that womens underlying relationship to the world is one of connection while mens is one of separation (Franck, 2000). This feminist principle is based on object relations theory by Nancy Chodorow which says that, since the daughter is of the same gender as the mother thus development of the daughters self-identity centres on attachment to the main parenting figure and thereby to the generalized other and the world. In contrast, development of the sons self-identity requires differentiation and separation from the mother, leading to separation from the other and the world. Masculinity thus denies connection, and femininity is defined as self-in-relationship. This has important implications for cognitive activities and hence it will affect the ways men and woman design.

Western science, philosophy, and architecture mirror the nature of masculinity; the modern method requires separation from, and domination of, the object. On the other hand emotion and subjectivity, as qualities of connectedness, are detached from reason and objectivity, and are given little value in modern endeavours. Karen Franck (2000) compares geneticist Barbara McClintlocks approach which acknowledges and relies on the connectedness between researcher and observed world. Her premise for research was to listen to what the material has to tell you rather than to impose an answer on it. She finds that women use reflective understanding of care which means no one should get hurt, whereas boys and men are concerned with fair treatment. The first, womens ethic of care and the second, mens ethic of justice (Franck, 2000).

Architecture is an amalgamation of objective and subjective knowledge. When we design we have to be practical and meet spatial limitations and building regulations but design is also based on the apparent needs and desires of the client which is psychological and subjective. By merging the objective/subjective, the designer creates a solution to the design problem. Poldma describes this as Female and male ways of knowing, social constructions of knowledge, and

3

definitions of space both within and around notions of gender, all impact on how we design (Poldma, 1999).

PEDAGOGY AND GENDER

The development of boys over girls have been seen in many studies. This development originates from fundamental attitudes imposed in how boys and girls are raised from early childhood. I am interested in the influences of educational tools and institutions on different genders perception of space and the arts as they pertain to architectural design.

In Sex Differences in the Games Children Play (Lever, 1998) the author suggests that the gender specific games boys play give boys the social skills needed for occupational livelihoods. On the other hand the games girls play equip them with social skills which are more appropriate for family careers. From a young age these games are perpetuated at home. Therefor it is at home where these inborn differences are first encouraged. They are later reinforced at school as well as in society and even by the media. Lever found that different genders are given different boundaries of play through family habits and cultural influences. Boys are permitted to discover and explore whereas girls are encouraged to stay closer to the home. Lever believes that this leads to noticeable difference in the ways in different genders represent space (Lever, 1998).

When it comes to pedagogy this manifests in where the arts in many schools are not considered of principal importance, they are put on the back burner and not even offered are in many public school. The implication of this are tremendous in the creative fields. In the study Gender and subject in Higher education (1990), Kim Thomas suggests that subjects are divided along gender lines and that fundamental values instilled at an early age create a more complex interaction of gender and subject (Thomas, 1990).

Thomas investigates how opinions of gender are tied to the notions of powerful and powerless. She proposes an apparent

masculinity of science versus femininity in the arts. Artist, poet, and novelist are all seen as warm and exciting, but as of little worth. Mathematician, physicist and engineer are seen as extremely valuable (Thomas, 1990). Lastly Thomas explains that these attitudes are not necessarily female versus male but rather powerful versus powerless. Therefore this does not just pertain to females as she also references effeminate males which is also related to the arts in the what she describes as the secondary category. Lastly Thomas explains that historically women have been excluded from the making of knowledge, in particular science, and this is related to womens powerlessness (Thomas, 1990).

As previously mentioned the female ways of knowing and the modern approach of our education have implications on who controls and legitimizes knowledge in architecture and design. In Gender, Design and Education: The politics of voice (1999) Poldma states that the nature of knowledge and who controls its distribution are political and social vehicles through which Architecture is taught. In the education of students, curriculum is controlled by several forces: administrators with political agendas, and teachers with personal or pedagogical agendas, and by the conditions that create the knowledge and attitudes of the individual student as female or male. This has various implications on architectural students and the way we design. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The literature reviewed covers feminist theory and sociological perspectives on architecture but little research has been done on how these constructs and theories manifest in architectural students design processes. I would like to answer the following questions through the combined research we will be conducting: To what extent do male and female ways of knowing and sociological influences impact the choice to study Architecture?

4

To what extent do male and female ways of knowing and sociological influences our opinion of architects How do such differences manifest in the architectural design process? Where do we locate these differences in the architectural design process and do these differences generate models particular to gender? How does gender affect design pedagogy and the performance of design students?

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

As a group we initially attempted to understand the design process by doing a desktop study of the literature and research on the topic. We have identified current theories, models, and evidence unpacking the design process. Thereafter, systematic documentation of 10 of the top architecture students across the years one to four was undertaken. The survey that was administered amongst all the first to fourth year architecture design students included 35 males, 33 females, 2 transsexual, 1 transgender and 2 students who identified as or other.

The purpose of the participant observations and interviews is to document, analyse, and understand the process, context, and external factors which influence a design from start to finish. Each researcher has shadowed one of the top students of their respective years and document their design process by observing how the student thinks, draws, communicates and models a conceptual idea until a final design. This was done through regular short meetings with their respective students, on a least weekly basis, in order to understand the students progression and experience on a project. Every student researcher approached one student within the architecture programme to participate in the research. Selected students are representative of first, second, third and fourth years.

The documentation techniques included (1) photo-documentation and photo-copying, (2) interviewing, (3) shadowing, (4) voice and/or video-

recording of reviews and interviews, and (5) debriefing. Researchers will also observe and document formal as well as informal crit sessions with lecturers.

In my individual topic which relates

primarily to gender have used the literary review introduced previously in the paper to find relevant gaps pertaining to gender and architecture and have used them to construct my research questions. I have used the accumulated knowledge of the group as well as the results of the survey to make assumptions about different genders within the school. These assumptions will contribute in evolving and where possible responding to the research questions I have proposed. I will also use the theoretical grounding of the literary review to explore of three primary ideas: the socially constructed nature of space, male and female ways of knowing and pedagogy and gender. Finally, I have drawn implications from each facet of the study to formulate possible approaches for future research.

DATA AND FINDINGS

To what degree do male and female ways of knowing and sociological influences influence the choice to study Architecture?

The idea of female and male ways of knowing pose several implications for students studying architecture. Architecture as a subject is a combination of subjective knowledge and objective knowledge as previously stated. In our Architectural studies designs projects must meet the practical criteria of the brief which has spatial limitations as well being subjective in conceptualizing the needs of the users of the architecture. This complex nature of architecture puts it in the realms of art and the sciences. If epistemologically intuition and art are demeaned in favour of science and knowledge as absolute, education in schools do not only separate art as intuitive but also relegates it to lower status (Thomas, 1990) When it comes to gender this manifests in that artistic professions are more appropriate for females and the sciences

5

suitable for males. This view is instilled in us from a young age in the games we play and the gendered toys we play with (Lever, 1998).

In the survey students were asked what toys or games they played as a child and if it had an influence on whether they became interested in architecture (Figure 1) Firstly the findings showed that the games and toys between the genders were not very different. In most cases the students stated that Lego and Computer games were stimuli. Even though both of these are offered in gendered forms they are both played inside which is seen as a socially constructed female space. This shows that the games that children play and the space that they play in have changed and are not as gender specific as Lever (1998) proposed.

On the other hand in the interviews had with the students it was apparent that the choice to

study a creative profession was decided differently for the two genders. One of the male students described his mother as supportive his drawing but he did it more as a hobby as he did not believe it would lead to a successful career but it was ultimately what he loved and did decide to study architecture. The other male students also described their parents as being supportive whereas the female students were encouraged. However in one case a female student who first studied the more gender appropriate course of interior design stated that there was always an urge to design more than just interior spaces.

In my opinion these outcomes show that the modern epistemological and pedagogical views of previous generations are changing and that the views of the creative and artistic and gender are not are not as relevant in our postmodern society. The findings demonstrate that in our digital and image

Barbies, colouring in, make believe playing making home for dolls etc.

Build campsand Hide outs, Art classes

Building houses for my dolls

Building pillow forts & tree houses

Computer games

I made houses out of greeneny for ants

Lego

Lego, models

Lego, sims

Lego, fort building

Lego, Puzzles, Building shaper

Lego's, Puzzles, YV games, PC games(find the hidden objects)

Sand, lego

Sims

Sketching, building blocks

Assassin's creed 2 (PS3 game)

Combustion engines & model aircraft

Lego

Lego, age of empires, fort building

Lego, babie, Action man, Dinky cars, Build houses in garden from tiles

Lego, soccer, cars

Lego, Techicone

Mechano, Lego, Drawing books

My mother sold education al toys, so al!

Outdoors, nature, rocks and stones etc. Fixing appliaces things around the

Soccer , outdoor games

Strategic games (sims, age of empires)

Uno, Army guys, Jenga blocks, domino, chess

Built flower and leaf houses for ants

Lego and Mechano

Fem

ale

Mal

eO

th

er

Tra

nss

exu

al

Figure 1 Survey What toys or games you played as a child had an influence on whether you became interested in architecture?

Other

Transsexual

6

driven culture the socially constructed nature of space that Weisman (1994) in Discrimination by design is also changing when it comes to youths education.

To what extent do male and female ways of knowing and sociological influences our opinion of architecture and architects?

Architectural students are mostly given an historical view of architecture in which women influences are uncommon their contributions are rarely recognized (Ahrentzen & Anthony, 1993). Epistemologically women still continue to be spectators in the depiction of past and present. In architectural history books there is little or no mention of female architects. Thus it can be deducted that most syllabi of architectural history courses also neglect women. The example can be used of the awarding of the 1991 Pritzker Architectural Prize which was exclusively awarded to Robert Venturi. It disregarded the contributions

of all his partners the most noteworthy of which is Denise Scott Brown. Venturi did comment by saying "It's a bit of a disappointment that the Prize didn't go to me and Denise Scott Brown, because we are married not only as individuals, but as designers and architect.

What can be deducted from the survey when asked what is the most important aspect of architecture (Figure 3) is that the predominant facet is still that the building should be functional for all genders. What is interesting is that the male students found that the more feminine social aspect is virtually just as important. Also when the students were asked if they believed that any gender is a better designer almost all answered that it was not a factor (Figure 2). When it comes to performance and statistics this is not necessarily true but from an epistemological point of view this opinion is significant.

Figure 2 Survey - Do you feel that a certain gender is better at design?

28

1 3

34

1 1 1 1

No

Yes,

Fe

mal

e

Yes,

Mal

e

No

Yes,

Mal

e

No

Yes,

Mal

e

No

Female Male Other Transgender Transsexual

5

15

2

10

4

15

1

14

1 1 12

Aes

thet

ic

Fun

ctio

nal

Oth

er

Soc

ial

Aes

thet

ic

Fun

ctio

nal

Oth

er

Soc

ial

Aes

thet

ic

Oth

er

Aes

thet

ic

The

oret

ical


Figure 3 Survey What is the most important aspect of architecture to you?

7

The last three decades have seen increasingly more women entering the profession of architecture. Statistics released by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture show that women make up slightly more than 40 percent of architectural graduates in 2013 (up from 25 percent in 1985. Yet women account for only 5 percent of directors at Architecture firms, according to Zweig Whites 2013 information technology survey (Zweig Group, 2013). This shows that even though the female ways of knowing may have been more noticeable throughout our education, when it comes to architecture as a profession the modern epistemological views have not changed as significantly. How do such differences manifest in the architectural design process? Where do we locate these differences in the architectural design process and do these differences generate models particular to gender?

In this section I will discuss numerous steps of the design process, pertaining to gender and the issues I have evolved up to now. I used the categories our research group defined. In most steps in the architectural process there were not many differences relating to gender. I will thus discuss the aspect of the design process where I found definite differences.

Firstly when asked how the students come up with their concepts most students stated that site was the most important (Figure 4). What is interesting again is that the more male than female students found that Emotion and Feeling is what inspired their concept. The other difference the design process and gender is shown in Figure 5 when asked when the students feel they experience the creative leap. The female students have their creative leap early in the design process and during the design development stages and in the males design process it happen throughout.

This outcome directed me to observations made by Diane Favro an analysis of a female architect where she found a preference of male designers because of preconceptions about female sensitivity. She declares that,Genderization is ascribing our cultural constructs of masculinity to our notion of what constitutes a well-educated person or appropriate educational methods. Gender is a biological difference and should not be construed as the property of individuals (Favro, 1992). She also emphasized the importance to detect that the social constructions of masculine and feminine are fluid, from one culture to another, within any culture over time, over the course of ones life, and among different group of men and women depending on class, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation (Favro, 1992). The results of this study reinforces her account as it seems the female student are more structured, research oriented and

42 2

8

15

3

76

18

1 1 1 1

Abs

trac

t Ide

a

Em

otio

n or

Fee

ling

Pre

viou

s ex

perie

nce

Res

earc

h

Site

Abs

trac

t Ide

a

Em

otio

n or

Fee

ling

Res

earc

h

Site

Abs

trac

t Ide

a

Site

Em

otio

n or

Fee

ling

Res

earc

h


Figure 4 Survey - How do you come up with your concept, from?

8

functionalist whereas the male students find the social and intuitive aspects of design more important. How does gender affect design pedagogy and the performance of design students?

In Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Vygotsky suggests that learning styles are also gender, culture, and discipline specific and are both the product and process of socio-cultural learning environments (Vygotsky, 1978). In the practice of architectural learning the differences among students and between lecturers and students is especially important as it this is where students spend much of their time. This also means that even though all students are in the studio to attain certain skills, their socio-cultural position will always influence their learning, their past experience, ambitions and their insights of their social world. Each student has a distinctive learning experience everyones approach

to the design problem is unique. This also means that each student has specific learning needs. Students need to identify their own learning needs and it is the responsibility of the university to recognise that these needs are important and to make provisions to meet them.

In the survey there were particular differences in gender when it came to the interaction between student and lecturers, crits, and the studio. Firstly when asked if the students feel comfortable when verbally presenting their architectural ideas (Figure 6) many more male students stated that they always feel comfortable in the situations. In contrast female students responded that they simply did not feel comfortable. The same results are found when asked what makes the student most uncomfortable when you crit (Figure 7). Many more male students specified that they always felt comfortable than female students. Also more female students felt that lecturers intimidated them in crits. Even though it

9 911

3

11

3

9

12

1 1 1 1

Mor

e of

ten

than

not No

Som

etim

es

Yes

all

the

time

Mor

e of

ten

than

not No

Som

etim

es

Yes

all

the

time

Mor

e of

ten

than

not

Som

etim

es No

Yes

all

the

time


Figure 5 Survey - When do you feel the creative leap?

9 911

3

11

3

9

12

1 1 1 1

Mor

e of

ten

than

not No

Som

etim

es

Yes

all

the

time

Mor

e of

ten

than

not No

Som

etim

es

Yes

all

the

time

Mor

e of

ten

than

not

Som

etim

es No

Yes

all

the

time


Figure 6 Survey Do you feel comfortable verbally presenting your architectural ideas?

9

19

7

4

1

20

3

10

2 1 1 2

At h

ome

In s

tudi

o al

one

In s

tudi

o w

ith c

lass

mat

es

Oth

er

At h

ome

In s

tudi

o al

one

In s

tudi

o w

ith c

lass

mat

es

Oth

er

Oth

er

In s

tudi

o w

ith c

lass

mat

es

Oth

er


Figure 9 Survey Where do you work most productively?

4

1014

2 1

8 910

51 1 1 1 1 1

I alw

ays

feel

com

fort

able

Lots

of p

eopl

e

The

lect

urer

s

Vis

iting

crit

ics

You

r cl

assm

ates

I alw

ays

feel

com

fort

able

Lots

of p

eopl

e

The

lect

urer

s

Vis

iting

crit

ics

Whe

n th

ere

are

guys

The

lect

urer

s

Whe

n th

ere

are

girls

Lots

of p

eopl

e

Whe

n th

ere

are

girls

You

r cl

assm

ates


Figure 7 Survey - What makes you most uncomfortable when you crit?

3

7

1

11

64

53

119

12

1 1 1 1 1

Alw

ays

conf

iden

t

Fee

l int

imid

ated

Idea

s ar

e to

o da

ring

Inco

mpl

ete

proj

ect

Lack

of s

leep

Que

stio

n m

y te

chni

cal

Alw

ays

conf

iden

t

Fee

l int

imid

ated

Inco

mpl

ete

proj

ect

Lack

of s

leep

Que

stio

n m

y te

chni

cal

Que

stio

n m

y th

eore

tical

Fee

l int

imid

ated

Lack

of s

leep

Lack

of s

leep

Alw

ays

conf

iden

t

Que

stio

n m

y te

chni

cal


Figure 8 Survey - What are the reasons you do not feel confident when you do your final presentation?

10

can be established that the female students are not as comfortable as males when they verbally present their work they do believe that its necessary as can be seen in Figure 8.

The predominant idea of the architect as a white, western, middle-class male which known for his egocentrism and aggressiveness been propagated in both literature and media. It has been suggested by Stratigakos(2001) that architecture is part of a masculine culture developed from the early stages of architectural learning, where students are meant to take on aggressive attitudes during crits and reviews (Stratigakos, 2001). It is also based on the macho culture needed to cope with the intense workloads of architecture students and the unpredictable and unhealthy working hours. It is also connected to the disconnection of architectural education from larger society. This suggests the students are not always exposed to the support offered to the gender-specific needs of students.

In the survey conducted when asked where student work more productively most students stated that they used their time better when at home but many more male than female students felt that they could work in studio with classmates (Figure 9). This could be also be attributed to the influences of safety and working hours in the design studio. Architectural education in a male dominated context (both in the gender composition of its staff and methods of assessment) therefore does not always provide a healthy equitable educational environment for women to study in (De Graft-Johnson, 2003). From the discoveries of the study it can be argued that even though the students perceptions on gender may have changed architectural pedagogy has not changed to accommodate them.

LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS

This research is a limited exercise within a particular school and particular students but it indicates gendered learning issues. From the theoretical and quantitate research explored throughout the paper it is clear that gender differences have arisen in students the design process, how they experience learning, and their

perception of architecture in general. These differences are not only founded on each individual student but also on their experiences of their particular studio culture. This however cannot be used to draw general deductions about learning in studios because of the specific context of the study. It can however be an indication of how a certain learning context can produce different learning experiences for female and male learners.

With regards to female ways of knowing,

the theoretical research showed that fundamental differences between men and women lie in social value constructions. It also showed that what highlights these value constructions in society are the entrenched social values ascribed to concepts of femininity (weak) or masculinity (strong), and in concepts such as subject legitimacy (Poldma, 1999). The research also points out both the trivialization of the womens art and the demeaning way in which womens art is dismissed by the dominant elite (Poldma, 1999). What can be deducted from the research is that these views are not necessarily relevant to the students who participated. In contrast these roles are a lot more flexible than previous studies have shown and the literature that has been reviewed could possibly be obsolete. As previously identified this report is only relevant to the context of the study and is not a general statement. These outcomes can therefore stimulate new thoughts on gender theory if it can be established in larger focus groups.

When it comes to the gender and architectural pedagogy Biggs suggests in Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives (2003) that deep/in-depth learning is nurtured in a motivational setting. The relationship between the students attitude towards not just learning but also deep learning are also very much determined by the context where it is housed. In architectural pedagogy there is long standing gender bias both in learning styles and in the learning context in which is not necessarily gender sensitive (Poldma, 1999). Gender biases in the studio in question means that some female learners cannot fully take advantage of current learning model. These manifested in the accepted teaching and learning practices that

11

guide tutorials and crits. Male students seem to be more assertive. They also established stronger relationships with tutors which result in their amplified feelings of motivation. Adjustments can be made in which crits are more accommodating to female students such as peer reviewed crits which are more informal and are offered more as conversations than presentations. Architectural pedagogy should also attempt to develop an identity among students through the values and practices that they adopt in architectural design.

CONCLUSION

In the face of massive technological, social, and economic changes, the profession of architecture will be forced to transform itself to stay relevant in our Postmodern diverse culture. Architectural education, as the entry point for future generations of architects must accommodate these changes. As presented in this paper the changing numbers of genders and gender roles in architectural schools and the shifting perceptions in the context of higher educational institutions could lead exciting developments in architectural gender theory.

For these changes to become reality architects must be aware of the underlying values that create social constructs between all genders. These concepts are also crucial to the development of the well-rounded designer, be they female or male, transgender or transsexual, especially as these gender roles are becoming more flexible and inexact. A proactive stance towards diversity and the realities thereof can help transform the profession of architecture to be more inclusive and thus more sensitive to our current cultural condition and context.

REFERENCES

Ahrentzen, S., & Anthony, k. (1993). Sex, Stars, and

Studios: A gendered look at Educational

Practices in Architecture. Journal of

Architectural Education, 11- 29.

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning Teaching and Assessment

to Curriculum Objectives. Conneticut:

Imaginative Curriculum Project, LTSN

Generic Centre.

De Graft-Johnson, A. M. (2003). Why do women

leave architecture? London: Riba.

Demirkan, H., & Demirba, O. (2010). The effects of

learning styles and gender on the academic

performance of interior architecture

students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 2(2), 1390-1394.

Favro, D. (1992). Sincere and Good: The

Architectural Practice of Julia Morgan.

Journal of Architectural and Planning

Research, 112-128.

Franck, K. (2000). A Feminist Approach to

Architecture: Acknowledging Women's

Ways of Knowing. In B. P. Iain Borden, In

Gender Space Architecture: An

Interdisciplinary Introduction (pp. 295-305).

Routledge: London.

Lever, J. (1998). Sex Differences in the Games

Children Play. In K. Meyer, C. Anderson, &

B. Risman, Feminist Foundations: Toward

Transforming Sociology. London: SAGE

Publications.

Morton, P. (2004). Feminist Theory. In S. Sennot,

Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture.

New York: Fitzroy Dearborn.

Poldma, T. V. (1999). Gender, Design and Education:

The Politics of Voice. Montreal: McGill

University.

12

Rendell, J., Penner, B., & Borden, I. (2000). Gender

Space Architecture : Interdisciplinary

Introduction. London: Routledge.

Stratigakos, D. (2001). Architects in Skirts: The

Public Image of Women Architects in

Wilhelmine Germany. Journal of

Architectural Education, 55.

Thomas, K. (1990). Gender and Subject in Higher

Education. Bristol: Taylor and Francis

Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The

development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Weisman, L. K. (1994). Discrimination by Design: A

Feminist Critique of the Man-Made

Environment. Chicago: University of Illinois

Press.

Zweig Group. (2014, 10 30). Information Technology

Survey 2013. Retrieved from

https://zweiggroup.com:

https://zweiggroup.com/p-2197-

information-technology-survey-2013

gender and the architectural design process

Documents