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
1

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

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
2

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

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
3

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?

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 video4

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

Tra
nss
Ot exu
her al

Transsexual

Female

Male

Other

Lego and Mechano

Built flower and leaf houses for ants
Uno, Army guys, Jenga blocks, domino, chess
Strategic games (sims, age of empires)
Soccer , outdoor games
Outdoors, nature, rocks and stones etc. Fixing appliaces things around the
My mother sold education al toys, so al!
Mechano, Lego, Drawing books
Lego, Techicone
Lego, soccer, cars
Lego, babie, Action man, Dinky cars, Build houses in garden from tiles
Lego, age of empires, fort building
Lego
Combustion engines & model aircraft
Assassin's creed 2 (PS3 game)
Sketching, building blocks
Sims
Sand, lego
Lego's, Puzzles, YV games, PC games(find the hidden objects)
Lego, Puzzles, Building shaper
Lego, fort building
Lego, sims
Lego, models
Lego
I made houses out of greeneny for ants
Computer games
Building pillow forts & tree houses
Building houses for my dolls
Build campsand Hide outs, Art classes
Barbies, colouring in, make believe playing making home for dolls etc.

Figure 1 Survey What toys or games you played as a child had an influence on whether you became interested
in architecture?
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
5

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

34

Male

No

Female

Yes, Male

No

Yes, Male

Yes, Male

No

Yes, Female

No

28

Other

Transgender

Transsexual

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

driven culture the socially constructed nature of

space that Weisman (1994) in Discrimination by
design is also changing when it comes to youths
education.

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.

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

15

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.

15

14

10
5

Male

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

6

Aesthetic
Other

Theoretical

Other

Social

Other

Functional

Aesthetic

Social

Other

Functional

Aesthetic

Female

Aesthetic

Transgender Transsexual

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.

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

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.

18
15

Female

Male

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

7

Other

1
Research

Site

Abstract Idea

Site

Research

Emotion or Feeling

Abstract Idea

Site

Research

Emotion or Feeling

2
Previous experience

Emotion or Feeling

Abstract Idea

Transgender Transsexual

Other

Transgender

Yes all the time

No

Yes all the time

Male

Sometimes

Female

More often than not

More often than not

Yes all the time

No

Sometimes

More often than not

12

11

Sometimes

11

No

Transsexual

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

functionalist whereas the male students find the

social and intuitive aspects of design more
important.

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.

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

No

Other

Transgender

8
Figure
6 Survey Do you feel comfortable verbally presenting your architectural ideas?

Yes all the time

Sometimes

Yes all the time

Male

More often than not

9
3

More often than not

Yes all the time

Sometimes

No

More often than not

Female

12

11

Sometimes

11

No

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

Transsexual

1
3

Female

Figure 9 Survey Where do you work most productively?

9

Male

Male

Other

Other

The lecturers

Transgender

Transgender

Lots of people

When there are girls

Your classmates

1
Question my technical

1
Always confident

1
Lack of sleep

Other

1
2

Other

2
1

In studio with classmates

1
Lack of sleep

Male

When there are girls

When there are guys

Visiting critics

The lecturers

Lots of people

Other

Feel intimidated

Question my theoretical

Other

Female

Question my technical

11

Lack of sleep

Female

In studio with classmates

19
9

Incomplete project

Your classmates

In studio alone

Feel intimidated

At home

3
I always feel
comfortable

Visiting critics

The lecturers

Lots of people

I always feel
comfortable

Always confident

Question my technical

Lack of sleep

Incomplete project

Ideas are too daring

Feel intimidated

Always confident

Other

In studio with classmates

In studio alone

At home
10
14
10
5
1

Transsexual

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

11
9

5
1

Transsexual

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

20

7
10

Transgender Transsexual

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
10

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

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.

11

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-2197information-technology-survey-2013

12