You can watch the forty-fourth Parlour LAB here!
Interestingly, the themes brought up in today’s LAB followed on from our forty-third Parlour LAB on researching practice. In both sessions we reflected on what it means to be an architect. In this LAB, we discussed the histories and data we collect as a profession and how this shapes who we are.
"A more diverse history allows a more diverse future" - Cyndell Kwabi
Some of the key barriers women have faced in progressing their careers are:
The profession focuses on “sole” authorship - awards, publications, and archives tend to celebrate individual authorship, which sits awkwardly against the reality that buildings are collaborative
Women have historically experienced fragmented careers due to familiy responsibilities and smaller projects which don’t seem worthy of recognition
Architects working in community practice, policy, Indigenous design, and advocacy are often positioned as "not real architects" (but, as Jonathan noted at LAB 44: if the profession doesn't make room for a diversity of practice identities, it risks ceding that ground to others who are already doing the work)
Women have long developed strategies to stay in a profession that wasn't designed with them in mind. Some of the survival strategies women employ[ed] incude:
Flexible and part-time working arrangements, self-employment, and family support networks have been key survival strategies
Structural reforms like free education, childcare, and maternity leave have made a measurable difference in keeping women in the profession
Career paths varied widely, with women adapting to the rigidity of the profession rather than the profession adapting to them
Mentoring and professional networks, particularly with other women
Although discrimination happens everywhere, moving into the public sector allowed for better working conditions, more structured flexibility and opportunity - women are more highly represented in public sector, policy, and advisory roles, areas that remain under-researched in architecture
Kirsty and Susan talked about the “portfolio career” as a strategy to make their career work at whatever stage they are going through
“The rigidity of the architectural profession propels the fragility of the profession.” - Kirsty Volz
What can we do to overcome this rigidity and become more inclusive and expansive as a profession?
Data capture and historical records are critical - women's contributions, for example, have been structurally excluded from the record, - building more inclusive and accurate histories means rethinking what counts as architectural knowledge and contribution; oral histories, lived experience, and community engagement are legitimate forms of professional knowledge, even when they don't appear in awards or traditional publications
Shift and adapt who we award with a more inclusive definition of “good work” would help more people feel they genuinely belong - for example, do we need awards for good clients and collaborators? Architects always work with others and these are rarely acknowledged. Leadership, advocacy, and work that isn't building also deserves recognition within the profession.
Change how we talk about and teach architecture - We can all ask deeper questions about any project: who commissioned it, who owned the land, where did the money come from, how did the designer work with stakeholders? Treating buildings as outcomes of a diversity of contributions rather than the product of a single creative act can help shift the narrative.
“How do we talk about architecture in ways that tell a fuller story?” - Susan Holden
What were the key takeaways from speakers?
Cyndell’s research found that women are hidden and scarce in architectural histories. Building histories of women is not just about adding them to existing records. It requires rethinking their contributions, stories, and lived experiences to create more accurate histories, ones that embrace all the people who shape the built environment. All of them are part of architectural history. That means making room for the diversity of what they bring: different ways of working, ways of thinking, and ways of being.
Susan speaks about architecture through buildings, and has become more conscious of how she talks about them in her teaching. How do we really look at a building? She encourages going deeper into the backstory: who commissioned it, who owned the land, who made the decisions, where did the money come from, how did the designer work with the stakeholders? Projects are outcomes of a diversity of contributions, and the way we talk about them should reflect that.
Kirsty would like to see more inclusive ways of recognising good work in architecture. Her provocation: what if there were an award category for best client? Architects are often lucky to have a good client, and that rarely gets acknowledged. Beyond buildings, architects do significant work in leadership and advocacy that equally deserves recognition. The profession needs better ways to include everyone who is part of the ecosystem, from collaborators to clients, and to help people hold onto a professional identity across the full breadth of what they do.