What’s in a name, Architects?
A few weeks ago, I wrote my very first post on LinkedIn, completely on the spur of the moment and out of sheer frustration. Since finishing Architecture school in 2017, I have been riding the roller coaster of seeking employment in a very globally tough job market. This includes spending hours on job sites such as LinkedIn, after filling out my profile and setting my search requirements. Then follows the nerve wracking yet hopeful anticipation of emails that I imagine will flood my inbox, showing architecture firms scouting hungry architects like myself.
What I instead have been inundated with ever since, is a daily dose of about 107 Architecture vacancies, of which barely 10 have anything to do with buildings while the rest are entirely from the IT industry. At first, I was certain that something had to be off in my search settings. However, since trying several different variations, I have come to realise that the word ‘architect’, unbeknownst to me until very recently, barely signifies my profession anymore.
2 weeks later, my LinkedIn post addressing this has now garnered nearly 3000 likes, 80 re-shares and 267 comments (and counting) that have turned into a mini discussion forum. Turns out that what I thought to be a minor annoyance is actually a frustration shared by thousands of fellow architects worldwide and also a much larger topic. I learned that it also isn’t a new issue and from my own rudimentary research and the number of senior architects that have concurred with the post, it is one that has been faced and begrudged for years.
The technology field is rife with roles such as ‘IT architect’, ‘solution architect’, ‘data architect’ and ‘enterprise architect’ (to name a few), leaving many of us bitter about our title being hijacked. This invasion is not new nor is the displeasure felt by ‘real’ architects at seeing their title, that they studied and toiled to attain, be dominated by another industry.
Having done my RIBA Part I and Part II from the UK, I looked into the Architects Registration Board’s take on this (if any). I was deflated to find that their acknowledgement was only of a different kind of misuse — people practicing as/calling themselves ‘architects’ when they are not registered with the ARB. In short, if you are not found on the Architects Register, you are not an architect in the UK. The only mention (on their website) of the title being used by other industries is this feeble statement- ‘We take a common sense approach to the use of ‘architect’ that isn’t connected to building and design, for example with ‘software architect’ or ‘systems architect’ which are increasingly used by the computer and IT industry.’
Hard to accept this as a mere matter of common sense when we live in a world where job sites are crucial in finding employment and when a search for an architecture job yields every kind of architect vacancy except our own. To many of us in this position, particularly during such economic times, it becomes a matter of concern.
It also appears that despite architecture being a field that is known to be regulated and governed by specific and well-established boards, these offer our titles more of a reservation than a protection. Anything beyond that would require expensive and extensive legal steps that evidently, no board has yet felt compelled to take.
The term also happens to have more than one definition, leaving plenty of room for it to be absorbed by anyone. To make matters murkier, ‘architect’ while being a noun, also acts as a verb that implies ‘to make’ literally anything.
This presents the argument that ‘architect’ is simply is too versatile, to be specific to any one profession, which is fair. The problem though, is that with the relentless growth of the IT industry, the scales are not tipped equally. Ever heard of an IT professional complaining that they cannot find a single job vacancy, because of having to sift through only architecture roles?
There is also the question of which came first — how far back ‘real’ architecture dates and how much longer it has been around. The building of shelter has occurred since the origin of man on earth. Granted that those were also simpler times, where ‘to build’ was applicable to a limited number of things found in our physical world, as opposed to today where it also applies to an entire digital universe. Still, it cannot be disregarded that ‘building architecture’ has been far too prevalent over time for it to be diluted, albeit by the indispensable IT industry. In light of the above, dictionary definitions and connotations are irrelevant, as the term has long been regnant and legally stipulated in the field of architecture.
From the response to my LinkedIn post, the architects irritated by this matter far outnumbered those that are not. Among them, many were from the construction industry and some were architects that in fact, enjoy the overlap between IT and architecture. This led me to discover that the reason this overlap in title has been possible to such an extent is also because the process of design in IT is rather similar to that in architecture. Both are creating spaces, one in the physical realm and the other in the digital realm. This could also partly explain the natural shift that we see, of architects to the IT world. While they may be two completely different avenues, the approaches are of the same nature.
The lines are further blurred by the fact that the architecture industry today simply cannot survive without technology. Gone are the days of paper, pencil and the drawing board. Today, even most job interviews begin with ‘What softwares are you proficient in?’ The influence and need of IT skill is so crucial to architecture, that it has generated new designations such as Revit architect and BIM modeler even within our field.
The add on of ‘architect’ to IT designations is also seen as an indication of superior skill and position within their industry. Therefore, there is a notion that architects should perceive the sharing of the name as a compliment, rather than an invasion. We also already have enough internal ambiguity within our industry about our own titles with ‘architect’, ‘architectural designer’, ‘architectural technologist’, ‘draughtsman’, and many more. Therefore, as much as we might love to claim the entirety of the term, we may also ourselves question how frivolous terminology can be and how much importance to place on it.
Maybe what then needs to be considered is whether we are on a level playing field. It is no secret that IT professionals earn way more than architects at least when starting out, with much less time invested in the education needed to qualify for their profession. IT jobs are currently also far more abundant to come by than architecture jobs, owing to the hits taken by the construction industry. Add to this — talk of how architects could become irrelevant in their own field if they do not also learn to code, opinions that we are glorified artists in the construction industry that only create problems for engineers to solve and the dearth of new builds in a saturated market causing us to anyway consider moving to interior design and fit outs.
Of course, change is the only constant and to stay relevant in any industry, one must be willing to evolve and adapt. But when we already are a bunch that is up against so much deliberation, surely having our very title be at anyone’s disposal can’t be healthy for our morale?
Could it not be more justified then, that the IT industry comes up with its own nomenclature for roles? If companies like AOL can create ‘digital prophet’ and Grasshopper can come up with ‘ambassador of buzz’, ‘architect’ could certainly be spared for the industry that has long been defined by it?
There is no right or wrong. The IT world and job sites are also not the culprits here. If this is something architects take issue with, then the onus is on us and our regulators to be vocal and take steps. If that has not yet been done, then what stops any industry from taking liberties? It also bears mentioning that this confusion is not exclusively between IT and architecture. Engineers can also relate, with their title being applied across the tech industry due to its multiple connotations.
So, if this is just an inevitable development in a technology-run world, maybe it is time to get creative and specific. Perhaps what is needed is that we officially rename ourselves as ‘spatial/physical architects’ while the IT folk go by ‘digital architects’? At least, then there is clarity and the freedom to sub-categorise to our hearts’ content under two distinct titles, without any detrimental overlap to either.
This is by no means a critical issue. And to many, it might seem petty to fixate on the subject of a title. However, we all know that a title holds so much more than just itself, even if we may not like to admit it. A title carries identity, history, experience and legacy. It is of value, that is ours to preserve within our own respective industries, even if we are willing to share. If we do not, who will?
