Ethics in and for Education in the Built Environment

In a thought-provoking article entitled ‘Ethics ‘in’ and ‘for’ Higher Education’, Scott (2004, p. 439) confronts what he identifies as a “conspiracy of silence and/or culture of disinterest with regard to ethical issues in higher education”. In effect, he suggests that the perceived relative absence of debate in relation to the nature of the ethics that underpin academic activities in practice, on the one hand, and the ambiguity of asserting specific normative ambitions for higher education, on the other, can potentially diminish the role that universities exercise in shaping and defending social values. Yet, arguably, in the context of the built environment, where professional standards and ethics obtain, values play a critical role. Perhaps any apparent void in this sphere stems from our individual values being too diverse to make an impact or being whispered rather than shouted loudly. In this editorial, I begin to make the case for a more clamorous articulation of ethics in pedagogical research as a foundation for research integrity in built environment education.

Competing Values: Unravelling the corporate-academic divide

There is a growing - and relatively vociferous - body of academic thinking that questions the direction and dominant culture of contemporary universities. Notably, it is argued that a number of important tensions exist associated with the on-going construction of the university as a corporate enterprise (Henkel, 2000). Indeed, it is held that this is leading, in some parts of the world, to the “deconstruction of academic professionalism itself” (Marginson, 2000, p. 24). This argument is based on a view that the “balance between corporate and academic purposes has become more unequal” (p. 29). Further, this line of reasoning has led certain commentators, such as Winter (2009, p. 121) to contend that a sustained emphasis on supporting a business culture has “reshaped all aspects of academic work and identity around an idealised image of corporate efficiency, a strong managerial culture, entrepreneurialism, and profit-making ideals”.

A related emphasis on performance has placed institutions, departments and individual academics under intense scrutiny, which is further held to challenge academics’ personal ethical principles and sense of identity (Hegarty, 2008). In practical terms, for example, a preoccupation with a particular social construction of quality has led to the widespread use of auditing and quality control (Morley, 2004). For some, the perceived demise of the ‘traditional’ university is a direct consequence of relatively more entrepreneurial and managerialist constructions of the purpose of the university as an institution and may be explained in terms of neoliberal informed theories of, say, new public management and new managerialism (Deem & Brehony, 2005). A different perspective is offered by Churchman (2002, p. 643) who points to what may be no more than nostalgic “fantasies of academia” and challenges the construction of academe “as a profession of rapier discourse and significant discoveries”. From this perspective, values then become rather more illusory.

The ‘truth’ about university values?

Significantly, Scott (2004) suggests that where commentators characterise universities as subscribing to the perceived hegemonic discourse of neo-liberalism, this results in the construction of aims and ideals which are instrumentally - and predominantly market-driven. Such preoccupations may then be translated into focusing on a narrowly circumscribed set of research and teaching objectives. In essence, he summarises a particular reading of contemporary academic activity which concentrates on setting targets and objectives for meeting very specific scientific ends; these outputs are held to be superior to relatively more open-ended intellectual enquiry (blue sky thinking) where the outcomes are, perhaps, less (immediately) tangible. This modus operandi may be summarised as reflecting the demands of a business management ethos. It is this perceived context, Scott (2004) argues, which may be identified as having directly fashioned or marginalised assertions of value by individual institutions and academics. Nevertheless, this is only one construction, and Churchman (2002), for example, provides evidence of a counter-move where academics develop relatively more or less covert working cultures that reflect alternative academic values.

Subscribing to a view that university values have been subordinated to political and market forces has, according to Scott (2004), prompted some institutions to focus on issues of procedure rather than substance. He illustrates his argument with two examples. First, he contends that teaching has adopted a concern with problem-solving rather than fostering critical debates about the essential goals of curriculum design. The effect of this is to focus academic attention on policies and procedures that deal, for example, with policing the quality of submissions or tackling allegations of plagiarism. Second, Scott (2004) suggests that research ethics have shifted from a concern with such things as the nature and identity of the research commission or sponsor, to the management and control of particular technical issues, including research malpractice or research governance. Such procedural concerns, he reflects, indicate a potential narrowing of the moral base of universities.

Importantly, however, in questioning perceptions of the changing social engagement of the university ideal over time, Scott (2004) presents alternative interpretations of its evolution. Notably, he directly challenges the perceived downgrading of classical higher education from one which benefited from relative independence to a more commodified view of the university as but one delivery agent charged with securing the knowledge economy. A perceived decline and fall from critical commentator to agent of the state is held to derive from a move away from the original higher aims of universities which were intended to support individuals’ acquisition of critical thinking skills and to facilitate personal growth and development. From this perspective, universities were perceived to be autonomous institutions and able to exercise critical objectivity. Yet, Scott (2004, p. 443) points to particular scientific élites and “incestuous relationships between political, military and scientific power” that existed in the UK during both world wars, and the institutionalised role universities played in developing a political and bureaucratic cadre of professional élites. Clearly, such a standpoint foregrounds a particular set of power dynamics and serves to undermine the alleged openness and value-free identity of the traditional higher education institution.

Scott (2004, p. 442) then juxtaposes the subsequent (ill-named) ‘mass’ education construction of the university with that of the classical model. He highlights that the expansion of the sector was not one that simply widened student access to higher education but was also characterised by the integration of technically- or vocationally-focused institutions. An accompanying closer integration with the needs of business and technology transfer has evolved, for some, into universities’ present raison d’être as but one mode among many serving the interests of the knowledge society. Here, the boundaries between state, market and science are relatively more blurred. Yet, as Scott (2004) points out, this dynamic, multi-layered, and porous environment is also highly complex, requiring new professional and technical expertise, and novel ways of working between different professions and sectors, and in very different settings. Following Scott (2004), universities have always functioned within — and in different ways for - society. It is precisely how the social embeddedness of particular teaching and research activities are socially constructed that determines their relative critical or utilitarian relationship with society.

Significantly, Scott (2004) asserts that one of the potential advantages of modern higher education systems is that universities have been explicitly widened in order to embrace different interests, cultures and views. Moreover, the ensuing heterogeneity of institutions offering tertiary education and the opening up of universities to a broader student base and new subject areas has been accompanied by clear attempts to ensure that transparency and accountability objectives are met. From this stance, quality assurance regimes may then be presented as an attempt to counter established privilege and power relations. This itself evidently represents a particular set of values. Crucially then, Scott (2004), in challenging the conventional historical account of universities as power-houses of academic freedom and autonomy, and in highlighting the complexity and diversity of emergent forms of knowledge creation, provides an important critical space for the active construction of new ethical foundations. This editorial considers some of the implications of Scott’s (2004) clarion call to advance ethical debates ‘in’ and ‘for’ higher education by placing the built environment in the vanguard for leading an ethical charge.

Towards an articulation of ethical foundations by the built environment disciplines

Whilst the assertion of a normative stance tends to be fraught with tensions, there are two important arguments to support the need for a more explicit articulation of values in the built environment. First, there remain persistent questions around the ‘academic’ status and intellectual validity of professional/vocational education in university curricula. Second, built environment research efforts tend to be problem- and policy-oriented; that is, ‘applied’ in nature rather than ‘pure’. Again, the latter is often cast as superior to the first. Although such classifications are clearly divisive, built environment subjects are a relatively established feature of university provision. Whilst they may not be able to compete with the intellectual roots of, say, theology, there is, nevertheless, a wealth of experience and evidence to draw upon in asserting the robustness of research and teaching within the built environment disciplines. Taking a timely UK example, the Department of Civic Design at the University of Liverpool is celebrating 100 years of planning education in 2009. Additionally, that degree programme grew out of a recognised architecture programme. Indeed, in terms of wider social relations, it is interesting to note that the Royal Institute of British Architects was founded in 1834, whilst the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors was established in 1868. Such experience provides an important educational legacy. Longevity and ‘being part of the system’, however, do not provide a sufficient normative basis; indeed, the very institutionalisation of programmes may serve to obscure course, curriculum or research values. What Scott (2004) seeks to do is to challenge conspiracies of silence and to stimulate a critically reflective interest in relation to ethical issues in contemporary higher education. Hopefully, the built environment is up to the challenge of articulating its values.

In the vanguard?

There are a number of arguments that support the case for stating a clear ethical position in relation to education in the built environment and the purpose of this editorial is to raise some questions and stimulate debate rather than pretend to offer an ethical road map. Moreover, the very diversity of the professional bases of the built environment disciplines is to be welcomed as offering alternative constructions and interpretations; there is no universal direction of travel. Here, critical thinking and contrasting epistemologies and methodologies can surely only strengthen the capacity of this relatively amorphous inter-disciplinary grouping to tackle contemporary challenges? Nonetheless, there may be certain common principles that can serve to contribute to a unity of purpose.

How typical, for example, are educational philosophies in teaching curricula? A number of questions flow from such statements, including to what extent such educational frameworks are desirable, articulated, communicated, shared or modified as conditions and circumstances change. Arguably, sustainability, though itself contested, provides a foil against which ethical positions can be framed. Indeed, following Campbell (1996), finding an appropriate balance between the competing claims for justice that sustainability invokes inevitably presents professional dilemmas. Yet, sustainability might be the very type of ‘glue’ advocated by Scott (2004) in connecting disparate knowledge traditions. The important point is that taking up a (particular) normative stance for sustainability is the assertion of value. As Scott (2004) argues, the need to address such ethical considerations is clear evidence of where higher education can shape societal values. The built environment is in pole position to make a practical difference to the risks and threats of climate change and the carbon economy through, for instance, the sophistication, resilience and resourcefulness of its architecture, construction methods, transport, housing and land use planning policies. This is not a time for business as usual.

Moreover, in practical terms, it is the very interdisciplinary nature of the built environment and its emphasis on team working, critical thinking skills and establishing a robust evidence base to legitimise and inform intervention that can potentially furnish the heterogeneous environment in which Scott’s (2004, p. 448) “normative creativity” can flourish. Purposefully problem-oriented, built environment disciplines have the potential to position themselves as active players in the knowledge society. Yet again, however, such normative agendas require a clear articulation by individuals and by individual disciplines. Here there is room for both a discipline-specific pronunciation of ethical values alongside a presentation of the specific and distinctive contribution particular built environment disciplines make in an inter-professional and inter-disciplinary context. Such statements then have particular implications for pedagogical practice in the classroom and in contributing to researcher integrity. Indeed, were the built environment as a whole to respond to Scott’s (2004) call for courage in asserting values in higher education, the term vocational might even become the new black.

This Issue

This issue begins with an international collaboration and ‘a view from down under’ by Marilyn Higgins, Elizabeth Aitken-Rose and Jennifer Dixon. The focus of this paper is the pedagogy of the planning studio and the authors critically reflect on the continuing relevance of this mode of teaching after first providing a valuable literature review. The paper reports two case studies. Interestingly, the first relates to an innovation that brought undergraduate planning and dance students together. This study contributes to building a knowledge base on relatively ‘unconventional’ inter-disciplinary teaching, such as the project between medicine and planning students published in the previous issue (Ellis et al., 2008). The authors explicitly identify courage as an important pre-requisite in seeking ways to retain the acknowledged benefits of the planning studio in spite of institutional threats. In an un-orchestrated way, the second paper sub-titled ‘The View from the Other Side’ by Bonnie Johnson, critically examines the concept of cognitive apprenticeships in teaching site planning to planners. This auto-biographical account provides evidence of the usefulness of integrating practitioner insights in curriculum development through a clear conceptual framework. Here, the ‘other side’ is the voice of practitioners whose mastery through practice contrasts with the novice in the classroom. Johnson uses the framework to convert experiential reflective learning into progressive levels of understanding. This example of reflective practice can usefully be read alongside Webster’s (2008) paper in the last issue.

The next two papers deal with pedagogical issues in construction education using very different pedagogical approaches. Perry Forsythe’s ‘Construction Game’ introduces and reflects on the use of physical model making to simulate realism. This tactile tool seeks to enable teams of students to experience both ‘hands-on’ physical design and organisational dynamics, as individuals assume different roles in the delivery of a group project. The author reflects on the delivery of this tool and adds to the literature on the use of games in motivating students to learn. In contrast, the jointly authored paper by Bingunath Ingirige and Jack Goulding addresses how to maximise social interactions and effectiveness within distance learning courses. This paper provides a useful literature review and critically examines the nature and benefits of interaction in virtual contexts. Two case studies enable the authors to propose a social interaction conceptual model in relation to synchronous and asynchronous delivery tools. Importantly, this paper shows the extent to which institutional support is essential in supporting pedagogical objectives. This is clearly an area where further empirical research is required if a convincing case is to be made.

The final paper by Sidney Newton makes an argument for a transformational model of professionally-oriented higher education in the built environment. This paper clearly situates university and vocational education within a framework of delivering competencies, which is held to be particularly apposite to the built environment. Newton’s objective, however, is to critique the competency-based training model and to propose instead a framework of transformative learning. He illustrates this through the use of the ‘case-in-point’ technique which places an emphasis on how learning is framed and interpreted, rather than learning outcomes per se. In questioning the use of defined professional competencies in the professional accreditation of vocational higher education degrees, Newton draws attention to a number of practical and pedagogical concerns, and suggests that even if particular competencies can be taught and assessed in practice, these may not align with the demands of employers and needs of society. Instead, Newton advocates a greater sensitivity to nurturing learners’ world-views and value frameworks, so that individuals can be supported to develop greater self-knowledge and be better prepared to adapt and deal with changing circumstances. Readers of this volume will be surprised then at the parallels with the first paper, where creative teaching techniques are deployed in order to help students to develop the skills of reflection and to become more mindful and socially responsible citizens.

Deborah Peel
Editor