Defined by job description?

Abstract

Does the study of ‘Interiors’ have to be vocationally based or defined by a job description? Is it possible to consider a lack of engagement with industry and the lack of commitment to 'The Profession' to be an advantage in designing a course? This paper will raise the prospect of education in this field being somewhat detached from industry and largely disengaged from the aim of offering a vocational course. It will take, as a starting point, the view that a university education is much more important than being merely a training ground or apprenticeship for a future career. These questions will in turn raise other issues – about the purpose and value of the academy and about the vitality to be drawn from a different relation to practice and a new association with other disciplines, (including Architecture). This paper will explore these issues with the aim of extending the subject of ‘Interiors’ to allow new thinking in research and teaching to surface. It will conclude with examples of studio teaching practice where thinking, research and teaching merge.