What's in a Name? Interior Design and/or Interior Architecture: The ...

P E R S P E C T I V EFROM THE EDITORSeveral questions have been developed at the end of this Perspective article. I encourage readers to examinethese questions carefully and to submit responses. Those deemed most thought-provoking and substantiveto the continuing dialogue will be considered for publication in the Letters section of the next issue of theJournal of Interior Design.What’s in a Name? Interior Design and/orInterior Architecture: The DiscussionContinuesAllison Carll White, Ph.D., University of KentuckyAllison Carll White, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of InteriorDesign in the College of Design at the University of Kentucky.She also holds a joint appointment in the graduate program inthe Department of Historic Preservation. Allison has publishedextensively on various aspects of the design profession, with aspecial focus on the need to promote the value of interior design.She became an IDEC Fellow in 1999 and currently serves asthe chair of IDEC’s College of Fellows. Allison also has servedas a reviewer and a Publication Board member for the Journalof Interior Design. In 2000, Allison was made a Fellow of theInternational Interior Design Association (IIDA) after serving asthe director of the Education and Research Forum and presidentof the IIDA Foundation.Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of—for credit is like fire;when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, you will find itan arduous task to rekindle it again. The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what youdesire to appear.Socrates, Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC–399 BC)ContextFor the past several years, there has been continuing discussion over the professional use of the name interiordesign versus interior architecture. The discourse over the label to be attached to programs teaching interiordesign courses elevated to the level of a debate at both the 2007 and 2008 IDEC Annual Conference TownHall meetings. According to IDEC Past-President Jane Kucko, ‘‘The 2008 debate was spurred by severalactions including a fall 2008 task force report from a core group of ACSA members to the ACSA Board ofDirectors calling for accredited programs of interior architecture and a letter from ASID (following discussionat Issue Forum meetings) calling for programs of interior architecture to change their program’s name tointerior design’’ (personal communication, March 12, 2009).In response, IDEC President John Turpin offered his remarks at the 2009 IDEC International Conference inSt. Louis, Missouri by stating: ‘‘Over the past 18 months, members have raised concerns that the NationalJournal of Interior Designx© Copyright 2009, Interior Design Educators Council,Journal of Interior Design 35(1)

P E R S P E C T I V EDespite these assurances and given the continuing debate over the use of the terms interiordesign and interior architecture, President Turpin requested that the 2009 Fellows Forumat the IDEC International Conference in St. Louis address this issue in an attempt tostimulate further conversation on the topic.Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) might be considering the accreditation of interior architectureprograms.’’ He went on to say that the former President of the Association of Collegiate Schools ofArchitecture, Kim Tanzer, had assured him that the ACSA did not support this concept. Turpin also notedthat in a series of workshops called ‘‘Inside/Out: Architecture and Interior Design Curricula,’’ sponsored byTed Landsmark, President of the Boston Architectural Center, and Michael Pride, Director of the School ofArchitecture and Interior Design at the University of Cincinnati, opportunities for curricular linkages betweenarchitecture and interior design programs had been discussed. Although the issue of interior design versusinterior architecture was raised by some attendees, Turpin was assured that the purpose of these meetings wasnot to advocate the use of one term over the other. Rather, the focus of the workshops has been to look athow collaborations in the academy can better prepare students to collaborate in the professional community.(personal communication, May 14, 2009)Turpin went on to say,‘‘Nonetheless, IDEC members expressed concern and as President I began making some calls inregard to accrediting and testing for interior architecture. I spoke personally with then President ofNAAB, Bruce Blackmer. He stated, and I quote with his permission, that NAAB ‘‘is not interestedat this point in time in pursuing the accreditation of interior architecture programs. It detracts fromour primary core function.’’ He went further to say that he had just returned from a board meetingin Tucson and the stance on accrediting interior architecture programs remains the same. ACSA’scurrent President (Marleen Davis) and Executive Director (Michael Monti) have both communicatedto me that ACSA continues to not support the accreditation of interior architecture programs. JeffKenney, Executive Director of NCIDQ, has spoken with the leadership of the National Council ofArchitectural Registration Boards and the message is the same. While new boards may have differentopinions on this initiative, the accreditation of interior architecture programs is not being considered.IDEC will, of course, continue to monitor the organizations’ stances and actions on this topic.’’(personal communication, May 14, 2009)The Four FuturesDespite these assurances and given the continuing debate over the use of the terms interior design and interiorarchitecture, President Turpin requested that the 2009 Fellows Forum at the IDEC International Conferencein St. Louis address this issue in an attempt to stimulate further conversation on the topic. In a collaborativeeffort between John Turpin, Jane Kucko, Eileen Jones, Denise Guerin and the author, a scenario of fourfutures for the interior design profession was introduced as the basis for round table discussions. The fourfutures posited for the discussion were as follows:1. Interior design becomes licensed in all states and is identified as the sole profession dealing specifically withthe interior environment. A collaborative design community flourishes between architects and interiordesigners.2. Interior design is one of the several terms used to identify professionals working within the interiorenvironment. Others include interior architects, inter-space designers, etc. Routes to the practice arediverse and include, but are not limited to, passage of the NCIDQ (National Council for Interior DesignQualification) or NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) exams.3. Interior architecture becomes the accepted term globally for those working with interiors. Interiorarchitects are required to graduate from a CIDA-accredited program (Council for Interior DesignAccreditation) and take the NCIDQ exams (see Appendix for definitions).Journal of Interior Design xiVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V ETheuseoftheterminterior architecture is viewed by some as yet another threat to aprofession that others would argue has constantly had to defend themselves since the titleof interior design was adopted in the 1960s. It seems that we have not done as adequatejob of communicating exactly what it is that we do or the value that we bring to the table.4. There is a split in the profession, with those focusing on residential design retaining the right to callthemselves ‘‘interior designers’’ and those with a commercially based practice addressing health, safety,and welfare issues adopting the term ‘‘interior architect.’’It was requested that each table discuss only the future as assigned, and each group was asked to list the pros andcons of their future as well as to devise five strategies for achieving this future. A scribe captured the discussionfor each table, and the notes are in the process of being compiled. To further stimulate thinking on this importantand timely topic, the purpose of this article is to provide a context for consideration of the four futures.Interior Design versus Interior ArchitectureAs William Shakespeare has reminded us in Romeo and Juliet, ‘‘What’s in a name? That which we call a roseby any other name would smell as sweet.’’ To look at our future, it is imperative that we consider our past.Prior to beginning the round table discussions, IDEC President John Turpin offered the following thoughts toprovide a context for the discussion:‘‘Our past is an interesting one. Up until the latter part of the 19th century, a number of individualsparticipated in the decoration and design of the interior environment. Architects, upholsterers,cabinetmakers, decorators, domestic engineers, and even artists focused their attention on theinterior. During the 20th century, our profession evolved quickly. Decorators created organizationsand eventually chose to change their name in the 1960s as a means of communicating to the publicthe difference between the designer and the decorator. ... However, interior design was not theonly profession dealing with the interior environment. Architecture continued to work with interiors.Interior architecture [was] a term used at least as early as the 1920s in the Bauhaus—Lily Reich calledherself an ‘‘interior architect’’, [so it is a] term has been in existence but not used as often. (personalcommunication, May 14, 2009)External ChallengesThe use of the term interior architecture is viewed by some as yet another threat to a profession that otherswould argue has constantly had to defend itself since the title of interior design was adopted in the 1960s. Itseems that we have not done as adequate job of communicating exactly what it is that we do or the value thatwe bring to the table. The public’s confusion over the role of the interior designer has been further exacerbatedby lawsuits brought by the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) and the National Kitchen and BathAssociation (NKBA) among other entities. These organizations have challenged interior design’s status byattacking three of the criteria outlined by professionalization theory as steps necessary to move from a practiceto a profession (Martin, 2008). Instead of education, experience, and examination, the ‘‘three Es’’ required bythe professional interior design organizations (American Society of Interior Designers, International InteriorDesign Association, and the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario) for membership, theIDPC has suggested that intelligence, imagination, and integrity would serve the public’s interests just aswell (Interior Design Protection Council [IDPC], 2008). NKBA corroborates this sentiment when they statethat their organization ‘‘supports various pathways of entry into the profession. Many people can acquire thenecessary skills through extended work experience or through shorter degree programs combined with othereducation’’ (National Kitchen and Bath Association [NKBA], 2008, p. 5).Journal of Interior Design xiiVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V EFor those of us who entered the profession through the process of education, experience,and examination, the public’s lack of knowledge of who we are and what we do isextremely frustrating.Role of the MediaIn addition to these challenges, the media has contributed to the public’s confusion over the role of the interiordecorator versus the interior designer. Most of the popular design periodicals do not make a distinction, nordo many of the professional trade magazines. A study by White and Dickson (1993) revealed that the architectsare often given credit for interior works even though the firm may employ a team of interior designers. Themajority of these magazines fail to move beyond the aesthetic realm, and few, if any, promote the value ofgood design. An NKBA Position Statement (2008) attempts to further confuse the issue when they state:‘‘We would submit that no industry is more readily accessible to the public than the interior designprofession. ... [T]here are numerous consumer publications, websites and television programs(and networks such as HGTV) which educate the public on the role of interior designers and thequalifications of the various disciplines. Surely the public does not lack the ability to make informedchoices about who they retain for design services.’’ (p. 4)A study by Waxman and Clemons (2007) explored the influence of design-related ‘‘reality’’ shows on students’perceptions of the design profession. They found that the ability to discern the line between the ‘‘constructedreality’’ and the ‘‘actual reality’’ was often fuzzy in the eyes of the viewers, and these mixed messages were beingtransmitted to the new students entering interior design programs as well as the public. Senior-level studentsvoiced the concern that these shows tarnished the image of interior designers. After watching a number ofdesign-related reality shows, Martin concluded that one of the myths perpetuated about the profession wasthat ‘‘anyone can be an interior designer’’ (cited in Waxman & Clemens, 2007, p. vii; see also Bowles, 2008).For those of us who entered the profession through the process of education, experience, and examination,the public’s lack of knowledge of who we are and what we do is extremely frustrating. It is no wonder thatsome are advocating yet another name change to better define our role in creating the built environment.Perceptions of Occupational StatusAll this suggests that occupational stereotyping is one of the problems we must overcome in defining theinterior design profession. Lipton, O’Connor, Terry, and Bellamy (1991) define occupational stereotyping as ‘‘apreconceived attitude about a particular occupation, about people who are employed in that occupation, andabout one’s own suitability for that occupation’’ (p. 129). A study by Thielbar and Feldman (1969) concludedthat stereotypes guide the assessment of occupational prestige. They further suggest ‘‘representations of societyin fictional writing, television drama, and movies often reflect social life through occupational stereotypes.Sometimes it is not the incumbent but the position that is stereotyped’’ (p. 67). Thielbar and Feldman’sfindings concerning occupational stereotypes and perceptions of status or prestige were later confirmed inresearch conducted by Oswald (2003).Grimm and Kronus (1973) have developed an analytical framework for studying occupations in their socialenvironments, taking into account both objective (i.e., sex distribution, income, education) and subjectivecharacteristics (i.e., group ideologies and value systems). By drawing on previous research, the authors showthat assessments of occupational status and stereotypes tend to be uniform across groups and time. Grimmand Kronus suggest that occupations that do not achieve full professional status have failed to convince thepublic that they have a scientific basis of knowledge, a lengthy training period, a strong service commitment,and autonomous working conditions. On a more positive note, the authors discuss how both law and medicineupgraded their images beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century by focusing on the aforementionedcriteria. Interior design has attempted to do the same, but as yet has not been successful.Journal of Interior Design xiiiVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V EThe study concluded that Western designers should rightfully be concerned about theirlack of recognition and understanding. Further, ‘‘design does not carry the same level ofprestige and social standing as engineering or architecture, even though the impact of thedesigner on society may be equally significant’’Whitfield and Smith (2003) conducted a study to determine how society perceived the design professions(i.e., graphic design, industrial design, fashion design, interior design, and furniture design). Six dimensionswere used to measure the perception of social standing: (1) level of social standing; (2) education level;(3) income level; (4) amount of responsibility; (5) usefulness as a profession; and (6) proportion of womenin the profession. On the basis of the premise that ‘‘design suffers from an identity crisis—no one is quitesure what it is,’’ subjects both with and without design training were drawn from Australia and SouthKorea (p. 116). The authors determined that in Western societies, income and education were importantpredictors of occupational prestige. The design subjects consistently rated the design occupations higher thanthe public group. With the exception of graphic and industrial design, the Australian public group rated allof the design professions low in occupational prestige, and all respondents ranked the design professionslow on the service to the community dimension. In addition, both design-educated and public Australiangroups considered fashion design and interior design as ‘‘female’’ occupations, which Grimm and Kronus(1973) suggest negatively affects the perceived status of these occupations. The study concluded that Westerndesigners should rightfully be concerned about their lack of recognition and understanding. Further, ‘‘designdoes not carry the same level of prestige and social standing as engineering or architecture, even though theimpact of the designer on society may be equally significant’’ (Whitfield & Smith, 2003, p. 133).It is worth spending a few minutes examining the effect of gender on perceived occupational status. Bothengineering and architecture are considered by many to be predominantly male professions although increasingnumbers of females are pursuing these degrees. By contrast, the roots of the interior design profession viainterior decoration were predominantly female. Massey (2008) details the emergence of interior decoration,which catered primarily to the rich and famous so that they might express their power and prestige. Shenotes, however, that interior decoration was one of the few professions led by women, particularly womenof ‘good taste,’ which she suggests has led to a continuing lack of occupational prestige or ‘‘seriousness’’ (seealso Turpin, 2007, p. 124).One can only wonder how much these early female-based roots in interior decorating have continued toinfluence the occupational stereotypes of the interior design profession. Oswald’s research (2003) revealed thatoccupational titles associated with men were perceived as more prestigious than those associated primarilywith women. Further, men and women did not differ in their evaluations of these occupations. In particular,Oswald noted that architecture was perceived as an occupation mostly associated with men, and her researchconfirmed the expectation that sex-based occupational stereotyping still exists. Thus, the question mustbe posed: If we changed our name to interior architecture, would we automatically gain more perceivedoccupational status as a profession, or does the perception of high occupational status have to be earned?Identity in the WorkplaceAs documented by Martin (2008), ‘‘Interior design has worked for the past 50-plus years to gain identityin three key areas: the workplace, the legal arena, and the public’s opinion’’ (p. 10). A recent panel ofleaders from International Interior Design Association (IIDA) and American Institute of Architects (AIA)acknowledged the importance and necessity for collaboration in the workplace (Bowles, 2007). Accordingto architect Richard Logan, ‘‘There has always been collaboration on interior projects, but the nature ofthe interaction has become more respectful and symbiotic as interior design education has become moreprofessional and broader-based, and as licensing has become more prevalent’’ (Bowles, 2007, p. 10). Massey(2008) contends that by upgrading its educational standards, the interior design profession is gaining morestature and is coming into its own as a separate and distinct discipline. The Foundation for Interior DesignJournal of Interior Design xivVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V E‘‘. ..Even architects face marginalization by quasi-professionals, since a large segment ofthe built environment is still not designed by architects. Both groups need to recognizetheir unique skills and contributions, and not participate in a turf war over practicerecognition and legislation.’’Education Research (now the Council for Interior Design Accreditation or CIDA) first began accreditingprograms in 1973 (Martin, 2008). Today, there are 145 accredited Bachelor’s degree in interior designprograms nationally (M. Scanlan, personal communication, May 26, 2009). In addition, interior design hasidentified its own separate and distinct codified body of knowledge (Guerin & Martin, 2001), a key elementin defining a profession according to Grimm and Kronus (1973).Identity in the Legislative ArenaIn the legal arena, the NCIDQ was founded in 1974 for the purpose of establishing standards of competencefor designers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public (NCIDQ, 2009). For those of us who teachin or have graduated from CIDA-accredited programs, protection of the public health, safety, and welfare isat the very core of what we do. Currently there are nearly 25,000 NCIDQ certificate holders (Friend, 2009),and interior design is regulated in 25 states, territories, and the District of Columbia (J. Kenney, personalcommunication, February 18, 2009). A comprehensive examination and legal regulation are two of the sevensteps necessary to move from a practice to a profession (Martin, 2008). However, this is the area whereinterior design is coming under fire from the Institute of Justice, Interior Design Protection Council, andthe NKBA, among others (IDPC, 2008). The IDPC (2008) argues ‘‘it is not the function of the legislatureto enhance the stature or respect of a profession’’ (p. 19). Further, the IDPC contends that the practice ofinterior design has little or nothing to do with protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, an argumentthat Martin (2008) effectively refutes (see also Guest, 2008). Institute of Justice advocates Carpenter and Ross(2008) suggest that their constituents’ First Amendment rights are being violated in that they are unable tocommunicate effectively with the public about the scope of their services, and their economic viability inthe marketplace is being harmed. NKBA (2008) effectively sums up the argument when they state: ‘‘Suchlaws harm the public by artificially inflating consumer prices, erecting unnecessary barriers to entry into theprofession, giving government-imposed advantages to those already practicing and failing to demonstrate anysocial benefit’’ (p. 3). In response, ASID has issued the following statement: ‘‘ASID will continue to supportlegal recognition of the interior design profession, but not if that recognition prevents individuals from offeringbasic interior design services as they have in the past’’ (Brigham, 2009, p. 106). Until both the legislative arenaand the public understand that interior design is different from interior decoration, these continuing battleswill extract a toll on the profession. Yet as architect Richard Logan reminds us:‘‘Official recognition, even for architects, is perhaps not a century old. Interior designers have onlybegun the ardent process within the past few decades, and there is both impatience and competitionthat each group faces. Even architects face marginalization by quasi-professionals, since a largesegment of the built environment is still not designed by architects. Both groups need to recognizetheir unique skills and contributions, and not participate in a turf war over practice recognition andlegislation. (Bowles, 2007, p. 11)Identity in the Public ArenaInterior design has met all seven of the steps outlined in professionalization theory to move from a practiceto a profession. These steps include: (1) name change (interior decoration to interior design; (2) educationrequirements; (3) comprehensive examination; (4) legal recognition/regulation; (5) professional organizationsmembership; (6) code of ethics; and (7) continuing education (Martin, 2008). Although interior design hasfulfilled all seven of these criteria, in this complex world, the profession is still seen by many as little more than‘‘fluff’’ (Bowles, 2008). It would behoove us to revisit the analytical framework for studying occupationalJournal of Interior Design xvVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V EWhile we have made significant strides in the workplace and legislative arenas, it is in thepublic arena that we as a profession have fallen short. ..[We]need to do a better job ofconveying the unique value of our work, and this extends far beyond simply protecting thepublic health, safety, and welfare.status developed by Grimm and Kronus (1973), where they remind us that occupations that have not achievedfull professional status have failed to convince the public that they have a strong service commitment. Whilewe have made significant strides in the workplace and legislative arenas, it is in the public arena that we as aprofession have fallen short. Anderson, Honey, and Dudek (2007) agree when they state that interior design willnot achieve professional status until we adopt a social compact that demonstrates our ability to create interiorenvironments that support and enhance quality of life. They suggest that this goal can only be accomplishedby transforming the culture of our profession. In short, we need to do a better job of conveying the uniquevalue of our work, and this extends far beyond simply protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.Since the inception of the Journal of Interior Design Education and Research in 1975, interior design educatorshave played a key role in advocating that the profession needs to do a better job of communicating its valueto the public. The Journal was viewed as a means of opening avenues of communication and the exchange ofideas as well as strengthening the profession (Friedmann, 1975). In addressing the nation’s energy problemand its changing demographics in 1978, Stolper makes the following comment in her introduction:‘‘Two scenarios concerning the direction of interior design as a profession will be developed. Onescenario portrays the interior designer adapting to new conditions in both curriculum and professionalorientation and accepting some responsibility for solving the major problems and concerns facing thenation, and the other scenario predicts what might happen if design professionals do not adapt tonew conditions and continue to make decisions solely on the basis of conventional wisdom. (Stolper,1978, p. 50)’’Have we as members of the interior design profession yet fully embraced the first scenario? Stolper’s analysisof the problems and our role in addressing them is just as relevant 30 years later.In 1994, the Polsky Forum, hosted by Dickson and White (Dickson & White, 1994), created a vision for theinterior design profession in 2010. Increasing the perception of the value or social relevance of our professionin the public arena became a key focus in the discussion. Once again, a concern voiced by Jo Ann AsherThompson at the forum is as applicable today as it was nearly 20 years ago: ‘‘Time is running out. ...Wehave to solidify who we are [and justify our value to society]’’ (p. 11). Advice from forum participant Carlosde Falla also remains timely: ‘‘Each of us must get personally involved. ..and make a commitment of time,energy, resources, passion, willingness to see it through. ..This will lead to empowerment’’ (p. 11).Again in 1997, Dickson and White proposed developing a body of interior design criticism that would helpin shape public perception of our value and strengthen our image as a profession. Over a decade later, thesecalls have gone unheeded and we are still talking about the need to promote our ‘‘value added’’ message.And lest we think that changing our name to interior architecture will solve this dilemma, the architectureprofession is facing a similar problem. In an article by Holliday (2007), the author outlines ‘‘a concerted effortto raise the standing of architecture and the profession in the public eye’’ (p. 32). She notes that a ‘‘Blueprintfor America’’ that focused on community service was one of the central themes of the American Institute ofArchitects’ 150th anniversary celebration. Likewise, much of the October 2008 issue of Architectural Recordaddressed ‘‘Design with Conscience.’’ According to Guest Editor David Sokol (2008), ‘‘After a decade ofprosperity and self-indulgence, the profession is returning to the social contract upon which architectureis founded’’ (p. 85). Architect Michael Broshar sums all of this up succinctly when he concluded: ‘‘Theopportunity for recognition of interior designers and architects by the public is enhanced when we are viewedas being supportive of positions that will enhance the quality of life for citizens’’ (Bowles, 2007, p. 11).Journal of Interior Design xviVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V ENow is the time to embrace our own future by defining what it is we do and by addressingour ethical obligation to society.ConclusionsSo given our past history, the public perceptions of our profession, and the seemingly continual fear thatinterior design will be subsumed by architecture, what are we to do when at times our future is beingchallenged and seems bleak? It is time to thoughtfully consider the four futures proposed for our professionand endorse the one (or combination thereof) that will once again move us forward. The choices range froma ‘‘do nothing’’ approach to a split between residential and commercial designers with the latter group takingthe name of interior architecture. For too long we have let others define who we are. Now is the time toembrace our own future by defining what it is we do and by addressing our ethical obligation to society.Harwood (2006) has advanced a 2015 Hypothesis to move the interior design profession forward in the ‘‘threeEs’’, but until we more effectively communicate our value and adopt a social compact that is understood inthe public and legislative arenas, the perception of the interior design profession will remain the same nomatter what our name.Questions1. When considering the Four Futures as outlined in this Perspective, what proposed Future would bestmove Interior Design forward? What is the rationale for choosing this Future? How can this Future bejustified over other Futures?2. Who/what are the major ‘‘players’’ in the adoption of this Future? Why?3. What strategies would best facilitate adoption of this Future?AppendixThe following definitions were taken from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.Interior Architecture:An instructional program that prepares individuals for the independent professional practice of interiorarchitecture—the processes and techniques of designing living, work and leisure indoor environments asintegral components of a building system. Includes instruction in building design and structural systems,heating and cooling systems, safety and health standards, and interior design principles and standards.Definition listed under ‘‘Architecture and related services’’ at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/ciplist90.asp?CIP2=04Interior Design:A program in the applied visual arts that prepares individuals to apply artistic principles and techniques tothe professional planning, designing, equipping, and furnishing residential and commercial interior spaces.Includes instruction in computer applications drafting and graphic techniques; principles of interior lighting,acoustics, systems integration, and color coordination; furniture and furnishings; textiles and their finishing;the history of interior design and period styles; basic structural design; building codes and inspectionregulations; and applications to office, hotel, factory, restaurant and housing design.Definition listed under ‘‘Visual and performing arts’’ at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/ciplist.asp?CIP2=50Journal of Interior Design xviiVolume 35 Number 1 2009

P E R S P E C T I V EReferencesAnderson, B. G., Honey, P. L., & Dudek, M. T. (2007). Interior design’s social compact: Key to the quest for professional status. Journal ofInterior Design, 33(2), v–xiii.Bowles, M. (2007, Spring). Untapped knowledge. Perspective: Journal of the International Interior Design Association, 8–16.Bowles, M. (2008, Summer). Designers are professionals. Perspective: Journal of the International Interior Design Association, 38–44.Brigham, B. (2009, May). Truth be told. Interiors & Sources, 16, 106.Carpenter, D. M., & Ross, J. K. (2008, Summer). Designing cartels through censorship. Regulation, 31, 14–18.Dickson, A. W., & White, A. C. (1994). The Polsky Forum: The creaton of a vision for the interior design profession in the year 2010. Journalof Interior Design, 20(2), 3–11.Dickson, A. W., & White, A. C. (1997). Interior design criticism: Developing a culture of reverence for the interior environment. Journal ofInterior Design, 23(1), 4–10.Friedmann, A. (1975). Introduction. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 1(1), 2.Friend, S. (2009, May). If you’ve got it, flaunt it. Interiors & Sources, 16, 110.Grimm, J. W., & Kronus, C. L. (1973). Occupations and publics: A framework for analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 14(1), 68–87.Guerin, D., & Martin, C. (2001). The interior design profession’s body of knowledge: Its definition and documentation. Toronto: Associationof Registered Interior Designers of Ontario.Guest, R. C. (2008, January/February). It’s time we mind our business. Interiors & Sources, 15, 54–55.Harwood, B. (2006). The 1995 hypothesis + the 2015 hypothesis. Journal of Interior Design, 31(2), xi–xxii.Holliday, K. (2007). The architecture profession and the public: Leopold Eidlitz’s ‘‘Discourses between two T-squares.’’ Journal of ArchitecturalEducation, 61(1), 32–43.Interior Design Protection Council. (2008, May). Rebuttal to ASID Message Guide. Retrieved August 28, 2009, fromhttp://www.IDPCinfo.org.Lipton, J. P., O’Connor, M., Terry, C., & Bellamy, E. (1991). Neutral job titles and occupational stereotypes: When legal and psychologicalrealities conflict. Journal of Psychology, 125(2), 129–151.Martin, C. S. (2008). Rebuttal of the report by the Institute of Justice entitled Designing cartels: How industry insiders cut out competition.Journal of Interior Design, 33(3), 1–49.Massey, A. (2008). Interior Design Since 1900 (3rd ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.National Council for Interior Design Qualification. (2009). Who We Are: Purpose. Retrieved May 23, 2009, fromhttp://www.ncidq.org/who/index.asp.National Kitchen & Bath Association. (2008, February). Position Statement. (Available from NKBA, 687 Willow Grove Street, Hackettstown,NJ 07840 or online at http://www.iopfda.org).Oswald, P. A. (2003). Sex-typing and prestige ratings of occupations as indices of occupational stereotypes. Perceptual and Motor Skills,97(3), 953–959.Sokol, D., (2008, October). Design with conscience. Architectural Record, 196, 85–89.Stolper, J. H. (1978). Focus on the future: The profession of interior design. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, IV(2), 50–54.Thielbar, G., & Feldman, S. D. (1969). Occupational stereotype and prestige. Social Forces, 48(1), 64–72.Turpin, J. (2007). The history of women in interior design: A review of the literature. Journal of Interior Design, 33(1), 1–15.Waxman, L. K., & Clemons, S. (2007). Student perceptions: Debunking television’s portrayal of interior design. Journal of Interior Design,32(2), v–xi.White, A. C., & Dickson, A. W. (1993). Who’s keeping the fire? An analysis of who’s being published in a major interior design periodical.Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 18(1,2), 87–94.Whitfield, T. W. A., & Smith, G. (2003). The social standing of the design professions: An intercultural comparison. Journal of InterculturalStudies, 24(2), 115–135.Journal of Interior Design xviiiVolume 35 Number 1 2009