A: I believe that there is a need to establish standards for interior design student learning outcomes, but not for a standardized curriculum as such. Interior design has so many possibilities and so many directions in which it may develop. Interior design education providers should ensure enough flexibility in their curriculum to pursue and develop new areas.

In Australia, university accreditation involves industry consultation through the Design Institute of Australia (DIA). DIA itself is seeking to establish an accreditation system, which will focus on learning outcomes rather than course content. In Australia we also have the Interior Design/Interior Architecture Educators Association (IDEA), and institutions that join the IDEA must offer four-year programs.

A: In Australia, there is no such requirement for interior designers entering the profession. If Australia was to develop such a requirement, my recommendation would be that it be self-regulated by the professional body that represents interior designers – the Design Institute of Australia (DIA), but not become part of a legislated/government system of regulation.

As educators we don’t want students to just go into mainstream practice, although most of them will. Universities like mine encourage other pathways, because interior design is undefined, so it allows for things like exhibition design or experimental practices. I don’t believe in the argument that buildings are going to fall down unless you regulate interiors, because that’s what engineers are for; interior designers will never be responsible for the structure in this country.

I would say to Hong Kong, don’t copy the architectural structure because in protecting their title, they’ve lost much ground—in landscape, engineering, project management, which used to be their domain. You don’t want to restrict yourself so much that you can’t move to other new areas. I don’t think interior design suits an old-fashioned hierarchal model. It should allow creativity to drive it, rather than allow restrictions to confine it to where it now is.

A: The DIA has a Professional Code of Conduct for its members. The Code only applies to members of the DIA and it is a condition of their membership that they abide by the Code. There have been very few instances where members have breached the Code.

A: Professional development is very important. Creativity comes from having different knowledge. Certainly, keeping up with new technology, and understanding new codes and materials are important, too. Prior to developing our Continuing Professional Development Policy (CPD) in 2000, we went around the country consulting with professionals, and while most of them felt that the CDP was necessary, they didn’t think it should be compulsory. We developed a system whereby practitioners who have achieved a certain number of points are entitled to use the post-nominal of: “Accredited Designer” after their name. The main problem with the implementation of this CPD policy is the reporting of annual CPD activities by members. Many members do not wish to be bothered to fill out the required report form.

A: Yes, I think that could be a real danger, and something that should be resisted. I think there has historically been a fear within Australian universities and within the profession in general that interior designers get confused with interior decorators. This resulted in the name change of some interior design courses from “Interior Design” to “Interior Architecture” during the early 2000s. In hindsight, I think this was a poor decision.