A: For securing the definition of the profession itself, basically the quality and the standing of the profession both internal and in public, there should be a standardized curriculum as it seems to be useful to reach this target – depending on how fixed it is. There needs to be a common standard that integrates framing guidelines in the curriculum to ensure a professional outcome and qualification as a consumer’s protection as well.

A: In the United States, many institutions administer one-year qualifying education as a prerequisite for entry to a degree program, especially at the master’s degree level. I think this is a very good idea for all design disciplines. Some of the best art and design schools continue with the entry level selection requirement of the submission and review of a portfolio as a part of the admission criteria. This is, of course, another successful and tested form of a prequalification.

I believe that a rigorous foundational design education is important to be administered by all institutions in the business of education. Professional apprenticeships and internships are excellent sources of further knowledge, but they must be well-timed and carefully posited within the pedagogic process. While the education of design must be informed by its practice and the profession, I think that educators, as equal professionals, must lead the education process with greater authority for instilling a lifelong curiosity for learning and the pursuit of creative cultural interpretation.

A: In the US, we have both a generic and a specific code of conduct for the practice of design. The specific code of conduct (which includes professional ethics) is formally administered by two national interior design associations. Informal yet adhering to professional codes, our design practices enforce general and high standards of professional conduct. Our educational institutions also address codes of conduct and professional ethics, both of which are deemed to be essentials for the development of a strong professional. I am not aware of any great difficulties with enforcement.

A: There are various forms of continuing education available and required in the US. Two of the most inherent are:

1)  The professional associations which require practitioners to acquire CEU (Continue Education Unit), supported by ongoing professional seminars, to maintain their membership.  These provide the latest know-how around ideas, technologies and products which are progressive, topical and germane to the profession and all professionals.

2)  Most schools and universities offer a rich and kaleidoscopic range of ongoing further and continuing education courses which are made available at times conducive and accessible to all practitioners.

While the content and relevancy of these courses can vary a lot and at times be questioned, the quantity, quality and choice of these courses are such that, on the whole, the system works very well.

A: This subject is near and dear to my heart, and this question is very important. The depth of knowledge required for a designer to most consciously shape an intentional experience for their public is thoroughly or well-taught within either our academies or the profession at large.  While there are many cursory and even in-depth courses available, they are all disjointed in their applicability, and are never deep or structured enough for the greatest understanding or impact.

I believe that the core distinction between architecture and interior architecture/design is this one of a genuine internalization. Apart from general architectural and related industry know-how, interiors experts must understand what shapes behavior, perception, emotive response and spatial psychology. This knowledge remains in its infancy, disjointed and unstructured within formal scholarship pursuits – both from a scientific and a design literacy viewpoint. For me, this remains the most scholarly progressive frontier available to designers in general and most specifically to interiors.

A: For the discipline of interior architecture/design to be holistically and broadly respected, it is essential that it evolves a scholarly depth and an intellectual know-how that is commensurate with its intrinsic cool, hip and glamor factor. We know that today this profession is amongst the most popular of all design disciplines. It provides immense value and is hugely relevant in the shaping of our contemporary society and culture. However, despite its undisputed impact on human behavior, it lacks the depth of academic research and applicable, tangible knowledge, which would help with the respect it warrants.

Outside of this general public impact, within the academy, a greater integration with science would help to deepen and broaden the disciplines baseline and core knowledge for its content, diversity of outreach and quality of thinking. Introducing both a strong empirical basis and a design research would help designers evolve their intuitive art and personal creative expression into a more valuable and targeted applied art. This would help to better support and improve human behavior and our quality of life. In the interest of continuing to elevate the art or interior design, we must also raise the intellectual and conceptualization ability for the discipline. This science connection is both natural and essential. Only when it is established can the “body of knowledge” of the profession be expanded.

A: On behalf of the global profession, I am impressed with and proud of Hong Kong’s effort and inquiry for the betterment of this important discipline. Hong Kong’s desire to profoundly understand and comprehensively involve our industry is commendable and helpful to the discipline at large.