2009 Accreditation Requirements: Comparison of CIDA and NAAB

Abstract

This investigation studied interior design and architecture education with respect to their specialized and shared knowledge areas (KAs). Education, formalized via accreditation requirements, is available to both disciplines. KAs within discipline-specific accreditation requirements content were identified, categorized, and then compared to differentiate the specialized, parallel, and shared knowledge gained by students graduating from accredited programs. The findings of this study could contribute to the dialog about what makes interior design and architecture unique professions. Background As a profession, interior design has a documented body of knowledge (BOK), which defines its professional boundaries (Guerin & Martin, 2001; Poldma, 2008). Like every profession, interior design’s BOK includes abstract knowledge that is unique to its practice and other knowledge that it shares with or has gleaned from other professions (Abbott, 1988). Interior design knowledge gained through education and practice, and shared with allied professions, namely architecture, has created challenges. Right to practice issues and advocacy for regulation by the interior design profession have heightened efforts by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Institute for Justice, and others to claim that interior design does not possess specialized knowledge and is, therefore, not a unique

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.