Interior design’s occupational closure : an ethical opportunity

Abstract

In March 2015 the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) announced its \nintention to register new professional categories for interior designers. This will provide statutory \nrecognition for the professional status of the interior design occupation and it will allow interior \ndesign occupational closure, a state where both the practice and title of the occupation will be \nregulated. \nTo reach this milestone interior design’s practical and scholarly endeavour was focussed on the \nprofessionalisation of the discipline; a lacuna was produced in which the discipline did not adequately \nconsider a separate identity for interior design. The pursuit of a stronger discrete identity could \nprovide a stronger professional identity (Breytenbach, 2012). \nIf interior design reaches the professional status it pursued it faces two consequences: firstly the \ndiscipline arrives at an ethical dilemma; secondly energy previously spent in the pursuit of \nprofessionalisation would be at large to deliberate discrete knowledge areas. \nThe ethical dilemma is located in professionalism itself. When an profession reaches occupational \nclosure it succeeds in establishing a monopoly of service which is based on its technical authority \nwhich links skill and practice to provide services to the public which are uniquely trustworthy. \nProfessions are technical and adhere to norms and standards. These norms and standards have an \nethical dimension: they must service the greater public good (Wilensky, 1964). \nAs an industry, the interior design occupation must focus its intentions, efforts and influence toward \n'that which ought to be'. This represents a normative position for interior design in which the \ndiscipline must clearly state what its obligation to society is, and how it will be met. Currently interior \ndesign is offered the opportunity to redirect its scholarly endeavour in the pursuit of ethical and \ndiscrete knowledge areas. This paper will argue that interior design can face both consequences \nsimultaneously, and that these can be addressed through its mimetic production. \nDuring this emergent and developmental phase interior design can expand its practice and scope of \nexpertise in an ethical manner. This paper aims to present some of these opportunities: interior \ndesign is uniquely placed in the built environment to denote occupation, inhabitation and identity; \nfurther, interior design is a tangible vehicle for the expression of intangible cultural practices that are \nexpressed as public rituals (e.g. casual encounters and the conducting of conversations and other \nopportunities of exchange). Interior design contributes to the establishment and expression of \nidentities which could support social cohesion; this is relevant in the establishment of a principledriven \nand human centered profession. The professional accountability and social responsibility lies in \ninterior design’s contributions in the cultural realm.

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 — 2 citations exist upstream.

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