P E R S P E C T I V E

FROM THE EDITOR

Several questions have been developed at the end of this Perspective article. I encourage readers to examine
these questions carefully and to submit responses. Those deemed most thought-provoking and substantive
to the continuing dialogue will be considered for publication in the Letters section of the next issue of the
Journal of Interior Design.

What’s in a Name? Interior Design and/or

Interior Architecture: The Discussion
Continues
Allison Carll White, Ph.D., University of Kentucky

Allison Carll White, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of Interior

Design in the College of Design at the University of Kentucky.
She also holds a joint appointment in the graduate program in
the Department of Historic Preservation. Allison has published
extensively on various aspects of the design profession, with a
special focus on the need to promote the value of interior design.
She became an IDEC Fellow in 1999 and currently serves as
the chair of IDEC’s College of Fellows. Allison also has served
as a reviewer and a Publication Board member for the Journal
of Interior Design. In 2000, Allison was made a Fellow of the
International Interior Design Association (IIDA) after serving as
the director of the Education and Research Forum and president
of 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 it
an arduous task to rekindle it again. The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you
desire to appear. Socrates, Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC–399 BC)

Context
For the past several years, there has been continuing discussion over the professional use of the name interior
design versus interior architecture. The discourse over the label to be attached to programs teaching interior
design courses elevated to the level of a debate at both the 2007 and 2008 IDEC Annual Conference Town
Hall meetings. According to IDEC Past-President Jane Kucko, ‘‘The 2008 debate was spurred by several
actions including a fall 2008 task force report from a core group of ACSA members to the ACSA Board of
Directors calling for accredited programs of interior architecture and a letter from ASID (following discussion
at Issue Forum meetings) calling for programs of interior architecture to change their program’s name to
interior design’’ (personal communication, March 12, 2009).

In response, IDEC President John Turpin offered his remarks at the 2009 IDEC International Conference in
St. Louis, Missouri by stating: ‘‘Over the past 18 months, members have raised concerns that the National

© Copyright 2009, Interior Design Educators Council,

Journal of Interior Design x Journal of Interior Design 35(1)
 P E R S P E C T I V E
Despite these assurances and given the continuing debate over the use of the terms interior
design and interior architecture, President Turpin requested that the 2009 Fellows Forum
at the IDEC International Conference in St. Louis address this issue in an attempt to
stimulate further conversation on the topic.

Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) might be considering the accreditation of interior architecture
programs.’’ He went on to say that the former President of the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Architecture, Kim Tanzer, had assured him that the ACSA did not support this concept. Turpin also noted
that in a series of workshops called ‘‘Inside/Out: Architecture and Interior Design Curricula,’’ sponsored by
Ted Landsmark, President of the Boston Architectural Center, and Michael Pride, Director of the School of
Architecture and Interior Design at the University of Cincinnati, opportunities for curricular linkages between
architecture and interior design programs had been discussed. Although the issue of interior design versus
interior architecture was raised by some attendees, Turpin was assured that the purpose of these meetings was
not to advocate the use of one term over the other. Rather, the focus of the workshops has been to look at
how 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 in
regard to accrediting and testing for interior architecture. I spoke personally with then President of
NAAB, Bruce Blackmer. He stated, and I quote with his permission, that NAAB ‘‘is not interested
at this point in time in pursuing the accreditation of interior architecture programs. It detracts from
our primary core function.’’ He went further to say that he had just returned from a board meeting
in Tucson and the stance on accrediting interior architecture programs remains the same. ACSA’s
current President (Marleen Davis) and Executive Director (Michael Monti) have both communicated
to me that ACSA continues to not support the accreditation of interior architecture programs. Jeff
Kenney, Executive Director of NCIDQ, has spoken with the leadership of the National Council of
Architectural Registration Boards and the message is the same. While new boards may have different
opinions 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 Futures

Despite these assurances and given the continuing debate over the use of the terms interior design and interior
architecture, President Turpin requested that the 2009 Fellows Forum at the IDEC International Conference
in St. Louis address this issue in an attempt to stimulate further conversation on the topic. In a collaborative
effort between John Turpin, Jane Kucko, Eileen Jones, Denise Guerin and the author, a scenario of four
futures for the interior design profession was introduced as the basis for round table discussions. The four
futures posited for the discussion were as follows:
1. Interior design becomes licensed in all states and is identified as the sole profession dealing specifically with
the interior environment. A collaborative design community flourishes between architects and interior
designers.
2. Interior design is one of the several terms used to identify professionals working within the interior
environment. Others include interior architects, inter-space designers, etc. Routes to the practice are
diverse and include, but are not limited to, passage of the NCIDQ (National Council for Interior Design
Qualification) or NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) exams.
3. Interior architecture becomes the accepted term globally for those working with interiors. Interior
architects are required to graduate from a CIDA-accredited program (Council for Interior Design
Accreditation) and take the NCIDQ exams (see Appendix for definitions).

Journal of Interior Design xi Volume 35 Number 1 2009

 P E R S P E C T I V E
The use of the term interior architecture is viewed by some as yet another threat to a
profession that others would argue has constantly had to defend themselves since the title
of interior design was adopted in the 1960s. It seems that we have not done as adequate
job 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 call
themselves ‘‘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 and
cons of their future as well as to devise five strategies for achieving this future. A scribe captured the discussion
for each table, and the notes are in the process of being compiled. To further stimulate thinking on this impor-
tant and timely topic, the purpose of this article is to provide a context for consideration of the four futures.

Interior Design versus Interior Architecture

As William Shakespeare has reminded us in Romeo and Juliet, ‘‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
by 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 to
provide a context for the discussion:

‘‘Our past is an interesting one. Up until the latter part of the 19th century, a number of individuals
participated in the decoration and design of the interior environment. Architects, upholsterers,
cabinetmakers, decorators, domestic engineers, and even artists focused their attention on the
interior. During the 20th century, our profession evolved quickly. Decorators created organizations
and eventually chose to change their name in the 1960s as a means of communicating to the public
the difference between the designer and the decorator. . . . However, interior design was not the
only 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 called
herself an ‘‘interior architect’’, [so it is a] term has been in existence but not used as often. (personal
communication, May 14, 2009)

External Challenges
The use of the term interior architecture is viewed by some as yet another threat to a profession that others
would argue has constantly had to defend itself since the title of interior design was adopted in the 1960s. It
seems that we have not done as adequate job of communicating exactly what it is that we do or the value that
we bring to the table. The public’s confusion over the role of the interior designer has been further exacerbated
by lawsuits brought by the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) and the National Kitchen and Bath
Association (NKBA) among other entities. These organizations have challenged interior design’s status by
attacking three of the criteria outlined by professionalization theory as steps necessary to move from a practice
to a profession (Martin, 2008). Instead of education, experience, and examination, the ‘‘three Es’’ required by
the professional interior design organizations (American Society of Interior Designers, International Interior
Design Association, and the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario) for membership, the
IDPC has suggested that intelligence, imagination, and integrity would serve the public’s interests just as
well (Interior Design Protection Council [IDPC], 2008). NKBA corroborates this sentiment when they state
that their organization ‘‘supports various pathways of entry into the profession. Many people can acquire the
necessary skills through extended work experience or through shorter degree programs combined with other
education’’ (National Kitchen and Bath Association [NKBA], 2008, p. 5).

Journal of Interior Design xii Volume 35 Number 1 2009

 P E R S P E C T I V E
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.

Role of the Media

In addition to these challenges, the media has contributed to the public’s confusion over the role of the interior
decorator versus the interior designer. Most of the popular design periodicals do not make a distinction, nor
do many of the professional trade magazines. A study by White and Dickson (1993) revealed that the architects
are often given credit for interior works even though the firm may employ a team of interior designers. The
majority of these magazines fail to move beyond the aesthetic realm, and few, if any, promote the value of
good 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 design
profession. . . . [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 the
qualifications of the various disciplines. Surely the public does not lack the ability to make informed
choices 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 ‘‘constructed
reality’’ and the ‘‘actual reality’’ was often fuzzy in the eyes of the viewers, and these mixed messages were being
transmitted to the new students entering interior design programs as well as the public. Senior-level students
voiced the concern that these shows tarnished the image of interior designers. After watching a number of
design-related reality shows, Martin concluded that one of the myths perpetuated about the profession was
that ‘‘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 that
some are advocating yet another name change to better define our role in creating the built environment.

Perceptions of Occupational Status

All this suggests that occupational stereotyping is one of the problems we must overcome in defining the
interior design profession. Lipton, O’Connor, Terry, and Bellamy (1991) define occupational stereotyping as ‘‘a
preconceived attitude about a particular occupation, about people who are employed in that occupation, and
about one’s own suitability for that occupation’’ (p. 129). A study by Thielbar and Feldman (1969) concluded
that stereotypes guide the assessment of occupational prestige. They further suggest ‘‘representations of society
in 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’s
findings concerning occupational stereotypes and perceptions of status or prestige were later confirmed in
research conducted by Oswald (2003).

Grimm and Kronus (1973) have developed an analytical framework for studying occupations in their social
environments, taking into account both objective (i.e., sex distribution, income, education) and subjective
characteristics (i.e., group ideologies and value systems). By drawing on previous research, the authors show
that assessments of occupational status and stereotypes tend to be uniform across groups and time. Grimm
and Kronus suggest that occupations that do not achieve full professional status have failed to convince the
public 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 medicine
upgraded their images beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century by focusing on the aforementioned
criteria. Interior design has attempted to do the same, but as yet has not been successful.

Journal of Interior Design xiii Volume 35 Number 1 2009

 P E R S P E C T I V E
The study concluded that Western designers should rightfully be concerned about their
lack of recognition and understanding. Further, ‘‘design does not carry the same level of
prestige and social standing as engineering or architecture, even though the impact of the
designer 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 dimensions
were 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 women
in the profession. On the basis of the premise that ‘‘design suffers from an identity crisis—no one is quite
sure what it is,’’ subjects both with and without design training were drawn from Australia and South
Korea (p. 116). The authors determined that in Western societies, income and education were important
predictors of occupational prestige. The design subjects consistently rated the design occupations higher than
the public group. With the exception of graphic and industrial design, the Australian public group rated all
of the design professions low in occupational prestige, and all respondents ranked the design professions
low on the service to the community dimension. In addition, both design-educated and public Australian
groups 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 Western
designers should rightfully be concerned about their lack of recognition and understanding. Further, ‘‘design
does not carry the same level of prestige and social standing as engineering or architecture, even though the
impact 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. Both
engineering and architecture are considered by many to be predominantly male professions although increasing
numbers of females are pursuing these degrees. By contrast, the roots of the interior design profession via
interior 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. She
notes, however, that interior decoration was one of the few professions led by women, particularly women
of ‘good taste,’ which she suggests has led to a continuing lack of occupational prestige or ‘‘seriousness’’ (see
also Turpin, 2007, p. 124).

One can only wonder how much these early female-based roots in interior decorating have continued to
influence the occupational stereotypes of the interior design profession. Oswald’s research (2003) revealed that
occupational titles associated with men were perceived as more prestigious than those associated primarily
with 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 research
confirmed the expectation that sex-based occupational stereotyping still exists. Thus, the question must
be posed: If we changed our name to interior architecture, would we automatically gain more perceived
occupational status as a profession, or does the perception of high occupational status have to be earned?

Identity in the Workplace

As documented by Martin (2008), ‘‘Interior design has worked for the past 50-plus years to gain identity
in three key areas: the workplace, the legal arena, and the public’s opinion’’ (p. 10). A recent panel of
leaders from International Interior Design Association (IIDA) and American Institute of Architects (AIA)
acknowledged the importance and necessity for collaboration in the workplace (Bowles, 2007). According
to architect Richard Logan, ‘‘There has always been collaboration on interior projects, but the nature of
the interaction has become more respectful and symbiotic as interior design education has become more
professional 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 more
stature and is coming into its own as a separate and distinct discipline. The Foundation for Interior Design

Journal of Interior Design xiv Volume 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 of
the built environment is still not designed by architects. Both groups need to recognize
their unique skills and contributions, and not participate in a turf war over practice
recognition and legislation.’’

Education Research (now the Council for Interior Design Accreditation or CIDA) first began accrediting
programs in 1973 (Martin, 2008). Today, there are 145 accredited Bachelor’s degree in interior design
programs nationally (M. Scanlan, personal communication, May 26, 2009). In addition, interior design has
identified its own separate and distinct codified body of knowledge (Guerin & Martin, 2001), a key element
in defining a profession according to Grimm and Kronus (1973).

Identity in the Legislative Arena

In the legal arena, the NCIDQ was founded in 1974 for the purpose of establishing standards of competence
for designers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public (NCIDQ, 2009). For those of us who teach
in or have graduated from CIDA-accredited programs, protection of the public health, safety, and welfare is
at 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, personal
communication, February 18, 2009). A comprehensive examination and legal regulation are two of the seven
steps necessary to move from a practice to a profession (Martin, 2008). However, this is the area where
interior design is coming under fire from the Institute of Justice, Interior Design Protection Council, and
the NKBA, among others (IDPC, 2008). The IDPC (2008) argues ‘‘it is not the function of the legislature
to enhance the stature or respect of a profession’’ (p. 19). Further, the IDPC contends that the practice of
interior design has little or nothing to do with protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, an argument
that 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 to
communicate effectively with the public about the scope of their services, and their economic viability in
the marketplace is being harmed. NKBA (2008) effectively sums up the argument when they state: ‘‘Such
laws harm the public by artificially inflating consumer prices, erecting unnecessary barriers to entry into the
profession, giving government-imposed advantages to those already practicing and failing to demonstrate any
social benefit’’ (p. 3). In response, ASID has issued the following statement: ‘‘ASID will continue to support
legal recognition of the interior design profession, but not if that recognition prevents individuals from offering
basic interior design services as they have in the past’’ (Brigham, 2009, p. 106). Until both the legislative arena
and the public understand that interior design is different from interior decoration, these continuing battles
will 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 only
begun the ardent process within the past few decades, and there is both impatience and competition
that each group faces. Even architects face marginalization by quasi-professionals, since a large
segment of the built environment is still not designed by architects. Both groups need to recognize
their unique skills and contributions, and not participate in a turf war over practice recognition and
legislation. (Bowles, 2007, p. 11)

Identity in the Public Arena

Interior design has met all seven of the steps outlined in professionalization theory to move from a practice
to a profession. These steps include: (1) name change (interior decoration to interior design; (2) education
requirements; (3) comprehensive examination; (4) legal recognition/regulation; (5) professional organizations
membership; (6) code of ethics; and (7) continuing education (Martin, 2008). Although interior design has
fulfilled 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 occupational

Journal of Interior Design xv Volume 35 Number 1 2009

 P E R S P E C T I V E
While we have made significant strides in the workplace and legislative arenas, it is in the
public arena that we as a profession have fallen short. . .[We]need to do a better job of
conveying the unique value of our work, and this extends far beyond simply protecting the
public health, safety, and welfare.

status developed by Grimm and Kronus (1973), where they remind us that occupations that have not achieved
full professional status have failed to convince the public that they have a strong service commitment. While
we have made significant strides in the workplace and legislative arenas, it is in the public arena that we as a
profession have fallen short. Anderson, Honey, and Dudek (2007) agree when they state that interior design will
not achieve professional status until we adopt a social compact that demonstrates our ability to create interior
environments that support and enhance quality of life. They suggest that this goal can only be accomplished
by transforming the culture of our profession. In short, we need to do a better job of conveying the unique
value 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 educators
have played a key role in advocating that the profession needs to do a better job of communicating its value
to the public. The Journal was viewed as a means of opening avenues of communication and the exchange of
ideas as well as strengthening the profession (Friedmann, 1975). In addressing the nation’s energy problem
and 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. One
scenario portrays the interior designer adapting to new conditions in both curriculum and professional
orientation and accepting some responsibility for solving the major problems and concerns facing the
nation, and the other scenario predicts what might happen if design professionals do not adapt to
new 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 analysis
of 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 the
interior design profession in 2010. Increasing the perception of the value or social relevance of our profession
in the public arena became a key focus in the discussion. Once again, a concern voiced by Jo Ann Asher
Thompson at the forum is as applicable today as it was nearly 20 years ago: ‘‘Time is running out. . . . We
have to solidify who we are [and justify our value to society]’’ (p. 11). Advice from forum participant Carlos
de 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 help
in shape public perception of our value and strengthen our image as a profession. Over a decade later, these
calls 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 architecture
profession is facing a similar problem. In an article by Holliday (2007), the author outlines ‘‘a concerted effort
to raise the standing of architecture and the profession in the public eye’’ (p. 32). She notes that a ‘‘Blueprint
for America’’ that focused on community service was one of the central themes of the American Institute of
Architects’ 150th anniversary celebration. Likewise, much of the October 2008 issue of Architectural Record
addressed ‘‘Design with Conscience.’’ According to Guest Editor David Sokol (2008), ‘‘After a decade of
prosperity and self-indulgence, the profession is returning to the social contract upon which architecture
is founded’’ (p. 85). Architect Michael Broshar sums all of this up succinctly when he concluded: ‘‘The
opportunity for recognition of interior designers and architects by the public is enhanced when we are viewed
as being supportive of positions that will enhance the quality of life for citizens’’ (Bowles, 2007, p. 11).

Journal of Interior Design xvi Volume 35 Number 1 2009

 P E R S P E C T I V E
Now is the time to embrace our own future by defining what it is we do and by addressing
our ethical obligation to society.

Conclusions
So given our past history, the public perceptions of our profession, and the seemingly continual fear that
interior design will be subsumed by architecture, what are we to do when at times our future is being
challenged and seems bleak? It is time to thoughtfully consider the four futures proposed for our profession
and endorse the one (or combination thereof) that will once again move us forward. The choices range from
a ‘‘do nothing’’ approach to a split between residential and commercial designers with the latter group taking
the name of interior architecture. For too long we have let others define who we are. Now is the time to
embrace 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 ‘‘three
Es’’, but until we more effectively communicate our value and adopt a social compact that is understood in
the public and legislative arenas, the perception of the interior design profession will remain the same no
matter what our name.

Questions
1. When considering the Four Futures as outlined in this Perspective, what proposed Future would best
move Interior Design forward? What is the rationale for choosing this Future? How can this Future be
justified 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?

Appendix
The 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 interior
architecture—the processes and techniques of designing living, work and leisure indoor environments as
integral 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=04

Interior Design:
A program in the applied visual arts that prepares individuals to apply artistic principles and techniques to
the 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 inspection
regulations; 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=50

Journal of Interior Design xvii Volume 35 Number 1 2009

 P E R S P E C T I V E

References
Anderson, B. G., Honey, P. L., & Dudek, M. T. (2007). Interior design’s social compact: Key to the quest for professional status. Journal of
Interior 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. Journal
of 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 of
Interior 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: Association
of 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 Architectural
Education, 61(1), 32–43.
Interior Design Protection Council. (2008, May). Rebuttal to ASID Message Guide. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from
http://www.IDPCinfo.org.
Lipton, J. P., O’Connor, M., Terry, C., & Bellamy, E. (1991). Neutral job titles and occupational stereotypes: When legal and psychological
realities 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, from
http://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 Intercultural
Studies, 24(2), 115–135.

Journal of Interior Design xviii Volume 35 Number 1 2009