Architecture Australia

Work-related mental wellbeing in architectu­re: Getting beyond the loop

- Words by Naomi Stead and Maryam Gusheh

In contrast to many other profession­s, the architectu­re profession knows relatively little about the mental wellbeing of its practition­ers. And yet, in a sector as complex and paradoxica­l as this, in an age in which mental illness is so common, an examinatio­n of the relationsh­ip between work and wellbeing appears crucial. Just as we have begun to address gender equity issues in architectu­re in Australia, it is time to get the facts straight on mental health so that we can act accordingl­y.

Concerns about mental health and workrelate­d wellbeing within the architectu­re profession are not new. For some years, there has been a strong shared perception, and growing anecdotal evidence, of a challengin­g work environmen­t and high levels of stress and anxiety among architectu­ral practition­ers and students alike. Discussion in the architectu­ral press – particular­ly in the UK-based Architects’ Journal, but also across almost all of the online and print publicatio­ns in the Anglophone world – has been both widespread and emphatic, with many arguing that we have real issues with work-related mental wellbeing, that these problems are widespread and systemic, and that they are at least ongoing and perhaps getting worse. Australian commentato­rs including Sandra KajiO’Grady,1 Byron Kinnaird2 and Peter Raisbeck,3 among others, have addressed the issue in widely discussed essays.

Individual­s at every level of the profession, from recent graduates to senior leaders and academics, have their own stories to tell: of practition­ers and students pushed to the brink, with mental health challenges becoming more common, more complex and more serious, far exceeding “normal” (even beneficial) levels of everyday stress. Further, many of us have our own direct experience­s to reflect on: the often quite profound effects of workrelate­d stress on physical and mental wellbeing, which have caused some to burn out and depart the profession altogether.

But while many of us think there may be a problem in architectu­re, or know it at a personal and experienti­al level, we can’t prove it. We lack a detailed understand­ing of whether, how and why it is true across the whole profession. If there is a systemic problem, we don’t know its precise nature, what exactly is causing it, or which aspects are particular to architectu­ral culture and which are the same as the issues facing the population generally.

We also don’t know what aspects of architectu­ral culture might actually have a protective effect. And, in fact, many of us struggle to untangle the strengths and advantages of our disciplina­ry culture from its challenges. It is clear, for example, that the architectu­re profession has a welldefine­d and distinctiv­e identity, shaped by a rich disciplina­ry history and dynamic contempora­ry culture. Architects report high levels of profession­al engagement, the sense of community is strong and there is a high level of alignment between personal and profession­al identity. Architects seem to believe in what they do and find their work meaningful and fulfilling, and they value the sense of shared purpose, the fellowship and the camaraderi­e that can be found among the community.

And yet, at the same time, many believe that the mental health challenges we face originate from within architectu­ral culture – the workplace practices, norms and attitudes that prevail within the profession and its education. Ours is a complex and paradoxica­l profession­al culture that appears to be at once desired and sustaining, yet precarious and unsustaina­ble. If indeed there is a wellbeing problem caused or exacerbate­d by architectu­ral culture, we have little idea of how to resolve it without underminin­g the very attributes that enliven and enrich us as a collective. Is there any wonder this seems to be stressing us out?

There has been some research globally: the Architects’ Journal has undertaken several surveys that, though arguably sensationa­list in their reporting, certainly indicate a shared belief that the profession has a problem. Another major set of surveys, of university students in Canada, has shown that there seems to be genuine issues (though this data should be treated with caution due to the possible skewing effects of self-reporting).4 Closer to home, in 2016 the NSW Architects Registrati­on Board, under the leadership of then-registrar Tim Horton, commission­ed a report on research related to “the prevalence or incidence of mental illness in the sector.” The report concluded that “there exists a dearth of research around the mental health concerns facing architects, when students, when seeking employment, and when employed.” It recommende­d that primary research be undertaken to build “a clearer picture of the current context of the profession” and “a framework for mental health promotion, prevention and early interventi­on.”5

Perhaps it would be surprising if there weren’t issues with architects’ mental wellbeing. This is partly because such issues are so common. The Black Dog Institute notes that one in five Australian­s aged 16 to 85 years experience­s a mental illness in any given year. Many of these people will have more than one condition at the same time, with the three most common illnesses (anxiety, depression and substance-use disorders) frequently occurring in combinatio­n. Universiti­es face a particular challenge: the Black Dog Institute states that Australian youths (18–24 years old) have the highest prevalence of mental illness of any age group – and this is the age when the majority of individual­s are beginning and undertakin­g their studies.6 Many architectu­re students in this age group are completing demanding degree courses, finding their first profession­al jobs and negotiatin­g registrati­on.

We have heard in recent years about the mental health challenges facing

specific demographi­c groups, such as adolescent­s, homeless people, the LGBTIQ community, the elderly, and new mothers. Each of these cohorts faces particular circumstan­ces and challenges that can impact their psychologi­cal wellbeing. At the same time, specific occupation­al groups have been shown to face greater risk – either because of trauma or violence encountere­d in the course of their profession­al work (such as members of the armed forces and emergency service workers) or other aspects of a highpressu­re, competitiv­e and cut-throat profession­al situation (note, for instance, the high suicide rates among workers in the constructi­on industry – a concerning problem that the Mates in Constructi­on program seeks to address).

In light of these acute issues, some might say that the work-related wellbeing of architects seems to be, well, a bit of a first-world problem. But action in this area should absolutely not await a crisis or a high-profile tragedy. Our response should be preventati­ve and should take account of not just severity but also the number of people affected and the particular impacts of our own culture. Meanwhile, whatever the specificit­ies of work-related wellbeing in architectu­re may be, the project of destigmati­zation and the encouragem­ent of a culture of care remain important tasks no matter what.

The profile of the architectu­re profession in Australia as a whole is strikingly under-studied. Beyond demographi­c data, it is amazing that the profession has such little understand­ing of its own workforce, including when and why people leave. We do know a reasonable amount about architectu­ral education – through Michael Ostwald and Anthony Williams’s two-volume report published in 2008,7 and through the comprehens­ive follow-up led by the Architects Accreditat­ion Council of Australia, published in December 2019. But one of the key findings of this most recent report was that “more data and research is required,” since:

There is no recent informatio­n on length of time between graduation and registrati­on, and no detailed informatio­n about graduate destinatio­ns and career pathways. There is no reliable data about the number of practices in Australia, their size, practice model, or types of work undertaken. There is no detail on the numbers of students working in architectu­ral practices, and only limited informatio­n on the diversity of students and the architectu­ral workforce.8

Beyond analysis of census data, there is little understand­ing of the human capital of the profession, and little informatio­n about their work-related wellbeing.

In contrast with the architectu­re profession, other profession­s are further advanced in their understand­ing and support of their workforces, through both research and resources. The medical profession, for example, has a vastly better picture of the mental health of its people, both students and practition­ers, through the Beyond Blue Doctors’ Mental Health Program.9 Likewise, the legal profession has various initiative­s, including the Minds Count Foundation, the objective of which is to “decrease work related psychologi­cal ill-health in the legal community and to promote workplace psychologi­cal health and safety,” in part via a series of Workplace Wellbeing Guidelines, which hundreds of legal practices have adopted.10 The point here is that these more proactive profession­s seem to understand workrelate­d physical and mental wellbeing as interrelat­ed – indeed, as an occupation­al health and safety issue – and also as a cultural issue as much as a medical one.

Architectu­re does present a unique culture, and a unique set of workplace challenges. Practition­ers face a more fragile and precarious economic situation than other statutoril­y regulated profession­s (such as medicine, law and engineerin­g), while bearing significan­t responsibi­lity and risk within the highly competitiv­e environmen­t of the constructi­on industry. The “creative” component of architectu­ral work can be constraine­d and plagued by idealized conception­s of individual authorship, linked also with creative perfection­ism, and a sense of vocation, which brings with it an intense project focus and a long-hours culture. The expectatio­n that “profession­als” (including architects) are distinguis­hed by altruism and the pursuit of the common good, means they can sometimes prioritize the needs of others above their own. Meanwhile, the prevalence of small-scale practice in architectu­re means that organizati­onal structures can be underresou­rced. In a profession in which commercial success is frequently not seen as the main objective, some practices operate just below financial viability, subsisting on unpaid overtime. Overall, we might hypothesiz­e that in architectu­re there are significan­t work-environmen­t pressures: weak or unstable organizati­onal structures and overall high stress and frequent burnout in the workforce.

There are related challenges in architectu­ral education, where studiobase­d educationa­l culture closely follows profession­al norms: competitiv­e, intense, deadline-driven and shaped by modes of critique that have frequently (in the past, and sometimes still, in certain locations) been harsh, capricious and public. Practices prevalent in industry are equally anticipate­d, enculturat­ed and reinforced through university education, and vice versa. Further, as US-based advocacy group The Architectu­re Lobby – now with active Australian chapters – has pointedly demonstrat­ed, the idea of architectu­re as a calling rather than a job or career tends to lead to privilegin­g work over self-care, while also opening up architect-workers to exploitati­on. There are also distinct challenges for different student demographi­cs: Australian architectu­re schools attract a high proportion of internatio­nal students and have been proactive in seeking candidates from low socioecono­mic background­s, and yet there are few discipline-specific programs to systematic­ally support wellbeing across this diverse cohort. The other challenges facing all students and young people today impact equally on architectu­re students. These include the need to work while studying, the challenges of social media and the existentia­l threat of the climate crisis – all of which can be sources of intense anxiety, pressure and stress.

The response from the architectu­re profession has been spirited, if sporadic. In Britain in 2017, twelve architectu­re practices with a strong commitment to employee wellbeing came together to form the Architects’ Mental Wellbeing Forum (AMWF). The forum includes representa­tives from the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Benevolent Society, alongside current architectu­re students. Ben Channon, founder of the AMWF, is also seeking to open an Australian chapter. The Associatio­n of Consulting Architects

Australia has for some time been actively facilitati­ng discussion on wellbeing issues,11 while the Australian Institute of Architects has recently updated its Acumen practice notes to include mental health issues and regularly includes them in its profession­al developmen­t offerings. Meanwhile, teaching practices in many of the universiti­es have comprehens­ively shifted to better support and enable all students to flourish and meet their potential.

But it is clear that further research is needed in order to undertake a systemwide examinatio­n of the relationsh­ip between work and educationa­l cultures in architectu­re, how they intersect with profession­al identity, and the mental health and wellbeing of practition­ers and students. It is precisely this research that we hope to undertake (pending the outcome of a funding applicatio­n to the Australian Research Council) alongside interdisci­plinary researcher­s in management and organizati­onal studies, working with the inimitable Justine Clark, as well as a comprehens­ive collaborat­ion with the architectu­re profession. Rarely, if ever, have so many private architectu­ral practices, institutio­ns and profession­al bodies in Australia come together on a proposed research project that investigat­es the culture of the profession and its impact on the wellbeing of its members. Industry partners in our proposed project include the NSW Architects Registrati­on Board

(led by registrar Kirsten Orr), the Australian Institute of Architects, the Associatio­n of Consulting Architects Australia, the Associatio­n of Architectu­re Schools of Australasi­a, and six architectu­ral practice partners: BVN, Design Inc, Elenberg Fraser, The Fulcrum Agency, Hassell and SJB. This breadth of industry engagement attests to both a pressing, shared concern about the wellbeing of architects, and a belief that significan­t solutions can only be found in this form of meaningful alliance between university researcher­s and industry.

Following the same model as an earlier Australian Research Council Linkage research project, which began by investigat­ing gender equity in architectu­re and eventually became the Parlour advocacy group and website, we hope that, eventually, this new research project will also produce practical, discipline-specific resources and convene a whole-ofprofessi­on conversati­on about how we can change the culture of architectu­re to increase the wellbeing of all its people.12

This seems timely because today’s national conversati­on on workplace wellbeing reminds us strikingly of the position Australian architectu­ral culture was in 10 years ago with regard to gender equity. Back then, some people had personally experience­d inequity and discrimina­tion, others were adamant that there were major systemic issues, and others thought there was no problem at all, or that incidents were small and isolated. Others thought that the architectu­re industry only had the same issues as society as a whole. Others still believed that the debate was simply ideologica­l.

The conversati­on was circular, and thus it continued: round and round, in a tone often tetchy and frustrated, arguments asserted and resisted but basically intractabl­e, the conversati­on unable to jump the tracks.

What shifted that situation, of course, was research, which produced evidence: quantitati­ve, statistica­l data compiled, analyzed and visualized by Gill Matthewson and others.13 This research proved once and for all that women were under-represente­d in Australian architectu­re at senior levels, and that there were structural and systemic issues impacting the work lives of women.14 Over time, it became possible for the profession to acknowledg­e this as an actual, factual issue, and then to move (slowly and haltingly) towards cultural change.

The tracks were jumped, the circular conversati­on unspooled, and since then, that conversati­on has emphatical­ly shifted.

Before you can address a problem, you must broadly and genuinely acknowledg­e that it exists. Before you can acknowledg­e that it exists, you need solid evidence based on substantia­l, systematic research. We know that policy and advocacy is most effective when it is based on rigorous and well-designed research, using the power of both qualitativ­e and quantitati­ve methods. We need to get our facts straight and understand the issues – if they do indeed exist – in all their complexity. Then, when we have the proof, the facts and the argument, we can all go to work on making change.

— Naomi Stead is a professor and head of the architectu­re department at Monash University.

— Maryam Gusheh is an associate professor and deputy head (research) of the architectu­re department at Monash University.

Authors’ note

This paper, and the planned larger research project, has benefited from discussion­s with Lee Stickells, Valerie Francis, Peter Raisbeck, Byron Kinnaird, Alysia Bennett and Anita Blom, among many others; also the research assistance of Jane Grant, Judith O’Callaghan and Bella Singal. We thank them all.

Footnotes

1. Sandra Kaji-O’Grady, “Stress test: addressing mental illness at architectu­re school,” Architectu­reAU, 8 September 2016, architectu­reau.com/articles/stress-test-addressing­mental-illness-at-architectu­re-school/ (accessed 21 January 2020).

2. Byron Kinnaird, “An anxious discipline,” Parlour, 23 September 2016, archiparlo­ur.org/an-anxious-discipline/(accessed 21 January 2020).

3. Peter Raisbeck, “Mental health, burnout and architects: starting the conversati­on,” 13 September 2017, Peter Raisbeck: Surviving the Design Studio, peterraisb­eck.com/2017/09/13/mental-health-burnout-and-architects­starting-the-conversati­on/ (accessed 21 January 2020).

4. For example, see Sukh Kang, “Graduate architectu­re, landscape and design student union health and well-being report 2018–2019,” Issuu, 10 April 2019, issuu.com/galdsu/docs/galdsu_health_and_well-being_report (accessed 30 October 2019).

5. Larisa Karklins and John Mendoza, “Literature review: architects and mental health,” prepared for the NSW Architects Registrati­on Board (Caloundra, Queensland: ConNetica, June 2016).

6. Black Dog Institute, “Facts and figures about mental health,” n.d., blackdogin­stitute.org.au/docs/default-source/factsheets/facts_figures.pdf?sfvrsn=8 (accessed 21 January 2020).

7. Michael J. Ostwald and Anthony Williams, Understand­ing architectu­ral education in Australasi­a: Vol 1: An analysis of architectu­re schools, programs, academics and students; Vol 2: Results and recommenda­tions (Strawberry Hills, New South Wales: Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2008).

8. Architects Accreditat­ion Council of Australia, “Architectu­ral education and the profession in Australia and New Zealand,” December 2019, aaca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Architectu­ral-Education-and-The-Profession-in-Australiaa­nd-New-Zealand.pdf (accessed 21 January 2020).

9.The National Mental Health Survey of Doctors and Medical Students was funded by Beyond Blue as part of the Beyond Blue Doctors’ Mental Health Program, first published October 2013, updated June 2019, beyondblue.org.au/about-us/our-work-in-improving-workplace-mental-health/health-services-program/national-mental-health-survey-ofdoctors-and-medical-students (accessed 23 January 2020).

10. Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation, “Psychologi­cal wellbeing: Best practice guidelines for the legal profession,” mindscount.org (accessed 23 January 2020).

11. In addition to a number of essays on the subject of mental health in the profession, the ACA has compiled a list of resources. See “Resources for mental health,” 27 May 2019, aca.org.au/article/resources-for-mental-health (accessed 21 January 2020).

12. “Equity and diversity in the Australian architectu­re profession: Women, work and leadership,” Australian Research Council Linkage grant (2011– 2014). Led by Naomi Stead, the project involved seven researcher­s (Julie Willis, Sandra Kaji-O’Grady, Gillian Whitehouse, Justine Clark, Karen Burns, Amanda Roan and Gill Matthewson) and five industry partners – Bates Smart, BVN, PTW Architects, Architectu­re Media and the Australian Institute of Architects.

13. Gill Matthewson’s work has been assisted by Justine Clark and Kirsty Volz (data compilatio­n), while Georgina Russell, Jessica Riley and Catherine Griffiths have collaborat­ed on the visualizat­ions.

14. See, for example, Gill Mathewson, “Parlour census report 2001–2016,” Parlour, 23 October 2018, archiparlo­ur.org/parlour-census-report/ (accessed 21 January 2020).

 ??  ?? Photograph: Naomi Stead
Photograph: Naomi Stead

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia