Friday, 29 April 2022

RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION: TO REITERATE


I had promised to forward the reference to a colleague, but it was easier to go back to the source than find the blog again. Given this, it seems timely to reiterate the point: that the Board of Architects of Queensland does have the authority to take one’s experience in the profession into account when it is considering renewal of registration, but it apparently chooses not to. Why? Why not recognise ‘the wisdom of the seniors’ instead of treating them as fumbling novices and demented fools - nostalgic old-timers who stubbornly still want to be called an 'architect'? The reference comes from the Architects Act 2002 Queensland Legislation:




16 Meaning of continuing registration requirements

(1)Continuing registration requirements are requirements of the board that, if satisfied, demonstrate that an applicant for renewal or restoration of registration has maintained competency in the practice of architecture.
(2)The requirements may include requirements about the following—
(a)the nature, extent and period of practice of architecture by the applicant;
(b)the nature and extent of continuing professional development to be undertaken by the applicant;
(c)the nature and extent of research, study or teaching, relating to architecture, to be undertaken by the applicant;
(d)the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture, to be performed by the applicant.
(3)The requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements for architecture.
(4)The board must—
(a)keep published the board’s continuing registration requirements on the board’s website; and
(b)keep the requirements available for inspection, without charge, during normal business hours at the board’s office; and
(c)if asked by a person and on payment of the fee, if any, prescribed under a regulation, give the person a copy of the requirements.

 

 

Like most legal documents, the language becomes both puzzlingly critical for understanding precise meanings, and stubbornly tedious for simple, ordinary communication. So one gets ‘requirements may include requirements about’ and ‘requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements,’ emphasising that ‘requirements’ are ‘requirements.’ This seems to be important.



It is requirement (a) that gives the Board the authority to consider the applicant’s experience in the profession: ‘the nature, extent and period of practice of architecture by the applicant’ – if it so chooses. The wording is ‘may include.’ It is clear that the Board cares nothing about this requirement, but is keen to concentrate on requirement (b): ‘the nature and extent of continuing professional development to be undertaken by the applicant.’ This apparently is a more tangible category; perhaps easier to define. Is it better for ticking boxes and checking.



Requirement (c) is interesting: ‘ the nature and extent of research, study or teaching, relating to architecture, to be undertaken by the applicant.’ One assumes that this clause has been included to assist academic staff who do not practice, providing a possible path for registration without the tasks of CPD.

Requirement (d) is puzzling: ‘the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture, to be performed by the applicant.’ What is ‘administrative work’? Filing? This seems to be a bit of an ‘include everything possible’ clause.



Out of all of these four ‘requirements,’ the Board seems to focus only on CPD – (b). Indeed, it has published a detailed paper on this requirement. There are no similar explanatory papers on any of the other requirements, thus putting them to one side, almost as an irrelevance.



But are things as clear as they need to be? In (b), (c), and (d), the words ‘to be’ read oddly, and seem to suggest that the applicant might only intend to undertake ‘research, study or teaching,’ ‘continuing professional development,’ and/or ‘administrative work’: ‘to be undertaken/performed’ seems to point to a future, as a proposal - ‘yet to be?’ - rather than refer to a recorded past, where ‘has been undertaken/performed’ might more firmly identify completed requirements that can be appropriately submitted and assessed for renewal of registration as an audit might require. Does one have to assume that the intention is that the words be read as ‘that has to be’? One should not have to try to work out what an Act is saying, or not saying; but the legal mind does exist in world of its own, and always knows best.



Clause (3) seems to allow the Board to structure its own vision for renewal of registration; ‘(3)The requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements for architecture.’ So it appears that the Board defines what it wants; the Act defines what it ‘may’ include; ‘may’ choose to choose. (4a) explains how: ‘(a)keep published the board’s continuing registration requirements on the board’s website.’ So the Board’s CPD paper is the document that counts, and nothing else?



What one has to wonder is: does this published set of requirements define the only requirements that the Board can consider, even though the Act allows it to include much more than CPD – (b)?



The Board needs to think carefully about this, because the current circumstances with CPD make no consideration for experience, leaving the 50-year registered architect having to perform the same point accumulation courses as the 5-year registered colleague, irrespective of content. Everything seems to revolve around the accumulation of points – 20 total: 10 formal/10 informal. The Board’s text explains these and the process involved; but the Board does make clear that it is not going to accredit or approve any courses or presenters, leaving each applicant to work out a course of attendances or otherwise that might be the most appropriate for this individual at this time in his/her career. This seems sensible, perhaps an attempt to accommodate difference in interests, (c) and (d), and experience, (a); but one is left wondering just how the Board can determine any ‘appropriateness’ or otherwise, given the acceptance of this broad, seemingly inclusivepersonal approach’ strategy.



Looming in the background of this general approach to CPD is the question of points: who determines where these apply; how; and in what quantity once the personal choices have been determined? One attendance or activity might be three to one person, but one half to another who has no interest in it: who is to know? Are the points more important than the experience? The Board's explanatory paper makes the CPD arrangements sound so ordered and precise, but there are difficulties in its implementation that reach wide voids of the unknown in spite of this apparent certainty.



The role of (a), (c) and (d) still lingers. Can experience be put forward as a point-scoring activity? Academics appear to be able to claim their work - ‘research, study or teaching’ – as relevant ‘architectural’ activities, so why not practising architects with either an ‘extent and period of practice of architecture,’ or ‘administrative work’? With the Board refusing to define or be involved in the content of the activities required for CPD, other than 'formal' and 'informal,' it seems hard to believe that, with the option in the Act to let the Board include these considerations for registration renewal, ‘may include,’ that the Board might ever consider excluding them as matters of relevance for the renewal of registration when the personal choices from individual assessments include these. It makes no sense for the Board to start limiting options in things personally relevant.



The issue of the academic who does not practice is intriguing as the Board has created two levels of renewed registration: a practising architect; and a non-practising architect.



9 Eligibility

(1)An applicant for registration is eligible for registration only if—
(a)the applicant is qualified, under section 10, for registration; and
(b)the board considers the applicant is fit to practise as an architect.
(2)Also, an applicant for registration as a non-practising architect is eligible for registration only if the board is satisfied that the applicant will not carry out, or be responsible for the carrying out of, architectural services within the registration period to which the application for registration relates.

 


The complication here is that a non-practising architect, an academic, e.g., can be a registered practising architect. One supposes that there is nothing forcing a practising architect from not practising, other than the accumulation of CPD points. It is the strange category of non-practising architect that gives the Board control over the enforcement of anyone ‘non-practising,’ where CPD points are not needed.


Not needed

This raises the matter of what an architect does in practise, and, by definition, not do in non-practise. One assumes that the requirements for registration that the Board ‘may include,’ actually encompass the broad scope of an architect’s practice: ‘nature, extent and period of practice of architecture; nature and extent of continuing professional development; nature and extent of research, study or teaching; and the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture.’



Does this mean that a non-practising architect is not able to be involved in any nature or extent of practice; in any study, research, or teaching; or do any, e.g., filing or ‘architectural’ administrative work? This seems very strange and limits any useful involvement a senior or any other who might choose not to practise, might have in their profession. This applicant is allowed to be an ‘architect,’ but is apparently then cut off from everything ‘architectural.’ What is allowed? Where are the limits? How is the Board supervising this - only in default, by trial and error? It seems a sad state of limbo for anyone who values being an architect to accept. Why doesn’t the Board just simplify things and maintain some pride and relevance in the profession by including all the requirements that those who wrote the Act thought relevant for renewal of registration? Then the broad spectrum of things ‘architectural’ might be able to truly be embodied in the skills and interests of those who call themselves ‘architects’ without any uneasy apology, awkward embarrassment, or stumbling explanation for this professional apartheid.



This ‘non-practising’ is a very strange category that has been created for what appear misguided reasons that seem to have not been thought through. The ambition looks to be that the individual - the applicant – can continue to be called an ‘architect,’ ironically when he/she is not one, and not allowed to be one, or get close to anything ‘architectural’ – or be one that is allowed to practise. With all of this hoo-ha with the precise use of the term, ‘architect,’ in the Act, one has to wonder why the Board is not alarmed with the popularisation of the use of the term in general language, where it has come to mean anything but ‘architect,’ as the Board would like to see one defined; strangely, this is:

architect means a person registered as an architect under this Act’a hollow, circular ‘definition’ that lacks all definition, because, as it currently stands, this excludes all those in (a), (c), and (d) who do not choose to be in (b). It makes a pretty poor framework for any definition, and only adds authority to the essential role of CPD: only those with proper points can be registered as an ‘architect.’ The proposition is that, without CPD, one is not an architect, but can be a ‘non-practising architect’ – a ‘non-architectarchitect. This seems very foolish considering that no one is managing CPD, leaving the profession in willy-nilly territory, a strange, professional no-man’s-land.



The argument to include all requirements, (a), (b), (c), and (d), in a fertile and rich definition of ‘architect’ is only enhanced - made more essential in a world currently engrossed with the accumulation of points, however, whenever, just because the Board wants it this way. One might suppose that this limited interpretation of ‘architect’ - a person registered as an architect under this Act - and the required requirements for registration and its renewal, makes it easy for the ‘school teachers’ to mark the submissions in their audits. This seems a very poor excuse if this is so, where the cart is leading the horse in circles, going nowhere, but still certain of its path.



Why does anyone bother? The answer to this is: just because the Board wants it this way. Knowing what is really going on in the 'game' of points accumulation makes the whole of CPD, and therefore the profession itself, by the Board’s own definition, a farce.



P.S.

The Google Dictionary, that uses OxfordLanguages as its source, defines architect as:

architect

/ˈɑːkɪtɛkt/


noun

  1. 1.

    a person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction.

    "the great Norman architect of Durham Cathedral"

    Similar:

    designer

  2. planner

  3. builder

  4. building consultant

    draughtsman

    COMPUTING

    a person who designs hardware, software, or networking applications and services of a specified type for a business or other organization.

    "we are seeking an experienced software architect to join our scientific computing team"

verb

COMPUTING

  1. design and configure (a program or system).

    "few software packages were architected with Ethernet access in mind"

    The interesting observation here is that architect is both a noun and a verb. It is something that the Board needs to address because modern language has transformed the meaning, making the Act either anachronistic or just very specialised in its extremely narrow-minded definition. Maybe this reflects the way that architects have become misunderstood, bespoke specialists today?



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.