ABSTRACT
The term architect is mainly used in two meanings: describing a profession or a broader descriptor resulting from education and way of being. Across all the investigated categories of architecture graduates, in the segment of self-definition and how architects see themselves, the In–depth interviews show an apparent contradiction. Regardless of occupation or educational background considerations, all architecture graduates claim to be called architects, even if they work in fields unrelated to architecture. Interweaving In–depth interviews and data extracted from the survey, it seems possible to advance a hypothesis to explain this apparent contradiction: for practising architects, being an architect means working in the field of architecture (which itself points to a redefinition). For architects doing work outside of fields traditionally associated with architecture, being an architect means having a distinctive/specific approach to problems and challenges. In addition, it seems important to consider that this view ties in with the fact that the title of architect is a well-recognised title that gives social recognition and a certain prestige. In this sense, architectural education is recognised as a pathway that trains graduates as people rather than as professionals. Respondents emphasise not so much the skills and knowledge transmitted explicitly but those related to experience, work, and exchange with colleagues and faculty, the ‘atmosphere’, or how training is developed, rather than on content.
