ABSTRACT
Looking at the multisector impact of the architectural degree, Architecture’s Afterlife has found — if anything — a confrontation with the polyvalence of architecture as a field, a discipline, a profession, a practice, a training and an identity. Researching the skill gaps and mismatches between what is taught in architecture schools and what is needed in the practice of architecture and other professional sectors, the research delineated a — as we have now learned — rather limiting framing of what it means to work in architecture. In every phase the research team was confronted with the need to re-discuss and attempt to delineate ways of working, ways of (professional) being, skills, competencies and behaviours that are belonging to an inherently elastic discipline. In this process many discoveries — rephrasing or making it possible to put into words what is tacitly known — came to the surface.
