In which academic direction should the profession be heading?

Citation

Walker, T. (2001), "In which academic direction should the profession be heading?", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319eaa.001

In which academic direction should the profession be heading?

In which academic direction should the profession be heading?

The evolution of surveying as an academic discipline in the UK has been far from classical. Whilst the roots of the profession can be traced back to the expert administrators of the Middle Ages who went under a variety of titles such as clerk of works and sacrist as well as surveyor, their orientation was essentially practical rather than philosophical. They were in fact "clients' representatives" for the construction and management of the prestigious structures of the time such as castles and cathedrals. Unlike other professions such as law, medicine and engineering, surveying did not develop an academic tradition alongside the practical development of the profession. By the end of the nineteenth century most other professions were established as respectable academic disciplines in the major universities. Remarkably, it was not until the 1970s that surveying became established to any extent as a university degree discipline; apart from an anachronistic ordinary degree in estate management that had been awarded by the University of London for many years. Why was this the case? Has it been detrimental to the profession? If so, in what way? Or has the balance been redressed? These are some of the questions that are addressed in this editorial. Whilst it may not be possible to give definitive answers, maybe it will be possible to give some pointers of the way to go.

The late development of the surveying discipline probably had two major causes. When economic conditions were relatively stable and the world was not as complex as it became in the twentieth century, the investment in and development, construction and management of real estate was essentially a practical task, albeit one that required high level skills. Nevertheless, an academic base of scholarship and research was not seen as being necessary as had been the case with other professions in establishing their credibility. It was only with the advent of the economic and social complexity of the twentieth century that a purely practical approach to these issues was seen as deficient. However response to these emerging economic and social forces was slow. As the learned society in the field, the RICS should have been proactive in developing the academic base necessary to take the profession forward in the increasing complexity of the era. Of all the professions surveying was the one most seriously challenged by the rapidly increasing economic and social complexity. Of course, the RICS was not the only body not to react; governments were equally unaware.

So the twentieth century rolled on and by the mid 1960s the RICS belatedly realised that a university education leading to a degree in a surveying specialism was the way to educate. The RICS's timing was not good. It had left it too late. Expansion in higher education was taking place but it was in the polytechnics not the traditional universities. This in itself was not a problem as the polytechnics quickly developed sound courses at degree level that helped to identify the academic base of the profession's knowledge, although there was a tendency to over-replicate the then current practice rather than look to the future. Rather the problem lay with the lack of degree courses in surveying in the traditional universities. This has resulted in surveying not attracting significant numbers of the "high flyers" that were, and still are, attracted to the traditional universities. Also scholarship and research resided predominantly in the traditional universities and the newly developing discipline and its degree courses could not take full advantage of such established knowledge in associated fields. Worse was to come as government policy led to a rapid expansion in degree places in the 1990s. This expansion took place mainly in the new universities (the former polytechnics), which saw surveying degrees as good candidates for expansion as they were relatively cheap to run and employment prospects were not bad. This rapid expansion had the effect of reducing even further the little research that was taking place in the new universities and skewing even more dramatically the balance of the provision of surveying education between the old and new universities. The RICS were culpable in this movement by continuing to accredit courses even with such expanded numbers.

So the birth of the new millennium saw the surveying profession with an academic profile that was not comparable in course provision, research and scholarship to the other professions it sees as its equivalent. Whilst attracting "high flyers" is important to the long-term health of the real estate and construction professions, of equal importance is the development of a well established and respected research base. The latter can only be achieved through the research universities. These distinctive universities have emerged and attract the large proportion of research funding. With one or two exceptions they do little research relevant to real estate and construction. Even more significantly, where such research is undertaken in these universities it is usually done by economists, sociologists, engineers etc. That is, anyone other than real estate or construction people and these are the academics government listen to when formulating policy. So how does the profession establish its research credentials in the research universities and if it does how will this enhance the quality of graduates entering the profession generally?

First let's recognise that government funding is not going to be available for expansion in the old universities. Second let's recognise that many of the courses and graduates from the new universities serve the profession well and will continue to do so. But let us also recognise that these graduates are practice orientated and have a broad base in their particular branch of the profession. What is needed is an allegiance of the research universities to the RICS and the profession, leading to an interest and desire to undertake research in the field. The opportunity is presenting itself in the development of faculties by the RICS and the whole spirit of the Agenda for Change. The way is now open for masters courses to be recognised as a basis for membership of the RICS. In fact it has already been happening at quite a pace. The design of such courses to draw in partly-cognate first degree holders of high calibre in subjects such as economics, sociology, geography and engineering will give the profession an altogether richer entry profile. In the long term it will have members that have a grounding in a range of different disciplines each of which is relevant to surveying whilst also being educated and trained in a surveying specialism. Together with those who entered from a conventional surveying degree, they would form a profile of the profession more appropriate to the diverse challenges it faces. Of course there has been non-cognate (and partly-cognate) graduate entry for some time and this will continue. More importantly, such entrants will continue to be trained broadly as surveyors through graduate diplomas. To complement these entry routes, the new faculty structure of the RICS provides the opportunity for the profession to allow partly-cognate graduates to enter through a masters in a surveying speciality (widely defined) that draws on their first degree (for example, an economics degree into investment, a law degree into dispute resolution, an engineering degree into facilities management). The high level expertise developed will enable the profession to compete in many business sectors that it has not previously been able to penetrate to any great extent. Also as masters degrees are likely to be increasingly self-funding in future, expansion is not down to the government but to the profession's ability to attract partly-cognate graduates on to such courses.

The recognition by the RICS of masters courses in the research universities will strongly influence the research agenda of these universities and the masters graduates will in turn be influenced by the research being undertaken and will themselves contribute to it. Such a scenario will lead to academic and practicing surveyors being involved in significant research in fields directly relevant to the profession in a way that now passes them by. Practically all policy-influencing research associated with the work of the profession, whether sponsored in government institutions or universities, now takes place without the direct involvement of the profession. Much research concerned with corporate affairs, such as the role of property in companies' activities, is undertaken in the top business schools. The study of housing issues is usually seen from a sociological perspective and rarely if ever involves surveyors. Even project management, which the surveying profession sees as being an important part of its activities, finds its major research in the engineering schools of the major universities without much surveyor involvement. The list goes on to include transport, planning, facilities management and others. If the profession wishes to be involved in policy influencing research it must produce members, both academic and practising, who can contribute surveying expertise from an economic, sociological, psychological or other appropriate angle. In the long term this will be achieved by attracting members from a variety of disciplines from the top universities who will feed back into the system and also enrich the profession.

So the profession has one more chance (its last?) to clearly establish its academic credentials. If it wishes to be seen to be committed to education at the highest level for its entrants and if it wishes to be synonymous with the highest level of research and scholarship in its field, it must become irrevocably tied to the leading research universities, not just in the UK but worldwide. This can only sensibly be achieved at this time by the recognition for entry of masters degrees offered by these universities that are cognate with the profession's specialist subject matter. This is in fact already happening. The RICS should continue to vigorously pursue this strategy. Ultimately we may see the way into the RICS is through a recognised masters degree both for partly-cognate and also fully-cognate graduates. Eventually we may get it right.

The Publisher and Editor of Property Management would like to thank the following Guest Reviewers for their contribution during 2001:

• •

  Chris Thorne

• •

  Dr W.J. McCluskey

• •

  Owen Connellan.

Tony Walker