The abstract is:
An online survey of representative faculty at ABET-accredited Architectural Engineering schools addressed the question of what constitutes “Architectural Engineering Design” (AED). The faculty are first characterized in multiple ways: university, academic rank, years of experience, registration status and discipline. The results of their open-ended definition of AED are examined using nine categories derived from responses rated on 1-5 Likert scales, with the analysis broken down using the same faculty characterization. Faculty opinions about the disciplines necessary to include in AED are also analyzed. Overall there is general agreement that disciplinary “skills” are an important part of AED as are, to a lesser extent, the “products” produced. There is some agreement about the idea of “integration” of the disciplines and much less agreement on many of the other concepts, with several barely mentioned. Most faculty feel that their definition of AED is the same as their school’s, but many express uncertainty about the existence of a national definition. Similarly there is considerable agreement that more than one discipline (Architecture, Structure, HVAC, Electrical, Construction Management) is required to constitute AED, but there is marked disagreement about what specific ones should be included, with opinions ranging from two to all five.PDF of Talk Slides
