Collaboration in architectural design studios: a document analysis of professional and institutional policies in Australia

Table A1The 21st-century architectural practice is fundamentally reliant on collaboration to navigate complex urban projects (Butler, 2022; Karimi and Farivarsadri, 2024). Specifically, today, the architect is no longer an independent creative genius but needs to be sociable, as they have to work within and among a variety of stakeholders (Bovingdon-Downe, 2026; Fiehn et al., 2023). While studies suggest that collaboration needs to be at the heart of studio culture (Pelsmakers and Brown, 2025), research also shows that architectural education continues to prioritise individual achievement over collaborative and socio-cultural approaches (Salama and Patil, 2025; UIA, 2025). This critique of architectural design education in relation to the realities of professional practice is not new, with scholars and recent studies highlighting this disconnect (Crosbie, 1995; Cuff, 1991; Jolliffe and Crosby, 2023; Salama and Maclean, 2017).

Professional and regulatory bodies in architecture, such as the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), UK, Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA), Australia, Ghana Institute of Architects (GIA), Ghana, Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA), and American Institute of Architects (AIA), USA continue to define and stress the benchmark competencies that practising architects are expected to gain and continually develop to achieve the highest standards of practice (Amos-Abanyie et al., 2014). Among the competencies listed, teamwork and collaborative skills are emphasised as essential competencies for graduates. Accreditation of architecture degree programmes within the USA, UK, and Australia all include teamwork skills as essential graduate capabilities (Tucker, 2017; Tucker and Abbasi, 2016). To enforce these competencies within Australian architectural education, the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) was established to advocate for national standards for Australian architects. The National Standard of Competency for Architects (NSCA), updated in 2021, is the main instrument that defines what Australian architects are qualified to do and the skill sets they are expected to have, thereby directly impacting pedagogy in architecture schools (Huppatz and Day, 2022; Orr, 2015). However, translating the collaborative mandates into pedagogy is complicated because the literature on collaboration incorporates a wide range of theoretical perspectives that often lack coherence across disciplines. This ambiguity makes it difficult to ensure the concept of collaboration is applied consistently (Gardner, 2005).

To clarify the concept of collaboration in the present study, it is essential first to understand its meaning within the broader literature. Collaboration integrates previously separated entities into a new, shared structure with a unified mission. In contrast, cooperation is generally characterised by informal relationships that exist without a commonly defined mission, structured planning, or shared risk (Mattessich and Johnson, 2018). Rather than finishing a project as a team, collaboration requires a higher sense of working together to achieve a holistic result (Kvan, 2000). Within the context of architectural education, the concept of collaboration is often applied implicitly. A recent literature review reveals that collaboration in architectural design studios is typically inferred through the shared actions and engagements among students, as well as between students and external participants, both within and beyond the studio environment (Joseph et al., 2025b). This paper builds on the theoretical meaning of collaboration in the broader literature as well as within the context of the architectural discipline.

Within architectural design studios specifically, existing literature has explored collaboration through several distinct lenses. Much of the research focuses on the pedagogical activities, such as peer-led studios (Çakmakli et al., 2022; Shanthi Priya et al., 2020; Verderber et al., 2011) and group-based activities (Qu et al., 2020). In addition, studies have also discussed the stakeholders involved, methods and tools used to work with others, and the benefits and challenges of collaboration. Other scholars have discussed external exposure in studio teaching, highlighting interdisciplinary teamwork (Ali, 2019; Badawi and Abdullah, 2021) and engagement with external professionals and end-users (Lawanyawatna and Schoch, 2023; Young and Segura-Bell, 2021). Furthermore, while some studies assessed the impacts of teamwork and collaboration on student experience, learning outcomes, and collaborative behaviours (Park, 2020; Thompson et al., 2021), others examined the impact of tools and factors on collaboration, such as the use of digital tools, games and space (George et al., 2017; Kaygan and Aydınoğlu, 2018), to emerging human-AI collaboration (Hikmet and Ozay, 2026; Karadağ and Ozar, 2025; Makaklı et al., 2026). However, while the constituents, impacts, and outcomes of collaboration have been extensively studied within the architectural studio context, a conceptual gap exists at the policy level. Currently, no existing research systematically examines how professional architectural bodies and universities formally define this concept in their governing documents.

Within Australian architectural pedagogy, few studies have examined the relationship between professional competencies and architectural education. Recent studies, such as that of Huppatz and Day (2022) analysed the pedagogical challenges of embedding Indigenous knowledges under the 2021 NSCA, while Bertone et al. (2025) investigated the integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the curriculum. Regarding collaboration specifically, Ostwald and Williams (2008) recommend expanding collaborative group work in architectural programs while developing shared “best practice” models for assessing collaborative outputs. Similarly, Tucker (2017) observes that although professional bodies explicitly mandate teamwork, there remains a reluctance to formally embed team processes and skill development into undergraduate design curricula. As a result, students frequently graduate without having been taught the specific knowledge and skills required to design effectively in teams. These observations highlight a “translational gap” where high-level professional mandates for collaboration fail to translate into operational studio teaching.

Therefore, this paper examines how collaboration is defined within the professional, institutional, and educational documents, and how these definitions in professional and institutional documents are translated into the pedagogical realities of the architectural studio.

The main aim of this paper is to understand how collaboration is conceptualised and operationalised within architectural education in Australia. The primary research question that guides this study is: “How is collaboration conceptualised across professional, institutional, and educational frameworks, and how are these concepts translated from high-level policies into the pedagogical structures of the architectural design studio?”

The main objectives of this study are:

1. • To establish how collaboration is conceptualised across all levels of architectural documentation (from professional mandates to studio briefs).

   • To analyse how this conceptualisation of collaboration is translated from high-level professional (NSCA) and institutional (Strategic Plans) policies into the disciplinary frame (School websites and Studio outlines) and the pedagogical structures (Studio briefs).

2. • To identify the key alignments and divergences between the intended policy mandates and the actual studio curricula.

   • To recommend future implications for architectural education and the profession.

This study employs a qualitative document analysis methodology (Bowen, 2009). The documents are treated as primary data sources, thereby enabling an in-depth understanding of how professional and institutional policies formally govern and shape the integration of collaborative practices into architectural studio teaching. The scope of this analysis was deliberately limited to only studio teaching because the design studio is the established “signature pedagogy” (Crowther, 2013) and the pivotal learning environment for architectural education, where students work on various levels of design projects.

The sample of documents was selected to represent high-level professional and institutional frameworks (Karppinen and Moe, 2019; Morgan, 2022). The selected documents focus on the AACA (professional) and two distinct architectural schools (institutional) operating within two universities (anonymised as U1 and U2) in Australia under the AACA framework. The data source selection was guided by the Lattuca and Stark (2009) model for curriculum analysis, which examines the relationship between external professional influences, internal institutional contexts, and the academic plans. This model was applied to select documents across five levels, as detailed in Table 1.

The two universities and five studios were selected based on a purposeful sampling technique (Creswell and Poth, 2016). This sampling technique is used in qualitative research to identify and select information-rich participants and provide a comprehensive and deep understanding of the phenomenon. While the selection of the two universities in a specific geographical location in Australia was based on the researcher's access, the specific five design studios were deliberately chosen to capture a diverse spectrum of collaborative dynamics. The studios were identified as collaborative through their design briefs if they contained activities based on theoretical definitions of collaboration in the literature. Moreover, these five were purposefully selected to ensure diverse representation across various groups, such as students, clients, fabricators, performers, and consultants.

The two universities, U1 and U2, were selected because they share similar accreditation and curricular structures and are representative of typical universities in the Australian higher education sector. In terms of the structure of the architectural degree program, both institutions offer a two-tier pathway to professional registration through a three-year undergraduate degree followed by a two-year Master of Architecture. Industry connections and real-world design challenges are incorporated into their teaching, with input from practitioners and external stakeholders. The student and educator cohorts are similar in size. Design studios are central to both schools, increasing in levels of complexity and constituting more than half of the degree credits/units of the entire curriculum. Studio sessions at both universities are supplemented by courses in various other topics. These similarities between the two universities ensure that the findings regarding policy translation are transferable and have validity across the national context.

The data collection and analysis were conducted in three distinct stages.

First, relevant data were collected through a content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) of the entire document set. This involved a systematic reading of all selected documents to identify and extract all explicit textual data mentioning collaboration, its synonyms, or related words such as “groupwork,” “teamwork,” or “working with others.” All relevant sentences, phrases, and paragraphs containing these keywords were extracted and then compiled into a master dataset.

Second, the entire extracted dataset was subjected to an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Themes were derived through a horizontal or cross-case analysis (Patton, 2014). This process clustered all coded data from the AACA to the Studio Briefs to identify primary themes through which collaboration is conceptualised across the entire system.

The final stage involved a vertical analysis. This process included tracing how collaboration, as defined by the architectural profession and educational institutions, is translated into studio teaching. This analysis specifically traced the alignment and misalignment between the levels, highlighting how policies are or are not implemented in educational practice.

The results from Stage 2 and Stage 3 data analysis are detailed in the sections below.

Table 2 indicates that collaboration can be conceptualised through four distinct themes (T1-T4).

Across all datasets, the most dominant theme is in terms of “who” collaboration is done with. Collaboration is predominantly understood as a process of engaging or working with others. These external participants include interdisciplinary teams, industry professionals, community members, and external partners.

The capacity to work with other disciplines is indicated at Levels 1, 3, and 4. At L1, the AACA mandates that architects are professionally capable of engaging “in collaborative practice in the context of interdisciplinary teams.” This requirement is reflected at the program and course levels (L3 and L4), which specify engagement with “diverse disciplines” and “discipline experts.” Similarly, engagement with industry is highlighted at the program level (L3), where studio collaboration involves “students engaging with industry to develop real project solutions.”

Collaboration is also understood as engagement with the community. This is visible in L1, L2, and L4 documents. While the AACA (L1) specifically mandates that architects be able to engage with Indigenous communities in Australia as stipulated in its professional competencies, the U1 strategic plans (L2) simply emphasise “drawing the community into their campuses.” At the course level (L4), the learning outcomes from one U1 studio explicitly frame collaboration around the “students' ability to work with the community and stakeholders after completing that particular course.”

Finally, at the institutional level (L2), collaboration is framed as a formal relationship between the university and other partners for teaching and research. This perspective is exclusively visible in the strategic plans (L2) of both institutions. Both U1 and U2 underline the importance of global partnerships “across sectors and geographies,” as well as partnerships with “industry, public and private organisations, cultural institutions and precincts” for advancing research and education.

The second theme defines collaboration as the interpersonal or “soft skills” required to work with others. This theme is demonstrated exclusively at L1 and L2 only.

Through its professional competencies, the AACA (L1) highlights communication skills as one of the core competencies of architects, requiring them to “communicate within project teams, to communities, clients, and stakeholders.” At the institutional level (L2), the graduate attributes of both universities define collaboration through several specific skills that graduates need to work effectively with others and in a team upon graduation. These include “teamwork,” “negotiation,” and “leadership.”

The third theme addresses the context or environment that is required to support collaboration. This theme emerged exclusively from the institutional strategic plans (L2), which describe broader university strategies for enabling collaboration through physical infrastructure, digital tools, and staff engagement.

Both U1 and U2 emphasise creating a physical collaborative environment through “highly collaborative ecosystems” and embedding “industry and end-user integrated co-locations” across campuses. Moreover, U1 further seeks to foster a collaborative environment by equipping all university members with “effective collaboration tools to stay connected and work flexibly.”

Finally, the fourth theme captures how collaboration is implemented as a learning and teaching methodology. It details the specific formats through which collaboration is incorporated into architectural education. This theme is found predominantly across Levels 3, 4, 5, and partially at Level 2.

As a pedagogical method, collaboration is represented in three ways, namely, learning with or from peers, interdisciplinary learning, and industry-and-end-user-integrated learning and teaching. Formal collaboration with peers is highlighted through “groupwork,” “teamwork”, and “group assessment,” whereas informal peer interactions are depicted through “peer review and critiques.” Collaboration can also be understood as “interdisciplinary opportunities” integrated into “undergraduate programs.” Furthermore, it is depicted through “industry and end-user informed teaching,” where students directly learn from “practising artists, designers, and architects,” and staff appointments are made from “industry.” The development of curricula “in collaboration with professionals and industry partners” is another key representation of this theme.

In this stage, the four master themes from Stage 2 are used as an analytical “lens” to study how collaboration is translated within each document across the levels. To illustrate this process, Table 3 presents the vertical analysis for Level 1 (the AACA document). A similar process has been done for the vertical analysis of the remaining documents, including university strategic plans (L2), school websites (L3), course outlines (L4), and design briefs (L5), which are provided in  Appendix.

The first level of analysis involves understanding how the architectural profession defines collaboration. The primary document examined here is the National Standard of Competency for Architects (NSCA), which establishes the professional mandate for architecture graduates. This professional mandate is dominated by two of the master themes, T1 and T2.

The process of working with others (T1) is highlighted by the AACA through its emphasis on working in interdisciplinary teams and Indigenous engagement, whereas communication is mentioned as a core interpersonal competency (T2).

In the NSCA, one of the architect's professional capabilities is working in “interdisciplinary teams.” For instance, professionalism is defined as having the “capacity to engage in collaborative practice in the context of interdisciplinary teams.” Similarly, the AACA mandates that, upon graduation, architects must be able to engage with Indigenous communities and embed Indigenous knowledge into design. These mandates are highlighted by several professional competencies specifying that graduates must “understand and be able to implement engagement with Indigenous people” (PC 8, PC 36) and “embed Indigenous knowledge into design through shared engagement” (PC 27).

Additionally, communication is highlighted as a professional capability, mandating that architects communicate clearly with internal project teams as well as with external parties like “clients, stakeholders, and broader communities.” This capability is further detailed through several professional competencies, which require graduates to “understand communication processes with clients and relevant stakeholders” (PC 7), demonstrate the “ability to present design proposals to different audiences” (PC 34), and show the “ability to communicate accurate documents to all relevant stakeholders” (PC 47).

The next level of analysis examines how the two universities describe collaboration in their institutional visions. The primary documents examined for this are the university-wide graduate attributes and the universities' strategic plans. The graduate attributes define the ideal qualities of a university graduate, whereas the university-wide strategic plans represent the overall vision and priorities of the institutions. This level is characterised by the presence of all four master themes: T1, T2, T3, and T4.

The process of working with others (T1) is referenced at the institutional level in terms of working within a team, with diverse people, and with the community. This theme is emphasised in the U1 strategic plans in terms of “drawing the community into the campuses,” whereas the U2 graduate attributes highlight the ability of university graduates to work together within a team and with diverse people upon graduation.

Interpersonal skills (T2) are represented as skillsets required by graduates to work with others, as defined in the graduate attributes of both universities. While U1 specifically mentions that graduates must have both teamwork and communication skills, U2 emphasises other skills, such as negotiation and leadership, to work in a team environment. U2 graduates are also expected to demonstrate team leadership by “recognising strengths of other team members” and “conveying a shared vision for the team.”

The institutions focus on curating an environment (T3) through the creation of collaborative “ecosystems” or “precincts,” as mentioned in the strategic plans. A key objective of both institutions is to “curate highly collaborative ecosystems” through “industry and end-user integrated co-location” and “physical proximity.” This vision of co-location extends beyond the universities' borders, with an emphasis on “collaborating and partnering closely with neighbouring institutions and organisations.” In addition to physical environments, U1 emphasises “providing tools” and “improving staff engagement” to cultivate a collaborative environment. In this context, “staff engagement” refers to both peer-to-peer faculty relationships and the dynamics between university management and teaching staff. This institutional-level engagement has a direct impact on the design studio (L5). When management actively engages with teaching staff, they are better positioned to support educators (e.g. through funding, training, and resources) in implementing such complex, collaborative, and industry-linked studios.

The integration of industry and end-users into institutional teaching and curricula (T4) is also highlighted in the strategic plans. Both universities mention that they adopt an “industry and end-user informed teaching” strategy, along with incorporating “professional partners and industry” into curriculum development. Moreover, U1 cites that the staffing from the industry is achieved by “seeking joint appointments with industry and other research providers.” Along with industry and end-user-linked teaching, U1 mentions incorporating interdisciplinary opportunities into its pedagogical framework.

At the third level of analysis, only two master themes, T1 and T4, are visible in the schools' disciplinary visions. The primary sources examined for this are the publicly available information on the websites of the respective Schools of Architecture.

On the U1 Website, T1 is framed through engagement with disciplines beyond architecture, both in teaching and research. For instance, in U1's vision, collaboration with other disciplines and disciplinary experts is presented as a professional necessity for architects and landscape architects. T4 is represented as industry-integrated teaching and research within the schools' teaching philosophies. Both institutions highlight students learning from practising professionals and engaging with industry, thereby providing students with direct access to professional networks and real-world experience.

The fourth level of analysis examines how collaboration is intended to be taught in architectural design studios at the course level. This level of document analysis examines only design studio courses, ranging from undergraduate to graduate programs. The studio course outlines were collected from the schools' websites. The analysis reveals the presence of two master themes, T1 and T4.

The process of working with others (T1) is represented through student engagement with diverse groups, such as “other disciplines,” or the expectation of being “able to work with stakeholders and the community” in the future.

The pedagogical integration of collaboration (T4) is discussed through explicit and implicit teaching activities, exposure to other disciplines and industry, and formal assessment. Explicit activities are described as “small group tasks,” “group work,” “collaborative processes,” and “teamwork.” This approach is common in foundational studios, where specific learning outcomes are tied to group interaction. In contrast, the graduate studios at U2 explicitly describe collaboration as a deliberate methodology, expecting students to learn through “individual and collaborative processes,” and “through professional teamwork.” However, the studio outlines also implicitly foster a collaborative culture as an ungraded but essential part of the studio environment. This is primarily cultivated through “critique by staff and fellow students,” and “collegial exchange and open discussions.” Moreover, teacher-student collaboration is also evident through a “two-way dialectic process between the teacher and student, where knowledge transaction is not viewed as occurring through a simple, one-way, linear process.”

Furthermore, studio outlines at U1 include exposure to other disciplines and the industry. The outlines explicitly mention exposing students to the processes and knowledge of adjacent professions. For example, some studio outlines at U1 list “interrelated, discipline-based studios” where students are exposed to other disciplines, like landscape architecture or construction management, depending on their preferred specialisation in their graduate studies. Moreover, the outlines also describe industry exposure through “learning from the expertise of a practitioner or studio leader in a real-world condition.”

The studio outlines also discuss how studios formally assess collaboration (T4). “Group assessment” is highlighted in some studios at U1. However, only the “first assignments,” or “initial design proposal developments,” are formally assessed in all these studios.

The final level of analysis examines the studio briefs of selected studios for the 2024–2025 academic year. After identifying these studios, the researcher contacted the respective studio coordinators, who shared the studio briefs. Five graduate studios from U1 and U2 were selected based on the following criteria:

1. The studios must incorporate a mandatory collaborative, interdisciplinary, or external engagement component (e.g. industry projects, design-build, or simulated practice studios).

2. Preference was given to briefs from upper-level undergraduate or graduate studios, where students are expected to work in teams.

The analysis shows the presence of three master themes, T1, T2, and T4, in the studio briefs.

T1 is depicted in the studio briefs through references to students' collaboration with diverse groups, such as engaging with the “clients, stakeholders, practitioners, or industry partners.”

T2 is highlighted through the studios' learning outcomes. Some studio briefs state that upon completion of the course, students will develop teamwork and collaborative skills. These documents specify that students will be able to “work together in a team, with diverse audiences” and will be able to “collaborate with local stakeholders and communities.” Similarly, the learning outcomes also focus on students' verbal and technical communication skills. For instance, S5U2 aims to enhance students' verbal communication with consultants in a design project by “knowing which set of questions to direct to which consultant and at which stage of the project.” Additionally, the course learning outcomes of some studios intend to aid students in developing technical communication and presentation techniques tailored for diverse audiences, such as “peers, public, and stakeholders.”

T4 is evident in the studio briefs through explicit and implicit teaching activities, professional practice simulation, and assessment methods. Explicit activities include students “working in teams of 2–4,” as well as direct interaction with stakeholders, such as attending “meetings” and conducting “stakeholder interviews.” Moreover, these studios also aim to expose students to other disciplines through “interdisciplinary discussion” and “collaboration with multidisciplinary consultants.” Collaboration is also integrated implicitly through peer critiques and reviews, where students play an important role in providing “feedback to their peers.”.

The studio briefs show that collaboration is formally recognised and assessed in some studios. The first type of assessment includes giving equal weighting to both group work and individual work across all exercises. Conversely, in some studios, only minimal weighting is given to group assessment, although students work in teams throughout. The third type of assessment includes requiring mandatory team submissions through deliverables such as concept design, project plans, construction documentation, and reports. Despite assessing these submissions as a “team effort,” some studios introduce mechanisms like Self and Peer Assessment (SAPA) designed to “evaluate the contributions of teammates to group work.”

Studios also integrate collaboration into teaching through professional practice simulation. This is done by emulating a small architectural practice and focussing on project planning and teamwork management. The briefs require studio contexts to “emulate real-world workplaces” by aiming for “collaborative design outputs” and requiring students to “engage in practical design projects.” In some studios, students are required to operate as a “multidisciplinary team,” incorporating “structural, servicing, construction, and operational strategies and developing designs to the contract documentation stage.” Beyond simply working in teams, students are asked to function as an architectural practice by creating a “practice profile” featuring the “team's name and logo and individual team member's profiles.”

Professional simulation is also incorporated into the studio briefs through project planning and management. These projects require students to plan and manage a project as a team. For instance, some studios ask students to maintain documents, like a “project plan” and “team contract” throughout the project, which would establish “tasks, identify individual team members' responsibilities, and record each member's progress against these tasks.” Furthermore, documents such as Gantt charts must also be produced to document project progress. Some briefs also address the technical realities of collaboration, requiring students to discuss and configure file-sharing protocols for digital models. The simulation of professional practice within studio teaching also extends to managing the teamwork. Some studios require students to work on their “team structure and communication diagram,” where they must identify the team hierarchy. Additionally, teams are required to maintain documents such as “logbooks” that contain “minutes of team meetings, financial transactions, and a log of tasks completed.”

The primary aim of this study was to understand how collaboration is conceptualised in official documents and how this conceptualisation is translated from high-level professional and institutional policies into the pedagogical studio structures.

The results show that collaboration is represented not as a singular concept, but as a fluid term. The documents reveal that collaboration is conceptualised as a process of working with others (T1), interpersonal skills (T2), curating an environment (T3), and pedagogical integration (T4). This multi-faceted conceptualisation aligns strongly with broader interdisciplinary literature on the concept of collaboration. For instance, theme T1 aligns with the definition of collaboration as two or more actors joining in a shared undertaking (Sullivan, 1998). Across psychology, education, and allied design disciplines, collaboration is consistently conceptualised as a matrix of distinct interpersonal skillsets (Riebe et al., 2010; Stevens and Campion, 1994) aligning with T2. Furthermore, environmental psychology emphasises the critical role of the physical workspace as an active catalyst for collaborative behaviour (Heerwagen et al., 2004). Additionally, higher education scholarship frames collaboration through its pedagogical integration, viewing it as a deliberately designed instructional strategy rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon (Barkley et al., 2014).

However, the meaning of collaboration shifts significantly as it travels from professional mandates to the design studio. As seen in Table 4, working with others (T1) is deemed a professional capability and competency of architects (L1), a skillset expected of a university graduate (L2), and described as a professional necessity in the schools' teaching philosophy (L3). At the course and studio levels (L4 and L5), the meaning of T1 shifts towards teaching strategies and methods (T4), focussing on how working with others is intended to be executed in the studio. Similarly, interpersonal skills (T2) are an expected competency of an architect (L1) as well as a university graduate (L2). But at the studio level (L5), this skillset is framed in terms of what the course will teach (T4). The university (L2) describes the curation of an environment (T3) by providing assets and infrastructure for collaboration, which is not mentioned at any further levels. As for pedagogical integration (T4), the universities (L2) and programs (L3) emphasise what kind of collaborative teaching they will incorporate in their broad teaching curriculum. On the other hand, the courses (L4) and studios (L5) discuss teaching strategies, explaining how collaboration is intended to be taught and how it will be taught through specific methods and processes.

The analysis reveals three critical misalignments. First, there is a minimal focus on required interpersonal skills (T2) at the program, course, and studio levels. The analysis shows that while interpersonal competency (T2) is explicitly defined at L1 and L2, it disappears almost entirely at the program (L3) and course (L4) levels and is only minimally present in the L5 studio briefs. This suggests that while the profession demands that graduates possess specific collaborative skills to be competent as professional architects, the schools and the courses do not explicitly frame collaboration as a skill to be learnt or assessed, but rather assume that it will be inherently learnt by students. This gap represents a failure of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) because interpersonal skills are difficult to assess objectively, and they are often omitted from formal course objectives and studio rubrics. Consequently, as schools do not explicitly frame collaboration as a pedagogical skill to be taught or assessed, it is relegated to the “hidden curriculum” (Jackson, 1968). Institutions rely on the assumption that students will naturally acquire collaborative skills simply by participating in the design studio's social environment.

Second, the pedagogical integration of collaboration (T4) is completely absent at L1, minimally present at L2, and does not attain dominance until Levels 3, 4, and 5. This absence at L1 and L2 respects the expert pedagogical knowledge of educators (Shulman, 1986), relying on them to shape how subject matter is represented, sequenced, and adapted for learners. However, this absence of pedagogical directives or explicit guidance at L1 and L2 might also explain why the focus on interpersonal skills is diminished at L3, L4, and L5. Without guidance, educators default to teaching the way they were taught (Lortie, 1975), resorting to more familiar studio teaching models. Therefore, aligning with previous studies (Joseph et al., 2025a), educators explicitly recommend that institutions provide support through workshops or training on how to operationalise modern collaborative mandates.

Lastly, only institutions (L2) highlight curating an environment (T3) to support collaboration, while the other levels (L2, L3, L4, and L5) do not mention any supportive system to assist in teaching. This emphasis on the environment by institutions is particularly striking, given that previous studies (Joseph et al., 2025a) found educators explicitly calling for institutional support, specifically regarding the environment and resources, to facilitate collaboration in studio teaching. This gap at the program, course, and studio levels suggests that the policies stipulated by the institutions might not be implemented on the ground level. Also, universities seem to be operating under the assumption of architectural determinism (Scott-Webber, 2004) where they believe that providing physical infrastructure is sufficient to produce the required collaborative graduate competencies. But this study confirms that institutional investment in the physical environment alone does not automatically translate into corresponding changes in pedagogical content. Therefore, as highlighted by the Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) framework, effective learning relies on the deliberate alignment of physical spaces with corresponding teaching practices (Radcliffe et al., 2008).

The vertical analysis, as illustrated in Table 5, reveals two distinct mechanisms of translation where professional and institutional requirements are either diluted or absent as they are integrated into the studio curriculum.

The most significant failure in translation is the absence of Indigenous engagement across all educational levels, despite being mandated as a competency at L1. This gap means that the competency required by the professional mandate is not operationalised in the studio curriculum. This could be due to a “curriculum lag,” where new institutional policies take years to formally filter down into established course structures, as professional mandates for Indigenous engagement are relatively recent. Moreover, a lack of institutional support to systematically Indigenise the curriculum, an underrepresentation of Indigenous academics in university employment, and a lack of specialists who are confident to teach (McLaughlin and Whatman, 2008; Page et al., 2016) are often other problems. These findings align with the broader literature, which highlights that most Australian architecture schools have not been fully responsive to Indigenous needs and aspirations (Jones and Choy, 2021; Tucker, 2012).

The second failure in translation concerns the focus on communication skills with external stakeholders, mandated as a professional competency at L1. The analysis reveals progressive dilution across levels: this competency is reduced to generic graduate skills at L2, disappears entirely at L3 and L4, and is further diluted to teamwork and communication skills at the studio level (L5). The absence at L3 and L4 creates a “hollow middle” which can be explained by combining Goodlad (1979) curriculum typologies with Shulman (1986) concept of pedagogical autonomy. While L3 and L4 represent the “formal curriculum”, L5 represents the “operational curriculum,” where educators exercise their expert pedagogical judgement. Since the formal curriculum provides no directives on how to facilitate external engagements, educators seem to be diluting the mandate into more familiar group-work exercises within the studio, focussing on teamwork and communication skills. This analysis also aligns with Lortie (1975), who suggests that, in the absence of explicit pedagogical guidance or training, educators instinctively default to familiar teaching models.

Another significant finding concerns the dilution of interdisciplinarity and industry engagement. While professional mandates (L2) demand that architects work in interdisciplinary teams with real industry and end-user integration, this focus diminishes as it moves through the curriculum. At the program (L3) and course (L4) levels, it is reduced to “interdisciplinary engagement” and “industry-integrated” teaching, manifesting as mere “exposure” to diverse people and “professional simulations,” at the studio level (L5). Additionally, end-user integration into the studio vanished entirely. This dilution can be explained through Bernstein (2004) who crafted the theory of recontextualization. As professional realities are moved into the rigid constraints of a university classroom, they must be “recontextualised” into manageable pedagogic discourses. Consequently, interdisciplinary and end-user engagements are reduced to controlled simulations of professional practice.

Based on the translational gaps identified, Table 6 outlines the targeted future implications for the architectural profession and education.

This study undertook a document analysis to understand how collaboration is conceptualised and operationalised within studio teaching and learning. The primary aim of this paper was to study how collaboration is defined by professional, institutional, and educational policies, and to analyse its translation from higher-level policies into the pedagogical structures of the architectural design studio.

One of the key findings is that collaboration is not conceptualised as a singular concept within these documents. Rather, it can be understood as a process of working with others (T1), interpersonal skills (T2), curating an environment (T3), and pedagogical integration (T4). It is a fluid term whose meaning shifts significantly as it moves from professional mandates to the pedagogical environment. Secondly, the professional and institutional requirements of collaboration are either diluted or absent as they are translated into the studio curriculum. These gaps include:

1. An absence or minimal emphasis on interpersonal skills at the program, course, and studio levels (L3, L4, and L5)

2. An absence or minimal emphasis on pedagogical directives or guidance at the professional and institutional levels (L1 and L2)

3. An absence of emphasis on the environment at the program, course, and studio levels (L3, L4, and L5)

4. An absence of Indigenous engagement across all academic levels (L2, L3, L4, and L5)

5. An absence of end-user integration at the program, course, and studio levels (L3, L4, and L5)

6. An absence or minimal emphasis on communication with external stakeholders at the program, course, and studio levels (L3, L4, and L5)

7. An absence of integration of interdisciplinary teams at the course and studio levels (L4 and L5)

8. An absence of interdisciplinary and industry-integrated teaching at the course and studio levels (L4 and L5)

The implications of these findings provide a roadmap for professional bodies, institutions, and educators to bridge the persistent gap between policy and actual studio practice. To address the identified gaps, studio pedagogy must move beyond simulations or exposure to mandate authentic interdisciplinary teamwork, direct industry, stakeholder, and end-user integration, and Indigenous engagement within the design studio. Program and course directors must explicitly embed interpersonal competencies into the formal learning outcomes of studio courses and redesign assessment rubrics to reward collective outputs. For this pedagogical shift to succeed, institutions must abandon reliance on physical infrastructure alone and instead provide training and professional development for educators, equipping them to actively utilise collaborative environments as instructional tools. Finally, the architectural profession and accreditation bodies must bridge this instructional void by shifting from merely prescribing competencies to providing explicit pedagogical guidance, such as supplementary Practice Notes. By enforcing strict accreditation requirements that demand evidence of how these collaborative mandates are operationalised, the profession can ensure high-level policies are meaningfully realised in studios, thereby overcoming the disconnect between teaching and practice.

This study acknowledges its limitations. First, most of the program and course information was based on materials available on public-facing websites, which may not fully portray the actual teaching reality if the websites are not regularly updated. Second, this study examined only studio outlines, neglecting other foundational courses in which collaboration might be embedded. Lastly, the document analysis identifies intent and structure, but cannot confirm enactment, i.e. whether students and tutors adhered to the studio briefs or truly collaborated in practice. Future work should utilise ethnographic observations in the selected studio case studies to compare the documented studio briefs with the actual collaborative behaviours of students and tutors. Future research should also be extended to other core courses to understand how collaborative skills are taught outside of the design studio. Further investigation is also required at the institutional level (L2) to identify why specific mandates, particularly Indigenous engagement, are neglected.

In conclusion, this study contributes to the limited existing literature within the Australian context, investigating the disconnect between professional and institutional mandates and pedagogical realities. Closing this gap is an urgent necessity to ensure that the architects of tomorrow are genuinely equipped for the collaborative complexities of modern practice.

This paper utilised Google's Gemini AI Pro and Grammarly for paraphrasing and grammar checks. All sentences generated from the AI tools have been carefully reviewed and edited to ensure accuracy and coherence.

The authors are grateful to the studio coordinators for generously sharing the studio briefs for analysis.