BOOK REVIEW | PROFESSIONALISM Change is possible Simon Foxells Professionalism for the Built Environment, published by Routledge, looks at the history of the building professions and presents arguments for change. Hoare Leas Paddy Conaghan reviews the text P rofessionalism for the Built Environment is no light read, but it is a thoroughly worthwhile one. It contrasts the evolution of the first construction professions of architecture, civil engineering and surveying in Britain with those in France, Germany and the United States, and argues for still more change. To declare a potential conflict of interest, Foxell is a friend of mine. Although a practising architect, hes been exploring this subject for more than two decades, and Iwelcome his closely researched and reasoned book as an imaginative response to questions posed recently by Paul Morrell (Collaboration for Change) and other commentators on the fitness of our professions for the 21st century. Partly a comprehensive history of the construction professions to date and partly a polemic about the need for change, the book has already received outstanding reviews for it arguments for change. So it seems appropriate to start here with some observations on it as a work of history. The historic narrative would stand by itself as a fascinating book. It starts in the 12th century, but the pageant of often notable individuals sketched by Foxell begins properly in the 17th century, portrayed as they appeared in their time, giving them substance and character and not always to their advantage. It maps how the professions evolved in each country the twists and turns, and unexpected consequences encountered along the route. Much appears counterintuitive; for example, how the French system of specialised state education for engineers andarchitects came to produce elitism more pernicious totheadvancement of other talented people than the snobby, self-serving, pupillage model used in Britain; or how governmental regulation of the professions abroad often led to more chaotic outcomes than the serendipity ofself-governance practised by the British. British experience The book comes to focus on the British experience, and how the three construction professions emerged and delineated themselves. At the start of the 18th century, Britain had only three recognised learned professions the clergy, law and medicine. None guaranteed wealth or social standing for members, and all would be lampooned as variously self-serving, ignorant and callous. As each centred on educating and building a distinct body of knowledge, with a semblance of regulating their members conduct, the unpopular term profession well matched the respective aims of the putative alliances of architects, engineers and surveyors. The founding of construction professions was, inevitably, driven by some self-interest. As Foxell explains, however, there was a strong case for sound practitioners in each sector to come together as reputable bodies, because construction then (as now) was an expensive enterprise, where rogues enjoyed much scope for profitable malfeasance and sometimes caused devastating failures. Soby setting up and regulating closed shops of competent, honest and knowledgeable practitioners, the new groups also fulfilled a public service. The fledgling bodies adopted precepts of altruism and public duty that the earlier learned professions had ignored. Certainly, creating buildings, roads and canals intrinsically benefited mankind more than serving writs or applying leeches, but their high principles were also targeted at securing the Royal Charters needed to become professions. Even so, the Charters would be some time in coming the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1828, RIBA (or IBA then) in 1837, and the Surveyors Institute (now RICs) in 1881. 20 May 2019 www.cibsejournal.com CIBSE May19 pp20-21 Book Simon Foxall.indd 20 26/04/2019 16:59