Why women leave architecture: “Twenty years is a long time to let the issue drift”

Two decades have passed since the publication of Why Women Leave Architecture in 2003, a report commissioned by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) by researchers at the University of the West of England (UWE). The report is now difficult to find, it’s no longer on RIBA or UWE’s websites and can only be accessed through an academic paywall.

To summarise its findings, the reasons it found as to why women leave the profession were low pay, unequal pay, long working hours, inflexible and un-family-friendly working hours, sidelining and poor promotion prospects, limited areas of work and a glass ceiling, stressful working conditions, protective paternalism preventing the development of experience, a macho culture and sexism, redundancy or dismissal, high litigation risk and high insurance costs, lack of returner training and more job satisfaction elsewhere.  

Based on a literature review and examination of the culture of the profession in comparison to other professions, the study undertook a web-based questionnaire targeting 100 people and fourteen in-depth interviews, limited in time to 27 working days. The report’s recommendations encompassed inclusion of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies in the profession’s Codes of Conduct, more accessible CPD, mentoring, more diverse representation to the public and to those considering studying the discipline, and that academia does more to promote gender equity.

Fast-forward to 2025 and the RIBA has just published a follow-up report, Build It Together, for which they commissioned the Fawcett Society. As a light touch, the report does not include senior women’s experiences, along with those entering the profession, or those of men. This time the remit excludes education. Yet the testimonials remain shocking, showing that leadership on these issues has been lacking.

The research took four months to complete and involved another literature review, a web-based survey (635 people responded), 17 interviews and a focus group discussion with stakeholders.

In its introduction, Build It Together admits that recommendations from the 2003 report have not driven meaningful change, with very similar issues being recorded: “Our findings reveal that the challenges highlighted 20 years ago persist today: long hours being glorified, an imbalance of power between employers and employees, lack of clear policies and proactive action, and stark displays of sexism within practices,” reads its introduction.

Twenty years is a long time to let the issue drift. To create ongoing systemic change, the RIBA should be commissioning methodical, regular and frequent data-gathering and evaluation, including disaggregation for other protected characteristics, preferably by an independent body or academic, to monitor progress, with the results made public. As the report states: “Equity is not a one-off box to tick. It requires ongoing action from practices, membership bodies and government to adopt as part of their wider working culture”. 

We’ve known for many years that sexism is rife in architecture. The report applauds the work of many voluntary groups, including Part W, that with limited resources have committed to “shine a light on the entrenched inequalities that persist” and makes clear that it should not fall to women “to resolve the inequalities that affect them”. It acknowledges that the report may make uncomfortable reading for some and notes a “weariness from women – about the decades of promises of reform in the sector, combined with perceived and actual inaction.”

Of the forty-seven recommendations made by the report, it cites twenty tasks for RIBA to undertake to improve its own EDI work. It says that RIBA must examine its own culture and be willing to critique its own norms. But the RIBA’s status as a paid voluntary membership organisation is in conflict with its need to identify bad practice in that membership. It needs to self-examine and show willingness to change, and sanction bad practice.

In response to the report, RIBA has said it intends to address twenty of these recommendations within two years. It has identified ten tasks it intends to work on during the first 12 months. Most of these are around policy and training, ‘best practice’ guidance, mentoring, consultation with grassroots organisations and a basic level of support with HR. Some of these are recommendations from the previous report, as yet unfulfilled.

The RIBA also commits to monitoring the diversity of speakers, contributors and exhibitors (we assume this means speakers invited by the RIBA, not pan-industry). There is no commitment to carry out systematic monitoring of progress with further data or a follow-up report, although a steering group is suggested. At the report’s launch, three leaders of the institute refused to confirm how much funding the RIBA has allocated to putting the Fawcett Society’s recommendations into action.

This will not go far enough – even as we await the next tranche of commitments. The report finds that the sector is still operating “like an old boys’ club” and that blatant sexism is alive and well. The RIBA needs to take action. If a practice fails to observe progress on EDI in its annual reporting (which should be extended to a threshold well below the 250 employees that is the definition of an SME), the RIBA should apply meaningful penalties such as naming and shaming, barring a practice from awards or suspending its right to membership of RIBA or Chartered Practice. In addition, the RIBA Inclusion Charter should be made mandatory and practice leaders, particularly men, should undertake specific training addressing unacknowledged bias – one of the factors noted in the report.

The report states that over 35% of respondents had experienced sexual harassment at work and 50% had been bullied, with the latter figure rising to 73% for Black females. Mechanisms of bullying and harassment within practices cited in the report which include extreme micro-management and lack of trust, belittling and humiliation, consistent undermining, experiences of having work discredited or stolen, and misogynistic and racial comments. While internal HR departments within practices are encouraged to set up “anonymous reporting channels to try and encourage staff to speak up”, an external whistle-blowing agency, with teeth, could assist here. 

An interesting idea would be accreditation for good practice, potentially being incorporated into the Code of Practice or Code of Professional Conduct. Although the Architects’ Registration Board (ARB) has no remit to intervene in practice affairs, its complaints guidance makes clear that sexual misconduct falls within its scope and has incorporated a Standard of Respect into its new Code, together with a requirement to commit to EDI in design and the workplace. This is welcome and we would urge ARB to quickly issue its proposed guidance on these matters. 

As for the gender pay gap, 54% of women in the survey reported that a male counterpart at the same level was earning more than they were. Overall, there is a gender pay gap of 16% across Chartered Practices (compared with a wider gender pay gap of 11.3% in 2024). To offer greater agency for women, salaries need to rise and must match men’s. As the report states: “The gender pay gap will only be reduced by concerted effort to do so, and that it is a multi-year, whole-organisation endeavour”. The report suggests salary transparency for overcoming discrepancy.

The report underlines the need for “supportive and inclusive practices for mothers” (p41) to overcome the Motherhood Penalty. While the Government is being called on to make free childcare available to all carers, more flexible working and equitable parental leave would help redress the balance of caring responsibilities and this could impact not only on men but also on gender pay gap. All these aspects need to be addressed in the context of more robust HR and EDI reporting, satisfaction surveys and improvements in workplace culture.

The Fawcett Society recognises that a nuanced approach is necessary dependent on size of practice. Fees will need to rise too – a fact noted in the findings of the 2003 report.

It is curious that academic settings are outside the scope of the report even though the RIBA is responsible for the validation of over 230 architectural programmes at over 120 schools of architecture around the world. Good progress has been made in schools; student cohorts are now often 50% women and academia has proved a career choice in which women can thrive due to its clear career path and employment benefits such as pension and childcare. It is in architectural practices that women encounter problems and leave the profession.

The report considers how other professions, cultures and countries have addressed these issues, so we can learn from them. It indicates that the Built Environment Inclusive initiative, which includes the professional bodies from a wide range of built environment professions, could make change happen faster through collaboration. Its key recommendation is that “Our research showed that, regardless of the size of the firm or the type of work undertaken, it is the culture at the top of organisations which is the overwhelming factor in how women fare within it”. Further, it admits that it lacks an intersectional analysis of the problems and solutions.

Volunteer organisations have toiled in their own (‘spare’?) time to draw attention to these issues and help solve them. Some have made good progress –– for example, mentoring is available through the Women in Architecture group – yet not enough has been done industry-wide, outside of grassroots work, to move the needle. Already disadvantaged by the current system, women cannot be used to solve what is a wider, cultural and institutional issue. The consequences of inaction are huge for people that have invested hope, time and money in becoming an architect, and for the built environment, the design of which fails to acknowledge women’s real life experiences. We know what the issues are – just as the RIBA has known for more than 20 years. The time for action is now.

Find out more Read the Build It Together report

Sarah Wigglesworth MBE founded her own practice in London in 1993, pioneering an approach to building using low-energy principles and materials. The best known example of this approach is the award-winning Straw Bale House in London, published worldwide. The practice subsequently built a number of award-winning projects across a range of sectors. Sarah closed the practice in March 2024. She now works as a freelance designer, consultant and writer. Between 1997 and 2016 Sarah was Professor of Architecture at The University of Sheffield  where she headed the DWELL (Designing for Wellbeing in Environments for Later Life) research project that aims to design exemplary places for older people. She has co-authored several books and has lectured globally. She was awarded an MBE for services to architecture in 2003 and was created Royal Designer for Industry in 2012. She is a founding member of Part W.

Part W is an action group calling for gender equity in the built environment. Part W campaigns to highlight the contribution of women to the built environment and call out gender discrimination in an industry that routinely excludes. It’s first campaign called on the RIBA to examine its awarding of the Royal Gold Medal, which in 2019 had been awarded to only one woman in their own right since 1848. Part W crowdsourced and researched an alternative female winner for every year of the prize, known as The Alternative List.