Cultural narratives of digital technology in architecture rely heavily upon stories of unique, almost always male, genius and often deny the collective intellectual labor of technology’s construction. These narratives are perpetuated by a historical record which does not fully address the contributions of women to the history of digital technology. Because this history is not well-documented, there is an opportunity to represent these events in a manner which is more inclusive and equitable. Toward that end, this article focuses on narratives from the SOM Computing Group (1964–1990), as a means of correcting the historical record and addressing gender equity in the profession. The interviews collected here highlight several women who helped to integrate technologies into architecture through professional experimentation and cross-disciplinary collaboration. While it is not a comprehensive history, this work represents the beginning of an agenda to produce a history of technology in architecture which better reflects the contributions of women to the digital designs of today.

Computer-Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) technologies have become commonplace in architectural practice as tools of efficiency and production. For these very reasons the introduction of CADD in early architectural curricula has been fraught with anxieties along a continuum: from the undoing of creativity through positivist and reductionist logic 1 to a firm belief that these technologies will revolutionize the way architects practice and think about design. 2 At the same time, there is a presumption that students who have grown up with digital technologies are “digital natives” who possess special aptitudes or insights which are disruptive to learning computing. The presence of these anxieties and biases often leads to gaps in digital design instruction, as tools are misunderstood and misappropriated by students and teachers alike.

In the 21st century, technologies like the Internet are commonly regarded as an empowering and uplifting force. With the broad availability of low-cost distribution channels, software development tools, and rapid prototyping machines such as 3D printers, the potential exists for nearly anyone to disrupt industries and find success. This optimism is mirrored in architecture, where, over the last 25 years, technologies such as CAD (Computer Aided Design), parametric design, BIM (Building Information Modeling), digital fabrication, and robotics have been a critical site of innovation, as architects seek to challenge traditional methods of designing and delivering buildings.

: What are the objectives of teaching digital design in architecture? While this seems a rather primitive inquiry it in fact is loaded with misunderstanding and disagreement. This paper aims to bring accepted educational research about learning objectives into the discussion of digital design’s relationship to architecture. In particular, Bloom’s Taxonomy is introduced and referenced as a tool for creating clarity, transparency, and accountability among educators. The purpose of reflecting upon learning objectives for digital design in architecture is not to produce a definitive list of what students ought to learn. Learning objectives are written for specific curricula, student needs, and faculty interests. They are useful because they provide a clear definition of expected outcomes and which becomes a point of dialogue. In order to evaluate something, it first must be named. Through evaluation and discussion, a discipline develops. When Bloom created the learning taxonomy, this was the goal. Not to explain or lay claim to how students must learn, but to provide a shared structure so educators could compare their approaches. In a similar manner, creating and sharing learning objectives for digital design instruction, using established tools like Bloom's Taxonomy, can produce a more organized dialogue about how to align the use of digital tools with the core values of architectural education and the development of the discipline itself.

While technology has rapidly become more accessible to more people, its benefits are not always evenly shared. This paper searches for methods of identifying and defining gender inequality in architecture as it relates to digital technology and computation. The authors begin by documenting and then questioning existing metrics for measuring women’s participation in architecture, then look outside the field to STEM disciplines, educational research, and economic theory as means of framing this research agenda. By examining and critiquing current patterns of technological distribution and academic culture, the authors seek to foster greater equality in education, architecture, and, consequently, the built environment.

Developing technologies, such as computational design and digital fabrication, are transforming the design and construction of contemporary architecture. Today, architecture schools are tasked with introducing digital technologies as they are changing, creating an opportunity to develop innovative curricula and democratize access to these skills. However, the understanding of how to teach digital technology as an essential design skill has not kept pace with these rapid changes. Design education and digital technology education continue to be seen as separate loci of learning, separated by pedagogical gaps and teaching mindsets.