1. Introduction
As an ancient profession, architecture has played a significant role in shaping cities and cultures for centuries. It has a central role in forming all spatial environments ranging from housing to shopping, education to health, and production to entertainment [1,2,3]. It is a creative field that benefits society by establishing social and cultural life and providing the experience of leaving an artifact to the world. In this sense, architecture has always been political, demonstrating the connection between design and politics on a sensible level. This nature of the profession, requiring creativity and versatile thinking, gives architects social prestige and celebrity. Architecture has been shown as one of the founding figures of social life throughout history, and architects have been characterized with adjectives such as creator, master, conductor, and god [1,2,4,5].
Despite the prestigious tags that the architecture profession has received over the years, it is impossible to state that things are going well regarding working conditions and economics in the 21st century. This is mainly because the construction sector, to which architecture is closely tied, is directly influenced by economic and political changes, as well as the pandemic [5,6,7]. Indeed, since the 1980s, the construction sector has developed rapidly globally and in Turkey [8,9]. In this construction frenzy driven by capitalist market forces and centralized power, architecture is primarily dominated by neoliberal policies that focus on “building as a means for economic growth” [10] (p. 69). This change, which means more job opportunities for architects in one aspect, also has negative consequences for urban life, such as unplanned growth, mega projects that open the door to environmental disasters, and irregular construction.
The ever-changing supply–demand balance in the construction sector, which is constantly changing, is affected by many factors, such as economic-political processes, changes in power, disasters, and local and national elections. Since the sector is instantly affected by the free market economy and government policies, the need for architect personnel is similar to the fluctuations in the market [11,12]. This reality causes both instability in terms of employment in construction and architecture companies and precariousness in employees [13]. These conditions in the architectural sector create an economic atmosphere, in which graduates receive low salaries from many jobs that do not require specialization. Indeed, recent graduates often complain about low salary packages and low employability, demonstrating their profound socioeconomic challenge [14,15,16]. So much so that newly graduated architects settle for low wages to gain experience. Sometimes, their labor is exploited as they have to work for free. Considering long working hours and salaries, the intention of both young architects and architect candidates to stay in the sector is negatively affected, and the tendency to shift to non-architectural sectors is increasing [14,17].
The recent policies implemented by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) have played a direct role in intensifying the architectural profession’s crisis. This period has seen a parallel increase between the expansion of the construction industry over the past two decades and the proliferating architectural education institutions in Turkey. Specifically, in 2003, the nation housed 33 architecture departments—22 public universities and 11 private foundations. In a drastic shift, this number has nearly quadrupled to 124 by 2024, comprising 69 public universities and 55 private foundations. The allotment of student quotas has witnessed a parallel surge, escalating from 1994 in 2003 to 6500 in 2023, marking a 225% increase. The number of quotas in civil engineering education, another important construction sector field, has increased similarly. This significant increase in educational capacity has led to a rising number of architecture and civil engineering graduates [18,19].
Different teaching approaches shape the learning process in architecture and civil engineering education. While civil engineering education predominantly follows an instructor-centered model, where knowledge transfer is one-directional, mainly through lectures and theoretical instruction, architectural education relies on a more interactive and iterative approach. Central to architecture programs, studio-based learning fosters a dynamic environment where professors act as mentors rather than sole knowledge providers, encouraging dialogue, critique, and collaborative problem-solving. In contrast, civil engineering programs tend to emphasize structured lectures complemented by laboratory work and technical problem-solving exercises, often positioning the professor as the primary source of knowledge. While alternative pedagogical models—such as problem-based and student-centered learning—are gaining recognition, traditional instructor-led methods remain dominant in civil engineering education, shaping graduates’ preparedness for professional practice in distinct ways [20,21,22].
While architecture and civil engineering education differ significantly, both contribute to construction and construction site activities. Architecture and engineering (A and E) education, which is the common point of both disciplines and is applied in many countries, also reveals this closeness. Architects and civil engineers are qualified to undertake various roles within the construction industry, further complicating the job market [20]. As a result, architecture and civil engineering compete for job opportunities. This oversupply of professionals significantly hinders new architects’ entry into the field, as shown by recent graduates’ career paths and choices. Due to this reason, there has been a significant decrease in the preference rates for architecture and civil engineering departments. Consequently, the occupancy rate for architecture school quotas was just 79% in 2023. In response to these challenges, YÖK announced a reduction in quota allocations for 2024: Public university architecture departments experienced a 23.6% decrease in quotas, while private foundation quotas were cut by 11.5% [17,18]. These adjustments underscore the critical nature of the ongoing crisis architecture profession. The saturation of graduates makes securing employment increasingly competitive and significantly impacts students’ willingness to pursue long-term careers in architecture. Given these developments, it is clear that the architecture profession faces a critical juncture, necessitating thoughtful reevaluation of educational strategies and quota allocations to ensure the balanced development of the profession in alignment with market demands and opportunities.
As in many professions, architecture is transforming in parallel with changing social habits and economic and technological developments [23,24]. Although this change, primarily centered on political economy, is spread worldwide, it varies in application principles according to countries. In this context, many factors, such as the nature of the profession, wages, and working conditions, can be mentioned in the preference for the profession of architecture. These factors positively or negatively affect the preferences of students studying architecture in the profession and determine their goals while continuing their careers [12].
This research focuses on the primary problem of how architecture students will continue their careers after graduation. Architecture students’ perceptions of the construction industry can significantly impact their intention to stay in the profession. It is essential to investigate how these perceptions are formed and how they can be influenced to create a positive and supportive environment for architecture students. Understanding the factors influencing architecture students’ intentions to stay in the profession is essential to ensure a sustainable and qualified workforce. However, it has been observed that the existing literature needs to measure architecture students’ intentions to stay in the industry. Only a few studies have measured stress levels in undergraduate architecture students [25]; factors affecting pre-degree students’ preference to study architecture [26,27]; low wages faced by new graduates in the sector [14,17]; stress factors of professionals working in the construction industry [17,28,29,30,31]; adverse working conditions [14,17,32] and taking part in unethical projects [14]; stress factors of professionals working in the construction sector [17,28,29,30,31] were associated with architects’ satisfaction and continuation intentions in the sector. Although there are related studies in various fields, such as tourism and business administration, other than architecture in the literature, no study measures the continuation intentions of architecture students in the sector. This study aims to fill this literature gap and determine the effect of architectural students’ perceptions of the construction industry on their intention to stay in the architectural profession in Turkey.
In pursuit of this investigation, the constructs of attitude and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) were incorporated as the foundational framework. Despite the absence of a universally embraced definition, it is primarily acknowledged that attitudes encapsulate tendencies towards the positive or negative evaluation of entities, manifesting across cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions [33]. Attitudes are recognized as predispositions to respond favorably or unfavorably towards individuals, objects, institutions, or occurrences. Noteworthy is that, despite attitudes constituting evaluative processes, they are deduced as hypothetical constructs from observable responses, given their intangible nature [34]. The methodology employed in this inquiry leveraged the TPB to scrutinize students’ intentions to stay in the sector (IS) of interest. TPB’s application extends across varied disciplines, aiming to elucidate the underpinnings of career choice aspirations, particularly within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields [35].
This study examines the career intentions of architecture students in Turkey, focusing on their perceptions of the construction industry and how these perceptions influence their willingness to remain in the profession. Understanding why these students remain in the construction industry is vital, as it includes developing educational programs, workforce planning, industry sustainability, policy formulation, and improving working conditions. Such insights can significantly impact students’ career choices and the future dynamics of the sector, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable, appealing, and equitable construction industry.
The study addresses architecture students nearing graduation and does not extend to professionals already active in the field. The study’s limitations include its geographical focus on Turkey, meaning that the findings may not be directly generalizable to other countries with different economic and educational conditions. Additionally, the research is based on self-reported data, which may be subject to individual biases. While the study provides valuable insights into the factors shaping students’ career intentions, it does not explore long-term career trajectories or external influences such as technological advancements or global market fluctuations. Despite these constraints, the findings contribute to the literature by highlighting the challenges in Turkey’s architectural education and employment dynamics.
This research aims to provide critical insights for architectural education institutions, facilitating a transformation of curricula and teaching methods that will better prepare students for the challenges they will face in their profession and inspire them to pursue lasting architectural careers. Moreover, the findings hold significant value for employers within the construction sector and policymakers, as they underscore the study’s broader implications. Understanding the factors that motivate architecture students to remain in the industry is crucial for ensuring workforce sustainability. This inquiry addresses the urgent need for a consistent supply of qualified architects and highlights the potential consequences of declining numbers on the quality of buildings and urban spaces.
Our research reveals that students’ perceptions and career choices heavily influence their design methodologies, ultimately affecting the overall quality of the built environment. Due to a noticeable decline in practicing architects—primarily caused by unfavorable working conditions, low salaries, and political issues—this study aims to highlight the key factors contributing to students’ success in this field. By identifying these factors, we hope to foster a more robust architectural workforce, ensuring that buildings are designed with integrity and constructed to enhance sustainability, equity, and the resilience of our communities.
2. Literature Review
Architecture is one of the oldest professions, along with medicine and law. From its origins as stone craftsmanship, architecture is considered a disciplinary field equipped with technical knowledge and a distinguished profession that includes social and creative endeavors [1,4,5]. Undoubtedly, this creativity today includes many personal phenomena, such as how an architect approaches the world’s problems, his/her background, learning style, and view of the world [36]. In the 21st century, architectural design is not only an object production but also a field of activity that develops a new approach style, defines problematics, solves problems, and produces knowledge within the framework of specific conditions and rules [37,38]. Therefore, “architectural work is distributed and dispersed; collaborative and entrepreneurial; knowledge-based and open-sourced; specialized and flexible” [38] (p. 72).
On the other hand, the architectural profession plays a vital role in shaping the built environment and meeting the ever-evolving needs of society. An architect must often consider the relationship between his/her design approach and the demands of employers, rules, rule makers, policymakers, and market conditions. For this reason, it is impossible to consider architecture independent of economy and politics, in other words, capital and power [39,40,41]. In today’s globalized world, especially in developing countries like Turkey, the construction economy has become a political mechanism that directly affects cities’ size and population density [10,42].
Therefore, architecture serves as a pivotal component within the construction industry, facilitating the reproduction of capital through its endeavor to generate rental profit. Such mechanisms profoundly influence the professional trajectory of architects and extend to the working conditions prevalent in them. Consequently, this has led to an exacerbation of numerous issues, including prolonged working hours, the prevalence of short-term contractual engagements, stringent deadlines necessitating exceptional performance levels, engagement in projects that bear a detrimental impact on the environment, diminished remuneration, and a rise in ethical dilemmas within the profession [14,17,32,40,43,44].
In this context, the view of architects’ careers is bipolar and contradictory. Architecture is a prestigious profession that focuses on creativity, is prestigious, pursues social benefit, and offers the opportunity to leave work to the world. On the other hand, architecture seems to be a profession that mediates capital-oriented commodity production, has the risk of being involved in ethically problematic works, and is open to labor exploitation with low wages and long working hours. However, the work responsibilities and context of architects are quite broad, and the institution or company they work for will be decisive in terms of the kind of projects they will take part in and the quality of working conditions. In this context, the career orientations of undergraduate students who will take a new step into the profession become important.
The term “career” refers to an individual’s work-related experiences throughout their life [45] (pp. 8–9) and gained popularity after 1960 [46]. The framework of the concept, which is also used synonymously with business life [47], is determined by phenomena such as career progression, commitment to the profession and work, and personal development [48]. However, in the construction of a career, external conditions, such as the nature of the job and environmental factors, are as determinative as internal conditions, such as the individual’s experience and tendencies, because a career is influenced by many cultural, political, individual, sociological, psychological, educational, temporal, physical, economic, gender, and chance-related factors [47,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].
Accordingly, to succeed in career management, it is necessary to consider all internal and external factors. For this very reason, career planning is vital for university students who have yet to enter the labor market. Instead of quickly focusing on the labor market, university students can give direction to their learning experiences and lifelong careers by first planning their careers [59]. Accordingly, by spending their university life more efficiently, students can utilize their potential more effectively and reach their goals in life more easily.
In the past two decades, the number of studies showing the importance of understanding university students’ career choice intentions [60,61,62] has gradually increased. Scholars indicate that a multifaceted array of values influences university students’ career choices. These include intrinsic values [63], which encompass personal interests in a specific domain and expectations thereof; extrinsic values, encompassing considerations such as remuneration, job stability, and workplace environment; social values, epitomized by the desire to collaborate with others and make substantive contributions to society; and prestige values, characterized by the aspiration for recognition and occupying a venerated professional position [64]. For example, when students’ interests overlap with the professional field in which they receive education, they are more likely to continue their education and career [65,66].
In career choice and planning, the theoretical framework posited by Ajzen [34], known as the theory of planned behavior (TPB), offers a comprehensive foundation for enhancing career development processes. Ajzen postulates that intentions play a pivotal role in the mechanisms of behavior and decision-making through an interconnected set of constructs, namely, normative beliefs, control beliefs, and behavioral beliefs. These determinants significantly influence behavioral patterns, encapsulating various phenomena such as individuals’ perceptions of self-efficacy regarding the control over their outcomes, perceived ease or difficulty associated with occupational endeavors, the influence of significant others, including parents and peers, on career choices, and the extent of individuals’ appraisal of entrepreneurial ventures [34]. According to TPB, the positivity of an individual’s attitudes towards these phenomena directly correlates with the positivity of their behavioral intentions. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the influences on these attitudes and experiences are multifaceted, contingent upon the individual’s unique characteristics and a myriad of internal and external occupational conditions. These variances play a critical role in shaping the individual’s attitudes, potentially precipitating challenges in career decision-making processes [67,68,69]. Consequently, identifying and understanding the attitudes and dispositions of undergraduate students towards these variables could facilitate more informed and positive career trajectories.
Attitude is the tendency to react positively or negatively to a person, object, institution, or event. Although attitude is an evaluative activity, it is a hypothetical structure obtained from measurable responses since it cannot be directly observed [34]. Therefore, according to Ajzen [34], to test positive or negative evaluations about the object of an attitude, it is necessary to categorize the factors affecting the attitude and the responses related to the attitude. Thus, understanding the reasons for the individual’s attitude and the factors affecting career management, regardless of the profession, will help to develop strategies to improve the dynamics between the individual, educational institutions, and the sector.
In this discourse, it is essential to understand the motivations that push students to become architects and the main factors affecting their career tendencies after an undergraduate education that requires intensive study tempo. In this direction, the relevant literature has been extensively analyzed to clarify the factors. Given that architecture represents a global vocation, an examination of the international body of literature, with a predominant focus on European and American contributions, was conducted. Nevertheless, as previously noted, a specific region’s economic and political milieu significantly shapes architectural practice in that region. Therefore, since this investigation was situated within Turkey, an analysis of pertinent domestic literature was also incorporated, thereby rendering the research an integrative synthesis of global and local perspectives.
To effectively gauge undergraduate architecture students’ attitudes toward their field, it is essential first to categorize the factors influencing these attitudes. This categorization emerges from synthesizing the model created by Kusluvan and Kusluvan [70] for tourism students, along with an extensive literature review focused on architecture. Key general factors play a crucial role in career choice, including the nature of the profession (NP), working conditions in the sector (WCs), salary and benefits (SB), professional prestige (PR), and alignment with personal expectations (CE) [17,26,70,71]. Moreover, specific factors inherent to the architecture field, such as health and stress considerations (HS), ethical and political implications (EPs), and the delineation of authority and responsibility within the profession (AR), must also be taken into account [12,14,17,30,31,32,72,73]. Additionally, a strong sense of occupational commitment is a significant intrinsic motivator for career choice [70].
In conclusion, the literature provides a general idea about the long-term effects of socio-economic challenges undergraduate architecture students face on their professional development and career choices, both globally and in Turkey. The academic research in the literature mainly consists of studies on the satisfaction of the sector with graduated architects or the satisfaction of working architects with the sector. Therefore, the literature review reveals that more empirical research is needed to explore the main issues and ultimately develop a model that measures the intentions of architecture students to stay in the sector (IAS). In addition, as it is an emerging literature, more IAS studies are needed in developing countries. Therefore, the impact of architectural students’ attitudes, expectations, and satisfaction with the profession on IS is worth investigating. Accordingly, this study is designed to fill these gaps in the IAS literature by presenting and validating a model that captures the IS factor of NP, WCs, PR, SB, HS, EPs, AR, and CE from the perspective of architecture students in Turkey. The initiation of this study is thus predicated on its aim to elucidate the following research queries within the ambit of architecture students’ career aspirations:
RQ1. How does the perception of the nature of the profession (NP) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ2. How does the perception of prestige (PR) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ3. How does the perception of working conditions (WCs) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ4. How does the perception of health and stress (HS) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ5. How does the perception of salary and benefits (SB) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ6. How does the perception of ethical and political processes (EPs) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ7. How does the perception of authorities and responsibilities (AR) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
RQ8. How does conformity to expectations (CE) affect the intention to stay in the sector (IS)?
3. Theoretical Background
3.1. The Nature of the Profession, Prestige, and Intention to Stay in the Sector
The nature of the profession (NP) corresponds to the essential qualities of that profession and skills required to perform that occupation and significantly influences the choice of the occupation and the intention to stay in the sector [70]. As a creative technical practice, architecture is the ground of activity of conceptual and material uses; in other words, it is a multidimensional production area, where abstract ideas are transformed into concrete outputs. Given its profound impact on forming the built environment that spans from individual buildings to urban, architecture is acknowledged for its paramount societal contribution, akin to the spheres of medicine and law [12,38,71].
Prestige (PR) and social status correspond to an individual’s societal position, perceived value, and self-esteem and significantly influence the choice of profession and the intention to stay in the sector. The sense of fulfillment derived from social status plays a crucial role in career continuity [70,74]. For example, architects who are seen as “creative and visionary” may feel more inspired to continue their work despite their challenges because of the respect associated with their profession. Also, the task of an architect is not only to design but also to convince different interest groups through a broad palette of representations that their design proposals are the most rational, economical, appropriate, and inspiring solution to a particular problem [12,71,75]. It is emotionally and intellectually satisfying to see a design being built. Architecture has always been shown as a prestigious profession because of this feature. Prestige and social status are among the main reasons for choosing architecture as a career [26,71] because it is satisfying and ego-boosting to be respected by people, to be seen among admired people, or to be praised by colleagues whose ideas are valued [12]. Therefore, the study proposes the following:
H1. NP has a positive effect on IS.
H2. PR has a positive effect on IS.
3.2. Working Conditions, Salary and Benefits, Intention to Stay in the Sector
Working conditions (WCs) correspond to the working environment, duration, colleagues, office equipment, and working hours, significantly affecting the intention to stay in the sector. These conditions can differ not only by profession but also by the country where that profession is practiced. Unfavorable working conditions, such as long hours and safety risks, can hurt physical and mental health, leading to higher employee turnover [76,77]. For instance, the working conditions of an architect in the construction sector in Turkey differ from those of an architect in the USA or Europe. Working conditions are crucial in shaping professional commitment and vary across different professions and countries.
The architectural profession today faces significant challenges due to long working hours spanning nights and weekends, flexible hiring and firing policies, short-term contracts, precariousness regarding health care and other benefits, low pay, and unpaid internships, especially for young architects [12,17,32,38,78]. For example, the ACA in Australia and the UK recently published data showing that actual fees are as low as 1% to 3% of construction costs (depending on the project size) and that architects are systematically underpaid [79]. Many architects believe that they need to be more fair and well-paid for the work they do and the responsibilities they undertake. Salaries—the cost of working hours—are low compared to comparable professions and zero for unpaid interns [12,78]. Additionally, a study conducted by Zhao et al. reveals a discernible decline in the inclination of new graduates in China towards pursuing careers within the architectural sector, attributed primarily to the deterrent effect of inadequate salaries and the adverse conditions prevalent within the workplace [80].
Salary and benefits (SB) correspond to wages, bonuses, private health insurance, daycare, and overtime and significantly affect the stay in the sector. An adequate salary allows individuals to meet basic needs and work without financial stress. Insufficient salaries can lead to employees leaving their profession, undermining sector loyalty. Salary also influences a profession’s prestige; low pay for prestigious roles can lead to disappointment and decreased loyalty [81].
Salary and benefits play a significant role in professional satisfaction, and they vary by country. In Turkey, which serves as the primary locus of the present investigation, a pervasive dissatisfaction among architects vis-à-vis their professional circumstances has been documented. Extant literature reveals a notable propensity among architectural professionals to transition between employment roles, an observation substantiated by the findings of Sert, Aykaç, and Zırh [14]. Concentrating on the juncture of neoliberal urban strategies and architects’ professional and employment conditions, the research conducted by Sert, Aykaç, and Zırh [14] elucidated the prevailing dissatisfaction among junior architect interns. This discontent stems from many economic and political factors, including but not limited to labor exploitation, precarious employment conditions, and involvement in projects deemed unethical. This milieu diminishes their allegiance to the profession, culminating in a pivot towards alternative career paths [10,14,44]. Consequently, the study advances the following propositions:
H3. WCs adversely impact IS.
H5. SB adversely impacts IS.
3.3. Health and Stresses, Intention to Stay in the Sector
Health and stress (HS) refer to employees’ health conditions and stress burdens arising from the workplace, which impact career choice and intentions to stay in the sector. Employees’ health conditions and stress levels are crucial for workplace continuity and efficiency. A problematic work environment negatively affects both employees and employers [82,83,84]. Occupational health policies vary by country and geography, and stress-related issues are prevalent in neoliberal economies across professions. Physical and mental health significantly impact job performance and long-term commitment. Jobs involving prolonged standing, sitting at a table, across the computer, heavy lifting, or repetitive tasks increase the risk of occupational diseases. At the same time, excessive stress from workloads and workplace conflicts can lead to burnout [82,84].
As professional designers, architects produce work that is constantly scrutinized, criticized, compromised, and often remade. Occasional rejection and disappointment are part of the job [12]. On the other hand, construction is a high-risk sector in terms of work-related stress. Intensive working hours, expected project deliveries in a short time, deadline pressures, continuous and heavy workload, mishaps in the implementation processes, and deficits that may occur in the construction budget increase the stress levels of construction workers [12,17,72]. Although studies show that the stress levels of many construction professionals, such as construction workers, construction site managers, and engineers other than architects in the construction sector are high [17,28,29,30,31,32], Bowen, Edwards, and Lingard [32] suggested that architects are under more stress than other professionals. A similar situation is also valid for architecture students. Studies are revealing that architecture students show more stress symptoms during their education compared to students studying in other departments [25,85,86,87,88,89].
On the other hand, studies show that architecture causes many occupational diseases related to stress and working conditions. Obesity, eating disorders, circulatory disorders, and posture disorders due to hours of inactivity at the desk/computer are some of them [90,91,92,93,94]. Therefore, the study proposes the following:
H4. HS adversely impacts IS.
3.4. Ethical and Political Processes, Intention to Stay in the Sector
Ethical and political processes correspond to practices that affect the natural, historical, and social environment and significantly influence the intention to stay in the sector. Professionals are increasingly drawn to careers that resonate with their ethical values and foster positive societal contributions, enhancing their motivation and commitment [95,96]. Conversely, sectors that damage the environment or perpetuate social inequalities tend to discourage individuals, as unethical practices undermine trust and diminish pride in professions, including architecture. Ultimately, individuals assess their careers’ societal and environmental implications in conjunction with their values when contemplating their professional journeys, because practicing a profession involves what we know, how we act, and who we are as professionals [96].
Specifically, within architecture, an individual’s professional identity is profoundly influenced by their participation in various projects. This amalgamation of identity and practice is not confined to solitary cognitive processes but is deeply entrenched within the dynamic, intersubjective nexus of economic and political structures that govern professional activities [40,41,73]. One of the reasons why architecture is immune and impotent against urban politics is that it needs more technical, epistemic means to participate in and transform this arena. This deficiency relegates architectural creativity to a position where it invariably perpetuates the frameworks and criteria dictated by neoliberal market forces [10,40,97].
Hence, in contemporary times, the practice of architecture has progressively aligned itself with a market-oriented project production model, subsequently becoming a key contributor to projects with the potential to undermine the integrity of our natural, historical, and social environments [14,40]. It has become inevitable for architects working in architectural firms to take part in such projects, and there is a socio-economic climate in which those uncomfortable with this either lose their jobs or cannot progress in the profession [14]. Given these considerations, the current study posits the following hypothesis for examination:
H6. EPs have a statistically significant effect on IS.
3.5. Authorities and Responsibilities, Intention to Stay in the Sector
Authorities and responsibilities directly correspond to an individual’s position, role, and influence in the profession, significantly impacting intentions to remain in a sector. Employees generally expect their responsibilities to align with their authority. When decision-making power is lacking, it can lead to frustration and reduced commitment. Furthermore, unclear responsibilities can create role confusion, diminish job satisfaction, and drive individuals away from their field. Thus, achieving a balanced distribution of authority and responsibility is crucial for promoting employee value and effectiveness [98,99,100].
Architects are at the steering wheel from the design stage of a building until it is built and put into use. Because among modern design professionals, architects assume most of the responsibility for building production and are legally responsible to the client and the public for their proper fulfillment [12]. While this authority enables architects to have more say in project and decision-making processes, it also poses a risk in terms of legal responsibility. For example, other professions, such as electrical and mechanical engineering, avoid such general responsibilities and prefer to avoid clients’ wrath as consultants [101].
On the other hand, while no building can be created without the services of an architect authorized by the state to take responsibility for the health and safety of the public, the architect’s work is often defined and paid for like any other lowest-cost commodity in the construction supply chain [78]. Ultimately, the autonomy of architects is limited in various ways. For example, employers set the budget, while construction companies, engineers, and the materials industry control the building technology. Furthermore, architects within firm settings encounter markedly diminished influence and authority over projects, as strategic decisions are chiefly made by the firm’s proprietor, influenced by many external variables. Consequently, the realm of architectural professional jurisdiction has seen a constriction, prompted by diminished leverage over clientele and intensified competitive pressures from ancillary construction industry professionals such as client representatives, investors, and regulatory entities, alongside construction and project managers [14,23,102,103]. In their comprehensive 2-year research, Faoro and Merrill [103] interviewed 35 leading architects in the United States. They revealed a paradigm shift in the leadership role of architects in the construction industry. The study describes a gradual transition in which contractors, developers, and construction managers increasingly assume the traditional responsibilities of architects. In conclusion, despite the inherent centrality of the architect’s role within the profession, the current socio-political and economic landscape reveals a contested dynamic. Therefore, the study proposes the following:
H7. AR has a statistically significant effect on IS.
3.6. Conformity to Expectations, Intention to Stay in the Sector
Conformity to expectations (CE) relates to the expectations associated with NP, WCs, SB, HS, AR, and EPs and significantly impacts employees’ decision to remain in the sector. Employees seek work experiences that align with their professional goals and personal expectations. When these expectations are not met, they may be inclined to leave the sector. Therefore, the disparity between perceived and actual conditions is crucial in determining whether employees stay. Workers desire long-term development and stability; without a promising future, their loyalty to the sector can diminish. Meeting these expectations enhances job satisfaction and loyalty, increases motivation, and promotes workforce continuity [104].
Barnett [105] stated that employees are often surprised and disappointed by the difference between their expectations about the job and the reality of the job. Therefore, meeting the expectations desired by organizations will result in employees’ long-term commitment. Critical studies are showing that working and staying in a sector is in line with the expectations of the professional about that sector [104,106,107,108,109,110,111]. Many of these models utilize the expectancy approach [104,112,113]. The conformity of the job in question with expectations comes before the quality of working conditions. The expectancy approach suggests that when employees’ expectations are fulfilled, they have higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This, in turn, increases their intention to stay on the job [104,108,109,111,114,115]. As a result, if an employee’s expectations are met, they have a clear perception of their job that contributes to their long-term career. Therefore, a positive relationship exists between conformity to job expectations and long-term career commitment [114]. In this context, the study proposes the following:
H8. CE has a positive effect on IS.
4. Methodology
The study employed a quantitative research design to identify and assess the key factors that could impact the career tendencies of architecture students. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to construct a career propensity factor-intentions model, a widely accepted approach in social sciences. The research followed a multi-stage methodological framework, including identifying the research model and hypotheses, questionnaire design as a measurement tool, data collection, and statistical analysis of the collected data. The study model was built by adapting the model of Kusluvan and Kusluvan [70] to the field of architecture while also integrating insights from the works of Lewis [12], Sert, Aykaç, and Zırh [14], Lingard, Francis, and Turner [17], Nelson [26], Bowen, Edwards, and Lingard [32], Shvartzberg [40], Boyer and Mitgang [71], and Riegel and Dalllas [116]. Data were analyzed using the current Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and LISREL package programs (Figure 1).
4.1. Research Model and Hypotheses
The initial and pivotal step in establishing the study’s conceptual framework involves delineating a perspective on the dispositions of university students at large, and architecture students specifically, regarding their inclination to pursue careers within the architectural sector. In this direction, the research includes a review of the literature on the concept of attitude and attitudes towards working in the architecture sector [12,14,17,25,30,31,36,37,43,44,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,72,73,75,97,116,117,118,119,120,121].
A conceptual definition of attitudes related to the domain was formulated by drawing upon relevant literature. It represents the completion of students’ cognitive thoughts, emotions, and behavioral inclinations towards various facets of working in the architecture industry and their inclinations to pursue a career in or become part of the industry. It was essential to pinpoint the pertinent facets underlying this concept to give this definition practical applicability. A literature review encompassing job satisfaction scales across various fields, attitudes toward jobs in the architectural sector, and workforce motivations identified nine dimensions related to attitudes about working in the architectural sector. These nine dimensions, which are instrumental in defining the sphere of structure, are as follows: (1) Nature of the profession (NP), (2) Prestige (PR), (3) Working conditions (WCs), (4) Health and stress (HS), (5) Salary and benefits (SB), (6) Ethical and political processes (EPs), (7) Authorities and responsibilities (AR), (8) Conformity to expectations (CE), and (9) Intention to stay in the sector (IS).
In the process of articulation, the seminal research framework delineated by Kusluvan and Kusluvan [70] within the tourism domain has been tailored to suit the discipline of architecture. This adaptation involved a comprehensive integration and refinement of the model, underpinned by an extensive review of pertinent architectural studies. In this context, the research model used by Kusluvan and Kusluvan [70] was adapted to the external latent variables of the nature of work, physical working conditions, social status, wage and promotion opportunities [120,122], health/stress [12,17,29,30,31,72], ethical and political processes [14], authorities and responsibilities [14,23,102,103], conformity to expectations [104,108,109,111,114,115], exogenous variables, and the intention of Riegel and Dalllas [116], as well as the intention to stay in the industry, an endogenous latent variable. Accordingly, the proposed research model is shown in Figure 2.
4.2. The Sampling Framework and Data Collection
The population of the research is all 4-year undergraduate students studying architecture in Turkey in the spring semester of the 2023–2024 academic year. Data were rigorously collected from April to May 2024, utilizing an online survey method (Appendix A). The draft questionnaire and scale used were submitted to the approval of expert professors and the university ethics committee. The questionnaire was revised, and the ethics committee approval was obtained in line with the feedback. A preliminary pilot study involving 110 participants validated the comprehensibility of the survey instrument.
An essential aspect of the research is that the participants had previous internships or work experience in an architecture/construction company. Students in architecture schools have to spend between 1 and 3 months, usually in the summer, in a supervised or unsupervised architecture/construction company experience before graduation. This allows students, particularly by their third and fourth years, to accrue a minimum of two months of practical experience, enhancing their familiarity with the sector’s operational dynamics and work environments. Consequently, this question was first asked to the students in the questionnaire forms, and those who responded positively could continue the survey.
Due to limitations in both time and budget, it was deemed impractical to encompass the entire research population; therefore, a decision was made to establish a sample group. Specifically, it was determined that a minimum of 384 participants would be required to achieve statistically valid results for a finite population [123,124]. An online questionnaire was employed to ensure a more representative sampling across the nation rather than concentrating on a single urban area. This survey successfully collected responses from 47 universities across Turkey, including 28 state universities and 19 foundation universities (refer to Appendix B). In executing this study, collaborations were established with faculty members from various architecture schools across Turkey, who were asked for assistance in distributing and completing the questionnaire. Additionally, the Chamber of Architects (TMMOB), a respected professional organization with many student members, was contacted to help promote the questionnaire among its affiliates. Following these efforts, 419 completed questionnaires were collected and subjected to thorough analysis for this research.
4.3. Data Collection Tool
The survey employed for data collection within this research comprises three distinct sections. The initial section of the survey encompasses statements aimed at ascertaining the demographic attributes of the respondents. Subsequently, the second section integrates multiple-choice items to evaluate the respondents’ perceptions concerning employment within the architectural sector. The final section of the research is composed of items based on the Likert scale, which serves as the principal structural component of the questionnaire. The responses to these statements were elicited utilizing a seven-point Likert scale, which spans from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree, facilitating a nuanced assessment of attitudes.
As illustrated in Table 1, the scale employed in this study was formulated by synthesizing the literature on architectural careers with the theoretical framework established by Kusluvan and Kusluvan [70]. This integration aims to provide a robust foundation for analyzing the complexities of professional trajectories within architecture.
5. Results
In the findings phase of the study, the collected data were tabulated and interpreted through descriptive statistics. In the continuation of the analysis, the validity and reliability analysis findings of the statements on the scale were examined. Another stage of the analysis is factor analysis. Explanatory and confirmatory factors were performed on the data collected in the study, respectively. As a result of the analyses, nine factors were identified. Based on the studies in the literature, the factors were named as the nature of the profession, prestige, working conditions, health and stress, salary and benefits, authority and responsibilities, and intention to stay in the sector [12,14,17,26,32,40,70,71,116]. In the last stage of the analysis, multiple relationships between factors were examined by structural equation modeling, and hypotheses were tested [125].
5.1. Findings on Demographic Characteristics of Participants
The demographic characteristics of the study’s participants are outlined in Table 2. The majority were female, accounting for 69.7% of participants, compared to 30.3% who were male. A notable proportion, 63.5%, fell within the age range of 21–23 years. The subsequent age groups, 24–26 years, 27 years and above, and 18–20 years, comprised 26.3%, 5.3%, and 5% of the study population, respectively. Regarding academic standing, 59.9% of participants were in their fourth year of architectural education, 22.7% in their fifth year or beyond, 14.1% in their third year, 3.1% in their second year, and 0.2% in their first year. When it comes to grade point averages (GPAs), the majority (37.5%) fell within the 70–80 range out of 100, followed by 29.4% in the 80–90 range, 19.1% in the 60–70 range, 7.4% in the 90–100 range, and 6.7% in the 0–60 range. Regarding industry experience, 77.6% of participants had less than 1 year of experience, 16% had 1–2 years of experience, and 6.4% had 3 or more years of experience.
5.2. Findings on Frequency Range
During the initial phase of the survey, participants answered a series of general multiple-choice questions. After carefully analyzing the data, it became clear that 70.4% of the students surveyed were primarily motivated to pursue a career in architecture due to the nature of the profession. This motivation overshadowed other factors such as prestige (19.3%), working conditions (7.2%), and compensatory benefits (3.1%). The study also revealed that students were concerned about encountering obstacles in their professional careers, mainly related to remuneration and ancillary benefits (36.8%), as well as health and stress implications (32.2%). More minor concerns included working conditions (18.4%), ethical and political challenges (6.4%), and the burdens of authority and responsibility (6.2%). Furthermore, the investigation shed light on the factors influencing students’ perceptions of the construction industry. It was found that internship opportunities and practical work experiences had the most significant influence, shaping the perspectives of 53% of respondents. This was followed by interactions with academic personnel (16.4%), engagement with professional acquaintances (12%), exposure to architectural media (12%), and the influence of social media platforms (6.6%), as outlined in Table 3 of the study findings.
5.3. Construct Validity and Reliability Analysis Findings
Evaluating the robustness of data gathered for scholarly inquiries is of paramount importance. Cronbach’s alpha [126] emerges as a pivotal metric in assessing scale items’ coherence, marking its prominence in reliability criteria. Predominantly applied to Likert-scale constructs, this analytical approach is instrumental in elucidating or scrutinizing the uniformity embedded within scale statements [127]. Commencing reliability analysis and other pertinent scale examinations necessitated the inverse coding of negatively poised statements within the scale employing SPSS software. After this procedural step, the reliability analysis outcomes were examined (refer to Table 4), culminating in identifying the scale’s reliability coefficient (α) as 0.912. The range of the α coefficient spans from 0 to 1, with 0.7 delineated as the minimal threshold for acceptable reliability [126,127]. Accordingly, the attained value unequivocally signifies the scale’s exemplary reliability, affirming its appropriateness for factor analysis [128].
5.4. Factor Analysis Findings
In the analytical research stage, factor analysis emerges as an essential method for elucidating the complex interrelationships among variables, aiming to unveil latent structures within the data. This approach endeavors to decrease the dimensionality of the dataset, allowing for the discovery of previously unrecognized structural interdependences [118]. Consequently, the dataset initially underwent exploratory factor analysis, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis phase, ensuring a robust examination of the inferred structures.
When the explanatory factor analysis findings in Table 5 are analyzed, it is seen that the research model and the literature identified nine factors. This nine-factor structure explains 72.5% of the total variance. The nine factors obtained as a result of the analysis were named as follows by the literature [12,14,17,26,32,40,70,71,116]:
Nature of profession
Prestige
Working conditions
Health and stresses
Salary and benefits
Ethical and political processes
Authorities and responsibilities
Conformity to expectation
Intention to stay in the sector
The measurement model’s factors were assessed using standardized factor loadings (SL), Cronbach’s alpha (CA), and average variance explained (AVE) values, which are presented in Table 5. The SL values exceeded 0.50 and were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The CA and AVE values also surpassed 0.70 and 0.50, respectively, indicating the reliability of the measurement model.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was executed after the exploratory factor analysis to scrutinize the interrelations among the predetermined constructs, as depicted in Figure 3. The CFA represents a crucial phase in validating the measurement model and involves thoroughly evaluating various fit indices to ascertain the appropriateness of the model under consideration (see, Table 6). For this purpose, a comprehensive assessment of fit indices, including the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Chi-Square (CMIN/DF), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and Relative Fit Index (RFI), was undertaken. These indices were examined based on ten standard fit measures extensively recognized within the scholarly discourse [129]. The analysis, detailed in Table 7, revealed that the model exhibited an RMSEA value of 0.054 and a Chi-Square (χ2) value of 1552.02, with the χ2/DF ratio calculated as 1552.02/704 = 2.20. Indicators such as χ2/DF, CFI, and IFI demonstrated a satisfactory fit, whereas indices including RMSEA, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), NFI, NNFI, and RFI indicated an acceptable fit. Conversely, measures such as AGFI and GFI denoted a less desirable fit. Predominantly, eight out of the ten assessed indices revealed the model to exhibit either an acceptable or excellent fit, thereby substantiating the notion that the proposed model accords a commendable fit with the empirical data [125,130,131,132].
5.5. Structural Equation Modeling Findings
In the subsequent research phase, the empirical validation of the research hypotheses was conducted to affirm the conceptual framework’s congruence, as delineated in Table 7. Prior discourses concerning the adequacy of fit indices pertinent to the proposed framework unequivocally affirmed its validity (referenced in Figure 4). These discussions ascertained that the framework competes with the empirical data, satisfying the requisites for a credible structural model [129].
Analyses about path coefficients, presented in Table 8, reveal that NP (γ = 0.22, p < 0.01) and PR (γ = 0.30, p < 0.01) exert a statistically significant predictive influence on IS. Preceding this, it is elucidated that IS is influenced by both WCs (γ = −0.14, p < 0.01) and HS (γ = −0.17, p < 0.01). The structural equation modeling further indicates that SB (γ = −0.16, p < 0.01) and EPs (γ = −0.20, p < 0.01) bear a negative predictive relationship with IS. Additionally, both AR (γ = 0.26, p < 0.01) and CE (γ = 0.28, p < 0.01) are demonstrated to possess a significant positive effect on IS.
The CFA findings confirm that the study model shows a good fit, the assessed study variable relationships are significant, and the construct validity of the study is solid. Furthermore, the study model explains variances of 0.22 and 0.30 in user NP and PR. These values confirm the theoretical basis of the study model. In addition, statistical evidence also confirms the critical role of AR and CE. For example, IS explains 0.21 of the variances in AR and 0.28 of the variances in CE. Furthermore, the study model confirmed that WCs explain 0.14, HS explains 0.13, SB explains 0.16, and EPs explain 0.20 of the decrease in CI. Finally, path coefficients supported all proposed hypotheses (see Table 8).
5.6. Hypothesis Test Results
When looking at Table 8, all hypotheses (H1 to H8) for the study are confirmed. From the data, if people think positively about NP, they are slightly more likely (by 0.22 points) to intend to IS. Likewise, better thoughts about PR will increase their intention to IS by 0.30 points. Thinking better of AR and CE increases the intention to IS by 0.26 and 0.28 points, respectively. However, if people view WCs negatively, their intent to IS drops by 0.14 points, and negative opinions about HS, SB, and EPs also lower their intention to IS by 0.17, 0.16, and 0.20 points, respectively.
H1–H2: NP-PR → IS. The study’s findings reveal that NP positively affects IS (H1) and PR affects IS (H2). These support the previous findings of Boyer and Mitgang [71]. Also, Deamer [38] and Lewis [12] associated IS with NP since the profession has an important role in shaping the built environment and has a strong social aspect. On the other hand, as in the cases of Boyer and Mitgang [71] and Nelson [26], NP and PR positively influence the choice of the profession and intention to stay in the sector. In general, these results reveal that NP and PR positively affect architecture students’ preference for the profession and their intention to stay in the sector.
H3–H5: WCs-SB → IS. The analyses show that WCs (H3) and SB (H4) predict IS. These findings are also consistent with those of Lewis [12], Sert, Aykaç, and Zırh [14], Bernstein [78], Zhao, De Angelis, and Ma [80], and Bernstein [133], who argued that WCs and SB negatively affect architecture students’ intention to continue in the industry due to long working hours, low salaries, and a high probability of facing labor exploitation.
H4: HS → IS. The study’s findings revealed that HS significantly affects IS (H4). Previous researchers such as Lingard, Francis, and Turner [17], Ng, Skitmore, and Leung [28], Love, Edwards, and Irani [29], Chan, Leung, and Yuan [30], and Nwaogu, Chan, Hon, and Darko [31] have shown that working in the construction industry places a significant stress burden on people. Bowen, Edwards, and Lingard [32] revealed that architects are under more stress than other stakeholders in the construction industry. As Gümüşburun Ayalp and Çivici [25] and Anthony [85] revealed, this situation is also valid for architecture students. On the other hand, studies and data show that the profession opens the door to many other health problems besides stress [90,91,92,93,94]. Therefore, considering the conditions in the construction sector, it is possible to say that the intention of architecture students to stay in the sector in terms of health and stress tends to be negative.
H6: EPs → IS. The study’s findings revealed that EPs significantly influence IS (H6). These findings are in line with Sert, Aykaç, and Zırh [14], who argued that there is a socio-economic environment in the construction industry, where architects who are forced to take part in ethically problematic projects either lose their jobs or cannot progress in the profession if they are uncomfortable with this and voice it. These results are important because only a few studies on IAS are related to EP.
H7: AR → IS. According to the analyses, AR predicts IS (H7). These findings are consistent with Banham [101], who suggested that AR enables architects to have more say in project and decision-making processes but also poses a risk in terms of legal liability. The study is also consistent with Faoro and Merrill [103], who suggested a paradigm shift in the leadership role of developers in the construction industry. These results are important because only a few studies on IAS are related to AR.
H8: CE → IS. The study’s findings revealed that CE positively affects IS (H1). These findings align with Chinomona [114], who suggested a positive relationship between conformity to job expectations and long-term career commitment. These results are important because only a few studies on IAS are related to CE.
6. Discussion and Future Research
Architecture has long been esteemed for its capacity to blend creativity with social utility and the prestige associated with the profession. Nonetheless, in the 21st century, the discipline faces considerable challenges due to the impacts of neoliberal economic policies. These policies have led to a contraction in the professional scope, an oversaturation of graduates, and a marked decline in remuneration and working conditions for architects. This concern is reflected in the career choices of architecture students [14,17,32,78]. Consequently, this study created a robust model to examine how NP, PR, WCs, HS, SB, EPs, AR, and CE affect IS in the career orientations of architecture students. Accordingly, the research synthesized the frameworks of attitude and the TPB, employing SEM as the methodology for the analysis.
Following the established scholarly discourse, this research delineates that students pursuing architecture are predominantly influenced by NP and PR in their career choices. Conversely, factors such as WCs, HS, SB, and EPs have a negative impact on these students’ determination to remain within the architectural field. This phenomenon underlines the argument that AR fosters a favorable disposition amongst students when it aligns with their anticipations. Furthermore, the findings of this investigation confirm that despite the deterrent effects of WCs, HS, SB, and EPs on IS, compliance with CE significantly retains students’ inclination towards a sustained engagement within the sector. An imperative finding from this research provides nuanced insights into the students’ conduct amidst unfavorable occupational circumstances. More precisely, it unravels that students generally harbor a negative perception of the architectural sector, predominantly shaped by their internship and office experiences, alongside the narratives construed by social media and architectural journalism.
Nonetheless, NP and PR act as compelling motivators for students to persevere in the industry. The belief that enduring the strenuous initial conditions will result in a more secure professional trajectory further influences their persistence within the sector. This diligence might also be partly attributed to the limited alternative career paths available to these graduates. Lastly, akin to contributions from preceding research, this study presents several implications, offering a broader comprehension of architectural students’ behavioral patterns in response to challenging occupational dynamics.
6.1. Theoretical Implications
As mentioned in the previous literature review, the literature on architectural students’ career intentions and goals to stay in the sector is still in its infancy, and the number of related studies continues to increase. Therefore, in this study, we tried to give more space to the concept of IAS by considering various aspects of architecture students such as NP, PR, WCs, HS, SB, EPs, AR, and CE. The study model is essential in providing a pathway for different frameworks to examine IAS impacts, especially in developing countries.
In addition, given the need for studies on architecture students’ intentions to stay in the industry, this study provides insights into more efficient implementation of the IAS in Turkey and worldwide. This study draws attention to the behavioral intentions of architecture students in Turkey for the first time, as Turkey is culturally diverse and more and more architecture graduates are moving toward different sectors [14]. The study’s findings show that the NP and PR attract architecture students in Turkey. However, their behavioral intention to continue in the sector decreases due to the WC and SB. These findings have important implications regarding understanding what students expect from the construction sector, their satisfaction, what factors affect their short-term experiences, and how they behave in a risky environment.
This research constitutes a seminal contribution to the extant body of literature by synthesizing two theoretical frameworks. Given the distinct constructs of the intention to remain within a particular industry and career orientation, it is evident that career decision-making processes are significantly shaped by the interplay of experiential and perceptual factors [34]. In this vein, this study integrates the concept of attitude with the TPB to concurrently and individually examine these variables within the purview of architecture students’ career decision-making processes, substantiating the validity of this theoretical amalgamation [34,68,69]. Therefore, this investigation notably advances IAS literature by demonstrating that the strategic confluence of attitude and TPB represents an efficacious methodological framework for researching architecture students’ career choice dynamics.
6.2. Study Limitations and Future Research
While the research endeavors to broaden the conceptual understanding of IAS within the Turkish context, providing novel insights, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations accompanying its methodology and scope. The study’s reliance on a cross-sectional research design makes it hard to verify causal relationships among the variables under investigation. Future research should adopt longitudinal methodologies, which may better facilitate the exploration of temporal dynamics and causal inferences. Data were collected through convenience sampling, targeting architecture students in Turkey online. This approach may limit the generalizability of the findings, raising questions about their applicability across varied settings, cultural contexts, and various periods due to potential biases inherent in the sampling method.
The population for this research comprises architecture students in Turkey. Nevertheless, the role of civil engineering within the construction sector is significant and cannot be overlooked, thereby establishing a boundary for the scope of this study. However, given the distinct educational pathways and career opportunities in architecture and civil engineering, individuals in these fields were excluded from the sample. Although including interdisciplinary education, such as architecture and engineering, might have enriched the research framework, the lack of such undergraduate programs and corresponding professional designations in Turkey necessitated their exclusion from the research universe.
Additionally, the variables selected for this study were constrained to NP, PR, WCs, HS, SB, EPs, AR, and CE to maintain study feasibility. It is recommended that future research in this area include alternative variables such as sectoral proximity, economic status, and the inclusion of diverse samples (including women and recent graduates) to enhance the depth of the research findings.
7. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
7.1. Conclusions
This study investigates the mechanisms underlying the intentions of architecture students to stay in the construction industry, focusing on the roles of attitude in this regard. Applying the TPB framework, we examined the effects of NP, PR, WCs, HS, SB, EPs, AR, and CE on the attitude–intention–behavior pathway. These findings contribute to a better understanding of students’ intentions to stay in the construction industry (IS).
When the research findings were analyzed (Figure 5), the data showed that the variable that most affected the participants’ intention to stay in the sector was perceptions toward prestige (t = 4.94 ***; p < 0.010). Accordingly, a one-unit increase in the participants’ perceived prestige increases their intention to stay in the sector by 0.30 units. In other words, their relationships regarding the profession’s prestige are of great importance to their intention to stay in the sector. In addition, it was determined that the participant’s intention to continue in the sector positively affected their perceptions towards conformity to expectations (t = 3.49 **; p < 0.010), the nature of the profession (t = 2.83 **; p < 0.010), and their authorities and responsibilities (t = 3.26 **; p < 0.010).
Another finding obtained from the research is that the participants’ perceptions of ethical and political processes in the construction sector negatively affect their intention to stay in the sector (t = −2.80 ***; p < 0.010). Accordingly, a one-unit increase in the ethical and political processes perceived by the participants from the construction sector decreases their intention to stay in the sector by 0.20 units. The research was measured with the statement that the construction industry is related to ethical and political processes. The negative correlation between these statements and the intention to stay in the sector reveals that the participants’ perceptions of ethical and political processes in the construction sector are an important obstacle to staying in the sector.
7.2. Policy Recommendations
The contributions of this research extend beyond theoretical discourse, offering tangible, practical implications for a broad array of stakeholders, including sectoral entities, professional bodies, educational institutions in architecture, policymakers, and the Council of Higher Education. The empirical findings of this study substantiate that WCs, HS, SB, and EPs exert a detrimental impact on IS within the architectural profession. Notably, WCs and SB are identified as primary factors predisposing architecture students toward career shifts.
Employers must better align with architects’ expectations, significantly enhancing IS through mitigating perceived risks associated with transition across sectors. Achieving this objective necessitates improving working conditions, establishing regular working hours, guaranteeing competitive remuneration, and providing access to comprehensive benefits.
Reducing stress levels and avoiding involvement in ethically contentious projects would bolster employees’ allegiance to their employing institution and the broader architectural vocation. Responsibility does not solely reside with employers; sectoral strategy must also evolve. Particularly pertinent is the oversupply of architects in Turkey, as evidenced by the current numbers surpassing the actual demand. In this context, the Council of Higher Education should continue its quota reduction strategy beyond 2024. Such an approach would facilitate a restoration of equilibrium between supply and demand, which, in turn, is anticipated to influence wage structures positively. Therefore, this study underscores the intricate interplay between educational policies, professional satisfaction, and market dynamics within the architectural sector, elucidating a multidimensional strategy to address systemic issues and individual discontent.
Finally, the study’s findings show that despite negative factors in WCs, HS, SB, and EPs, IS increases when conformity to expectations (CE) is created for these conditions. Therefore, it is imperative to fortify the nexus between architectural educational institutions and professional bodies, assure ongoing enlightenment of students as well as nascent professionals about the multifaceted nature of the architectural realm, and embark on initiatives aimed at adequately equipping them for the intricacies of the sector. Furthermore, increasing the transparency of operational processes will strengthen the commitment to the profession.
Methodology, E.D.; Formal analysis, E.D.; Investigation, E.D. and S.C.H.; Resources, E.D. and S.C.H.; Data curation, E.D.; Writing—original draft, E.D.; Writing—review & editing, E.D.; Visualization, E.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy policies.
The authors wish to thank Yasin Emre Oğuz for his assistance regarding statistical analysis. We would like to express our gratitude to Türkan Nihan Hacıömeroğlu, Melih Kamaoğlu, and Tuğba Ayas Önol for their meticulous reviews.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 2. Proposed research model: the factors determining the intention of architecture students to stay in the sector. Source: [12,14,17,23,26,29,30,31,32,40,70,71,72,73,102,103,116].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/XXwib?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=Z0T4k2Rv9EL91MbwLpPo3BnxTeM%3D "View Image - Figure 2. Proposed research model: the factors determining the intention of architecture students to stay in the sector. Source: [12,14,17,23,26,29,30,31,32,40,70,71,72,73,102,103,116].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Proposed research model: the factors determining the intention of architecture students to stay in the sector. Source: [12,14,17,23,26,29,30,31,32,40,70,71,72,73,102,103,116].
Factors affecting the intention of architecture students to stay in the sector.
| Factor | Correspond/Reason | References |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Nature of profession (NP) | Creative thinking, labor-intensive, teamwork, interdisciplinary, technical know-how, all-round thinking, exciting works | [ |
| (2) Prestige (PR) | Respectability in society, awards, recognition, social status | [ |
| (3) Working conditions (WCs) | Working hours, working spaces, working equipment, workplace hygiene, workplace condor, occupational safety | [ |
| (4) Health and stress (HS) | Occupational diseases, stress load, project delivery deadline | [ |
| (5) Salary and benefits (SB) | Wage, bonus, right to overtime, private health insurance, creche | [ |
| (6) Ethical and political processes (EPs) | Damage to the natural environment, social environment, and historical environment | [ |
| (7) Authorities and responsibilities (AR) | The role of the architect in the sector, manager–employee responsibility relationship, responsibility of the architect in the sector | [ |
| (8) Conformity to expectation (CE) | In accordance with the NP, PR, WCs, HS, SB, EP, and AR | [ |
| (9) Intention to stay in the sector (IS) | career goals, commitment to the profession | [ |
Demographic characteristics.
| Demographic Profile | Freq. (N = 419) | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 292 | 69.7 |
| Male | 127 | 30.3 |
| Age | ||
| Between 18 and 20 years old | 21 | 5 |
| Between 21 and 23 years old | 266 | 63.5 |
| Between 24 and 26 years old | 110 | 26.3 |
| 27 years old and older | 22 | 5.2 |
| Student Period | ||
| 1 year | 1 | 0.2 |
| 2 years | 13 | 3.1 |
| 3 years | 59 | 14.1 |
| 4 years | 251 | 59.9 |
| 5 years and more | 95 | 22.7 |
| Grade average | ||
| 0–60 | 28 | 6.7 |
| 60–70 | 80 | 19.1 |
| 70–80 | 157 | 37.5 |
| 80–90 | 123 | 29.4 |
| 90–100 | 31 | 7 |
| Length of Experience in the Sector | ||
| Less than 1 year | 325 | 77.6 |
| Between 1 and 2 years | 67 | 16 |
| More than 2 years | 27 | 6.4 |
| Overall | 419 | 100 |
Findings on the frequency range.
| Questions and Options | Freq. | % |
|---|---|---|
| What motivates you the most in the profession of architecture? | ||
| Nature of profession | 295 | 70.4 |
| Prestige | 81 | 19.3 |
| Salary and benefits | 13 | 3.1 |
| Working conditions | 30 | 7.2 |
| Which is the most common problem in the profession of architecture? | ||
| Working conditions | 77 | 18.4 |
| Health and stresses | 135 | 32.2 |
| Salary and benefits | 154 | 36.8 |
| Ethical and political processes | 27 | 6.4 |
| Authority and responsibilities | 26 | 6.2 |
| Which of the following has had the most influence on shaping your opinion about the construction sector? | ||
| Internship/work experience | 222 | 53 |
| Instructors | 69 | 16.4 |
| Architecture media | 50 | 12 |
| Social media | 28 | 6.6 |
| Acquaintances from the sector | 50 | 12 |
| Overall | 419 | 100 |
Reliability analysis findings.
| Factors | Mean | Standard Deviation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of profession 1 | 6.4391 | 1.06398 | 0.909 |
| Nature of profession 2 | 6.3174 | 1.15206 | 0.910 |
| Nature of profession 3 | 5.6849 | 1.36639 | 0.910 |
| Nature of profession 4 | 6.0644 | 1.20531 | 0.910 |
| Nature of profession 5 | 6.2649 | 1.07783 | 0.909 |
| Nature of profession 6 | 6.2124 | 1.09161 | 0.909 |
| Nature of profession 7 | 6.0644 | 1.20729 | 0.910 |
| Nature of profession 8 | 6.0239 | 1.20183 | 0.909 |
| Prestige 1 | 5.2840 | 1.51957 | 0.909 |
| Prestige 2 | 4.4391 | 1.53211 | 0.909 |
| Prestige 3 | 4.1193 | 1.65147 | 0.909 |
| Prestige 4 | 4.8807 | 1.51392 | 0.910 |
| Working conditions 1 | 3.3007 | 1.44609 | 0.910 |
| Working conditions 2 | 3.5465 | 1.41746 | 0.910 |
| Working conditions 3 | 3.9093 | 1.33283 | 0.911 |
| Working conditions 4 | 3.9833 | 1.34563 | 0.911 |
| Working conditions 5 | 5.8950 | 1.30088 | 0.911 |
| Working conditions 6 | 5.7876 | 1.48686 | 0.911 |
| Working conditions 7 | 5.1098 | 1.59316 | 0.912 |
| Health and stresses 1 | 6.1432 | 1.24836 | 0.911 |
| Health and stresses 2 | 5.7375 | 1.39473 | 0.911 |
| Health and stresses 3 | 5.3341 | 1.59486 | 0.912 |
| Health and stresses 4 | 6.1026 | 1.26092 | 0.911 |
| Salary and benefits 1 | 2.4463 | 1.39851 | 0.912 |
| Salary and benefits 2 | 2.6253 | 1.48692 | 0.912 |
| Salary and benefits 3 | 3.2816 | 1.58851 | 0.911 |
| Salary and benefits 4 | 3.5895 | 1.66974 | 0.911 |
| Ethical and political processes 1 | 5.1671 | 1.72257 | 0.911 |
| Ethical and political processes 2 | 4.8329 | 1.85368 | 0.912 |
| Ethical and political processes 3 | 4.8210 | 1.84156 | 0.912 |
| Ethical and political processes 4 | 4.8282 | 1.79688 | 0.912 |
| Authorizations and responsibilities 1 | 4.9809 | 1.48988 | 0.911 |
| Authorizations and responsibilities 2 | 5.4606 | 1.49809 | 0.909 |
| Authorizations and responsibilities 3 | 5.7279 | 1.41842 | 0.909 |
| Conformity to expectation 1 | 2.7184 | 1.66642 | 0.911 |
| Conformity to expectation 2 | 2.8974 | 1.61526 | 0.911 |
| Conformity to expectation 3 | 3.2792 | 1.70303 | 0.910 |
| Conformity to expectation 4 | 2.8305 | 1.60514 | 0.911 |
| Conformity to expectation 5 | 3.2816 | 1.69630 | 0.910 |
| Intention to stay in the sector 1 | 5.1957 | 0.87982 | 0.909 |
| Intention to stay in the sector 2 | 5.0549 | 1.76200 | 0.909 |
| Intention to stay in the sector 3 | 5.1766 | 1.72439 | 0.909 |
| Intention to stay in the sector 4 | 4.3890 | 1.88395 | 0.912 |
| Reliability of the scale | 0.912 |
Source: Created by authors.
Construct reliability and variance explained findings.
| Factors | SL | CA | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of profession (NP) | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.63 | |
| 0.83 | ||||
| 0.81 | ||||
| 0.71 | ||||
| 0.79 | ||||
| 0.71 | ||||
| 0.86 | ||||
| 0.78 | ||||
| 0.75 | ||||
| Prestige (PR) | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.55 | |
| 0.77 | ||||
| 0.74 | ||||
| 0.74 | ||||
| 0.72 | ||||
| Working conditions (WCs) | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.62 | |
| 0.86 | ||||
| 0.89 | ||||
| 0.70 | ||||
| 0.72 | ||||
| Salary and benefits (SB) | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.63 | |
| 0.85 | ||||
| 0.93 | ||||
| 0.70 | ||||
| 0.73 | ||||
| Health and stress (HS) | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.72 | |
| 0.87 | ||||
| 0.85 | ||||
| 0.71 | ||||
| 0.81 | ||||
| Ethical and political processes (EPs) | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.72 | |
| 81 | ||||
| 80 | ||||
| 88 | ||||
| 90 | ||||
| Authorizations and responsibilities (AR) | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.70 | |
| 0.79 | ||||
| 0.83 | ||||
| 0.92 | ||||
| Conformity to expectation (CE) | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0,69 | |
| 0.82 | ||||
| 0.86 | ||||
| 0.81 | ||||
| 0.85 | ||||
| 0.82 | ||||
| Intention to stay in the sector (IS) | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.68 | |
| 0.82 | ||||
| 0.93 | ||||
| 0.79 | ||||
| 0.76 |
Note: SL: standardized factor loads; CA: Cronbach alpha; CR: composite reliability. Source: Created by authors.
Explanatory factor analysis results.
| Statements | Factor Loadings | % of Variance | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of Profession | |||
| 1. All-round thinking | 0.81 | 14.547 | 0.93 |
| 2. Creative thinking | 0.81 | ||
| 3. Artistic perspective | 0.61 | ||
| 4. Team work | 0.77 | ||
| 5. Interdisciplinary work | 0.82 | ||
| 6. Visual communication skills | 0.83 | ||
| 7. Exciting works | 0.78 | ||
| 8. Mastery of technological developments | 0.69 | ||
| Prestige | |||
| 9. Prestige | 0.60 | 9.764 | 0.83 |
| 10. Respectability in society | 0.68 | ||
| 11. Being recognized by everyone | 0.76 | ||
| 12. Gaining recognition by winning awards in competitions | 0.69 | ||
| Working Conditions | |||
| 13. Physical working conditions | 0.66 | 9.764 | 0.86 |
| 14. Comfort of working spaces | 0.70 | ||
| 15. Adequacy of working equipment | 0.72 | ||
| 16. Workplace hygiene | 0.76 | ||
| Health and Stresses | |||
| 20. Project delivery stress | 0.78 | 9.462 | 0.91 |
| 21. Working hours and health relationship | 0.82 | ||
| 22. Occupational diseases | 0.77 | ||
| 23. Stress load | 0.76 | ||
| Salary and Benefits | |||
| 24. Adequacy of wages | 0.80 | 7.366 | 0.87 |
| 25. Wage benchmark with other sectors | 0.80 | ||
| 26. Right to overtime | 0.75 | ||
| 27. Fringe benefits (private health insurance, bonuses, premiums, etc.) | 0.65 | ||
| Ethical and Political Processes | |||
| 28. Projects that may damage the natural environment | 0.98 | 7.159 | 0.971 |
| 29. Projects that may damage the historical environment | 0.97 | ||
| 30. Projects that may harm the social environment | 0.97 | ||
| 31. The relationship between an objection to unethical projects and job continuity | 0.85 | ||
| Authorizations and Responsibilities | |||
| 32. Manager–employee responsibility relationship | 0.65 | 6.768 | 0.70 |
| 33. The role of the architect in the sector | 0.76 | ||
| 34. Responsibility of the architect in the sector | 0.78 | ||
| Conformity to Expectation | |||
| 35. In accordance with the salary expectation | 0.75 | 5.990 | 0.92 |
| 36. Working conditions in accordance with expectations | 0.81 | ||
| 37. Ethically appropriate to the expectation | 0.81 | ||
| 38. In line with expectations in terms of health/stress | 0.81 | ||
| 39. In accordance with the expectation of authority and responsibility | 0.84 | ||
| Intention to Stay in the Sector | |||
| 40. Objective to work in the architecture sector | 0.80 | 5.044 | 0.89 |
| 41. The goal of working in the architectural sector for many years | 0.84 | ||
| 42. The contribution of working in the sector to career | 0.72 | ||
| 43. Determination about career plan after graduation | 0.58 | ||
| Total Variance Explained | 72.487 |
Source: Created by authors.
Fit indices.
| Fitness Indices | Good Fit Values | Recommended Fit Values | Measurement Model | Fit Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| x2/df | 0 ≤ x2/df ≤ 3 | 2 ≤ x2/df ≤ 5 | 2.20 | High |
| RMSEA | 0 ≤ RMSEA ˂ 0.05 | 0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.10 | 0.054 | Acceptable |
| SRMR | 0 ≤ SRMR ˂ 0.05 | 0.05 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.10 | 0.058 | Acceptable |
| AGFI | 0.90 ˂ AGFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.85 ≤ AGFI ≤ 0.90 | 0.82 | Low |
| CFI | 0.97 ˂ CFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.95 ≤ CFI ≤ 0.97 | 0.97 | High |
| GFI | 0.95 ˂ GFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.90 ≤ GFI ≤ 0.95 | 0.84 | Low |
| NFI | 0.95 ˂ NFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.90 ≤ NFI ≤ 0.95 | 0.94 | Acceptable |
| NNFI | 0.97 ˂ NNFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.95 ≤ NNFI ≤ 0.97 | 0.96 | Acceptable |
| IFI | 0.95 ˂ IFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.90 ≤ IFI ≤ 0.95 | 0.97 | High |
| RFI | 0.95 ˂ RFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.90 ≤ RFI ≤ 0.95 | 0.94 | Acceptable |
Source: Adapted from Molenaar et al. (2000) [
Hypothesis.
| Hypothesis | Path Coefficient | t-Value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: NP→IS | +0.22 | 2.83 *** | Supported |
| H2: PR→IS | +0.30 | 4.21 *** | Supported |
| H3: WC→IS | −0.14 | −2.38 ** | Supported |
| H4: HS→ IS | −0.17 | −2.67 *** | Supported |
| H5: SB→ IS | −0.16 | −2.63 *** | Supported |
| H6: EP→ IS | −0.20 | −2.80 *** | Supported |
| H7: AR→ IS | +0.26 | 3.26 *** | Supported |
| H8: CE→ IS | +0.28 | 3.49 *** | Supported |
*** p < 0.010 (t > 2.58); ** p < 0.050 (t > 1.96). Source: Created by authors.
Appendix A
Summary of the survey instrument.
| Factors | Survey Questions (7-Point Likert Scale) | Source |
|---|---|---|
| (NP) | Most of the works in the architectural sector are often exciting. | [ |
| The profession of architecture requires a predisposition to teamwork. | ||
| (PR) | The profession of architecture is prestigious. | [ |
| (WC) | Working hours in the architecture sector negatively affect work efficiency. | [ |
| (HS) | Project delivery stress in the construction sector negatively affects health. | [ |
| (SB) | Salaries of employees in the architecture sector are sufficient. | [ |
| (EP) | The architecture profession can participate in projects that may damage the natural environment. | [ |
| (AR) | In the construction sector, managers authorize employees. | [ |
| (CE) | After graduation, I can find a job suitable for my salary expectations. | [ |
| (IS) | I plan to work in the architecture sector after graduation. | [ |
Source: Created by authors.
Appendix B
List of the universities collected data.
| Type of Universities | Name of Universities |
|---|---|
| State Universities (28) | Akdeniz University |
| Foundation Universities (19) | Antalya Bilim University |
References
1. Ching, F.; Jarzombek, M.; Prakash, V. A Global History of Architecture; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017.
2. Frampton, K. Architecture and Public World; Bloomsbury Academic: New York, NY, USA, 2024.
3. Esperdy, G. Review: 194x: Architecture, Planning, and Consumer Culture on the American Homefront, by Andrew M. Shanken. J. Soc. Archit. Hist.; 2010; 69, pp. 455-456.
4. Cuff, D. Architecture: The Story of Practice; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.
5. Jolliffe, E.; Crosby, P. Architect: The Evolving Story of a Profession; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2023.
6. Frampton, K. Labour, Work and Architecture: Collected Essays on Architecture and Design; Phadion Press: London, UK, 2002.
7. Karslıoğlu, A.; Alkayış, M.H.; Balaban, E.; Onur, M.I. Socio-Economic Effects of Covid-19 on Construction Sector in Turkey. Sak. Univ. J. Sci.; 2023; 27, pp. 247-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.1056858]
8. Yamak, N.; Koçak, S.; Samut, S. Türkiye’de Inşaat Sektörünün Kısa Ve Uzun Dönem Dinamikleri [the Short and Long-Run Dynamics of the Construction Sector in Turkey]. J. Econ. Manag. Res.; 2018; 7, pp. 96-113.
9. Turkish Statistical Institute. Construction Turnover and Production Indices, 2004–2024. Available online: http://www.tuik.gov.tr (accessed on 8 August 2024).
10. Deneç, E.A. Architecture Beyond Construction. Neo-Liberalism and the Architecture of the Post Professional Era; Sadri, H. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 69-84.
11. Gruneberg, S. Construction Markets in a Changing World Economy. Economics for the Modern Built Environment; Ruddock, L. Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2008; pp. 153-167.
12. Lewis, R.K. Architect? A Candid Guide to the Profession, Revised and Expanded Edition; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013.
13. Baker, K. How Many Architects Does Our Economy Need?. Architect; 2018; Available online: https://www.architectmagazine.com/aia-architect/aiafeature/how-many-architects-does-our-economy-need_o (accessed on 8 October 2024).
14. Sert, E.; Aykaç, G.; Zirh, B.C. Urban Politics and the Work and Labour Processes of Architecture: Survey Research with Young Architect-Workers in Turkey. METU J. Fac. Arch.; 2021; 38, pp. 161-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2021.1.2]
15. Fisher, N. Architectural Graduates Can Earn More at Mcdonald’s. That’s Bad for Diversity and the Profession. Building Design. Intelligence for Architects. 2023; Available online: https://www.bdonline.co.uk/opinion/architectural-graduates-can-earn-more-at-mcdonalds-thats-bad-for-diversity-and-the-profession/5121559.article (accessed on 8 October 2024).
16. Ghom, P.V.; George, A.; Bharule, S. Socio-Economic Aspects Affecting Architectural Education and Profession: Strategies and Tactics. New Des. Ideas; 2023; 7, pp. 152-170.
17. Lingard, H.C.; Francis, V.; Turner, M. The Rhythms of Project Life: A Longitudinal Analysis of Work Hours and Work-Life Experiences in Construction. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2010; 28, pp. 1085-1098. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.480977]
18. YÖK Atlas. Yükseköğretim Kontenjan, Tercih Ve Yerleşme İstatistikleri (2023 Yks). Available online: https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/meslek-lisans.php?b=10155 (accessed on 10 December 2024).
19. YÖK Higher Education Information System. Yükseköğretim Istatistikleri. Available online: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ (accessed on 10 December 2024).
20. Grigg, N.S. Civil Engineering Workforce and Education: Twenty Years of Change. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.; 2018; 144, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000387]
21. Dym, C.L.; Agogino, A.M.; Eris, O.; Frey, D.D.; Leifer, L.J. Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. J. Eng. Educ.; 2005; 94, pp. 103-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x]
22. Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. J. Eng. Educ.; 2004; 93, pp. 223-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x]
23. Pinnington, A.; Morris, T. Transforming the Architect: Ownership Form and Archetype Change. Organ. Stud.; 2002; 23, pp. 189-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840602232002]
24. Hatıpoğlu, S.C.; Çavuş, E. Estetikte Yeni Katmanlar: Yapay Zeka Ve Atmosfer Tartışmalarına Giriş [New Layers in New Aesthetics: An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Atmosphere Discussions]. Paper presented at the MSTAS2024 (Mimarlıkta Sayısal Tasarım Sempozyumu); Balıkesir, Turkey, 29 June–2 July 2024.
25. Gümüşburun Ayalp, G.; Çivici, T. Critical Stress Factors Influencing Architecture Students in Turkey: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Open House Int.; 2021; 46, pp. 281-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OHI-10-2020-0150]
26. Nelson, B.H. The Decision to Study Architecture: A Sociological Study. J. Arch. Educ.; 1974; 27, 83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1423938]
27. Olweny, M.R. Students’ Motivation for Architecture Education in Uganda. Front. Arch. Res.; 2017; 6, pp. 308-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.002]
28. Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, R.M.; Leung, T.K. Manageability of Stress among Construction Project Participants. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag.; 2005; 12, pp. 264-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980510600125]
29. Love, P.E.D.; Edwards, D.J.; Irani, Z. Work Stress, Support, and Mental Health in Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2010; 136, pp. 650-658. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000165]
30. Chan, I.Y.; Leung, M.-Y.; Yuan, T. Structural Relationships between Cultural Values and Coping Behaviors of Professionals in the Stressful Construction Industry. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag.; 2014; 21, pp. 133-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2012-0069]
31. Nwaogu, J.M.; Chan, A.P.; Hon, C.K.; Darko, A. Review of Global Mental Health Research in the Construction Industry. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag.; 2020; 27, pp. 385-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2019-0114]
32. Bowen, P.; Edwards, P.; Lingard, H. Workplace Stress among Construction Professionals in South Africa. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag.; 2013; 20, pp. 620-635. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2012-0051]
33. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovic: Forth Worth, TX, USA, 1993.
34. Ajzen, I. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.; 2002; 32, pp. 665-683. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x]
35. Moore, R.; Burrus, J. Predicting Stem Major and Career Intentions with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Career Dev. Q.; 2019; 67, pp. 139-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12177]
36. Lawson, B.; Dorst, K. Design Expertise; Routledge: London, UK, 2009.
37. Tombesi, P. On the Cultural Separation of Design Labor. Building (in) the Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture; Deamer, P.; Bernstein, P. Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
38. Deamer, P. The Architect as Worker—Immaterial Labor, the Creative Class, and the Politics of Design; Bloomsbury Academic: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
39. Sorkin, M. Architecture without Capitalism. Architecture and Capitalism; Deamer, P. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
40. Shvartzberg, M. Foucault’s ‘Environmental’ Power: Architecture and Neoliberal Subjectivization. The Architect as Worker: Immaterial Labor, the Creative Class, and the Politics of Design; Deamer, P. Bloomsbury: London, UK, 2015; pp. 181-207.
41. Demirtaş, E.; Bayraktar, M. Yaşamın Teşebbüsleştirilmesinde Mekanın Rolü [the Role of the Space in the Enterprising-up of Life]. Mimarlık; 2022; 426, pp. 68-74.
42. Çetin, M. Şahlar Piyonlar Ve Meta Kent [Kings, Pawns and the Meta City]; Nika Yayınevi: Istanbul, Turkey, 2024.
43. D’Aprile, M.; Deamer, P. The Architecture Lobby’s Statement on Unpaid Internships. Available online: https://archinect.com/features/article/150133251/%20the-architecture-lobby-s-statement-on-unpaid-internships (accessed on 19 June 2024).
44. Sadri, H. Mimarlik Ve Etik: Mesleki Etik Olur Mu?. METU J. Fac. Archit.; 2015; 32, pp. 91-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2015.1.5]
45. Greenhaus, J.H.; Callanan, G.A. Encyclopedia of Career Development; A Sage Reference Publication: New Delhi, India, 2006.
46. Herr, E.L. Career Development and Its Practice: A Historical Perspective. Career Dev. Q.; 2001; 49, pp. 196-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2001.tb00562.x]
47. Brown, J.; Leeuwen, H.D.; Mitch, D. The History of the Modern Career: An Introduction; Ashgate Publishing Company: Sidney, Australia, 2004.
48. Clark, F.A. Total Career Management: Strategies for Creating Management Careers; MacGraw-Hill International (UK) Limited: Berkshire, UK, 1992.
49. Sears, S. A Definition of Career Guidance Terms: A National Vocational Guidance Association Perspective. Vocat. Guid. Q.; 1982; 31, pp. 137-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-585X.1982.tb01305.x]
50. Betz, N.E.; Fitzgerald, L.F.; Hill, R.E. Handbook of Career Theory: Trait-Factor Theories: Traditional Cornerstone of Career Theory. Handbook of Career Theory; Arthur, M.; Hall, D.; Lawrence, B. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; pp. 26-40.
51. Dalton, G. Developmental Views of Careers in Organizations. Handbook of Career Theory; Arthur, M.B.; Hall, D.T.; Lawrence, B.S. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; pp. 89-109.
52. Barley, S.R. Careers, Identities, and Institutions: The Legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology. Handbook of Career Theory; Arthur, M.B.; Hall, D.T.; Lawrence, B.S. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; pp. 41-65.
53. Sicherman, N.; Galor, O. A Theory of Career Mobility. J. Political Econ.; 1990; 98, pp. 169-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261674]
54. Freire, P. Pedagogy of Autonomy. Knowledge Required for Educational Practice; Paz e Terra: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2002.
55. Sullivan, S.E.; Baruch, Y. Advances in Career Theory and Research: A Critical Review and Agenda for Future Exploration. J. Manag.; 2009; 35, pp. 1542-1571. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350082]
56. Levin, N.; Braunstein-Bercovitz, H.; Lipshits-Braziler, Y.; Gati, I.; Rossier, J. Testing the Structure of the Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire across Country, Gender, Age, and Decision Status. J. Vocat. Behav.; 2020; 116, 103365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103365]
57. Di Fabio, A.; Palazzeschi, L. Reuven Bar-On. The Role of Personality Traits, Core Self-Evaluation, and Emotional Intelligence in Career Decision-Making Difficulties. J. Employ. Couns.; 2012; 49, pp. 118-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00012.x]
58. Di Fabio, A.; Palazzeschi, L.; Levin, N.; Gati, I. The Role of Personality in the Career Decision-Making Difficulties of Italian Young Adults. J. Career Assess.; 2015; 23, pp. 281-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072714535031]
59. Donald, W.E.; Ashleigh, M.J.; Baruch, Y. Students’ Perceptions of Education and Employability: Facilitating Career Transition from Higher Education into the Labor Market. Career Dev. Int.; 2018; 23, pp. 513-540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2017-0171]
60. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.E.; Hills, G.E. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2005; 90, pp. 1265-1272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16316279]
61. Sieger, P.; Monsen, E. Founder, Academic, or Employee? A Nuanced Study of Career Choice Intentions. J. Small Bus. Manag.; 2015; 53, pp. 30-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12181]
62. Cano, J.A.; Tabares, A.; Alvares, C. University Students’ Career Choice Intentions: Guesss Colombia Study. Espacios; 2017; 38, pp. 1-20.
63. Çalışkan, H.; Sapmaz, F.; Uzunkol, E. Value Preferences of University Students as Predictors of Life Goals. Soc. Indic. Res.; 2015; 124, pp. 111-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0778-4]
64. Duffy, R.D.; Sedlacek, W.E. What Is Most Important to Students’ Long-Term Career Choices:Analyzing 10-Year Trends and Group Differences. J. Career Dev.; 2007; 34, pp. 149-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894845307307472]
65. Allen, J.; Robbins, S.B. Prediction of College Major Persistence Based on Vocational Interests, Academic Preparation, and First-Year Academic Performance. Res. High. Educ.; 2008; 49, pp. 62-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9064-5]
66. Willcoxson, L.; Wynder, M. The Relationship between Choice of Major and Career, Experience of University and Attrition. Aust. J. Educ.; 2010; 54, pp. 175-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494411005400205]
67. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.; 1991; 50, pp. 179-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]
68. Gati, I.; Krausz, M.; Osipow, S.H. A Taxonomy of Difficulties in Career Decision Making. J. Couns. Psychol.; 1996; 43, pp. 510-526. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.510]
69. Zhou, D.; Santos, A. Career Decision-Making Difficulties of British and Chinese International University Students. Br. J. Guid. Couns.; 2007; 35, pp. 219-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069880701256684]
70. Kusluvan, S.; Kusluvan, Z. Perceptions and Attitudes of Undergraduate Tourism Students Towards Working in the Tourism Industry in Turkey. Tour. Manag.; 2000; 21, pp. 251-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00057-6]
71. Boyer, E.L.; Mitgang, L. Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education and Practice; The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1996.
72. Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). Occupational Stress in the Construction Industry; CIOB Published National Stress Survey Results CIOB: Ascot, UK, 2006.
73. Dall’Alba, G. Learning to Be Professionals; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009.
74. Mau, W.J.; Ellsworth, R.; Hawley, D. Job Satisfaction and Career Persistence of Beginning Teachers. Int. J. Educ. Manag.; 2008; 22, pp. 48-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540810844558]
75. Gutman, R. Architectural Practice: A Critical View; Princeton Architectural Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1988.
76. Cohen, L.; Wilkinson, A.; Arnold, J.; Finn, R. ‘Remember I’m the Bloody Architect!’: Architects, Organizations and Discourses of Profession. Work Employ. Soc.; 2005; 19, pp. 775-796. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0950017005058065]
77. Tezel, A.; Dobrucali, E.; Demirkesen, S.; Kiral, I.A. Critical Success Factors for Safety Training in the Construction Industry. Buildings; 2021; 11, 139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings11040139]
78. Bernstein, P.G. Three Strategies for New Value Propositions of Design Practice. The Architect as Worker—Immaterial Labor, the Creative Class, and the Politics of Design; Deamer, P. Bloomsbury Academic: New York, NY, USA, London, UK, 2015; pp. 209-218.
79. Zillante, G. Into the Abyss. Available online: http://www.aca.org.au/article/into-the-abyss (accessed on 8 August 2024).
80. Zhao, S.; De Angelis, E.; Ma, D. Reflecting on the Architecture Curriculum through a Survey on Career Switching. J. Des. Technol. Educ.; 2018; 28, pp. 1-14.
81. Manjulo, P.V.N.; Sreenivasa, R.D. A Study on Impact of Compensation Package on Employee Retention in Organized Retail Sector. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol.; 2020; 29, pp. 4395-4403.
82. Arshadi, N.; Damiri, H. The Relationship of Job Stress with Turnover Intention and Job Performance: Moderating Role of Obse. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2013; 84, pp. 706-710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.631]
83. Palancı, Y.; Mengenci, C.; Bayraktaroğlu, S.; Emhan, A. Analysis of Workplace Health and Safety, Job Stress, Interpersonal Conflict, and Turnover Intention: A Comparative Study in the Health Sector. Heal. Psychol. Rep.; 2021; 9, pp. 76-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2020.99971]
84. Alli, B.O. Fundamental Principles of Occupational Health and Safety; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
85. Anthony, K.H. Private Reactions to Public Criticism; Students, Faculty, and Practicing Architects State Their Views on Design Juries in Architectural Education. J. Archit. Educ.; 1987; 40, pp. 2-11.
86. RIBA Survey. Riba Education Statistics 2015-16 by Mirza & Nacey Research. RIBA Education Statistics. Available online: https://www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/education-statistics/additional-documents/educationstatistics201617pdf.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2024).
87. Riba Education Statistics 2020–21 by Mirza & Nacey Research. RIBA Education Statistics: Available online: https://riba-prd-assets.azureedge.net/-/media/Education/RIBA-Education-Statistics-2020-21.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2024).
88. Kirkpatrick, M. Mental Well Being and the Architecture Students. Master’s Dissertation; Sheffield School of Architecture: Sheffield, UK, 2018.
89. Xie, Y.; Yaqoob, A.; Mansell, W.; Tai, S. A Qualitative Investigation of Stress Related to Studying Architecture at Degree Level in the UK. Arts Humanit. High. Educ.; 2021; 20, pp. 3-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474022219871001]
90. Arora, S.N.; Khatri, S. Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorder in Sitting Professionals. Int. J. Community Med. Public Heal.; 2022; 9, pp. 892-895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20220259]
91. Desai, M.; Kapdule, P. The Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Problems in Architects. Indian J. Physiother. Occup. Ther.; 2020; 14, pp. 118-123.
92. Jones, W.; Gibb, A.; Haslam, R.; Dainty, A. Work-Related Ill-Health in Construction: The Importance of Scope, Ownership and Understanding. Saf. Sci.; 2019; 120, pp. 538-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.07.038]
93. Marcus, M.; Gerr, F.; Monteilh, C.; Ortiz, D.J.; Gentry, E.; Cohen, S.; Edwards, A.; Ensor, C.; Kleinbaum, D. A Prospective Study of Computer Users: Ii. Postural Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Symptoms and Disorders. Am. J. Ind. Med.; 2002; 41, pp. 236-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10067]
94. Sharma, P.; Aggrawal, S.; Meena, S. Postural Pain in Computer Users: Role of Preventive and Curative Physiotherapy. Indian J. Public Heal. Res. Dev.; 2018; 9, 92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2018.01431.6]
95. Mumford, M.D.; Murphy, S.T.; Connelly, S.; Hill, J.H.; Antes, A.L.; Brown, R.P.; Devenport, L.D. Environmental Influences on Ethical Decision Making: Climate and Environmental Predictors of Research Integrity. Ethic- Behav.; 2007; 17, pp. 337-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420701519510]
96. Dall’Alba, G. Learning Professional Ways of Being: Ambiguities of Becoming. Educ. Philos. Theory; 2009; 41, pp. 34-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00475.x]
97. Deamer, P. Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
98. Scott-Ladd, B.; Marshall, V. Participation in Decision Making: A Matter of Context?. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J.; 2004; 25, pp. 646-662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410564988]
99. Scott-Ladd, B.; Travaglione, A.; Marshall, V. Causal Inferences between Participation in Decision Making, Task Attributes, Work Effort, Rewards, Job Satisfaction and Commitment. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J.; 2006; 27, pp. 399-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610677990]
100. Bakan, I.; Suseno, Y.; Pinnington, A.; Money, A. The Influence of Financial Participation and Participation in Decision-Making on Employee Job Attitudes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2004; 15, pp. 587-616. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2004.10057654]
101. Banham, R. A Black Box: The Secret Profession of Architecture. A Critic Writes: Essays by Reyner Banham; Banham, M.; Barker, P.; Lyall, S.; Price, C. University of California Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996.
102. Blau, J. Architects and Firms: A Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practice; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.
103. Faoro, D.L.; Merrill, S.A. The New Architectural Ethics: Responding to Ethical Stress from Changing Roles in Practice. J. Archit. Plan. Res.; 1990; 7, pp. 181-208.
104. Ababneh, K.I. Effects of Met Expectations, Trust, Job Satisfaction, and Commitment on Faculty Turnover Intentions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2020; 31, pp. 303-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1255904]
105. Barnett, K. Student Interns’ Socially Constructed Work Realities: Narrowing the Work Expectation-Reality Gap. Bus. Commun. Q.; 2012; 75, pp. 271-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569912441360]
106. Holtom, B.C.; Mitchell, T.R.; Lee, T.W.; Eberly, M.B. 5° Turnover and Retention Research: A Glance at the Past, a Closer Review of the Present, and a Venture into the Future. Acad. Manag. Ann.; 2008; 2, pp. 231-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211552]
107. Hom, P.W.; Mitchell, T.R.; Lee, T.W.; Griffeth, R.W. Reviewing Employee Turnover: Focusing on Proximal Withdrawal States and an Expanded Criterion. Psychol. Bull.; 2012; 138, pp. 831-858. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027983]
108. Kim, S.-W.; Price, J.L.; Mueller, C.W.; Watson, T.W. The Determinants of Career Intent among Physicians at a U.S. Air Force Hospital. Hum. Relat.; 1996; 49, pp. 947-976. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679604900704]
109. Mueller, C.W.; Price, J.L. Economic, Psychological, and Sociological Determinants of Voluntary Turnover. J. Behav. Econ.; 1990; 19, pp. 321-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-5720(90)90034-5]
110. Price, J.L. Reflections on the Determinants of Voluntary Turnover. Int. J. Manpow.; 2001; 22, pp. 600-624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006233]
111. Steers, R.M.; Mowday, R.T. Employee Turnover and Post Decision Justification. Research in Organizational Behavior; Cummings, L.L.; Sta, B.M. JAI Press: Greenwich, UK, 1981; pp. 235-282.
112. Candela, L.; Gutierrez, A.P.; Keating, S. What Predicts Nurse Faculty Members’ Intent to Stay in the Academic Organization? A Structural Equation Model of a National Survey of Nursing Faculty. Nurse Educ. Today; 2015; 35, pp. 580-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.018]
113. Daly, C.J.; Dee, J.R. Greener Pastures: Faculty Turnover Intent in Urban Public Universities. J. High. Educ.; 2006; 77, pp. 776-803. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778944]
114. Chinomona, E. Modelling the Influence of Workplace Spirituality, Quality of Work Life, Expectations Towards Work on Commitment to Long-Term Career of Employees in Gauteng Province, South Africa. J. Appl. Bus. Res. (JABR); 2017; 33, 691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v33i4.9989]
115. Lee, T.W.; Mowday, R.T. Voluntarily Leaving an Organization: An Empirical Investigation of Steers and Mowday’s Model of Turnover. Acad. Manag. J.; 1987; 30, pp. 721-743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256157]
116. Riegel, C.; Dalllas, M. Hospitality and Tourism Careers: A Blue Print for Success; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1998.
117. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980.
118. Brown, T.A.; Moore, M.T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; Hoyle, R.H. The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 361-379.
119. Greenhaus, J.H.; Callanan, G.A.; Godshalk, V.M. Career Management; The Dryden Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
120. Richardson, S. Tourism and Hospitality Students’ Perceptions of a Career in the Industry: A Comparison of Domestic (Australian) Students and International Students Studying in Australia. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2010; 17, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.17.1.1]
121. Tuan, Y.F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2001.
122. El-Houshy, S. Hospitality Students Perceptions Towards Working in Hotels: A Case Study of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels in Alexandria University, Tourism in a Changing World: Opportunities & Challenges. Proceedings of the 6th International Scientific Conference; Alexandria, Egypt, 4–6 June 2014.
123. Çıngı, H. Örnekleme Kuramı [Sampling Theory]; Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Matbaası: Ankara, Turkey, 2009.
124. Tillé, Y. Sampling and Estimation from Finite Populations; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
125. Molenaar, K.; Washington, S.; Diekmann, J. Structural Equation Model of Construction Contract Dispute Potential. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2000; 126, pp. 268-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:4(268)]
126. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika; 1951; 16, pp. 297-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555]
127. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ.; 2011; 2, pp. 53-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd]
128. Pallant, J. Spss Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using Spss for Windows; Open University Press: Milton Keynes, UK, 2001.
129. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010.
130. Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. Lisrel 8: User’s Reference Guide; Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996.
131. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Lawrence Erlbaum Associotes: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004.
132. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
133. Bernstein, P.G. Money, Value, Architects, Building. Perspecta; 2014; 47, pp. 14-20.
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Serkan Can Hatıpoğlu 2
1 Faculty of Art Design and Architecture, Sakarya University, Sakarya 54187, Turkey
2 Faculty of Architecture and Design, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskişehir 26555, Turkey;