Developing а Digital Creativity Culture in Architectural Schools in Russia and Abroad Within the framework of Creative Industries

Relevance. The global digital transformation is substantially reshaping the professional competencies required of architects. Traditional design skills are complemented by proficiency in digital tools within the broader ecosystem of creative industries. Architectural schools are now faced with the need to rethink the content and methodology of their educational programmes. Objective. The study aims to identify current models for cultivating a digital creativity culture in Russian and leading foreign architectural schools, and to develop practical recommendations for the improvement of educational programmes. Materials and methods. The study draws on a comparative analysis of educational programmes at Russian (MArchI, SPbGASU, NSUADA) and foreign (AA School, MIT, ETH Zurich, TU Delft) architectural schools, examination of pedagogical documentation and publications on digital education in architecture, and a synthesis of experience from practising architects and educators. Results. Russian architectural schools were found to be actively integrating digital disciplines while preserving their foundational artistic and humanities traditions, whereas leading foreign universities place greater emphasis on the research-driven and experimental character of digital creativity. Key challenges identified include the rapid obsolescence of software, a shortage of qualified faculty, and the need to maintain a balance between manual and digital design methods. Innovative pedagogical approaches were formulated, including project-based learning, hackathons, and the integration of massive open online courses. Conclusions. Digital creativity culture represents not a collection of technical skills but a complex professional mindset. Architectural education must prepare T-shaped specialists who combine deep architectural knowledge with a broad digital toolkit, thereby ensuring the competitiveness of graduates within the creative industries.

1. Dubynin N., Kocheshkova E., Granik M., Rodimov A. (2022). Tsifrovaya arkhitektura [Digital architecture]. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel'stvo, (1), pp. 19-28.

2. Erygina A.V. (2020). Vostrebovannost' sotrudnikov T-shaped-tipa v sovremennom mire [Demand for Tshaped employees in the modern world]. Sovremennaya nauka: aktual'nye problemy teorii i praktiki. Seriya: Ekonomika i pravo, pp. 70–75.

3. Serdyukova E.A. (2021). Smyslovoe pole kul'turnogo kontsepta 'Arkhitektura' [The semantic field of the cultural concept 'Architecture']. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk, 12–3(63), pp. 97–99.

4. Sokolova N.L. (2012). Tsifrovaya kul'tura ili kul'tura v tsifrovuyu epokhu? [Digital culture or culture in the digital age?]. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul'tury, 3(8), pp. 6–10.

5. Jenny D., Mayer H., Aejmelaeus-Lindstrom P., Gramazio F., Kohler M. (2022). A Pedagogy of Digital Materiality: Integrated Design and Robotic Fabrication Projects of the Master of Advanced Studies in Architecture and Digital Fabrication. Architecture, Structures and Construction, 2(2), pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1007/s44150-022-00040-1.

6. Kocaturk T., Kiviniemi A. (2013). Challenges of Integrating BIM in Architectural Education. Computation and Performance: Proceedings of the 31st eCAADe Conference, Vol. 2. Delft University of Technology, pp. 465–473.

7. Oxman R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), pp. 99–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.003.