Three meetings of the International Congress of Architects were held in the Shah-ruled monarchic Iran during the mid-1970s, on the eve of the Islamic Revolution. They took place in Isfahan (1970), Persepolis (1974), and Ramsar (1976), with the latter specifically designated as the International Congress of Women Architects. All three of them were spearheaded by the wife of the Shah, the Empress Farah Pahlavi (Shahbanu), once a student at the École Spéciale d’Architecture in Paris, who actively promoted architecture and the arts in Iran, and whose central place is confirmed in the event photographs. While all initiatives were ambitious ventures during this time, the second and the third international congress stood out with the sheer number of invitees from around the world – over 50 speakers from 16 countries in the Persepolis congress, and 25 women speakers from 14 countries in Ramsar, spanning North and South America, Europe, Africa, and West, South and East Asia. While the organizing institution for all three events remained the same (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development), the speakers were intentionally different. However, together, they fostered a global exchange of ideas on architecture, creating nothing short of a microcosm of world debates.

In addition to Farah Pahlavi, another woman, Laleh Bahtiar took an extensive role for the second and third congresses in Persepolis and Ramsar, by editing a comprehensive book that followed them.1 The themes of the second and third congresses were continuous to a large extent. In the second congress, the erosion of the “quality of life” under industrialization was a central concern,2 underlined in comments about destitute living conditions, industrial standardization, quantity-oriented mass production, economic profitability, and world homogenization. In the editor Bakhtiar’s summarizing words, the conference participants concluded: “Industrialization is not an end in itself, on the contrary, industrialization must be directed to achieve a higher quality of living for the entire nation, giving priority to the most needy citizens, in order to level the social-economic unbalances.”3 The third congress in Ramsar rephrased the theme “quality of life” as the “crisis of identity in architecture,” and tasked women architects from around the world to reflect on this crisis.4

A related topic in both the second and third congresses was environmental degradation, often framed as a critique of identity loss and declining quality of life. Against the backdrop of Iran’s efforts to assert leadership in environmental healing5 – highlighted by the International Pahlavi Environment Prize launched by the government after the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, – the Persepolis Declaration warned of the imminent deterioration of the environment.6 The Iranian delegate’s contribution to the UN Habitat Conference in Vancouver in 1976 emerged directly from the Second Congress in Persepolis. Five architects from five countries, Nader Ardalan, Georges Candilis, Balkrishna Doshi, Moshie Safdie, and Josep Louis Sert drafted the Habitat Bill of Rights, advocating for an international architectural human rights code. Similarly, the Women Architects Congress concluded with a formal resolution, summarizing key discussions on identity, one of which was environmental awareness. Climate-conscious design was a focus, with Jane Drew defining identity as that which “meets the requirements of climate, the life of the people who will inhabit the buildings, and technical and economic means of dealing with them,” and emphasizing climate-responsive solutions drawn from her experiences in tropical architecture debates on India and West Africa.7 Nobuko Nakahara highlighted how Japan’s traditional architectural identity was shaped by climate adaptation. She spoke of how with humid summers reaching 30°C, pre-industrial houses incorporate elevated floors for drying, long eaves for sun protection, and north-south window placement for ventilation.8 If themes like identity, quality of life, environmental awareness, housing, and industrialization carried over from previous congresses, what, then, distinguished the third event as a "women’s congress"?

Global Gathering of Women Architects

The third International Congress with the theme Identity Crisis in Architecture in 1976 exclusively gave the stage to women speakers, not only continuing but also adding to its predecessors in many ways. It was tied specifically to an all-women event recognized as the International Congress of Women Architects, or L’Union Internationale des Femmes Architectes (UIFA).A The inaugural UIFA Congress, Women in Architecture Around the World and the Requirements of the Modern City as Conceived by Women, was held in Paris in 1963, and subsequently took place in various locations around the world every two to three years. The gathering in Iran invited some of the most prominent women in the world of architecture. The gathering in Iran invited some of the most prominent women in the world of architecture, including Gae Aulenti (Italy), Laleh Bakhtiar (Iran), Nelly García Bellizzia (Mexico), Anna Bofill (Spain), Denise Scott Brown (USA), Yekta Chahrouzi (Iran), Euli Chowdhury (India), Jane Drew (UK), Noushin Ehssan (Iran), Tuula Fleming and Leena Lukkarinen (Finland), Marie Christine Gangneux (France), Nasrine Faghih (Iran), Shizue Iijima (Japan), Moria Moser Khalili (USA/Iran) Silvana Manco Koswar (Iran), Mina Marafat (Iran), Laura Mertsi (Finland), Laila Farhad Motamed (Iran), Nobuko Nakahara (Japan), Ellen Perry (USA), Helena Polivkova (Czechoslovakia), Indra Rai (India), Nellien De Ruiter (Netherlands),  Alison Smithson (UK), Bola Sohande (Nigeria), Hande Suher (Turkey), Virginia Tanzmann (USA) Anne Tyng (USA), Joyce Whitley (USA), and Jeane Young (USA).

The congress’s materials are accessible through two key sources: the limited-edition proceedings available at Iran’s National Library – dedicated to Farah Pahlavi – and the Art and Architecture Journal (Honar va Me’mari), a leading Iranian periodical that detailed and promoted the event, featuring attendee profiles and expanded versions of select talks. Architectural historian Baharak Tabibi has so far written the most extensive article about the event, which we hope to add to by bringing new contextualization and theorization on feminism.9 Further insights into the third congress’s inception emerge from architect Noushin Ehsan, one of its chief organizers, who shared her reflections with us in a recent interview. Shortly after establishing her own firm, Ehsan (a graduate of the University of UCLA’s Architecture and Urban Design) was approached by Farah Pahlavi to help organize the International Women Architects’ Congress in Iran. Initially, Ehsan declined, citing her opposition to professional gender segregation and her lack of alignment with the American women’s liberation movement. After Farah Pahlavi’s encouragement to reconsider, Ehsan realized that no women had ever presented at previous architectural conferences held in Iran. This lack of representation inspired her to accept the role, seeing the conference as an opportunity to showcase female professionals. Indeed, hosting the UIFA symposium in Iran was a significant moment in both Iranian and global architectural discourse.10 But it also reflected the complexities of gender politics and modernization during the Pahlavi era.

The Pahlavi regime advanced women’s rights by granting voting rights earlier than Switzerland, expanding education, and promoting public participation. Founded in 1966 by Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, the Women’s Organization of Iran sought to improve education, health, and legal rights, but faced resistance from deeply ingrained cultural norms.11 By the mid-1970s, university enrollment rose – though women were often steered into traditionally “feminine” fields like teaching and nursing. Employment opportunities followed this trend, but true emancipation and equality remained elusive. Women were largely confined to low-paying service jobs, while access to prestigious fields like architecture remained limited. Class and gender discrimination persisted despite greater visibility for middle- and upper-class women. The state thus promoted a modern image, but patriarchal structures remained deeply entrenched. These contradictions exposed the state's reforms as prioritizing population control and economic modernization over true gender equality.B

Women Between Tradition and Progressive Ideals

Likewise, the congress held in Ramsar reflected a tension between adhering to conservative traditions and aspiring to align with the most progressive ideals regarding women’s roles. Yet, against all odds, the year 1976 marked a significant moment in women’s role in architectural history. Just three years after the American Institute of Architects (AIA) launched its Task Force on Women and a year before the publication of Women in Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective, edited by feminist architect Susana Torre, Iran hosted this International Congress of Women in Architecture, positioning itself within the broader global discourse on women in the field.12 Yet, 1970s Iran lacked the organized feminist momentum of the era, and women's roles remained bound by traditional gender expectations.

In her inaugural speech, Farah Pahlavi, who had championed women’s advancement in architectural design through, for example, establishing interior design in institutions like Madreseh-ye Ali-e Dukhtaran (now Al-Zahra University), pointed out that “this gathering can explore the aspect of feeling” in coping with the “rapid changes of the last few years.”13 Echoing a similar sentiment, in her opening address, the President of the Congress, Nectar Andref, explained: “Here in Iran, we wish to reconciliate our past with our future, and find for the present an architectural identity which is neither a pastiche, nor a counter-style, but a lively way of expressing our permanence. Women, whose sensitivity is praised all over the world, could be a privileged animators of this trend of thought.”14 The final declaration from the Congress often took a conservative, essentialist stance on women’s issues, stating, for example, that “women architects and planners are in a position to sense both the likely and desired changes in the pattern of family life” and “[…] have the ability to work towards…a balance between change and continuity.” The concluding remarks of the proceedings read: “… the participants feel that the program of periodic meetings should be carried forward, not necessarily strictly as a feminine endeavor, but preferably as a joint professional effort with our male colleagues in the series of International Congresses of Architecture already scheduled in Iran.”15 Similarly, Art and Architecture journal’s portrayal of women architects – both Iranian and foreign – reinforced traditional gender roles, emphasizing their contributions to domestic spaces and familial contexts, rather than positioning them as independent professionals. The issue frequently framed women’s work in relation to their architect husbands, who were also their business partners, despite the fact that many of these women played significant roles in collaborative architectural projects. Beyond professional architecture circles, the event failed to gain broader traction within Iran, likely overshadowed by the impending revolution. Media coverage was largely sensationalist, with headlines such as “Women: From Manicures and Pedicures to Architecture and Refined Architecture Done by Women.”16

These proclamations set the event’s tone, casting women as restorers of “empathy” and “feeling” in architecture ­ their perceived sensitivity framed as an asset rather than a challenge to the status quo, positioned as cultural stewards and collaborators within the existing system, rather than as radical agents of transformation. That said, the proceedings also testify to a peripheral yet enduring “feminist” strategy that we would like to forefront in this article.

Architectural Identity Beyond Gender

With the women’s congress themed “Crisis of Identity in Architecture,” one possibly expected a strong focus on gender identity. However, many participants were determined not to confine their work and relevance to issues specifically and stereotypically associated with their gender. The fact that many themes repeated in both congresses underscored women’s voice in a variety of global challenges that had already been identified in international meetings. Alison Smithson reminded the definition of identity in 1952 as the “quality missing  from housing” and as a critique of the Modern Movement, pointing to her own practice in “sufficiently explaining, and thoroughly documenting” this missing quality.17 Hande Suher and Indra Rai raised the question of housing and squatter settlements in Turkey and India, respectively, as an indication of the identity crisis that impairs the living quality in fast urbanizing cities.18 Nobuko Nakahara criticized the erosion of traditional modular elements in Japanese architecture – particularly Tatami and Shoji, which she described as essential “devices for comfortable living” – as a consequence of industrialization.19 The identity question was connected to anti-colonial and anti-racist approaches as well: “Gone are the days when architects, artists and artisans took so much pain… to produce the masterpieces”, Bola Sohande from Nigeria said: “In developing Africa, there was some form of architecture before the Europeans came with their own ideas” which culminated in “a combination of boxes often very plain and uninspiring.”20 Nelly Garcia Bellizzia from Mexico referred to the “loss of cultural references” and particularly criticized the erasure of the indigenous peoples history in the face of the Spanish colonization.21 Joyce Whitley presented her housing projects for low- and moderate-income Black communities as an effort to preserve and respect cultural identity: “For many years, Black communities in the United States have openly criticized the character of planning and design work affecting their communities, and vociferously demanded that planners and architects develop plans which respond to their need and reflect their lifestyle and living priorities.”22

With each talk structured in a concise, manifesto-like format, explicit feminist manifestos were notably rare. The most overt example of feminist critique came from Denise Scott Brown, who addressed gender inequalities in architecture. Her talk, “Sexism and the Star System in Architecture,” appears to have been intentionally or inadvertently shortened in the proceedings ­ possibly to soften her strong feminist stance.23 In it, she criticized the male-dominated “star system”, which elevated male architects as “geniuses” while overlooking the contributions of women and collaborators. She highlighted structural barriers women faced in the field, such as social exclusion, mentorship biases, and rigid hierarchies, which hindered their recognition. Scott Brown also pointed to how women married to famous male architects, (like herself married to Robert Venturi), were often overshadowed by their husbands. Another American architect, Jean Young discussed the AIA’s recent initiatives to promote greater inclusivity for women in architecture.24 Feminist themes also surfaced in Marie-Christine Gangneux’s discussion of feminine qualities in embracing “follies” and “pleasure”25 and in Nellien de Ruiter’s distinction between emancipation (the equalization of underrepresented groups) and feminism (challenging the dominance of masculine values and emphasizing “feminine qualities of tenderness, sensitivity, and the ability to render complex issues into simple proportions”). De Ruiter suggested that it was this latter approach that would ultimately shape the physical environment.26 On a slightly different note, the photographs of the attendees delivering their talks capture both the passion and the participatory spirit. An image of the audience sprawled across the hotel lobby floor, listening to Alison Smithson, becomes a compelling instance of the “gestural feminism” that subtly shaped parts of the event.27

“Feminism of the Heart”

How were women's issues addressed for Iranian women architects at the congress, in the textual proceedings, and in broader discussions on Iran’s architectural landscape in relation to gender? Many Iranian women architects centered their discussions on the broader role of humans as both users and creators of architecture, rather than specifically emphasizing women's contributions. For instance, Nasrine Faghih referred to the Heideggerian quest for “dwelling.”28 Bakhtiar attributed the identity crisis to a lost unity between self and a higher “consciousness,” steering the conversation toward Iranian Sufi dimensions, aligning with her co-authored book A Sense of Unity (1973).29 Others advanced the concept of human agency by framing it through the lens of “individual will.” According to Noushin Ehsan, now 82 and from a Bahá'í family, individual will is more significant than structural or systemic changes. She notes that in the Bahá'í faith, unlike

in traditional Islamic faith, men and women are treated more equally; though whether this ideal has consistently been practiced is debatable. We may draw attention to Táhirih (also known as Qurrat al-ʿAyn or Apple of the Eye), an influential poet, theologian, and women’s rights advocate in the Bábí faith. In 1848, Táhirih made a bold and controversial statement by removing her hijab in front of a male audience to address them directly, challenging the societal norms of the time. Her act, seen as scandalous, ultimately led to her execution, but it remains a cornerstone in the history of feminism in Iran.30

Ehsan’s experience as a woman navigating a male-dominated field echoes Qurrat al-ʿAyn’s defiance, but with a crucial distinction – she prioritized individual perseverance over overt activism. Believing that change stemmed from personal action rather than public protest, Ehsan sought to carve out equitable spaces for women in architecture without directly challenging the system. This perspective surfaced at the congress when she confronted Denise Scott Brown following her talk, arguing that marginalization was not exclusive to women and citing Steven Izenour, a lesser-known collaborator of Venturi and Scott Brown, as an example. According to Ehsan, Scott Brown did not take the critique well. While audience reactions to Scott Brown’s remarks remain unclear, Ehsan’s stance reflected her broader belief that individual agency, rather than collective protest, was the key to addressing inequalityin architecture.31

Ehsan’s own paper, The Knowledge-Change Gap, like many presented by her Iranian colleagues, focused on broader societal challenges rather than explicitly addressing women’s concerns. She argued that planners, by adhering to conventional designs and outdated regulations, failed to accommodate evolving needs, particularly in housing and urban development. Rather than merely replicating traditional aesthetics, she called for a shift toward adaptable, community-driven planning that empowered individuals. While not framed as explicitly feminist, her emphasis on participatory design and grassroots engagement aligned with feminist principles of collective agency and decentralization. She advocated for financial incentives for innovation, public education on zoning policies, and urban welfare initiatives to support marginalized populations, particularly rural-to-urban migrants. Ehsan’s vision for flexible, inclusive environments – where communities actively shape their built spaces – resonates with feminist critiques of top-down urban planning, even if she positioned her argument within broader structural concerns rather than gendered discourse.32 While most men at this point in time tended to focus on grand plans and top-down strategies, Ehsan redirected the conversation toward community input and active participation. Another indication of Ehsan's subtle feminist stance at the event is her unique representation in the Art and Architecture journal as the only woman featured independently, without reference to her American husband, Robert Bryan, an architect active in both Iran and the United States. Rather than advocating for structural changes in the profession, Ehsan believed in the power of personal choices, such as being profiled independently of her architect husband or driving change from the margins. This choice, which she described as the “feminism of the heart,” underscored her commitment to autonomy within a male-dominated field.

Another strong advocate for bottom-up, feminist-adjacent approaches, Leila Farhad Motamed Sardar-Afkhami, in her Congress talk argued that modern housing policies prioritized quantity over quality, fostering alienation.33 Unlike Ehsan, however, Sardar-Afkhami later directly foregrounded women's roles, titling her more extensive journal article “Women Architects,” and centering gender throughout. She highlighted women’s contributions and argued that their perspectives – rooted in nurture, conservation, and a balance of boldness and sensitivity – could reshape a field traditionally dominated by technological priorities.34 Interestingly, Sardar-Afkhami’s article is juxtaposed with a female reinterpretation of Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, reinforcing the congress’s intent to position women as central to architecture. While Sardar-Afkhami’s piece explicitly, albeit cautiously, engages with women’s roles, many other contributions did not embrace the theme as directly. This raises questions about the significance of the image and how readers of the journal might have interpreted it. Perhaps, much like Bakhtiar’s Sufi-inflected discourse, the illustration serves as an abstract nod to women’s cosmic and earthly roles—symbolizing creation and care within the Platonic framework of the circle (cosmos) and the square (world), both rhetorically and materially.

Visualizing Feminism

These attributions – such as women's supposed rootedness in nature – echoed Farah Pahlavi’s discourse on empathy and feeling. Yet, more than rhetorical flourishes, they materialized in proposed plans and took shape in architectural drawings. Moira Moser-Khalili’s journal article titled, “Urban Design Recommendation for Iran,” exemplifies this translation of discourse into design.35 Addressing Iran’s rapid industrialization, she highlighted the failure of master plans – particularly Gruen-Farmanfarmaian’s masterplan for Tehran –  to consider working women’s needs. She proposed urban strategies to enhance women’s mobility, restructure residential-economic relationships, and alleviate domestic burdens, ensuring their full participation in society. Moser-Khalili's vision for integrating women and lower-income communities extended beyond critique to a distinct visualization she called the "interlocking finger concept." Rejecting the rigid, linear model of Gruen-Farmanfarmaian, she proposed a more fluid approach, fostering integration at key "nodes" where neighborhoods and urban zones intersected. In another drawing, Moser-Khalili illustrated the restructuring of old urban neighborhoods to support working homemakers, advocating for outward-focused "cave" neighborhoods with accessible facilities at their periphery rather than centralized hubs. This model, she argued, improves mobility, reduces trips, and enhances transit efficiency, easing daily burdens – especially for women balancing work and household responsibilities. She contrasted this with the traditional "cell" model, where services are clustered in a central "nucleus," limiting accessibility. Her recommendations and visuals also addressed the shifting role of Iranian mahallahs (neighborhoods), noting that as more mothers work outside their neighborhoods and children attend government daycare, social ties increasingly shift toward workplaces, weakening traditional communal bonds – a concern that she also credited to Christopher Alexander’s critiques of urban fragmentation.

While curvilinear forms might be attributed to romanticized notions of femininity, emotion, and nature, Moser-Khalili’s drawing carried deeper implications. Though she did not explicitly frame it as a feminist intervention, her emphasis on breaking down class and gender segregation through a “soft” spatial design embodied a subversive challenge to Iran’s traditionally top-down modernization efforts.36

Gestural Feminism

The materials from the Congress of Women reveal that feminism was present – voiced by strong participants, sometimes directly, sometimes by other, indirect means. Just four years after the Congress in Ramsar, Iran underwent a revolution that drastically reshaped its social and political landscape. While the uprising challenged the Shah’s authoritarian rule, its aftermath often came at the expense of many marginalized groups, most notably women, whose struggles for recognition and influence were far from over. The revolution did not open new opportunities for women architects; instead, it took years, even decades, for them to reclaim space in the field and assert their presence. When they did reemerge ­ much like the subtle, peripheral tone of the congress – they often navigated alternative avenues, engaging in urban policy, anthropology, journalism, and grassroots initiatives rather than following traditional architectural career paths. In the 1980s, women revitalized Iran's art scene by establishing unofficial galleries in the basements and garages of their homes.37 Many women also collaborated in urban development offices and municipal projects, as they were often overlooked for university teaching positions. Women in architecture and related disciplines began by organizing events, contributing to charities, forming all-women run NGOs and participating in City Councils (shorahay-e shahr).38 Others turned to writing about architecture, carving out new intellectual paths. Soheila Beski (1953–2015)C, a Michigan State University graduate in management, returned to Iran after the revolution and, while working as a contract employee at the Research Center for Architecture and Urban Planning within the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning, played a key role in launching and managing two influential architectural journals ­ Abadi and Me’mar. She used these platforms to elevate marginalized voices in architecture. Other female architects, notably Taraneh Yalda,D has played a significant role in restoring historic buildings at risk of demolition. Working within the constraints of gentrification and top-down urban programs, she has sought to reclaim architectural heritage while advocating for pedestrian zones, green spaces, and other revitalization efforts. A growing number of younger-generation women architects in Iran have embraced sustainable, collaborative design and humanitarian work. Among them is Yasaman Esmaili, founder of the Studio Chahar.E

Despite the increasing number of women in architecture schools today – some of whom like Leila AraghianF have risen to the top, winning prestigious national and international design awards such as the Aga Khan Award for Architecture – the profession in Iran remains largely dominated by male architects. In her memoir, Noushin Ehsan recalls initially dismissing the Women’s Liberation Movement, believing she had advanced without discrimination and viewing American feminists as overly aggressive. She criticized their push for university quotas, arguing that merit should dictate hiring, and contrasted this with Iran, where women held high-ranking positions and were widely respected. However, a decade later, as the head of her architectural firm in Tehran, she encountered systemic barriers in the male-dominated profession, recognizing the depth of discrimination. At the same time, she saw unintended consequences of the movement, as women were now expected to balance professional and domestic responsibilities without sufficient support, making true equality elusive.39

Ehsan’s shifting stance on feminism reflects the world’s ongoing gender struggle, which, in Iran, erupted into the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom movement. In defiance of state restrictions, women risked their lives, careers, and freedom, a resistance that persists today – most visibly in public architectural events where women architects appear unveiled despite severe consequences.  The contrast between the subtle feminist language of the 1976 Congress of Women Architects and the bold presence of women in Iran’s architectural scene today is striking. Women continue to face significant challenges in enacting structural change within a theocracy that regards them as second-class citizens. However, through personal acts of defiance – such as appearing without the hijab at architecture award ceremonies or other widely broadcasted eventsG – they assert their agency through "gestural feminism"in ways that also echo what Noushin Ehsan called "feminism of the heart." As she explained, unless a commitment to change is deeply felt, it is easily abandoned when structures collapse. Remembering the 1970s architectural congresses is essential to understanding the global intersection of gender, power, and space in architecture. The biopolitics of the field remains contested – not only in Iran’s theocracy but also in democracies facing a resurgence of right-wing, male-dominated conservatism. As many long-standing structures for social justice and equality teeter on the brink of collapse and as the need for organized resistance is more needed than ever, the need for change driven by individual will and deeply held convictions becomes equally urgent. As nationalism and isolationism grow today, few platforms continue to unite architects across borders. The Iranian congresses of the 1970s, despite their shortcomings, remain an exception.

Bibliography:

• Akcan, Esra Abolish Human Bans: Intertwined Histories of Architecture. Montreal CCA, 2022.
• Akcan, Esra Architecture and the Right to Heal: Resettler Nationalism in the Aftermath of Conflict and Disaster. Durham, 2025.
• Afkhami, Mahnaz “The Women's Organization of Iran: Evolutionary Politics and Revolutionary Change", in: Beck Lois/Nashat Guity (eds), Women in Iran From 1800 to the Islamic Republic, Chicago 2002.
• Ardalan/ Bakhtiar A Sense of Unity: A Sufi Tradition in Persian Architecture, Chicago 1973.
• Bakhtiar, Laleh (ed) Towards a Quality of Life: The Role of Industrialization in the Architecture and Urban Planning of Developing Countries: Report of Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Architects, Persepolis, Iran 1974, Tehran 1976.
• Ehsan, Noushin A Memoir: The Making of a Woman Architect. Independent publication, 2022.
• Karimi,Pamela Alternative Iran: Contemporary Art and Critical Spatial Practice. Stanford 2022.
• Karimi, Pamela "The Gestural Feminism of Iranian Women", in:  Hyperallergic 14 Nov. 2024.
• Moser-Khalili, Moira "Urban Design Recommendation for Iran", in: Art and Architecture Journal, August-November 1976, Special Edition: Women Architects, English section.
• Sardar-Afkhami, Leila Farhad Motamed “Women Architects”, in: Art and Architecture Journal, August-November 1976, Special Edition: Women Architects, English section.
• Tabibi, Baharak "Unhiding the Hidden Portrait of Pahlavi Women Builders in Sketching the Iranian Modernity: A Reassessment of the Congress of Women Architects.", in: METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol. 38, no. 1, 2021, pp. 197-212.
• Tajbakhsh, Kian Creating Local Democracy in Iran: State Building and the Politics of Decentralization. Cambridge 2022.
• Torre, Susana Women in Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective, New York, 1977.
• The Crisis of Identity in Architecture. Report of the Proceedings of the International Congress of Women Architects, Ramsar, Iran, 1976. Prepared for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development of the Imperial Government of Iran, Tehran 1977.