(* 'GLOCAL' is a neologism coined with the aim of encompassing the concepts of 'GLOBAL' and LOCAL' and, by neologistic licence, incorporates a time element which the two largely geographical concepts tend to ignore.) Following the age old practice of exchanging building materials and technologies, it is now becoming equally common for the whole design and building industries (e.g. architectural offices, construction companies, consultancies) to 'travel', or to be 'exported', 'bought', 'sold', 'taken over', 'merged', 'diversified, 'branched out' or increasingly made into multinational corporations. Take the following hypothetical example: a piece of land in London owned by an Australian corporation is being developed by an American company into a hotel / conference centre to be run by a consortium of Dutch and Italian companies on a design by a French signature architect who delegates the detail design to a British architectural firm and the interior design to a Finnish design consultancy; the project management is being undertaken by an AngloCanadian firm; the construction management is being handled by a Japanese corporation and much of the components and materials originate from seven or eight different countries. Now, as is to be expected, in the process of realizing such projects fundamental shifts of power, influence, emphasis and priorities are bound to take place. • Is this internationalization or globalization of architectural and construction practices led by, and manifest themselves in, changes primarily in architectural form or, say, those in world economy? • What is the relationship between the quantitative background and consequences of these changes and cultural, institutional and spatial ones? • What are the possibilities of having a view of the above that is critical (as distinct from professional or commercial) and educational (as distinct from vocational training)? • What new opportunities and challenges are there in which of these developments (a) for the profession, (b) for the society, the cities and individuals, and (c) for architectural education? For the practice these imply the question of whether it is in a position to grasp this challenge and attempt a self-definition, a de-/earning and a re-learning process in the face of increasing globalization? For education, however, the challenge is even greater: The question is whether traditional patterns of educational practice can meet these challenges and use the new opportunities to evolve a genuinely glocalistic education with all the new attitudes, new knowledge and new skills that should go with it? And, what should the relationship between the profession and the education be in this new project? Can education lead architectural profession, rather than be continuously led, validated and examined by it? Or, can it join forces with the profession to create what we are proposing to call a glocal architectural practice? The paper aims to present an outline agenda for posing such crucial research questions and develop new concepts with a view to establishing CPD, CPE, undergraduate and postgraduate educational programmes.