作者：M·艾倫·戴明

“若沒有考慮到景觀解決方案，則無(wú)法通過(guò)任何措施實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展——零碳、零廢物、凈零水、生物多樣性和適居性。通過(guò)公司的實(shí)踐型研究和創(chuàng)新設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程，DesignWorkshop已成為景觀績(jī)效領(lǐng)域的先驅(qū)。針對(duì)特定績(jī)效目標(biāo)設(shè)定成功目標(biāo)以及測(cè)定方法，DW使我們?cè)鲩L(zhǎng)知識(shí)，并生成關(guān)于景觀解決方案在實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展過(guò)程中所起關(guān)鍵作用的證據(jù)。”

–景觀建筑基金會(huì)執(zhí)行董事芭芭拉·多依奇

景觀建筑業(yè)是一個(gè)相對(duì)年輕的領(lǐng)域。景觀建筑學(xué)的第一個(gè)專業(yè)研究課程建立于1990年（哈佛大學(xué)），但建立以來(lái)，大部分時(shí)間里景觀建筑是否與學(xué)術(shù)相悖，這點(diǎn)一直有爭(zhēng)議。數(shù)十年來(lái)，我們聽到從業(yè)者抱怨說(shuō)專業(yè)學(xué)者開展的研究并不能夠滿足設(shè)計(jì)行業(yè)的需求。在本論文中，我希望可以推翻這種抱怨：在像景觀建筑業(yè)這樣的知識(shí)型行業(yè)，從業(yè)者為什么不自己開展研究呢？畢竟看上去景觀建筑師不是不知道該如何開展研究。那么是什么在阻止我們前進(jìn)的步伐呢？

自20世紀(jì)90年代初，景觀建筑師就已得知專業(yè)學(xué)者或混合從業(yè)者創(chuàng)作的文獻(xiàn)作品不斷增多，其中大部分都有助于設(shè)計(jì)行業(yè)知識(shí)性問(wèn)題的分析，但對(duì)實(shí)踐性問(wèn)題幫助不大。從公平的角度來(lái)說(shuō)，這些作者與其實(shí)踐者同行服務(wù)的優(yōu)先級(jí)不同。與營(yíng)利性設(shè)計(jì)與開發(fā)行業(yè)相同，受更高教育的行業(yè)也制定了自己的規(guī)則并創(chuàng)造了自己的迫切需求。因此，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在某些機(jī)構(gòu)中，理論與研究并非達(dá)到目的的手段，而是他們自身就是目的；在某些私營(yíng)實(shí)踐中，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)等同于生存，導(dǎo)致他們不情愿分享學(xué)習(xí)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，也不情愿騰出時(shí)間發(fā)展智力。

在過(guò)去10年左右的時(shí)間里，全球各大院校的新興專業(yè)課程飛速發(fā)展，尤其是在中國(guó)，更是出現(xiàn)了新的、令人興奮的、自由的、有時(shí)具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性的議題與前景。學(xué)科研究的范圍越來(lái)越廣泛。雖然與任何學(xué)科的正常演變相兼容，但是，對(duì)于想要解決特定場(chǎng)所有關(guān)問(wèn)題和方法的人而言，這種不確定性是令人困惑甚至沮喪的。

幸運(yùn)的是，在DesignWorkshop實(shí)踐的內(nèi)容和結(jié)構(gòu)下（見《世界建筑導(dǎo)報(bào)》的專題），我們可以看到,景觀建筑業(yè)的專業(yè)學(xué)者與其它專業(yè)人士之間的可見“意見分歧”開始出現(xiàn)彌合的跡象。面對(duì)復(fù)雜的挑戰(zhàn)，許多景觀從業(yè)者開始認(rèn)識(shí)到，必須有更集中、更具識(shí)別性的研究議程，才能在工作中立于不敗之地，有效提升該領(lǐng)域的價(jià)值，并對(duì)環(huán)境產(chǎn)生積極的影響。我的觀點(diǎn)是，實(shí)踐者與專業(yè)學(xué)者應(yīng)該相互合作，結(jié)成強(qiáng)有力的聯(lián)盟以增長(zhǎng)共享的知識(shí)，而不是在我們自己的圈子里相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。簡(jiǎn)言之，為了設(shè)計(jì)行業(yè)的成功，為了從“好變成極好”，景觀實(shí)踐者和景觀專業(yè)學(xué)者都不能無(wú)視對(duì)方的努力——當(dāng)然，我們必須找到學(xué)習(xí)方法，更重要的是，相互學(xué)習(xí)。

開創(chuàng)性實(shí)踐研究：記錄成功與失敗

在努力收集和組織各個(gè)實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域共享的“顯性”知識(shí)的過(guò)程中，有一段富有成效合作的悠久歷史。1982年，景觀建筑教育者理事會(huì)（CELA）創(chuàng)建了第一份景觀建筑同行評(píng)議雜志《景觀期刊》，并在這份雜志上宣傳“與景觀設(shè)計(jì)、規(guī)劃和管理有關(guān)的研究和學(xué)者調(diào)查結(jié)果”。30年后，有六份英文版同行評(píng)議研究雜志專門為景觀建筑業(yè)服務(wù)，還有其它數(shù)百份雜志廣泛地豐富了該領(lǐng)域。與CELA和《景觀期刊》一起，美國(guó)景觀建筑師協(xié)會(huì)（ASLA）及其州立分會(huì)長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)維持著各項(xiàng)專業(yè)和學(xué)生研究的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)認(rèn)證，這些都能“促進(jìn)該領(lǐng)域的知識(shí)體系”。其它國(guó)家目前采用的也是類似的方法。

就在過(guò)去的10年里，景觀建筑基金會(huì)（LAF）建立了一種綜合、系統(tǒng)的方法來(lái)記錄該領(lǐng)域的成功、創(chuàng)新性案例研究，從而又向前邁進(jìn)了一步。馬克·弗朗西斯的“景觀建筑案例研究方法”（2001年）出版在《景觀期刊》上，在此基礎(chǔ)上就建立了LAF案例研究倡議。隨后，LAF還舉辦了“土地與社區(qū)設(shè)計(jì)案例研究系列”活動(dòng)，弗朗西斯的《村莊家園：設(shè)計(jì)社區(qū)》（2003年）在該系列競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中取得第一名。隨著時(shí)間的流逝，出版一系列印刷專題論文的巨大經(jīng)濟(jì)費(fèi)用讓人咋舌，但是，出現(xiàn)了一種更機(jī)敏的創(chuàng)新理念——在線獲取案例研究摘要，使學(xué)生、設(shè)計(jì)師、業(yè)主和開發(fā)商等均可很容易地獲取一些數(shù)據(jù)。為了使這些案例研究得到更清晰的關(guān)注，景觀績(jī)效系列方法（LPS）明確識(shí)別出可持續(xù)性特征的項(xiàng)目。自開展景觀績(jī)效初步研究以來(lái)，已收集到70多個(gè)項(xiàng)目的數(shù)據(jù)，這使得數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)的容量急速增長(zhǎng)。

DesignWorkshop積極參與其實(shí)踐成功與失敗的記錄，至今已有10個(gè)項(xiàng)目被納入LAFLPS計(jì)劃（有七個(gè)已出版）。正如本期的《世界建筑導(dǎo)報(bào)》所展示的，DesignWorkshop創(chuàng)新地運(yùn)用新知識(shí)在許多方面都有好處，其中也使其潛在的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手獲益。項(xiàng)目的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)有助于其他設(shè)計(jì)師提升視覺質(zhì)量，對(duì)社區(qū)產(chǎn)生積極的社會(huì)影響，提供有彈性的生態(tài)服務(wù)，甚至有助于傳授關(guān)于成功商業(yè)模式的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。這也提出了一個(gè)實(shí)踐研究的關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題：對(duì)令人日益擔(dān)憂的由新知識(shí)產(chǎn)生的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)、版權(quán)和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)，如何應(yīng)對(duì)？

?

許多從業(yè)者認(rèn)為，從項(xiàng)目設(shè)計(jì)、原材料、決策過(guò)程或者建造與安裝的成敗獲得的知識(shí)屬于私人所有，是他們向客戶提供的服務(wù)所附帶的。如果此類知識(shí)有助于從業(yè)者精通專業(yè)知識(shí)，則通常屬于“隱性”或個(gè)人知識(shí)。同樣地，對(duì)于研究型大學(xué)和分析型行業(yè)所產(chǎn)生的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的分配問(wèn)題，其管理規(guī)則已成為免費(fèi)信息優(yōu)化分享的關(guān)鍵。許多機(jī)構(gòu)和政府補(bǔ)助政策限制了新知識(shí)的傳播，即使是學(xué)術(shù)帶頭人也不例外。

不過(guò)，通過(guò)公平使用條款、開放來(lái)源軟件和“免費(fèi)軟件”等方式，信息科學(xué)和數(shù)字創(chuàng)新的另類思維開創(chuàng)了分享公共領(lǐng)域理念的新方法。還有一項(xiàng)日益興起的運(yùn)動(dòng)，認(rèn)為“新知識(shí)”必然有利于實(shí)踐，所以應(yīng)該成為專業(yè)能力建設(shè)的重要和必需形式。像DesignWorkshop這樣先進(jìn)的機(jī)構(gòu)和公司，與研發(fā)行業(yè)的工程師或開展臨床試驗(yàn)的醫(yī)生相比，似乎是“實(shí)踐研究”最積極的擁護(hù)者。DesignWorkshop的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層把這種實(shí)踐視為一項(xiàng)專業(yè)挑戰(zhàn)，也把其積極地視為企業(yè)發(fā)展的機(jī)遇。如果其他受尊敬的專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)也有研發(fā)的慣例，并且想盡辦法把研究活動(dòng)和其它知識(shí)構(gòu)建形式納入其商業(yè)計(jì)劃和成本結(jié)構(gòu)，那么，為什么設(shè)計(jì)行業(yè)不這樣做呢？為什么景觀建筑師不能倡導(dǎo)這樣的努力呢？

可持續(xù)發(fā)展與價(jià)值觀

正如大家熟知的，通常根據(jù)“3個(gè)E”，經(jīng)濟(jì)（Economic）效益、環(huán)境（Environmental）效益和公平（Equitable）社會(huì)效益來(lái)衡量該項(xiàng)目是否遵循可持續(xù)發(fā)展理論，這三項(xiàng)也被視為可持續(xù)規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)的基石。目前，有些實(shí)踐者和學(xué)者主張拓寬可持續(xù)性的定義，把其它不容易衡量的效益也包括在內(nèi)。例如，2010年11月，景觀建筑師注冊(cè)管理局（CLARB）進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)內(nèi)容分析，來(lái)探索景觀建筑的法規(guī)授權(quán)，以保障并促進(jìn)公眾健康、安全和福祉。在檢驗(yàn)“福祉”一詞更深層含義的研究中，通過(guò)許可檢驗(yàn)和專業(yè)實(shí)踐，CLARB意欲對(duì)一種衡量能力的替代方式進(jìn)行評(píng)估，這種能力就是理解和保護(hù)無(wú)形的“優(yōu)秀設(shè)計(jì)”。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，福祉的概念與幸福安康的概念（表現(xiàn)為歡樂、健康、自豪、場(chǎng)所關(guān)聯(lián)和繁榮興旺）的關(guān)系非常密切，幾乎是不可分割的，因此它是景觀和其它設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)表達(dá)情感可持續(xù)性的重要部分，許多人都將其視為可持續(xù)發(fā)展的第四個(gè)基石。但是，在景觀設(shè)計(jì)中應(yīng)該如何開展衡量其歡樂、美麗抑或是場(chǎng)所關(guān)聯(lián)性的份額呢？（參看圖1和圖2）

城市土地學(xué)會(huì)出版的《城市設(shè)計(jì)與盈余》（2008年）首次開創(chuàng)了這種思路，它開發(fā)了一種寬泛矩陣，作者稱之為“四重盈余”。在檢驗(yàn)包括“感性回歸”在內(nèi)的城市價(jià)值觀的過(guò)程中，作者認(rèn)為，對(duì)場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造的審美和情感回應(yīng)是以“有影響力的支持者”為導(dǎo)向的，可通過(guò)其它非數(shù)字的社會(huì)和財(cái)政投資回報(bào)的紅利進(jìn)行衡量，包括優(yōu)秀設(shè)計(jì)：“新設(shè)計(jì)支持者關(guān)注的是城市生活的質(zhì)量、環(huán)境與文化的敏感性、可持續(xù)發(fā)展和觀賞價(jià)值。”此范例表明，通過(guò)合作和分享其在每個(gè)項(xiàng)目學(xué)得的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，景觀建筑師不僅可以幫助社區(qū)實(shí)現(xiàn)環(huán)境的可持續(xù)發(fā)展；還可以使其通過(guò)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)保有社會(huì)資本和智力資本，使社區(qū)繁榮昌盛。

高質(zhì)量的研究才能建立有說(shuō)服力、有依據(jù)的并支持設(shè)計(jì)帶來(lái)多重價(jià)值的證據(jù)。如果我們的價(jià)值指引著一切我們所做的和所創(chuàng)造的，那么我們所學(xué)到的和所了解的--例如，我們景觀建筑的專業(yè)知識(shí)--將會(huì)在根本上與其他行業(yè)有所不同。西蒙·史沃斐曾針對(duì)這一主題做過(guò)決定性的論述：“設(shè)計(jì)創(chuàng)造了‘可能性的空間’（德·蘭達(dá)和埃里森，2008年）……通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)和管理可以塑造合意的、可行的未來(lái)，并通過(guò)科學(xué)評(píng)估予以檢驗(yàn)?！币虼耍验_放式的設(shè)計(jì)價(jià)值觀與封閉式的研究和評(píng)估過(guò)程相結(jié)合，景觀建筑師必須能夠自如地協(xié)調(diào)好這兩者的關(guān)系?？闪炕臄?shù)據(jù)仍然是呈現(xiàn)在開發(fā)商、投資商和決策者面前的最具說(shuō)服力的證據(jù)形式，這些人中的大部分仍然控制著全球的設(shè)計(jì)與開發(fā)議程。不過(guò)，任何想要建立全面健全的新知識(shí)與理解體系的成功行為，應(yīng)該也能夠接受由景觀實(shí)踐（包括設(shè)計(jì)研究）產(chǎn)生的各項(xiàng)研究的多種價(jià)值、形式和定義。

設(shè)計(jì)與可歸納的知識(shí)

越來(lái)越多來(lái)自該領(lǐng)域的證據(jù)（ASLA、LAF、英特網(wǎng)等）證明，景觀建筑行業(yè)實(shí)踐整合了許多形式的研究。我們認(rèn)為，在設(shè)計(jì)企業(yè)以及專業(yè)建設(shè)領(lǐng)域早已出現(xiàn)了各種研究策略，從僅為了解決某個(gè)特殊問(wèn)題而組建的各個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)到在設(shè)計(jì)企業(yè)任命研究總監(jiān)，他負(fù)責(zé)評(píng)估和組織建成項(xiàng)目的可衡量效益。這種新的彈性恰恰是景觀建筑領(lǐng)域?qū)崿F(xiàn)其跨案比較的潛在能力所需的。（參看圖3）

為了更好地理解現(xiàn)有實(shí)踐研究的形式和范圍，我和同事們已開展一項(xiàng)探索性調(diào)研，深入了解專業(yè)人士對(duì)開展研究調(diào)查的態(tài)度。我們還力求檢驗(yàn)和闡述《景觀建筑研究：調(diào)查、策略、設(shè)計(jì)》（2011年）首次引入的綜合性框架，這本書闡述了在景觀建筑中出現(xiàn)的實(shí)踐研究的多項(xiàng)策略（表1）。特別值得注意的是，我們的調(diào)研要求實(shí)踐者將其典型的專業(yè)服務(wù)和調(diào)查與普遍接受的“研究”的定義相聯(lián)系起來(lái)（“研究”的普遍公認(rèn)定義以聯(lián)邦法規(guī)為基礎(chǔ)，被合作機(jī)構(gòu)培訓(xùn)學(xué)會(huì)所采納），每一個(gè)部分都是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的、有彈性的：“系統(tǒng)研究包括研發(fā)、檢驗(yàn)和評(píng)估，旨在發(fā)展或促成可歸納的知識(shí)?！彪m然具有高度的通用性，但是我們?nèi)匀徽J(rèn)為，該定義對(duì)描述領(lǐng)域和專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)可能開展的實(shí)踐范圍非常實(shí)用。該定義包含了每項(xiàng)實(shí)踐采用的各種策略和方法，從實(shí)驗(yàn)到研究型設(shè)計(jì)、從參與性設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程到歷史性闡述、從直截了當(dāng)?shù)拿枋鲂园咐芯康絼?dòng)態(tài)建模，等等。

我們的調(diào)研收到的一些早期回應(yīng)表明，有些實(shí)踐者抵觸可歸納性的概念，仿佛在追求敏感設(shè)計(jì)的過(guò)程中，獲得更多專業(yè)知識(shí)是不可能的或站不住腳的。但是，為什么優(yōu)秀的設(shè)計(jì)師不從特定場(chǎng)所的或基于項(xiàng)目的與其它場(chǎng)所和環(huán)境有關(guān)的調(diào)查中獲取支配性的見解？是的，按服務(wù)收費(fèi)的、僅為一次性的為解決問(wèn)題而建立的研究與為獲得知識(shí)價(jià)值而發(fā)起的原始的、可歸納的研究之間的智力價(jià)值存在著明顯的區(qū)別。但研究實(shí)踐無(wú)須受這種非黑即白的觀點(diǎn)的局限。在解決以客戶為導(dǎo)向的問(wèn)題的過(guò)程中，如果項(xiàng)目信息被系統(tǒng)地收集、組織成數(shù)據(jù)集，并按照理論上已知的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)姆治?，那么，?shí)踐與研究之間固定的傳統(tǒng)界限很快就會(huì)模糊。因此，我們針對(duì)實(shí)踐研究開展的調(diào)研尋求的是以專業(yè)實(shí)踐的典范來(lái)指引前進(jìn)的道路——不僅使研究變成一種承諾，而且使研究變成一個(gè)“品牌”；不僅是一種商業(yè)模式，而且是一種倡導(dǎo)類型。

表1 ：景觀建筑的研究策略：實(shí)踐框架（改編自戴明和史沃斐的作品，2011年）

作為在我們即將開展的研究中提及的專業(yè)模范之一，DesignWorkshop在其追求更廣大的專業(yè)研究議程中并不孤單；然而在專業(yè)實(shí)踐如何從學(xué)術(shù)界再獲取知識(shí)并使研究論述煥然一新方面，該公司的項(xiàng)目已躋身行業(yè)最佳典范。DesignWorkshop的作品如何適應(yīng)我們龐大的框架？在表1明確的九大基礎(chǔ)研究策略中，DesignWorkshop至少參與了兩項(xiàng)可歸納實(shí)踐知識(shí)的策略：

描述性策略包括對(duì)可比較的和縱向的案例研究進(jìn)行的準(zhǔn)備工作。對(duì)新場(chǎng)地和/或?qū)嵺`的客觀匯報(bào)和描述正好屬于案例研究。例如，通過(guò)參與本期的《世界建筑導(dǎo)報(bào)》以及LAF案例研究之景觀績(jī)效系列，DesignWorkshop所收集、組織和提交的案例研究數(shù)據(jù)有助于成敗模式的共同理解，而成敗模式是較大型的問(wèn)題構(gòu)建與調(diào)查的根本。通過(guò)真誠(chéng)、客觀地檢驗(yàn)工作的成敗，在更長(zhǎng)的時(shí)限內(nèi)新知識(shí)可能更有充分的理由和概念性，而且，僅僅通過(guò)定義就可以將新的社會(huì)和環(huán)境變量納入其中。

投射式設(shè)計(jì)策略包括有時(shí)被稱為設(shè)計(jì)型研究的策略。通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)以重新提出現(xiàn)有問(wèn)題或通過(guò)創(chuàng)新以提出新的學(xué)科問(wèn)題，投射出理論原則或主張，使設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程被激活而成為一項(xiàng)研究策略。是的，跟醫(yī)學(xué)一樣，將提供服務(wù)所得利益與生成新知識(shí)所得利益劃分清楚，這有著令人信服的道德理由。不過(guò)，在一些實(shí)例中，設(shè)計(jì)研究可以達(dá)成多種目的，尤其是在客戶分享項(xiàng)目目標(biāo)的情況下。（參看圖4、圖5）若在理論議程中使用投射式設(shè)計(jì)（例如：當(dāng)以可持續(xù)發(fā)展和/或社會(huì)公平理論來(lái)對(duì)開發(fā)“完整的街道”做出建議時(shí)），很可能會(huì)發(fā)生以下幾種情況：（1）出現(xiàn)一種新的生成式過(guò)程理論（設(shè)計(jì)理論）；（2）應(yīng)用/檢驗(yàn)衍生式理論以改善新的場(chǎng)所、圖像、現(xiàn)象、關(guān)系和影響的生成（設(shè)計(jì)中的應(yīng)用研究/通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)的應(yīng)用研究）；（3）在觀察生成的作品過(guò)程中出現(xiàn)的實(shí)據(jù)理論（循證設(shè)計(jì)）。因此，作為研究的設(shè)計(jì)的變化對(duì)新的學(xué)科知識(shí)大有幫助。一些常見的排列，如：形式和類型學(xué)/比較分析，更確切地說(shuō)，屬于分類和解釋策略。但是，在所有的情況都需要服從一個(gè)重要的警告：只有嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)貐R報(bào)項(xiàng)目成敗的目的、程序和結(jié)果并予以公正的評(píng)估（即，無(wú)任何偏見，也無(wú)固有的“利益”），這個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)才可稱之為研究。

當(dāng)然，微觀研究過(guò)程提出了幾乎所有的設(shè)計(jì)問(wèn)題：必須按特定模型建造和評(píng)估場(chǎng)地系統(tǒng)；必須計(jì)算成本和計(jì)劃面積等等。不過(guò)，如果獲得的知識(shí)不能歸納和共享，則不能稱其為研究。這可能會(huì)引起混淆。設(shè)計(jì)師在講述場(chǎng)地或有關(guān)場(chǎng)地的信息時(shí)，可以采用闡釋學(xué)解釋的非研究型推論；了解人工因素和索引痕跡可以豐富和指導(dǎo)特定場(chǎng)所設(shè)計(jì)，其中包括材料和空間次序的選擇。評(píng)估與識(shí)別的非研究型推論可用于每一種場(chǎng)地的分析中，例如：判斷施工土壤的質(zhì)量和深度，或者判斷場(chǎng)內(nèi)或場(chǎng)外某些視線是否滿意。每當(dāng)設(shè)計(jì)團(tuán)隊(duì)針對(duì)校區(qū)或公園的方案設(shè)計(jì)或規(guī)劃舉辦公開聽證會(huì)或得出反饋意見時(shí)，就會(huì)激活參與行動(dòng)的非研究型推論。不過(guò)，無(wú)論它多么寶貴,大部分特定場(chǎng)地推論活動(dòng)都不能也無(wú)法滿足廣泛研究議程的要求。

新知識(shí)與把關(guān)文化

在當(dāng)今的景觀建筑行業(yè)，大多數(shù)正在開展的杰出的實(shí)踐型研究都來(lái)自于私營(yíng)企業(yè)與公共機(jī)構(gòu)之間的新型伙伴關(guān)系以及與之相互合作的學(xué)術(shù)界。即使是資金不足的情況也應(yīng)支持此類成果卓著的聯(lián)合研究。強(qiáng)調(diào)重新產(chǎn)生的對(duì)研究興趣的重要性存在于以下兩個(gè)方面：第一，知識(shí)分子會(huì)更容易與企業(yè)合作，分享研究方面的問(wèn)題，既符合專利所有權(quán)的切入點(diǎn)，也符合學(xué)術(shù)研究/同行評(píng)議的切入點(diǎn)；第二，更多關(guān)于健康、安全和福祉的問(wèn)題，包括氣候變化、資源管理、社會(huì)公平與公共衛(wèi)生以及該領(lǐng)域的法規(guī)合法性等，很快就會(huì)推動(dòng)專業(yè)活動(dòng)的發(fā)展，甚至占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位。

我們還有一些觀念沖突需要克服——尤其是關(guān)于同行評(píng)議和資格認(rèn)證的觀念，這兩者都是上個(gè)世紀(jì)的遺留實(shí)踐，對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)界產(chǎn)生了重大的影響。原則上，兩者都是必要的實(shí)踐，它是在專業(yè)和學(xué)術(shù)環(huán)境中，通過(guò)自我管理的共同過(guò)程來(lái)保護(hù)知識(shí)的完備性。但是，無(wú)可否認(rèn)，實(shí)踐者投身的這些程序有時(shí)反復(fù)無(wú)常、浪費(fèi)時(shí)間而且經(jīng)常使人筋疲力盡，很難想象要是將其強(qiáng)加在研究者身上的會(huì)是怎樣？因此，學(xué)術(shù)研究同行評(píng)議模式的古老傳統(tǒng)涉及到一種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)等級(jí)，尤其是對(duì)年輕的從業(yè)者和學(xué)者而言，他們往往無(wú)法承受得起這樣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，也無(wú)法避免。在當(dāng)代傳媒界和學(xué)術(shù)資金循環(huán)快速發(fā)展的情況下，舊的同行評(píng)議模式正在瓦解，因?yàn)樗鼉H僅是花很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間去查看已出版的甚至是在線的高質(zhì)量作品。如果研究者的目標(biāo)是對(duì)實(shí)踐產(chǎn)生影響，而與學(xué)術(shù)信譽(yù)或?qū)W術(shù)聲望截然相反，那么，這些同行評(píng)議方式可能會(huì)被視為令人沮喪的障礙。

新一代的學(xué)者，尤其是有雄心使設(shè)計(jì)與研究議程相結(jié)合的學(xué)者，通過(guò)其批判性和評(píng)論性的不同議程，選擇將他們的工作面向另類的領(lǐng)域和讀者。由于研究和創(chuàng)造性調(diào)查都可以采用許多不同的方式進(jìn)行，因此，同行評(píng)議也可以。一些主要的研究型大學(xué)現(xiàn)在開始接受，同行讀者采用的許多評(píng)論、評(píng)估和贊譽(yù)方式足以說(shuō)明研究與創(chuàng)新素質(zhì)的基本原理，其中包括內(nèi)外部的有效性、公正性、適用性、可靠性、獨(dú)創(chuàng)性和經(jīng)濟(jì)性。

考慮到這些新興的實(shí)踐，那么實(shí)踐型研究的同行評(píng)議過(guò)程或與之等同的過(guò)程可以采用什么方式呢？這無(wú)疑取決于工作的格式與內(nèi)容。一些期刊（包括已出版的和在線期刊）大幅度地縮短或改變傳統(tǒng)的同行評(píng)議過(guò)程，或者完全繞過(guò)這個(gè)過(guò)程來(lái)支持編輯部、委員會(huì)或者更加非正式的維基類型的、連續(xù)自發(fā)型的、共識(shí)型評(píng)議過(guò)程（如：維基百科）。設(shè)計(jì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)與獲獎(jiǎng)計(jì)劃往往是由某個(gè)特定事件評(píng)判委員會(huì)進(jìn)行評(píng)議的，該評(píng)判委員會(huì)是根據(jù)其經(jīng)驗(yàn)和批判性洞察力挑選出來(lái)的，審議往往是在集中的期限內(nèi)進(jìn)行。資金和獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金申請(qǐng)以及作品展示的挑選方式往往也與之類似。

合作，尤其是與老客戶和/或可信的項(xiàng)目專員合作，是觀察同行接待的其它方式。建成工程、本文提及的工作室或者已出版的和/或頗受公認(rèn)的文化分析家好評(píng)的設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)劃也可被視為同行評(píng)議的方式。鑒于所有這一切，盡管該領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)人士仍未在研究定義、邏輯、目的和效益方面達(dá)成強(qiáng)烈的共識(shí)，專業(yè)的“把關(guān)”文化仍可能會(huì)繼續(xù)慢慢從內(nèi)到外地改變學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域。

研究：全球事業(yè)

專業(yè)研究的作者目前包括每一個(gè)人——私營(yíng)設(shè)計(jì)企業(yè)的景觀從業(yè)者、跨學(xué)科公司或企業(yè)咨詢公司、非營(yíng)利性公司、國(guó)營(yíng)企業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)以及混合學(xué)術(shù)研究的實(shí)踐者。生產(chǎn)和消費(fèi)研究的速度正在加快；有些人甚至已預(yù)言，實(shí)踐型研究將挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)的同行評(píng)議發(fā)表過(guò)程，刊物的更新速度太慢且關(guān)聯(lián)性弱。大多數(shù)有修養(yǎng)的實(shí)踐者都是有技能的跨學(xué)科合作者，他們對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)知識(shí)的“筒倉(cāng)”缺乏耐心。學(xué)生們希望看到他們正在學(xué)習(xí)的研究技巧和方法如何轉(zhuǎn)化為專業(yè)應(yīng)用，而最理想地是轉(zhuǎn)化為專業(yè)的聘用，這對(duì)景觀建筑學(xué)校的專業(yè)課程的框架/重點(diǎn)產(chǎn)生重大的影響。所有這一切均表明，對(duì)比傳統(tǒng)期刊目前能夠應(yīng)對(duì)的速度，新知識(shí)的共享和應(yīng)用必須要快得多；同時(shí)，確保嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)貙徍诵碌睦砟钆c實(shí)踐，并謹(jǐn)慎對(duì)待未加思索的方法產(chǎn)生的意外后果符合該行業(yè)的利益要求。

由于實(shí)踐者對(duì)實(shí)踐研究擔(dān)負(fù)有更大的責(zé)任，人們就很容易會(huì)猜想，該領(lǐng)域的研究議程開始發(fā)生改變，也許是接受授權(quán)以達(dá)到更佳的效應(yīng)，同時(shí)也更多地關(guān)注于知識(shí)的形成，以便實(shí)現(xiàn)預(yù)期的社會(huì)和環(huán)境效益。雖然這可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致使用更多理性的手段，但是，也會(huì)將焦點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)向認(rèn)知我們共享的價(jià)值觀——有些人稱之為價(jià)值理性。畢竟，大部分景觀建筑師還是會(huì)分享某些共同的目標(biāo)的，如：創(chuàng)建或維護(hù)優(yōu)美而健康的場(chǎng)所，構(gòu)建知識(shí)，掌握技術(shù)知識(shí)、預(yù)測(cè)性知識(shí)、概念性知識(shí)和倫理知識(shí)，確保持續(xù)的集體進(jìn)步，服務(wù)社會(huì)。這一套核心價(jià)值觀給我們帶來(lái)了希望，希望早期采用實(shí)踐研究方法的人將帶來(lái)更佳的設(shè)計(jì)、產(chǎn)生更重大的專業(yè)影響，從而對(duì)景觀設(shè)計(jì)師與規(guī)劃師們能夠和應(yīng)該了解的東西產(chǎn)生更高的期望。

原則上，我們構(gòu)建的理念影響范圍應(yīng)該僅僅是鞏固全球的景觀建筑事業(yè)。這一項(xiàng)全球事業(yè)的傳播是通過(guò)倡導(dǎo)、專業(yè)組織的興起、最佳實(shí)踐的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和規(guī)范、會(huì)議、專業(yè)課程、指導(dǎo)以及跨學(xué)科和跨國(guó)合作等來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)的。中國(guó)景觀建筑師協(xié)會(huì)（CSLA）正在這個(gè)極其重要的國(guó)家快速推動(dòng)該行業(yè)的發(fā)展，并正在致力于開發(fā)一個(gè)系統(tǒng)來(lái)認(rèn)證其頗具影響力的學(xué)校網(wǎng)。國(guó)際景觀建筑師聯(lián)合會(huì)（IFLA）在提升非洲、南美洲和其它區(qū)域的景觀建筑專業(yè)地位方面取得了重大的進(jìn)展。景觀建筑教育者理事會(huì)（CELA）正在倡導(dǎo)和指導(dǎo)墨西哥、中美洲、南美洲和泛太平洋/南亞的專業(yè)學(xué)者鞏固景觀建筑專業(yè)教育計(jì)劃的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。不過(guò)實(shí)際上，當(dāng)行業(yè)內(nèi)的成員未能如我們行業(yè)提倡的那樣，以相同的遠(yuǎn)見和尺度范圍生成和分享其知識(shí)時(shí)，全球的景觀建筑事業(yè)實(shí)際上是被弱化了。（參看圖6）

意識(shí)到景觀建筑業(yè)是全球市場(chǎng)一股較小的專業(yè)力量，這也許可能會(huì)說(shuō)服我們重新思考知識(shí)生成在開發(fā)該行業(yè)的總體“競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)”方面所起的作用。在這個(gè)創(chuàng)新的時(shí)代，若對(duì)擴(kuò)展學(xué)科的知識(shí)庫(kù)無(wú)所貢獻(xiàn)，任何企業(yè)都無(wú)法維持其競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。正如庫(kù)爾特·卡伯特森在本期前面部分所提及的那樣，人才和培訓(xùn)都有助于保持此類競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)，各企業(yè)可以通過(guò)公司范圍內(nèi)的示范性項(xiàng)目工程以及更為廣泛的學(xué)科專業(yè)知識(shí)證明這一點(diǎn)。目前的關(guān)注點(diǎn)是綜合開發(fā)一個(gè)證據(jù)庫(kù)，“證明”景觀建筑的價(jià)值、效益和影響，以表明知識(shí)形成對(duì)維持整個(gè)行業(yè)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性是何等的重要。

當(dāng)單個(gè)公司競(jìng)標(biāo)某項(xiàng)工程時(shí)，他們會(huì)對(duì)客戶隱瞞其專業(yè)服務(wù)和實(shí)踐專業(yè)知識(shí)，直至簽約成功。然而，其它可能更大型的應(yīng)用設(shè)計(jì)和工程行業(yè)則樂于聲稱其擁有類似的專業(yè)知識(shí)。這是真實(shí)的競(jìng)技場(chǎng)，充滿了新知識(shí)和新影響的跨學(xué)科競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。通過(guò)分享一般和特殊的學(xué)科知識(shí)，所有景觀建筑師都可以幫助彼此（也包括他們自己）提升行業(yè)能力來(lái)盡可能地在最大的尺度上競(jìng)爭(zhēng)以獲得最高的利益，保障重大的公共投資，并產(chǎn)生廣泛的環(huán)境政策和影響。如果我們能夠在新知識(shí)的競(jìng)技場(chǎng)上立于不敗之地，我們也許可以最終看到景觀建筑業(yè)在知識(shí)方面的不斷成熟，并在全球的重要學(xué)科中找到其應(yīng)有的位置。如果我們無(wú)法做到這一點(diǎn)，那么，我們?cè)撊绾伪Ｗo(hù)景觀建筑業(yè)不被淘汰呢？

M·艾倫·戴明博士是伊利諾伊大學(xué)香檳分校的景觀建筑學(xué)教授，講授設(shè)計(jì)工作室、歷史和理論以及研究設(shè)計(jì)課程。獲得哈佛設(shè)計(jì)研究院設(shè)計(jì)博士學(xué)位以及藝術(shù)史、景觀建筑和環(huán)境研究等學(xué)位。自2002年起，與詹姆斯·F·帕爾默一起擔(dān)任《景觀雜志》的主編，2006年至2009年，獨(dú)自擔(dān)任主編。她是景觀建筑教育者理事會(huì)（CELA）的前任會(huì)長(zhǎng)。與西蒙·史沃斐合著了《景觀建筑研究：探究/策略/設(shè)計(jì)》（威利出版社，2011年），概況描述了當(dāng)今景觀建筑使用的數(shù)大研究策略。這是一本探討從實(shí)踐、公司和代理機(jī)構(gòu)中涌現(xiàn)的調(diào)查研究的新作，并即將問(wèn)世。

Landscape architecture is a relatively young f eld. With its f rst professional course of study established in 1900 (Harvard University), landscape architecture has been arguably anti-academic for much of its existence, and for decades, we have heard practitioners complain that research produced by academics does not serve the needs of the profession. In this essay, I’d like to turn the complaint on its head: in a knowledge-based profession like landscape architecture, why don’t practitioners also produce research? After all, it’s not as if landscape architects don’t know how. What is holding us back?

Since the early 1990s landscape architects have been able to point to a growing body of literature produced by academics or hybrid practitioners, most of it devoted to the analysis of intellectual problems in our discipline rather than practical problems in our profession. It is fair to point out that these authors typically serve a dif ferent set of priorities from those of their practitioner cousins. The industry of higher education writes its own rules and creates its own exigencies, just as the commercial industry of design and development does. Thus we f nd that in some institutions theory and research are not means to an end – they have become ends in themselves; in some private practices competition equates to survival, leading to a reluctance to share learning experiences or make time for intellectual growth.

In the past decade or so, the rapid development of new professional programs in universities around the world, especially in China, has led to the emergence of new ,exciting, liberating, and sometimes competing agendas and perspectives. Disciplinary research has become increasingly dif fuse. Although compatible with the normal evolution of any discipline, such indeterminacy may seem confusing, even frustrating,to those seeking def nite answers and solutions to site-specif c problems.

Fortunately, in the content and structure of Design W orkshop’s practice (featured in this special issue of Architectural Worlds), we see signs that the perceived “divide”between academics and other professionals in landscape architecture is starting to close. In the face of complex challenges, many landscape practitioners have begun to recognize that a more focused and identif able research agenda is needed to competesuccessfully for work, effectively advance the values of the f eld, and to make positive impacts in the environment. My argument is that, rather than competing amongst ourselves, practitioners and academics should be working together as powerful allies in the advancement of shared knowledge. In short, for our profession to succeed, to move from “good to great,” neither landscape practitioners nor landscape academics can afford to dismiss each other ’s efforts – rather, we must f nd ways to learn from,and more importantly, learn with each other.

圖3 (fig.3)CREDIT:D.A.Horchner/DesignWorkshopAprojectteamiteratesadesignsolution.一個(gè)項(xiàng)目小組再三強(qiáng)調(diào)一種設(shè)計(jì)解決方案。

Pioneering Practical Research: Documenting Success and Failure

In the effort of collecting and organizing “explicit” knowledge shared in our various domains of practice, there is a long history of productive collaboration. In 1982 the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA)established Landscape Journal, the premiere peer-reviewed journal in landscape architecture, and charged it with disseminating the “results of research and scholarly investigation relating to landscape design, planning and management.” Three decades later, a half-dozen(English-language)peer-reviewed research journals serve landscape architecture specif cally, with hundreds of others enriching the f eld in general. W orking together with CELA and Landscape Journal, the American Society of Landscape Architects(ASLA)and its state-chapter af filiates have long maintained awards programs recognizing professional as well as student research that “advances the body of knowledge” for the f eld. Similar approaches are now being adopted in other countries.

In just the past decade, the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF)has taken another step forward by establishing a comprehensive and systematic process for documenting successful and innovative case studies in our field. The LAF Case Study Initiative was established with the publication of Mark Francis’s “A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture” (2001)in Landscape Journal.1Subsequently, LAF undertook the Land and Community Design Case Study Series, with Francis’s Village Homes: A Community by Design (2003)among the first titles in the series.2Over time the f nancial burden of publishing a series of print monographs faltered, but a more agile new idea emerged – case study digests available on-line, providing highly accessible data for everyone from students and designers to owners and developers.Bringing these case studies into clearer focus the Landscape Performance Series(LPS)specif cally identif es projects characterized by sustainability. Since the launch of the Landscape Performance pilot study, a swiftly growing dataset of 70+ projects has already been assembled.

With ten projects accepted into the LAF LPS program (seven published), Design Workshop has actively participated in the documentation of its practical successes and failures. And as this issue of Architectural Worlds demonstrates, Design Workshop’s innovative applications of new knowledge pays dividends in many ways,including benef ts to potential competitors. Project lessons may help other designers improve visual quality, make positive social impacts on community, provide resilient ecological services, and even impart lessons about successful business models.And that raises a pivotal issue for research in practice: how to manage growing concerns over intellectual property, copyright and the competitive edge provided by new knowledge.

?

Many practitioners believe that knowledge gained from the successes or failure of project design, materials, decision-making processes or fabrication and installation,is proprietary and incidental to the services they render to a client. If such knowledge contributes to professional mastery it is usually in a “tacit” or personal way . Similarly,the rules governing distribution of intellectual property generated within research universities and analytical industries has been a major sticking point for the optimal free sharing of information. Many institutional and government grants restrict the ways in which new knowledge may be disseminated even by principal investigators.

However, alternative thinking in information science and digital innovation is pioneering new ways of sharing ideas in the public domain through fair-use clauses,open-source software and “freeware,” just to mention a few. There is also a growing movement to acknowledge “new knowledge” as a corollary benefit to practice and therefore an important and necessary form of professional capacity-building.Progressive agencies and firms such as Design W orkshop seem to be the most aggressive proponents of the discourse of “practical research,” comparing their work to engineers in research and development industries or to medical doctors conducting clinical trials. The leadership of Design W orkshop recognizes this practice as a professional challenge and embraces it as an opportunity for corporate growth. If other respected professionals have institutionalized research and development, finding ways to build investigative activities and other forms of knowledge-building into their business plans and cost structures, then why not the design professions in general –and why shouldn't landscape architects pioneer these efforts?

Sustainability and Values

Projects adhering to theories of sustainability, as commonly understood, typically have been measured according to the “Three ‘E’s,” representing the range of economic, environmental and equitable social bene f ts considered the cornerstones of sustainable design and planning. Some practitioners and scholars now advocate for broader def nitions of sustainability that include additional, less-easily measured benef ts. For instance, in 2010-11 the Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards (CLARB)3undertook a content analysis exploring statutory mandates in landscape architecture to safeguard and promote health, safety and welfare. In research examining the deeper conceptual dimensions of the term “welfare,” CLARB intended to assess alternative ways of measuring competency in understanding and protecting the intangibles of ‘good design’ both during the licensing examination and in professional practice. They found that the concept of welfare was so closely linked as to be almost inseparable from notions of well-being (as in joy, health, pride,attachment to place and prosperity)and therefore was an important part of the affective sustainability of designed landscapes and other places, what many consider to be the fourth cornerstone of sustainability. But how does one begin to measure the quotient of joy, of beauty or perhaps place attachment, created in the designed landscape? (see f g. 1 and f g. 2)

A seminal work in this line of thinking, the Urban Land Institute’s publication Urban Design and the Bottom Line (2008)develops a broad matrix for what the authors call the ‘quadruple bottom line.’ In examining urban values that include “return on perception,” the authors argue that aesthetic and emotional responses to placemaking are guided by “influential constituencies,” and may be measured by other, nonnumerical dividends returned on social and financial investment, including good design: “New design constituencies focus on quality of urban life, environmental and cultural sensitivity, sustainability and visual value.”4This example suggests that,by working together and by sharing what they are learning on a project by project basis, landscape architects can help communities achieve more than environmental sustainability; they also help communities compete for retention of the social and intellectual capital that makes them f ourish.

High-quality research is needed to build persuasive, grounded arguments supporting the multiple values added by design. If what we value guides everything we do and make, then what we learn and know – i.e. our expertise in landscape architecture –will be fundamentally dif ferent from other professions. Simon Swaf field has written decisively on this subject: “design creates ‘possibility spaces’ (De Landa and Ellingsen 2008)… desirable and feasible futures [that]can be shaped through design and management, and tested through scienti f c evaluation.”5Thus combining the openended values of design with the close-ended processes of research and evaluation,landscape architects must be poised to negotiate both realms. Measureable data still present the most persuasive forms of evidence to developers, investors and policymakers who, for the most part, still control global design and development agendas.However, any successful movement to establish comprehensive and robust systems of new knowledge and understanding should also be able to accept multiple values,forms and definitions of research produced by and through landscape practices –including research by design.

Design and Generalizable Knowledge

Growing evidence from the f eld (ASLA, LAF, Internet, etc.)suggests that many forms of research are integrated within professional practices of landscape architecture. W e believe a variety of investigative strategies already take place in the design of f ces and construction f elds of the profession, from teams assembled for the sole purpose of solving a special problem to a director of research in a design of f ce whose job it is to assess and organize the measurable bene f ts of built projects. This new elasticity is precisely what needs to take place in order for the f eld of landscape architecture to realize its latent capacity for cross-case comparison. (see f g. 3)

In order to gain a better understanding of the current shape and scope of practical research, my colleagues and I have launched an exploratory survey to probe attitudes toward research investigations being conducted by professionals. W e also seek to test and illustrate a comprehensive framework, f rst introduced in Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design (2011), that accounts for multiple strategies of practical research taking place in landscape architecture (T able 1).6In particular, our survey asks practitioners to relate their typical professional services and investigations to a generally accepted def nition of “research” (based on federal regulations and as adopted by the Collaborative Institutional Training Institute)that is equal parts standard and elastic: “a systematic investigation including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”7Although highly generic, we think this def nition has great utility for describing the range of practices potentially undertaken by f eld and off ce professionals. It encompasses a variety of strategies and the methods employed for each that accommodates everything from experiment to design-as-research;from participatory design process to historic interpretation; and from straight-up descriptive case study to dynamic modelling.

Early responses to our survey indicate some resistance from practitioners on the notion of generalizability, as if broader expertise is unreasonable or untenable in the pursuit of sensitive design. But what good designer does not develop overarching insights from site-specif c or project-based investigations which are relevant to other sites and settings? Yes, there are clear dif ferences in intellectual value between one-off solution-based investigations undertaken as a fee-for-service and original,generalizable research efforts undertaken solely for its knowledge value. But research practices need not be limited to such black-or-white propositions. If, in the solution of client-based problems, project information is systematically reclaimed, organized as a dataset, and rigorously analyzed according to theoretically-informed questions,then the f xed traditional boundaries between practice and research quickly become blurred. Our survey of practical research thus seeks exemplary models of professional practice that show a way forward – those not only making research a commitment but also a “brand”; not just a business model but a type of advocacy.

Table 1. Research Strategies in Landscape Architecture: A Framework for Practice(adapted from Deming & Swaff eld, 2011)

As one of the professional exemplars to be featured in our forthcoming study, Design Workshop is not alone in its pursuit of a larger professional research agenda; however this f rm’s projects are among the best examples of how professional practice is retaking the f eld of knowledge production from academia and invigorating the discourse of research. How does the work of Design W orkshop f t into our larger framework?Among the nine basic research strategies that we identify in Table 1, Design Workshop participates in at least two strategies for generalizable practical knowledge:

Descriptive Strategies include the preparation of both comparative and longitudinal case studies. Objective reporting and description of new places and/or practices belong properly to case study research. For instance, by participating in this issue of Architectural Worlds as well as in the LAF Landscape Performance Series of case studies, Design W orkshop is collecting, organizing and presenting case study data to assist in a collective understanding of the patterns of success and failures fundamental to larger problematizing and investigation. By honestly and objectively examining both the failures and successes of the work, new knowledge may be grounded or conceptual, range over an extended time frame and will always, simply by def nition, involve new social and environmental variables.

Projective Design Strategies involve what is sometimes called research-by-design.Design process as a research strategy is activated when theoretical principles or propositions are projected through design in order to re-frame existing questions or through innovation to raise new disciplinary questions.8Yes, there are compelling ethical reasons to maintain a clear separation between the interests of providing services and the interests of generating new knowledge, as in medicine. There are, however, instances where design investigations may achieve combined ends,especially where the client shares in the project goals. (see f g. 4 and f g. 5)

When projective design is harnessed to a theoretical agenda (for instance when a theory of sustainability and/or social equity suggests development of ‘complete streets’),several things can happen: (1)a new theory of generative process emerges (design theory); (2)derivative theory is applied/tested to improve the generation of new places,images, phenomena, relationships and impacts (applied research in/through design)or (3)grounded theory emerges from observation of the work produced (evidencebased design). Variations of design-as-research can thus contribute powerfully to new disciplinary knowledge. Some popular permutations, such as formal and typological/comparative analyses, more properly belong to classif cation and interpretive strategies.But all come with an important caveat: only if the purposes, procedures and results of project success and failures are reported rigorously and evaluated in an unbiased way(i.e. without bias or inherent “interest”)may we speak of design as research.

Naturally, micro-research processes inform almost all design problems: site systems must be modelled and evaluated; costs and program areas must be calculated; and so on. However, if not generalizable and shared, knowledge thus gained cannot be claimed as research. This can be confusing. Non-research corollaries of Hermeneutic Interpretation may be engaged by designers in telling stories on or about sites;understanding of artifacts and indexical traces may enrich and guide site-specif c design choices of materials and spatial sequence. Non-research corollaries of Evaluation &Diagnosis are used in every site analysis, for instance in determining the quality and depth of soils for construction or the desirability of certain views on or of f-site. Nonresearch corollaries of Engaged Action are activated every time a design team runs a public hearing or elicits feedback on schematic design or programming for a campus or park. No matter how critically valuable, however, most of these site-specif c corollary activities do not and can not satisfy the requirements of a broader research agenda.

New Knowledge & the Culture of Gatekeeping

Much outstanding practice-based research being done today in landscape architecture is emerging from new partnerships between private practice and public agencies collaborating with academics and with each other. Even the lean funding climate is supportive for these kinds of productive research alliances. Highlighting this renewed interest in research is signi f cant in two ways: f rst, it may become easier for academicians to partner with of f ces on shared research questions, satisfying both proprietary and academic/peer-reviewed dimensions; and, secondly, professional activities may soon be driven, even dominated, by larger questions of health, safety and welfare, including climate change, resource management, social justice, and public health, the statutory legitimation of the f eld.

There are points of friction to be overcome – notably in peer review and accreditation,both residual practices from a past century that weigh heavily on academics in particular. In principle, both are necessary practices, symbolic of preserving intellectual integrity through a consensual process of self-governance within a professional and/or scholarly community. But it is admittedly hard to imagine practioners subjecting themselves to the sometimes capricious, time-consuming, and often gruelling demands these procedures can place on investigators. The ages-old tradition of academic peer review model thus involves a level of risk especially for young practitioners and academics that they often cannot af ford and seek to avoid.In the frenetic pace of both contemporary media and academic funding cycles, old models of peer review are breaking down already because it simply takes too long to see high quality work in print, even on-line. If an investigator’s goal is practical impact,as opposed to, say, academic credibility or prestige, these forms of peer review might be seen as frustrating obstacles.

The new generation of academics, especially those with ambitious hybrid design and research agendas, opt to take their work to alternatives venues and audiences,with different critical and editorial agendas. Because both research and creative investigation can take many dif ferent forms, so too can peer-review. Some major research universities are now beginning to accept that many forms of critical reception,evaluation and acclaim by peer audiences may suf f ce to indicate the basic tenets of research and creative quality, including internal and external validity, absence of bias,applicability, reliability, originality, and economy.

Given these emergent practices, what forms might a peer-review process or its equivalent for practice-based research take? It undoubtedly depends on the format and the content of the work. Some journals (both print and on-line)dramatically shorten or alter the traditional peer review process or by-pass it altogether in favor of editorial, board/committee or more informal Wiki-type, continuous voluntary and consensual review processes (such as Wikipedia). Design competitions and awards programs are often reviewed by an event-specific jury chosen for their experience and critical insight whose deliberations are often conducted in an intensive and concentrated time-frame. Funding and fellowship applications and exhibitions of work are often selected in similar ways.

Collaborative work, especially with repeat clients and/or trusted project specialists,are other ways of observing peer reception. Built work, refereed studios or design projections that are published and/or critically acclaimed by recognized cultural analysts may also be accepted as forms of peer review. Given all this, it is likely that the culture of professional “gate-keeping” will continue to change, if slowly, both inside and outside the academy, despite the fact that there is still no strong consensus on the def nition, the logic, the purpose and the benef ts of research produced by and for professionals in our f eld.

Research: A Global Enterprise

The authors of professional research now include everyone – landscape practitioners in private sector design; multidisciplinary or corporate consulting f rms; not-for-prof t f rms; public sector agencies, as well as hybrid academic practitioners. Research is being produced and consumed at an accelerating pace; some have even predicted that practice-based research will challenge the traditional process of peer-reviewed publications that simply move too slowly to be relevant. Most accomplished practitioners are skilled multi-disciplinary collaborators, impatient with the “silos” of academic knowledge. Students wish to see how the research skills and methods they are learning may be translated into professional applications and, ideally , into professional employment, with signi f cant bearing on the shape/focus of professional curricula in schools of landscape architecture. All this suggests that new knowledge needs to be shared and implemented far more quickly than traditional journal models can currently handle; at the same time, it is in the interest of the profession to ensure the rigorous vetting of new ideas and practices and to be wary of the unintended consequences of ill-thought-out approaches.

As practitioners take greater responsibility for practical research, one can easily imagine the research agenda of the academy beginning to morph in response,perhaps accepting the mandate for greater impact, with a sharper focus on the production of knowledge leading to desired social and environmental outcomes.Although this may lead to more rational instrumentality, it could also change the discussion towards recognizing our shared values – what some have called value rationality.9After all, most landscape architects share certain goals in common:to create or preserve good and healthy places, build knowledge, gain mastery(technical, predictive, conceptual and ethical knowledge), ensure our continual collective improvement, and serve society. This set of core values of fers the hope that early adopters of practical research methods will stimulate better design, greater professional impact, and therefore higher aspirations for what landscape designers and planners can and should know.

In principle, the range of scales at which our ideas take shape should only strengthen the global enterprise of landscape architecture. That global enterprise is communicated through advocacy, emerging professional organizations, standards and regulation of best practices, conferences, professional curricula, mentoring and partnerships formed across disciplinary and national borders. The Chinese Society of Landscape Architecture (CHSLA)is rapidly moving the profession forward in this hugely important country and developing a system for accrediting their impressive network of schools. The International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA)is making important strides towards enhancing landscape architecture professionalism in Africa, South America and other regions. The Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA)is advocating and mentoring with academics in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Pacific Rim/South Asia on strengthening standards for professional education program in landscape architecture. In reality however,the global enterprise of landscape architecture is weakened when members fail to generate and share their knowledge at the same visionary level and range of scales as our professional advocates. (see f g.6)

Recognizing that landscape architecture is a relatively small professional force in a global marketplace may persuade us to re-think the role of knowledge production in developing the “competitive edge” of the profession as a whole.10In an age of innovation it is insuf ficient for any individual of fice to maintain its competitive edge without contributing to the greater knowledge base of the discipline. As Kurt Culbertson points out earlier in this issue, both talent and training contribute to maintaining a competitive edge that may be manifested at the off ce level in exemplary project-scale work as well as through broader disciplinary expertise. The attention now being paid to comprehensive development of an evidence base “proving” the values,benef ts and impact of landscape architecture signals just how important knowledge formation has become in maintaining the competitiveness of the whole profession.

When individual firms compete for work, they withhold professional services and practical expertise from their clients until a contract is signed. Yet other, perhaps larger applied design and engineering professions may like to claim they have similar expertise. This is the real playing f eld, an interdisciplinary competition for new knowledge and new impacts. By sharing general and speci f c disciplinary knowledge,all landscape architects help each other (and themselves)improve the capacity of the profession to compete at the largest scales for the highest stakes, securing signif cant public investment and making broad environmental policies and impacts. If we can compete on the playing f eld of new knowledge, we may f nally see landscape architecture maturing intellectually and finding its rightful place among the world’s important disciplines. If we can’t or won’t compete at this level, then how shall we defend landscape architecture against redundancy?

Notes:

1 Mark Francis. “A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Journal, vol. 20:1, (2001), 15-29.

2 Mark Francis. Village Homes: A Community by Design. Washington, DC: Landscape Architecture Foundation Land and Community Design Case Study Series, 2003.

3 CLARB (ERIN Research)n.d. “Landscape Architecture and Public Welfare: A Foundation Paper, Executive Summary.” Washington, DC: Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards. https://www.clarb.org/Documents/Welfare-execsummary-public-v1.pdf [accessed May 11, 2013]. Founded in the mid-1960s, the Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards (CLARB)is mandated with advocacy and protection of professional registration standards such as testing and licensing in landscape architecture. Formed to serve registration efforts in the United States, CLARB also plays an important role in advocacy and mentoring of similar organizations in other countries. “CLARB's mission is to foster the public health, safety and welfare related to the use and protection of the natural and built environment affected by the practice of landscape architecture.” https://www.clarb.org/about[accessed May 28, 2013].

4 Dennis Jerke, Douglas Porter, and Terry Lassar. Urban Design and the Bottom Line: Optimizing the Return on Perception. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2008, 16.

5 Simon R. Swaff i eld. “Empowering Landscape Ecology – Connecting Science to Governance through Design Values.” Landscape Ecology (pub. on-line June 09, 2012). DOI 10.1007/s10980-012-9765-9, n.p. In this passage,Swaff i eld cites M. De Landa and Eric Ellingsen, “Possibility Spaces” in 306090: Models. 11 (2008), 214-217.

6 M. Elen Deming and Simon Swaff i eld. Landscape Architectural Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design. Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2011. Also see S. R. Swaff i eld and M. E. Deming. “Research Strategies in Landscape Architecture: Mapping the Terrain.” European Journal of Landscape Architecture, (Spring 2011), 34-45.

7 Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). n.d. Co-Founders: Paul G. Braunschweiger Ph.D., Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, and Karen Hansen, Director, Institutional Review Off i ce, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. https://www.citiprogram.org/aboutus.asp [accessed May 11, 2013].

8 Forms of design research involving synthetic/transformational design and projective design strategies have been very capably described by S. Nijhuis and I. Bobbink in their recent article “Design-Related Research in Landscape Architecture.” Journal of Design Research, vol. 10: 4, (2012), 239-257.

9 Simon R. Swaff i eld. “Empowering Landscape Ecology – Connecting Science to Governance through Design Values.” Landscape Ecology (pub. on-line June 09, 2012). DOI 10.1007/s10980-012-9765-9, n.p.

10 Simon Swaff i eld has also argued this point in recent publications and lectures. For more in this vein, see the transcript of Swaff i eld’s 2012 Olmsted Lecture at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/#/events/simon-swaff i eld-frederick-law-olmsted-lecture-knowing-landscape.html.

About the author:

Dr. M. Elen Deming is Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign where she teaches design studio, history and theory, and research design. Her education includes a doctorate in design from the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and degrees in Art History, Landscape Architecture, and Environmental Studies. Co-editor of Landscape Journal from 2002 with James F . Palmer, Deming assumed the role of sole editor from 2006 to 2009. She is a past President of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture(CELA). Deming and Simon Swaf f eld co-authored Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry/Strategy/Design(Wiley, 2011), a framework describing several research strategies utilized in landscape architecture today . A new book that examines research emerging from professional practices, f rms and agencies is forthcoming.

Additional Biographies for Architectural Worlds (AW)

Lake Douglas

Lake Douglas, PhD, is associate professor at Louisiana State University’s Robert Reich School of Landscape Architecture, where he is undergraduate coordinator and holds the Robert S. Reich Teaching Professorship. His extensive writings on design issues have appeared in books, professional publications, academic journals, and the popular press in America and Europe. His most recent book, Public Spaces, Private Gardens A History of Designed Landscapes in New Orleans (2011)has received national recognition through numerous professional and academic awards. Douglas served as a reader and editor of the articles in this issue.

Fenglin Du

Fenglin Du is a Registered Landscape Architect in Texas who has worked on numerous projects with Design Workshop for more than ten years. She received a Master of Landscape Architecture degree from Texas A&M University in 2003 and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Tsinghua University in 1999, where she also holds a Bachelor degree in Edition from the Department of Chinese Language and Literature. Fenglin assisted in reviewing the Chinese translations of several articles in this issue.

Pengzhi Li

Pengzhi Li graduated from Beijing Forestry University in 2008 with a Master of Landscape Architecture degree, and currently is a third year student at Texas A&M University in the Master of Landscape Architecture program. Pengzhi assisted in reviewing the Chinese translations of several articles in this issue.