實踐研究：未來框架

作者：M·艾倫·戴明

“若沒有考慮到景觀解決方案，則無法通過任何措施實現可持續發展——零碳、零廢物、凈零水、生物多樣性和適居性。通過公司的實踐型研究和創新設計過程，DesignWorkshop已成為景觀績效領域的先驅。針對特定績效目標設定成功目標以及測定方法，DW使我們增長知識，并生成關于景觀解決方案在實現可持續發展過程中所起關鍵作用的證據?！?/p>

–景觀建筑基金會執行董事芭芭拉·多依奇

景觀建筑業是一個相對年輕的領域。景觀建筑學的第一個專業研究課程建立于1990年（哈佛大學），但建立以來，大部分時間里景觀建筑是否與學術相悖，這點一直有爭議。數十年來，我們聽到從業者抱怨說專業學者開展的研究并不能夠滿足設計行業的需求。在本論文中，我希望可以推翻這種抱怨：在像景觀建筑業這樣的知識型行業，從業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的步伐呢？

自20世紀90年代初，景觀建筑師就已得知專業學者或混合從業者創作的文獻作品不斷增多，其中大部分都有助于設計行業知識性問題的分析，但對實踐性問題幫助不大。從公平的角度來說，這些作者與其實踐者同行服務的優先級不同。與營利性設計與開發行業相同，受更高教育的行業也制定了自己的規則并創造了自己的迫切需求。因此，我們發現，在某些機構中，理論與研究并非達到目的的手段，而是他們自身就是目的；在某些私營實踐中，競爭等同于生存，導致他們不情愿分享學習經驗，也不情愿騰出時間發展智力。

在過去10年左右的時間里，全球各大院校的新興專業課程飛速發展，尤其是在中國，更是出現了新的、令人興奮的、自由的、有時具有競爭性的議題與前景。學科研究的范圍越來越廣泛。雖然與任何學科的正常演變相兼容，但是，對于想要解決特定場所有關問題和方法的人而言，這種不確定性是令人困惑甚至沮喪的。

幸運的是，在DesignWorkshop實踐的內容和結構下（見《世界建筑導報》的專題），我們可以看到,景觀建筑業的專業學者與其它專業人士之間的可見“意見分歧”開始出現彌合的跡象。面對復雜的挑戰，許多景觀從業者開始認識到，必須有更集中、更具識別性的研究議程，才能在工作中立于不敗之地，有效提升該領域的價值，并對環境產生積極的影響。我的觀點是，實踐者與專業學者應該相互合作，結成強有力的聯盟以增長共享的知識，而不是在我們自己的圈子里相互競爭。簡言之，為了設計行業的成功，為了從“好變成極好”，景觀實踐者和景觀專業學者都不能無視對方的努力——當然，我們必須找到學習方法，更重要的是，相互學習。

開創性實踐研究：記錄成功與失敗

在努力收集和組織各個實踐領域共享的“顯性”知識的過程中，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（CELA）創建了第一份景觀建筑同行評議雜志《景觀期刊》，并在這份雜志上宣傳“與景觀設計、規劃和管理有關的研究和學者調查結果”。30年后，有六份英文版同行評議研究雜志專門為景觀建筑業服務，還有其它數百份雜志廣泛地豐富了該領域。與CELA和《景觀期刊》一起，美國景觀建筑師協會（ASLA）及其州立分會長期以來維持著各項專業和學生研究的獎勵認證，這些都能“促進該領域的知識體系”。其它國家目前采用的也是類似的方法。

就在過去的10年里，景觀建筑基金會（LAF）建立了一種綜合、系統的方法來記錄該領域的成功、創新性案例研究，從而又向前邁進了一步。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，在此基礎上就建立了LAF案例研究倡議。隨后，LAF還舉辦了“土地與社區設計案例研究系列”活動，弗朗西斯的《村莊家園：設計社區》（2003年）在該系列競爭中取得第一名。隨著時間的流逝，出版一系列印刷專題論文的巨大經濟費用讓人咋舌，但是，出現了一種更機敏的創新理念——在線獲取案例研究摘要，使學生、設計師、業主和開發商等均可很容易地獲取一些數據。為了使這些案例研究得到更清晰的關注，景觀績效系列方法（LPS）明確識別出可持續性特征的項目。自開展景觀績效初步研究以來，已收集到70多個項目的數據，這使得數據庫的容量急速增長。

DesignWorkshop積極參與其實踐成功與失敗的記錄，至今已有10個項目被納入LAFLPS計劃（有七個已出版）。正如本期的《世界建筑導報》所展示的，DesignWorkshop創新地運用新知識在許多方面都有好處，其中也使其潛在的競爭對手獲益。項目的經驗教訓有助于其他設計師提升視覺質量，對社區產生積極的社會影響，提供有彈性的生態服務，甚至有助于傳授關于成功商業模式的經驗。這也提出了一個實踐研究的關鍵問題：對令人日益擔憂的由新知識產生的知識產權、版權和競爭優勢，如何應對？

?

許多從業者認為，從項目設計、原材料、決策過程或者建造與安裝的成敗獲得的知識屬于私人所有，是他們向客戶提供的服務所附帶的。如果此類知識有助于從業者精通專業知識，則通常屬于“隱性”或個人知識。同樣地，對于研究型大學和分析型行業所產生的知識產權的分配問題，其管理規則已成為免費信息優化分享的關鍵。許多機構和政府補助政策限制了新知識的傳播，即使是學術帶頭人也不例外。

不過，通過公平使用條款、開放來源軟件和“免費軟件”等方式，信息科學和數字創新的另類思維開創了分享公共領域理念的新方法。還有一項日益興起的運動，認為“新知識”必然有利于實踐，所以應該成為專業能力建設的重要和必需形式。像DesignWorkshop這樣先進的機構和公司，與研發行業的工程師或開展臨床試驗的醫生相比，似乎是“實踐研究”最積極的擁護者。DesignWorkshop的領導層把這種實踐視為一項專業挑戰，也把其積極地視為企業發展的機遇。如果其他受尊敬的專業機構也有研發的慣例，并且想盡辦法把研究活動和其它知識構建形式納入其商業計劃和成本結構，那么，為什么設計行業不這樣做呢？為什么景觀建筑師不能倡導這樣的努力呢？

可持續發展與價值觀

正如大家熟知的，通常根據“3個E”，經濟（Economic）效益、環境（Environmental）效益和公平（Equitable）社會效益來衡量該項目是否遵循可持續發展理論，這三項也被視為可持續規劃設計的基石。目前，有些實踐者和學者主張拓寬可持續性的定義，把其它不容易衡量的效益也包括在內。例如，2010年11月，景觀建筑師注冊管理局（CLARB）進行了一項內容分析，來探索景觀建筑的法規授權，以保障并促進公眾健康、安全和福祉。在檢驗“福祉”一詞更深層含義的研究中，通過許可檢驗和專業實踐，CLARB意欲對一種衡量能力的替代方式進行評估，這種能力就是理解和保護無形的“優秀設計”。他們發現，福祉的概念與幸福安康的概念（表現為歡樂、健康、自豪、場所關聯和繁榮興旺）的關系非常密切，幾乎是不可分割的，因此它是景觀和其它設計時表達情感可持續性的重要部分，許多人都將其視為可持續發展的第四個基石。但是，在景觀設計中應該如何開展衡量其歡樂、美麗抑或是場所關聯性的份額呢？（參看圖1和圖2）

城市土地學會出版的《城市設計與盈余》（2008年）首次開創了這種思路，它開發了一種寬泛矩陣，作者稱之為“四重盈余”。在檢驗包括“感性回歸”在內的城市價值觀的過程中，作者認為，對場所營造的審美和情感回應是以“有影響力的支持者”為導向的，可通過其它非數字的社會和財政投資回報的紅利進行衡量，包括優秀設計：“新設計支持者關注的是城市生活的質量、環境與文化的敏感性、可持續發展和觀賞價值?！贝朔独砻?，通過合作和分享其在每個項目學得的經驗，景觀建筑師不僅可以幫助社區實現環境的可持續發展；還可以使其通過競爭保有社會資本和智力資本，使社區繁榮昌盛。

高質量的研究才能建立有說服力、有依據的并支持設計帶來多重價值的證據。如果我們的價值指引著一切我們所做的和所創造的，那么我們所學到的和所了解的--例如，我們景觀建筑的專業知識--將會在根本上與其他行業有所不同。西蒙·史沃斐曾針對這一主題做過決定性的論述：“設計創造了‘可能性的空間’（德·蘭達和埃里森，2008年）……通過設計和管理可以塑造合意的、可行的未來，并通過科學評估予以檢驗?！币虼?，把開放式的設計價值觀與封閉式的研究和評估過程相結合，景觀建筑師必須能夠自如地協調好這兩者的關系?？闪炕臄祿匀皇浅尸F在開發商、投資商和決策者面前的最具說服力的證據形式，這些人中的大部分仍然控制著全球的設計與開發議程。不過，任何想要建立全面健全的新知識與理解體系的成功行為，應該也能夠接受由景觀實踐（包括設計研究）產生的各項研究的多種價值、形式和定義。

設計與可歸納的知識

越來越多來自該領域的證據（ASLA、LAF、英特網等）證明，景觀建筑行業實踐整合了許多形式的研究。我們認為，在設計企業以及專業建設領域早已出現了各種研究策略，從僅為了解決某個特殊問題而組建的各個團隊到在設計企業任命研究總監，他負責評估和組織建成項目的可衡量效益。這種新的彈性恰恰是景觀建筑領域實現其跨案比較的潛在能力所需的。（參看圖3）

為了更好地理解現有實踐研究的形式和范圍，我和同事們已開展一項探索性調研，深入了解專業人士對開展研究調查的態度。我們還力求檢驗和闡述《景觀建筑研究：調查、策略、設計》（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的實踐研究的多項策略（表1）。特別值得注意的是，我們的調研要求實踐者將其典型的專業服務和調查與普遍接受的“研究”的定義相聯系起來（“研究”的普遍公認定義以聯邦法規為基礎，被合作機構培訓學會所采納），每一個部分都是標準的、有彈性的：“系統研究包括研發、檢驗和評估，旨在發展或促成可歸納的知識?！彪m然具有高度的通用性，但是我們仍然認為，該定義對描述領域和專業機構可能開展的實踐范圍非常實用。該定義包含了每項實踐采用的各種策略和方法，從實驗到研究型設計、從參與性設計過程到歷史性闡述、從直截了當的描述性案例研究到動態建模，等等。

我們的調研收到的一些早期回應表明，有些實踐者抵觸可歸納性的概念，仿佛在追求敏感設計的過程中，獲得更多專業知識是不可能的或站不住腳的。但是，為什么優秀的設計師不從特定場所的或基于項目的與其它場所和環境有關的調查中獲取支配性的見解？是的，按服務收費的、僅為一次性的為解決問題而建立的研究與為獲得知識價值而發起的原始的、可歸納的研究之間的智力價值存在著明顯的區別。但研究實踐無須受這種非黑即白的觀點的局限。在解決以客戶為導向的問題的過程中，如果項目信息被系統地收集、組織成數據集，并按照理論上已知的問題進行嚴謹的分析，那么，實踐與研究之間固定的傳統界限很快就會模糊。因此，我們針對實踐研究開展的調研尋求的是以專業實踐的典范來指引前進的道路——不僅使研究變成一種承諾，而且使研究變成一個“品牌”；不僅是一種商業模式，而且是一種倡導類型。

表1 ：景觀建筑的研究策略：實踐框架（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模范之一，DesignWorkshop在其追求更廣大的專業研究議程中并不孤單；然而在專業實踐如何從學術界再獲取知識并使研究論述煥然一新方面，該公司的項目已躋身行業最佳典范。DesignWorkshop的作品如何適應我們龐大的框架？在表1明確的九大基礎研究策略中，DesignWorkshop至少參與了兩項可歸納實踐知識的策略：

描述性策略包括對可比較的和縱向的案例研究進行的準備工作。對新場地和/或實踐的客觀匯報和描述正好屬于案例研究。例如，通過參與本期的《世界建筑導報》以及LAF案例研究之景觀績效系列，DesignWorkshop所收集、組織和提交的案例研究數據有助于成敗模式的共同理解，而成敗模式是較大型的問題構建與調查的根本。通過真誠、客觀地檢驗工作的成敗，在更長的時限內新知識可能更有充分的理由和概念性，而且，僅僅通過定義就可以將新的社會和環境變量納入其中。

投射式設計策略包括有時被稱為設計型研究的策略。通過設計以重新提出現有問題或通過創新以提出新的學科問題，投射出理論原則或主張，使設計過程被激活而成為一項研究策略。是的，跟醫學一樣，將提供服務所得利益與生成新知識所得利益劃分清楚，這有著令人信服的道德理由。不過，在一些實例中，設計研究可以達成多種目的，尤其是在客戶分享項目目標的情況下。（參看圖4、圖5）若在理論議程中使用投射式設計（例如：當以可持續發展和/或社會公平理論來對開發“完整的街道”做出建議時），很可能會發生以下幾種情況：（1）出現一種新的生成式過程理論（設計理論）；（2）應用/檢驗衍生式理論以改善新的場所、圖像、現象、關系和影響的生成（設計中的應用研究/通過設計的應用研究）；（3）在觀察生成的作品過程中出現的實據理論（循證設計）。因此，作為研究的設計的變化對新的學科知識大有幫助。一些常見的排列，如：形式和類型學/比較分析，更確切地說，屬于分類和解釋策略。但是，在所有的情況都需要服從一個重要的警告：只有嚴謹地匯報項目成敗的目的、程序和結果并予以公正的評估（即，無任何偏見，也無固有的“利益”），這個設計才可稱之為研究。

當然，微觀研究過程提出了幾乎所有的設計問題：必須按特定模型建造和評估場地系統；必須計算成本和計劃面積等等。不過，如果獲得的知識不能歸納和共享，則不能稱其為研究。這可能會引起混淆。設計師在講述場地或有關場地的信息時，可以采用闡釋學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特定場所設計，其中包括材料和空間次序的選擇。評估與識別的非研究型推論可用于每一種場地的分析中，例如：判斷施工土壤的質量和深度，或者判斷場內或場外某些視線是否滿意。每當設計團隊針對校區或公園的方案設計或規劃舉辦公開聽證會或得出反饋意見時，就會激活參與行動的非研究型推論。不過，無論它多么寶貴,大部分特定場地推論活動都不能也無法滿足廣泛研究議程的要求。

新知識與把關文化

在當今的景觀建筑行業，大多數正在開展的杰出的實踐型研究都來自于私營企業與公共機構之間的新型伙伴關系以及與之相互合作的學術界。即使是資金不足的情況也應支持此類成果卓著的聯合研究。強調重新產生的對研究興趣的重要性存在于以下兩個方面：第一，知識分子會更容易與企業合作，分享研究方面的問題，既符合專利所有權的切入點，也符合學術研究/同行評議的切入點；第二，更多關于健康、安全和福祉的問題，包括氣候變化、資源管理、社會公平與公共衛生以及該領域的法規合法性等，很快就會推動專業活動的發展，甚至占據主導地位。

我們還有一些觀念沖突需要克服——尤其是關于同行評議和資格認證的觀念，這兩者都是上個世紀的遺留實踐，對學術界產生了重大的影響。原則上，兩者都是必要的實踐，它是在專業和學術環境中，通過自我管理的共同過程來保護知識的完備性。但是，無可否認，實踐者投身的這些程序有時反復無常、浪費時間而且經常使人筋疲力盡，很難想象要是將其強加在研究者身上的會是怎樣？因此，學術研究同行評議模式的古老傳統涉及到一種風險等級，尤其是對年輕的從業者和學者而言，他們往往無法承受得起這樣的風險，也無法避免。在當代傳媒界和學術資金循環快速發展的情況下，舊的同行評議模式正在瓦解，因為它僅僅是花很長的時間去查看已出版的甚至是在線的高質量作品。如果研究者的目標是對實踐產生影響，而與學術信譽或學術聲望截然相反，那么，這些同行評議方式可能會被視為令人沮喪的障礙。

新一代的學者，尤其是有雄心使設計與研究議程相結合的學者，通過其批判性和評論性的不同議程，選擇將他們的工作面向另類的領域和讀者。由于研究和創造性調查都可以采用許多不同的方式進行，因此，同行評議也可以。一些主要的研究型大學現在開始接受，同行讀者采用的許多評論、評估和贊譽方式足以說明研究與創新素質的基本原理，其中包括內外部的有效性、公正性、適用性、可靠性、獨創性和經濟性。

考慮到這些新興的實踐，那么實踐型研究的同行評議過程或與之等同的過程可以采用什么方式呢？這無疑取決于工作的格式與內容。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的同行評議過程，或者完全繞過這個過程來支持編輯部、委員會或者更加非正式的維基類型的、連續自發型的、共識型評議過程（如：維基百科）。設計競爭與獲獎計劃往往是由某個特定事件評判委員會進行評議的，該評判委員會是根據其經驗和批判性洞察力挑選出來的，審議往往是在集中的期限內進行。資金和獎學金申請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/或頗受公認的文化分析家好評的設計規劃也可被視為同行評議的方式。鑒于所有這一切，盡管該領域的專業人士仍未在研究定義、邏輯、目的和效益方面達成強烈的共識，專業的“把關”文化仍可能會繼續慢慢從內到外地改變學術領域。

研究：全球事業

專業研究的作者目前包括每一個人——私營設計企業的景觀從業者、跨學科公司或企業咨詢公司、非營利性公司、國營企業機構以及混合學術研究的實踐者。生產和消費研究的速度正在加快；有些人甚至已預言，實踐型研究將挑戰傳統的同行評議發表過程，刊物的更新速度太慢且關聯性弱。大多數有修養的實踐者都是有技能的跨學科合作者，他們對學術知識的“筒倉”缺乏耐心。學生們希望看到他們正在學習的研究技巧和方法如何轉化為專業應用，而最理想地是轉化為專業的聘用，這對景觀建筑學校的專業課程的框架/重點產生重大的影響。所有這一切均表明，對比傳統期刊目前能夠應對的速度，新知識的共享和應用必須要快得多；同時，確保嚴謹地審核新的理念與實踐，并謹慎對待未加思索的方法產生的意外后果符合該行業的利益要求。

由于實踐者對實踐研究擔負有更大的責任，人們就很容易會猜想，該領域的研究議程開始發生改變，也許是接受授權以達到更佳的效應，同時也更多地關注于知識的形成，以便實現預期的社會和環境效益。雖然這可能會導致使用更多理性的手段，但是，也會將焦點轉向認知我們共享的價值觀——有些人稱之為價值理性。畢竟，大部分景觀建筑師還是會分享某些共同的目標的，如：創建或維護優美而健康的場所，構建知識，掌握技術知識、預測性知識、概念性知識和倫理知識，確保持續的集體進步，服務社會。這一套核心價值觀給我們帶來了希望，希望早期采用實踐研究方法的人將帶來更佳的設計、產生更重大的專業影響，從而對景觀設計師與規劃師們能夠和應該了解的東西產生更高的期望。

原則上，我們構建的理念影響范圍應該僅僅是鞏固全球的景觀建筑事業。這一項全球事業的傳播是通過倡導、專業組織的興起、最佳實踐的標準和規范、會議、專業課程、指導以及跨學科和跨國合作等來實現的。中國景觀建筑師協會（CSLA）正在這個極其重要的國家快速推動該行業的發展，并正在致力于開發一個系統來認證其頗具影響力的學校網。國際景觀建筑師聯合會（IFLA）在提升非洲、南美洲和其它區域的景觀建筑專業地位方面取得了重大的進展。景觀建筑教育者理事會（CELA）正在倡導和指導墨西哥、中美洲、南美洲和泛太平洋/南亞的專業學者鞏固景觀建筑專業教育計劃的標準。不過實際上，當行業內的成員未能如我們行業提倡的那樣，以相同的遠見和尺度范圍生成和分享其知識時，全球的景觀建筑事業實際上是被弱化了。（參看圖6）

意識到景觀建筑業是全球市場一股較小的專業力量，這也許可能會說服我們重新思考知識生成在開發該行業的總體“競爭優勢”方面所起的作用。在這個創新的時代，若對擴展學科的知識庫無所貢獻，任何企業都無法維持其競爭優勢。正如庫爾特·卡伯特森在本期前面部分所提及的那樣，人才和培訓都有助于保持此類競爭優勢，各企業可以通過公司范圍內的示范性項目工程以及更為廣泛的學科專業知識證明這一點。目前的關注點是綜合開發一個證據庫，“證明”景觀建筑的價值、效益和影響，以表明知識形成對維持整個行業的競爭性是何等的重要。

當單個公司競標某項工程時，他們會對客戶隱瞞其專業服務和實踐專業知識，直至簽約成功。然而，其它可能更大型的應用設計和工程行業則樂于聲稱其擁有類似的專業知識。這是真實的競技場，充滿了新知識和新影響的跨學科競爭。通過分享一般和特殊的學科知識，所有景觀建筑師都可以幫助彼此（也包括他們自己）提升行業能力來盡可能地在最大的尺度上競爭以獲得最高的利益，保障重大的公共投資，并產生廣泛的環境政策和影響。如果我們能夠在新知識的競技場上立于不敗之地，我們也許可以最終看到景觀建筑業在知識方面的不斷成熟，并在全球的重要學科中找到其應有的位置。如果我們無法做到這一點，那么，我們該如何保護景觀建筑業不被淘汰呢？

M·艾倫·戴明博士是伊利諾伊大學香檳分校的景觀建筑學教授，講授設計工作室、歷史和理論以及研究設計課程。獲得哈佛設計研究院設計博士學位以及藝術史、景觀建筑和環境研究等學位。自2002年起，與詹姆斯·F·帕爾默一起擔任《景觀雜志》的主編，2006年至2009年，獨自擔任主編。她是景觀建筑教育者理事會（CELA）的前任會長。與西蒙·史沃斐合著了《景觀建筑研究：探究/策略/設計》（威利出版社，2011年），概況描述了當今景觀建筑使用的數大研究策略。這是一本探討從實踐、公司和代理機構中涌現的調查研究的新作，并即將問世。

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.一個項目小組再三強調一種設計解決方案。

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.