See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233233427

Research strategies in landscape architecture: Mapping the terrain

Article in Journal of Landscape Architecture · March 2011

DOI: 10.1080/18626033.2011.9723445

CITATIONS READS

40 2,322

2 authors:

Simon Swaffield M. Elen Deming

Lincoln University New Zealand North Carolina State University
94 PUBLICATIONS 2,051 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 96 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Elen Deming on 07 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Landscape Architecture

ISSN: 1862-6033 (Print) 2164-604X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjla20

Research strategies in landscape architecture:

mapping the terrain

Simon Swaffield & M. Elen Deming

To cite this article: Simon Swaffield & M. Elen Deming (2011) Research strategies in
landscape architecture: mapping the terrain, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 6:1, 34-45, DOI:
10.1080/18626033.2011.9723445

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2011.9723445

Published online: 01 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1320

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjla20
Research strategies in landscape architecture:
mapping the terrain
Simon Swaffield, School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln University, New Zealand
M. Elen Deming, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

Abstract Introduction
New knowledge in landscape architecture is expressed through a synthetic After more than a century of growth, the discipline of landscape architec-
mix of theories drawn from the arts and humanities, biophysical sciences ture is now taught in a number of countries, universities and languages,­
and social sciences, and applied to a reflective, eidetic, and pragmatic blend and addresses a wide range of public and private needs at a variety of
of practices. Normative categories of research design (case studies, corre- scales. As the discipline continues to expand and engage with other dis-
lation and experiment) are insufficient to describe many types of research ciplines to address the profound human and environmental challeng-
work that is conducted and published in our field. Drawing upon a selec- es of the 21st century, there is growing need and demand to deepen the
tive review of published research in leading English-language journals of way we think, and to be able to better justify our intentions as design-
the discipline, an expanded classification scheme of operational research ers and planners, and our actions as agents of environmental change. Re-
strategies in landscape architecture is proposed, comprising nine categories. sponses currently vary from new agendas for design to become a vehicle
The logic of the classification is based upon two dimensions or axes: the re- for transdisciplinary action research (Thering & Chanse 2011), to the emer-
lationship of the research to theory (induction, abduction, deduction), and gence of a paradigm called evidence-based design (Brandt, Chong & Martin
epistemological assumptions (objective, constructive, subjective). In this 2010). There are calls for new research by both North American and Euro-
article the classification is explained using a selection of published cases to pean educational and professional organizations, for example the Land-
illustrate the potentials within the nine research strategies. The descrip- scape Architecture Foundation’s (LAF) established Case Studies Series, and
tions are highly condensed but refer to articles in widely sourced journals. the recent launch of its Landscape Performance Series. These dynamics all
The results of interviews with key informants (e.g., editors and advisory require a more systematic understanding of how research in landscape ar-
board members) suggest implications for research quality evaluation, and chitecture is undertaken, evaluated and applied.
some consequences for teaching of research in postgraduate programmes This article offers a classification of research strategies reported in
are also discussed. It is argued that a map of well-established strategies for journals as currently used in the discipline. The classification framework
investigation, combined with greater transparency of evaluation, should reflects two fundamental dimensions, or axes, of research – its relation
encourage new researchers to adopt and apply those strategies best suited to theory, and its epistemological assumptions. The types in the classi-
to their particular capacities, interests and needs. fication are derived from an analysis of recently published research in a
sample of English-language peer-reviewed journals of landscape stud-
Research strategies / landscape architecture / research methodology / ies, landscape architecture and landscape planning. The intention of the
graduate education / design research framework and classification is to enable both new and established re-
searchers to better locate their work within the discipline and to empower
them in shaping their research strategies, design and methods.
The first section of the paper examines the need for a coherent and ex-
plicit framework of understanding research in the discipline, and estab-
lishes objectives. The following section explains the approach taken to
identify and classify research strategies. The different categories are then
described and explained, with examples briefly outlined. The nature of
criteria for research validation and evaluation is then examined, and po-
tential implications for enhanced research performance in postgraduate
education and for practice are discussed.

34 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011

Mapping the terrain: needs and objectives
One of the most important functions of a professional discipline such grounds of landscape academics and their familiarity with a single meth-
as landscape architecture is to build and maintain a specialised body of od or category of methods (e.g., social survey or thematic mapping), and
knowledge to provide a foundation for current practice, and a theoretical the particular approach of editors and reviewers. Some scholars promote
platform from which to reach for new knowledge needed for the future. A criteria drawn from particular paradigms of either the arts or sciences.
discipline relies on its research community to produce, disseminate and (Milburn et al 2003) Others declare that issues of wider legitimacy are “not
critique such knowledge. (Mulkay 1977) This in turn requires a shared un- our problem”. (Barnett 2000) In either case, there is conflict, often uncer-
derstanding about research protocols – the ways in which the knowledge tainty, and some risk – for graduate students, for researchers and for the
is created and validated. (Grinnell 2009) institutions that support them.
Development of advanced understanding and skills in research is a The lack of clarity and understanding over possible research strategies
key feature of postgraduate education programmes. In Europe, for exam- and associated protocols is also a real loss to the wider discipline in the
ple, a range of initiatives is aimed at strengthening and enhancing the way it shapes postgraduate education; and in the way that conflict and
research capacity of landscape architectural education, including parts uncertainty work against development of a strategic direction for the dis-
of the Le Notre project (Bruns et al 2010). Similar capacity-building ini- cipline. Postgraduate research education in landscape architecture may be
tiatives are underway in other parts of the world. There is an increasing limited by the institutional settings within which it occurs, rather than
number of research articles in the journals of the discipline, (Gobster, Nas- being compelled by discipline-wide agendas or protocols. Which and
sauer & Nadenicek 2010, Powers & Walker 2009) and texts that report upon re- whose knowledge survives, becomes legitimated, and eventually repro-
search methods for particular sets of applications (e.g., Brown & Gillespie duced, may shape the discipline by default rather than by design. (Swaff-
1995, Cooper Marcus & Francis 1998, Ward Thompson, Aspinall & Bell 2010). Cur- ield and Deming 2007)
rently, however, there is no framework that establishes research proto- In an attempt to chart a way through these difficulties, this paper
cols for the breadth and elasticity of the discipline as a whole. There is asks a seemingly simple but ambitious question: what research strate-
no widely promulgated discipline-specific guidance upon the structure gies are possible in landscape architecture? The result of this inquiry is a
or content of research methods courses, research design or thesis prepara- new framework for classifying research strategies, grounded in a selected
tion, whilst each journal adopts its own terms of reference for evaluating review of published work in the discipline. The material presented here
proposals for peer reviewed publication. As a consequence, the communi- has been drawn from a forthcoming book (Deming and Swaffield 2011) that
ty of scholars in landscape architecture, researchers seeking publication aims to inform and encourage new and established researchers. Providing
of their work, and postgraduate research students in particular, all face a meta-framework of classification, this work allows emerging research
challenges in how to position their work in the context of a larger inves- strategies and voices to be recognised and positioned in an accepted sys-
tigative framework. Possibilities for fruitful inquiry may be limited; the tem of knowledge production.
field of potential or ‘acceptable’ research topics may be narrowed; and un- The specific objective of this article is to provide an overview of this
duly limiting criteria may be imposed upon non-conforming or uncon- meta-framework – a cognitive map of the strategic terrain of research
ventional modes of research. methodology in landscape architecture. It establishes a framework in or-
One of the major challenges for research-based postgraduate pro- der to recognise, categorise, clarify and explain multiple strategies of in-
grammes and their wider integration within tertiary institutions is how vestigation already taking place. By extension, it also offers some guidance
to determine research protocols when faced with the methodological ten- for research evaluation and teaching research in postgraduate education.
sions inherent within a design-based discipline that draws upon both
the arts and sciences. (De Jong & Van der Voordt 2002, Eckbo 1950) In recent Approach to analysis
decades, intense debates have occurred within the discipline over the le- The analysis and classification is focused on distinctive types of research
gitimacy of various research paradigms. (Benson 1998, LaGro 1999, McAv- strategy rather than upon research design or particular methods, al-
in et al. 1991, Riley 1990) They include unresolved questions over criteria though they are all closely linked and interdependent. Creswell (2009)
for the validation of knowledge (Milburn et al. 2003), tensions between ob- makes the distinctions clear: “Research designs are plans and … proce-
jective and subjective claims to knowledge (Swaffield 2006), the degree to dures for research that span the decisions from broad assumptions to
which landscape architectural knowledge is, or ought to be, contextu- the detailed methods of data collection and analysis … Informing th(ese)
al (Meyer 1997), and the acceptability (or not) of hybrid strategies – the decision(s) should be the world view assumptions the researcher brings
so-called ‘emergent’ methods of the social sciences (Hesse-Biber & Leavy to the study; procedures of inquiry (called strategies); and specific meth-
2008) to which design as research (Bowring 1997, Frayling 1993, Selman 1998, ods”. (2009: 3) We thus define a research strategy as the overall conceptu-
Thwaites 1998) is closely related. al logic and motivation for an inquiry, framed by two dimensions or axes:
These tensions over protocols and possibility are rehearsed wherever a on the one hand by the relationship of new knowledge to theory and, on
graduate thesis or dissertation is undertaken, when developing research- the other, by a specific world view (epistemology). The first signals the re-
based curricula, when evaluating research projects and when assessing lationship of the inquiry to theory – the purpose of the investigation in
submitted manuscripts. In the absence of a broader ‘meta’ perspective, building, shaping, or testing theory. (Peirce 1935) The second dimension
the way design inquiry is shaped appears to reflect the academic location reveals the nature of the epistemological presuppositions (Harrison & Liv-
of landscape programmes within each university, the educational back- ingstone 1980) that underpin the investigation. As Swaffield (2006) puts it,

Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011 35

Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping the terrain Simon Swaffield, M. Elen Deming

Key Terms Definition Example

Research Strategy The overall system of inquiry – its motivation and logic Description
Research Design The formal structure – how to select and analyze data A case study
Research Methods The procedures used in the investigation A survey
Research Techniques The investigative and analytical instruments A questionnaire

Table 1 Key terms

is the reality under investigation dependent upon, independent of, or in- trends or quality in the overall research activity of the discipline. New
terdependent between the researcher and the world? patterns and insights emerged as the investigation continued and, as the
Research strategy is a higher order concept than research design, sample grew larger, these initial categories were revised and expanded. In
which is the investigative structure created in the service of particular turn, as the framework of categories expanded and stabilised, the sample
intellectual strategies. Research design guides the way in which an in- of articles became increasingly purposive, or theoretical, as we sought ex-
quiry selects from and processes all possible sources of data, and is strong- amples that either illustrated or challenged the principles of each catego-
ly focused upon the approach adopted to sampling and analysis. Research ry. This describes a classic process of reflexive (or grounded) research, al-
methods are procedures of investigation used to implement particular re- ternating between inductive and deductive phases.
search designs. Research techniques are the specific instruments used to The selection of articles was drawn from those published over the past
access and analyse the data in support of particular methods. (Table 1) three decades in established, peer-reviewed English-language journals
We do not claim that the strategies we have identified are unique to of landscape architecture and landscape planning. Sources primarily in-
landscape architecture: in an interdisciplinary world, no discipline ‘owns’ cluded the Journal of Landscape Architecture, Landscape Journal, Landscape Re-
particular strategies or even methods. Nor do the strategies serve as a uni- search, Landscape Review, and Landscape and Urban Planning. The review did
versal template for research in landscape architecture. Quite the reverse – not consider the wide range of research published by landscape architec-
they are explicitly intended to counter claims that ‘one size fits all.’ It is the ture researchers in journals in related disciplines (Gobster et al 2010), or in
range of possibility for research in landscape architecture that is most nota- books, competition entries and non-refereed journals, or in languages oth-
ble, a point that can be both confusing and challenging. Although this clas- er than English. Limitations on the selection of articles reflect both the
sification scheme is generalizable to any of the broad domains of research thrift and the aims of the project, which were largely pragmatic. The tight
(biophysical, social sciences, humanities etc.), beyond the design disciplines focus does not therefore capture the whole intellectual activity of land-
(architecture, industrial design, urban planning and design), very few fields scape architecture. It does, however, provide a sense of the collective char-
other than landscape architecture can point to having active research agen- acter of knowledge formation and the wide distribution of research strate-
das and a substantial body of work in each of the nine categories. gies as expressed in the leading journals of the discipline.
The classification outlined below therefore provides a working map of
the research terrain of the discipline, a framework that shows how various Development of the framework
research strategies have been utilised, ‘translated’ to, or expressed with- The research strategies expressed in this sample of sources were classi-
in, the landscape architectural project. The classification and the strate- fied along two primary axes – the relationship to theory, and epistemolo-
gies it contains are not prescriptive or normative. Instead, the way these gy. (Table 2) First, the classification distinguishes between inductive and
strategies have been deployed is highly contingent upon particular con- deductive research strategies. In general terms, inductive research builds
texts and applications. We expect the basic structure of the classification theory from the ground up, based upon the description and classification
will endure because the logic of the framework draws upon more widely of things and processes and their contextual relationships in the world,
recognised principles of research drawn from the literature. We also an- grounded in empirical observation and experience. Deductive research,
ticipate that it will be incrementally strengthened as more examples are also in very general terms, tests theory from the top down. The limits of
added, and the detailed categories refined by the research practices of both theoretical explanations and predictions, based upon current understand-
academics and professionals. ing, are challenged through formal processes of experimentation, evalua-
tion, and axiomatic reasoning. This inductive-deductive duality is widely
Sampling and selection of articles recognised in literature on research methodology (Grinnell 2009), and pro-
The classification framework of research strategies was developed both in- vides the horizontal axis of the research strategy classification scheme.
ductively and deductively, informed by the exposure of both authors, over The second axis of the classification framework is epistemologi-
a period of years, to a broad range of reported research. Review of research cal – that is, how we know what we know. On the one hand, objectiv-
texts in related disciplines (Groat and Wang 2002, Laurel 2003) provided the ist approaches are typically associated with the sciences and presume
initial categories for a selected survey and analysis of articles reporting on that reality exists independently of the investigator. These tend to have
research undertaken and published within landscape architecture and al- a methodological emphasis on minimising the influence or bias of the re-
lied fields. The aim was to identify cogent examples of the range of strate- searcher. (Giere 1997) On the other hand, subjectivist approaches associ-
gies used and published, and their characteristics, rather than to analyse ated with the fine arts and humanities, and some emerging social disci-

36 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011

 Inductive Reflexive Deductive
Objective Description Modelling Experimentation
Constructive Classification Interpretation Evaluation & Diagnosis
Subjective Engaged Action Design Projection Logical Systems

Table 2 A classification of research strategies

Matrix of research strategies

plines, presume that multiple realities are created by individuals, and by Table 2 identifies nine basic strategies of research (from left to right, top
society itself. (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2008) In this case, the engaged role of the to bottom): Description, Modelling and Correlation, Experimentation,
researcher in shaping new knowledge is celebrated. These broad catego- Classification, Interpretation, Evaluation & Diagnosis, Engaged Action,
ries are also widely discussed in the literature on the philosophy of science Design Projection and Logical Systems. In the following subsections each
(Grinnell 2009), and their application to landscape architecture is more ful- of these categories is briefly described and explained, and illustrated by
ly explored in Swaffield. (2006) The objective-subjective duality provides reference to examples.
the vertical axis of the classification.
In landscape architectural research today, and in common with many Description
oversimplified classifications, much of the action and interest lies in the Description refers to the ‘writing’ of knowledge derived from direct obser-
liminal space, the borderlands between categories. Combined and hybrid vation and experience of the physical senses. (McIntyre 2005) Descriptive re-
strategies account for far more of the research activity of landscape archi- search strategies produce new knowledge by systematically collecting and
tecture than do these more traditional or fundamentalist domains. (Ab- recording information that is observable or tangible. The data can nor-
bott 2008) The classification framework we have developed is intended to mally be understood without complex analysis, and is frequently the first
encompass and showcase these other, rich layers of activity, and therefore stage in a compound research program. Descriptive strategies are well suit-
has been expanded to create intermediate categories. ed for students as they develop an interest in research and undertake pre-
Between the conventional dichotomies of induction and deduction, we liminary studies, and also to build applied knowledge in support of profes-
recognise what might be described as a ‘reflexive approach’ to theory gen- sional activities. Description is classified here as inductive and objective.
eration and testing in which an investigator shifts focus back and forth be- Four common methods within this research strategy are widely ap-
tween theoretical propositions and the empirical evidence. (Castells 1983) plied within landscape architecture: observation, secondary description,
The process leads to revisions of theoretical categories and relationships, descriptive social surveys, and complex description including case studies.
and suggests new possibilities for questioning, investigating and knowing. An example of a descriptive strategy is the mapping and analysis of pat-
Schobel (2006) notes that the pragmatic philosopher Charles Peirce used the terns of activity in public spaces by Goliĉnik and Ward Thompson. (2010)
term ‘abduction’ for such a third way of creating knowledge, suggesting This uses descriptive observation methods and spatial and temporal map-
what ‘may be’ is as worthy of study of what definitely is or isn’t. Thus re- ping to provide the basis for improved understanding of the relationship
flexive or abductive strategies may be placed between the two other, more between design and use of parks. (Fig. 1)
widely recognised positions on the horizontal axis of the classification.
On the epistemological (vertical) axis between the objectivist and sub- Modelling and correlation
jectivist poles, there is also an intermediate position possible. Swaffield Modelling as a research strategy creates new knowledge through simpli-
(2006) termed this constructive, after Crotty. (1998) Here, knowledge is fication. (Perry 2009) Models abstract some aspect of reality and incorpo-
generated though the interaction of the investigator (and their society) rate selected empirical data into the abstraction. Ervin distinguished be-
with a reality or realities that may well exist independently, but that can- tween landscape models that focus upon external representation – what
not be known independently, and must always be shaped and interpreted is seen and experienced – and those that focus upon internal represen-
in the social and cultural context. (Greider & Gardovich 1994) tation – process models: a difference between what landscape ‘looks like’
This expansion of the classification scheme thus creates nine possi- and ‘acts like’. (Ervin 2001: 50) Whilst they simplify, modelling strategies
ble categories. (Table 2) The titles given to these categories should sig- nonetheless aim to be authentic to the phenomena upon which they are
nal that there is significant common ground with categories commonly based (Costanza & Voinov 2004), and are categorised here as objective. The
used in other research fields, for example in architectural research meth- process of simplification requires a trade-off between what is most em-
ods. (Groat & Wang 2002) The development of a working classification for pirically practical and theoretically valid. Hence the category is placed in
landscape architectural research does not require us to re-invent research the reflexive column.
strategies already recognised in other disciplines. Rather, our classifica- Research in landscape architecture uses at least four types of model-
tion provides a way to locate current, operational and potential strategies ling: Descriptive/Synthetic Modelling, Analytical Modelling and Correla-
within landscape architecture in relation to more widely understood prin- tion, Predictive Modelling and Dynamic Simulation Modelling. The inclu-
ciples and contexts of research. sion of correlation as a modelling category requires explanation. Groat and
Wang (2002) argued that correlational research is a distinct type of research

Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011 37

Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping the terrain Simon Swaffield, M. Elen Deming

Passive uses lying the Meadows sitting on a bench

sitting standing 50 0 50 100 150 m

Figure 1 Patterns of activity of park users, The Meadows, Edinburgh

method, based upon use of statistical techniques to identify relationships

between observed variables. However, our classification recognises that
the basis for correlation research is the development and application of
statistical models to identify relationships within a complex data set. We
therefore include correlation as a subset of the modelling category.
Models per se are widely used in a range of research strategies and de-
signs. To be regarded as a research strategy, modelling must comprise the
underlying logic of the investigation. A good example of a modelling strat-
egy in landscape architecture is the way that alternative futures research is
undertaken. Steinitz (1995) and Steinitz et al (2003) show how models struc-
ture the whole research investigation. In the Willamette Valley project for
example (Hulse et al 2002), a set of landscape models provide the basis for in-
vestigation of possible future trends and states of a landscape, in order to as-
sess the cumulative implications of different types of policy setting. (Fig. 2)

Experimentation
Experimentation is a strategy based upon creating a situation that has
been controlled or constrained in some way to focus upon a causal rela-
tionship. (Giere 1997, McIntyre 2005) Types of experimental work relevant
to landscape architecture include Classic Experimentation, Field Experi-
mentation and Quasi-Experimentation. Experiments advance knowledge
by testing theoretical propositions (hypotheses) against evidence. (Mont-
gomery 2005) Hence experimentation is in the right hand, deductive col-
umn of the matrix. Experimentation also places very high emphasis upon
results that are free of observer bias, and hence is in the objective row.
‘Classic’ experimental conditions are very hard to achieve in landscape
architecture, as removing the landscape context of a phenomenon in order
to control one or more variables, for example within a laboratory setting,
tends to move the investigation into other realms of knowledge. Howev-
er some researchers have used virtual reality laboratories in an attempt to
overcome this problem. (Fig. 3) More typically, however, landscape archi-
tectural research using experimental logic is based upon either field exper-
iments, or quasi-experimental strategies, in which some characteristics of
an experiment are followed but not all. An example of a field experiment
is Hitchmough’s (2009) investigation of plant responses to different grow-
Figure 2 Alternative Futures Modelling: Muddy Creek Oregon
ing conditions and management techniques in urban meadows, in which

38 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011

 B rian O rlan d , I mmer s i v e E n v ironment s L ab , PS U

E liza Penny p acker

Figure 3 A Virtual Reality Laboratory Figure 4 Waterworks Garden. Renton, Washington

he created a series of trial plots and systematically applied different treat- tween the objective and subjective positions. It also relies upon theoretical
ments and recorded and analysed the results. An example of a quasi-ex- concepts, involves iterative moving back and forward between theoretical
perimental strategy is the investigation by Höppner, Frick & Buchecker understandings and categories and empirical observations (Castells 1983),
(2008) into people’s willingness to become involved in public participa- and is placed in the central column between inductive and deductive. In-
tion processes for a new Landscape Development Plan for a rural area of terpretation therefore occupies the central position in the matrix, and this
Switzerland. The quasi-experiment tested three clearly specified hypoth- expresses the way context informs all landscape research strategies.
eses using a research design that collected and analysed responses to rat- Interpretive research per se in landscape architecture can range from
ing questions administered to a large sample of subjects. investigating people in a particular landscape to analysis and interpre-
tation of texts, signs or images about landscape. The analysis of articles
Classification schemes identified four important types of interpretive strategy being widely used
Classification produces new knowledge by sorting, structuring, and/or in the discipline: Ethnography, Discourse Analysis, Iconography, and His-
weighting datasets into an organised system based upon typical prop- toriography including art historical approaches. Historical strategies were
erties, patterns, or themes. Classification is one of the most fundamen- identified by Powers and Walker (2009) as a particularly dominant catego-
tal and elastic of research activities, often not recognised as research yet ry of research. An example of an interpretative strategy that involves both
acknowledged “as a necessary condition for all higher levels” of analysis. ethnography and discourse analysis is the investigation of recent migrant
(Coombs 1953) Because classification concepts are inevitably shaped by the experiences and understandings of place in Australia. (Armstrong 2004)
properties and scale of data being considered, this large group of strategies This research interpreted the content of transcripts from focus groups
is located in the ‘inductive’ column of the matrix. They are placed on the and interviews with migrants as they undertook a series of discussions
constructive row to reflect the way that classification is a process, which about their experiences of place and journey. Another example of an in-
attempts to impose a sense of human order upon found phenomena. terpretive strategy is Bowring’s (2002) analysis of the iconography of pop-
Landscape architecture uses a range of classification strategies, includ- ular artworks in New Zealand.
ing Inventory/Catalogue, Typology, Taxonomy, Indexing, and Literature
Reviews. A good recent example of a classification strategy is the inventory Evaluation and diagnosis
of published research over 25 years of Landscape Journal undertaken by Pow- Evaluations are typically used to measure existing landscape conditions or
ers and Walker. (2009) They catalogued all the articles and assigned them to outcomes of a landscape design, planning, or management action, program,
different categories of research determined largely by content. An example or practice against a pre-existing standard. Rather than theory emerging
of typology is the categorisation of ‘artful rainwater design’ by Echols and inductively or reflexively from research activity, theory is already assumed
Pennypacker (2008), which was based upon an analysis of twenty rainwater and embedded within the normative parameters used for measurement.
gardens, examining the ways they incorporated amenity values. (Fig. 4) (Pedhazur & Schmelkin 1991) Evaluation is therefore located in the deductive
column of the classification matrix. It is located in the constructive row,
Interpretation because even when taking ‘objective’ measurements of phenomena, evalu-
Interpretive research presumes that the meanings of objects, events, im- ation applies values that are always situational and socially constructed.
ages and actions are not obvious, and require the investigator to ‘make In landscape architecture, evaluation may be used to rank design pro-
sense’ of phenomena in context. (Silverman 2005) As with classification, un- posals, measure success or failure of public investment in design, justify
derstanding is actively constructed through mediation between research- planning proposals, or advocate design actions. Four widely used catego-
er and the data. The interpretive strategy is therefore located midway be- ries of evaluation are Parameters and Rubrics, Design Evaluation, Diag-

Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011 39

 Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping the terrain Simon Swaffield, M. Elen Deming

Design projection
The most controversial category of research in landscape architecture is
‘design as research’. There has been a range of positions on the topic ex-
pressed over the past two decades. It includes: those who believe that ex-
tending research to include design undermines its integrity (Riley 1990),
L aura L aw s on

those who have argued that design cannot meet all the criteria of research
(Milburn et al 2003), those who acknowledge that design may involve re-
search tasks, but claim that its individual nature means it cannot formu-
late or address a generalisable research problem (LaGro 1999), those who
Figure 5 Collaborative teaching and learning, East St. Louis Action Research Project
suggest that design could constitute research if set out and undertaken
in an appropriate way (Bowring 1997, Armstrong 1999), and those who claim
that ‘anything goes’. (Barnett 2000)
One consequence of the attention directed at design as a potential re-
search strategy is that research concepts are increasingly being incorpo-
rated into the organisation and justification of design activity, “defined
by propositional components: strategy, tactic, hypotheses, ‘the literature’,
measuring instruments, data and so forth”. (Groat & Wang 2002: 105) At
the same time, design-like activity is making inroads into research (Nas-
sauer & Opdam 2008), particularly in the emerging methods of the new so-
cial sciences (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2008), and into the borderlands of applied
nostics and Landscape Assessment. An example of an evaluative strategy investigations such as design-led scenarios. (Weller 2008)
is ‘post occupancy evaluation’. (Cooper Marcus & Francis 1998) In his study In the classification presented here ‘design projection’ is recognised as
of Village Homes (Davis, California), Francis (2001) reported upon two post a legitimate research strategy. A range of types of design projection have
occupancy evaluations of the innovative community, one based upon a been shaped as research projects. Design operations (Corner 1999, Steenber-
masters thesis, and the other based upon a student studio exercise. An- gen 2008) project and evaluate new possibilities by applying systematic
other example of evaluation is the landscape assessment undertaken by processes and procedures to new data sets. Reflective design generates new
Whitmore, Cook and Steiner (1995) of the Verde River Corridor in Arizona. possibilities through creative process, and subjects the outcomes to criti-
The three-stage assessment included expert evaluation, public evaluation cal scrutiny and analysis (Moore 2010). In both cases the role of design is to
and public nomination. reveal new ‘possibility spaces’ in the world. (De Landa and Ellingsen 2007)
It is increasingly common for projective design researchers to adopt
Engaged action the language of conventional science, such as the term ‘design experiment’.
Action research (Lewin 1946) produces new knowledge based on direct (Steenbergen 2008) However there is little in common with classic scientific
social­engagement and action. Its motives are both pragmatic and eman- experiments, as the process does not isolate and control variables to the ex-
cipatory. Action research is one of the most controversial of research strat- tent needed to formally test hypotheses. Instead, Steenbergen describes ‘de-
egies because it accepts and legitimates the subjectivity of all experience, sign experiments’ and ‘experimental design’ as “case study” investigations.
including the experiences of learning, knowing and doing, and has there- In design experiments, the context is determined (i.e., a particular site) but
fore been located in the subjective row. As it is typically grounded in every­ the object (the design) is variable; in experimental design, both context and
day practical action, and led by participants rather than by theoretical­pre- design are variable. Framed as case studies, design investigations have clear
sumptions, it is placed in the inductive column of the framework. potential to produce new knowledge through the projection of new varia-
Categories of engaged action research in landscape architecture in- bles and dynamics, and new relationships between them, provided that the
clude Pedagogy, Participatory Action Research, Service Learning and investigation protocols are clearly and transparently set out.
Transdisciplinary Action Research. An example is the East St. Louis Neigh- Design projection is a reflexive strategy. It mediates between empirical
borhood Project (Lawson 2005), which engaged a low-income urban com- observation and theoretical projection of possibilities, and therefore lies
munity in a design charette and a community visioning process in order midway between inductive and deductive. At the same time, design prop-
to open up possibilities for community development. (Fig. 5) The critical osition is inherently active, engaged, situational and synthetic, and relies
feature here is the way that the project was shaped by the interactions be- upon individual creativity, imagination and insight. It is therefore more
tween the university students and staff and the community participants, ‘subjective’ than descriptive case studies or dynamic modelling, for exam-
as partners in the research. ple, and is located on the bottom row of the classification.

40 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011

 N

Arc of precise
N 90° angles between
Psychro and Zakros
Angle to Psychro
Arc of precise
and Zakros from90° angles between
courtyard altarPsychro and Zakros
Angle to Psychro
89°
and Zakros from 53' 31"
courtyard altar
89° 53' 31"

Palace orientation

96m96m
according
Palace orientationto Shaw
according
17° 01' to 48''Shaw
17° 01' 48'' Precise 90° angle
Precise 90° angle
Bearing toBearing
Psychro to Psychroto Psychro and to Psychro and
from
from precise 90°precise
pt 90° ptZakros Zakros
17° 02' 34"17° 02' 34"

precise East line from Pachnes

precise East line from Pachnes

R ichar d W eller
N

132.902 km Mallia
Pachnes
73 .1 98
Figure 6 Design scenarios, Perth, WA km

DENNIS DOXTATER
Psychro 89.892 °
Ida Cave 132.902 km Mallia
Pachnes Zakros
7 3 .1 9
8 km
Psychro 89.892 °
Ida Cave

A recent example of projective design research focused upon operations is

Figure 7 Metrology: Georitual layout of temple sites in Crete.
the exploration of alternative possibilities for future development of the city
region of Perth, Western Australia reported by Weller. (2008) This project cre-
ated a range of possible urban growth scenarios based upon a creative and
imagined exploration of different types of city, derived from contemporary
theory, in the context of different types of regional landscape (Fig. 6). Dee
(2002) and Dee and Fine (2005) provide an example of a more individual and Hybrid strategies
reflective design research investigation of the possibilities for re-used places, There have been many challenges in locating particular examples of re-
objects and materials using a range of artistic interventions. search within the classification framework described above. Few research
projects or programmes fit simply and squarely within a singular class or
Logical systems type of investigative strategy; (Abbott 2008) the majority are hybrid projects
Logical systems research is focused upon making sense of phenomena and that combine different types of strategy in different ways and to different
ideas by developing coherent structures of concepts and relationships . degrees. In some cases research designs are staged, and the strategy shifts
(Groat & Wang 2002) It is among the most interdisciplinary of strategies as investigations focus in upon a particular question. In others, the topic
because of its level of abstraction and the technologies used. Logical sys- requires a multi-pronged approach of complementary strategies. This ar-
tems create new knowledge through conjecture (Popper 1963), proposing ticle itself reports on a classification strategy, combined with a significant
a system of relationships that are presumed to be true, for the purpose of degree of logical argumentation. The approach to developing the strategy
exploring their possible consequences, even though there is no possibility framework presented here has been to identify what appears to be the fun-
of testing the initial assumption. It is a process that says, if this were to be damental or dominant character of an investigation, in order to build up
the case, then this and that will follow, with the following implications. It and test the framework, whilst acknowledging that the categories them-
is therefore located in the deductive column of the classification. However, selves are not all mutually exclusive in their application. Thus we would
the development of the system and its implications are creative, synthetic locate this paper in the classification category, whilst noting its other in-
processes, and hence the strategy belongs in the subjective row. fluences.
Several types of logical systems research have been used in landscape A second challenge has been that some investigative methods and tech-
architecture, including Logical Argumentation (expanded field analysis niques contribute in different ways to different strategies. Modelling is a
and decision models), Spatial Syntax (topology and metrology), Pattern good example of a process that can be used in a range of ways across the in-
Languages, and Indexing Languages. An example of metrology is the in- ductive-deductive and objectivist-subjectivist dimensions, contributing to
vestigation by Doxtater (2000) into the spatial syntax of ancient Minoan other research strategies such as evaluation, as well as comprising a strat-
temple sites on the island of Crete. (Fig. 7) He argued that the sites were egy in its own right, as in correlation or alternative futures.
structured by intension – drawing the landscape to the architecture – rath- A third issue has been terminology. Many of the terms used in research
er than by extension, as proposed by the architectural historian Vincent methodology have both technical and popular meanings, and in a number
Scully. However in the absence of complete site data the investigator used of cases they are used in contrasting strategies (laboratory ‘experimenta-
a theory of measurement to interpolate the critical relationships. This pro- tion’ vs. ‘design experimentation’ for example). In other situations, terms
vided the basis for a ‘conjectural’ interpretation that drew upon a logical are used differently in different disciplines. Simulation is an example. It is
analysis of possibilities. therefore important to clarify usage in the relevant places.

Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011 41

Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping the terrain Simon Swaffield, M. Elen Deming

Fitness for Purpose Credibility – are the results what they claim to be ? (internal validity)
Applicability – how generalisable is the research ? (external validity)
Consistency – are the results dependable ? (reliability)
Efficiency – is the research design elegant and effective ?

Relevance Significance – what is the contribution to discipline?

Originality – what new knowledge is added?

Transparency Openness – is the role of the researcher sincere and reported?

Clarity – is the research process and outcome communicated well? Table 3 Criteria for research evaluation in landscape architecture

Criteria for research quality in landscape architecture

Recognition of the diversity of research strategies in landscape architec- that the extent to which it is transferable is clearly and accurately com-
ture, as illustrated by the proposed framework, creates a second challenge: municated. Consistency is a measure of whether the knowledge that has
By which criteria should research investigations in the discipline be eval- been created is reliable or dependable. It asks whether a similar investiga-
uated and validated? As the debate over design research illustrated, selec- tion could be undertaken again or by others, with comparable results. Re-
tion of criteria is crucial to determining the bounds of legitimate research liability is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for validity in objec-
activity. Should landscape architecture develop its own criteria that can tivist research, and contributes to the credibility of other types of strategy.
encompass all the options, or should each strategy be judged by criteria Finally, efficiency asks whether the strategy has been developed and ap-
drawn from related disciplines elsewhere in academia? plied in a way that displays an elegance and economy of means and effort
The wide range of research strategies used in landscape architecture that is appropriate to the research question.
is challenging even to the editors and advisory boards charged with eval-
uating and disseminating research finding. Swaffield and Deming (2007) Relevance
reported upon the responses of key informants who were asked to com- Relevance has two dimensions, significance and originality. Significance
ment on how research in the discipline should be evaluated. The inform- is a question of how the research contributes to the discipline, either in
ants were selected from past and present editors and members of editorial method or content. What has been learned from this work? What are the
advisory boards of the journals used in the classification exercise. Three implications and how does it advance the discipline? Originality asks
major themes emerged in their responses: fitness for purpose, relevance whether the research adds new knowledge and understanding to the dis-
and transparency. (Table 3) cipline. Research always builds on previous work, but to be recognised for
Fitness for purpose implies that methodological integrity is more publication or qualification, it is expected to provide some new insights
important than adherence to any particular set of protocols. Relevance or other addition to the sum of knowledge – even if confirming previous
suggests that researchers in landscape architecture need to retain their work in a new setting.
breadth of approach, but to improve the professional and social relevance
of scholarship. Transparency highlights a need to strengthen the quality Transparency
of research reporting, particularly in the application of ‘mainstream’ sci- Transparency has two dimensions: openness and clarity. Openness is a
ence paradigms to landscape architecture, and in design-based research, question of whether the role of the researcher is open and clearly commu-
each of which require transparency as well as clarity in communication. nicated. In objective research this implies the investigation is designed to
These themes can be used to develop a set of criteria of research quality be free of individual bias, or, in more constructive or subjective strategies,
that resonates with established criteria in other disciplines. that the researcher is sincere and their role openly documented. Clarity is
a measure of whether the strategy and its outcomes are reported in a way
Fitness for purpose that enables a reader to evaluate the work in terms of the preceding crite-
Fitness for purpose is a broad concept that might usefully be expressed ria. If it cannot be understood by an informed reader within the discipline,
through several more specific criteria: credibility, applicability, consist- then it cannot be evaluated. At the very least, a research report or article
ency and efficiency. Credibility refers to whether the research procedures should explain a simple set of information about the research.
deliver what they claim to deliver. That is to say, have the findings been These criteria are not presented here as an inflexible checklist of re-
derived in a way that logically and defensibly relates to the phenome- quirements – no individual research project will be able to achieve perfec-
na about which claims are being made? This relates to the quality also tion in all, or indeed any of the criteria. All research is a matter of compro-
known as internal validity in the more formal styles of research, such as mise and of balancing of different demands and opportunities. Instead,
experiments. Applicability refers to the extent to which the knowledge is the criteria provide a set of complementary research quality measures that
generalisable or transferable to other situations. This is also known as ex- ought to be optimised as much as possible in all research strategies. (Ta-
ternal validity in experimental type strategies. Applicability may be qual- ble 3) Different strategies will perform more or less well in respect to dif-
ified in some way – for example in case study research – the point being ferent criteria.

42 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011

 Topic I am interested in… What is the focus?
Question Because I want to find out… Who/why/where?
Goal In order to… Why?
Strategy By undertaking an… What is the logic of inquiry?
Design Based upon… What is the sampling approach?
Methods Using… How will you investigate?

Table 4 Framing an Investigation: A checklist

Is it possible to specify a sufficient or minimal level of achievement in any particularly new researchers, is more likely to be driven by a perception of
particular criterion? We do not believe so. Indeed, our point of disagree- social or environmental need, or a missed opportunity for development
ment with a number of colleagues who have presented lists of criteria and or improvement in design practice. Problems emerge from a worldly con-
then concluded that design cannot be research because it cannot meet all text rather than from the existing knowledge of the discipline. As a con-
the criteria, is that NO research strategy – even the most demanding ex- sequence, research is not pre-framed by established norms; each project
perimentation – can completely fulfill all criteria. The difference between starts anew. The research approach is typically driven by the nature of
different research paradigms is the relative weight and importance at- the problem, rather than the conventions of the discipline. Recognition
tached to different types of criteria. Each strategy has a different profile of a more comprehensive framework of research strategies may thus em-
of qualities, and the most desirable profile depends upon the purpose to power graduate students to address a wider range of needs, with broader
which the knowledge will be put. sources of literature, and to ‘find themselves’ within a larger communi-
The editorial and peer review process has developed as a collective way ty of scholars – whether they are engaged and/or academic. Second, fram-
of making judgments about the relative merits of work in respect to a ing: in shaping a project, many advisers ask students to prepare a simple
range of criteria, and each journal or institution establishes a particu- set of statements. The script in Table 4 is adapted from Booth, Colomb &
lar sense of what is acceptable to their particular community of scholars. Williams. (1995)
These judgments are always open to debate. At this stage in the develop- The contribution of the framework of possible strategies is to enable and
ment of the discipline, whilst there is no common arbiter, analysis of the encourage a strategic framework within which to answer the more detailed
key journals does indicate an emerging sense of what is good practice in questions of design and method, rather than the more typical response of
most of the strategies, and the overview has attempted to express that. defaulting to what can be done using the methods taught or advocated by
The main exception is the question of design research, which remains the adviser. Another advantage of an emphasis upon strategy is that it plac-
highly contested. The debate would become much better focused if au- es methods in a wider methodological context, and paradoxically, may en-
thors presented, and editors demanded, accounts of design research that courage a tighter focus in the practical research action, “doing less more
addressed the range of criteria outlined above (or close equivalents). The thoroughly”. (Wolcott 1990 cited in Silverman 2005: 85) Starting with strategy
point of the criteria at this stage in the discipline’s development is not to rather than method provides a better sense of perspective upon the research
specify what is absolutely required, but to identify the questions that de- endeavour, and upon what is feasible in the particular circumstances.
sign researchers must ask themselves, and be prepared to answer from Third, proof of concept: embracing a range of possible strategies high-
others. Determining the balance of sufficient achievement vis à vis differ- lights the need to carefully weigh and balance the different criteria for re-
ent criteria must be a work in progress. The best scenario for an emerg- search legitimacy. This is always undertaken in the context of the research
ing academic discipline like landscape architecture is for researchers to problem. Put simply, what is at stake? What are the most important crite-
have the confidence to attempt that work in an open and constructive ria in this situation, and what are the risks of meeting particular criteria
way. This, of course, has implications for those who teach research. less well? Shaping a research project thus becomes a deliberate exercise in
linking needs, means and ends, and as such has much similarity with de-
Implications for graduate research sign itself. Encouraging students to think of designing their project and
How might this framework help graduate researchers in landscape archi- undertaking a proof of concept (e.g., demonstration, pilot test or dry run)
tecture and their advisers? Three issues stand out immediately: motiva- before they have committed major time and effort should emphasise the
tion, framing and proof of concept. First, motivation: the recognition of intentionality of research.
the potential legitimacy of a comprehensive range of strategies directly
addresses the way in which most graduates in landscape architecture ap- Conclusions
proach their work. In traditional disciplines, research is conventionally This exploration opened with recognition that much of the demand for en-
driven by intellectual curiosity. In contrast, the major motivation of re- hanced research performance is driven by emerging social needs. Applied
searchers in applied environmental disciplines like landscape architecture, disciplines like landscape architecture draw many, if not most, academic

Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011 43

Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping the terrain Simon Swaffield, M. Elen Deming

research questions from problems and opportunities encountered by pro- veyed, and thus there may be other distinctive types of strategy. Nonethe-
fessionals in the field of practice. The knowledge base of a professional dis- less, the underlying logic of the classification is drawn from established
cipline is thus in a continual process of transformation, as the tacit knowl- concepts in the wider philosophy of research. The dimensions of the clas-
edge of professional practice is encoded in scholarly work, and as research sification are broad, even if the sample through which the categories were
investigations and theoretical speculations are tested against practice. developed is not. The classification is therefore, like the discipline, at the
The contextuality of knowledge in landscape architecture highlights interface of theory and practice, and research strategies at the interface
the need for greater transparency from authors in explaining the basis for will always remain contingent and continually adapted in the face of both
their claims for new knowledge and its significance, in a shared (plain) evolving theories of knowledge and of changing practices.
language that is accessible to students as well as practitioners. Grinnell Second, knowledge in a diverse, practice-oriented discipline such as
notes that “in the everyday practice of science, calling things as they are is landscape architecture is consensually produced by a community of intel-
reserved for the community rather than the individual”. (Grinnell 2009: 16) lectual and professional peers. The questions asked and the significance
Knowledge validation is collective, and landscape architecture is no differ- reported depend on the needs of the field itself, not upon some externally
ent from science in this respect. referenced school of thought or normative paradigm of knowledge. In this
The framework presented above offers an overview of the range of regard, research strategies in the design fields are never ‘pure’, abstract,
strategies currently used and published through English language peer autonomous, or objective; rather, they are historical, situated, pragmatic,
reviewed journals in the discipline. The intention has been to demon- evolving, and cumulative. Hence the classification and the categories are
strate that it is possible to identify and recognise the relevance of a wid- presented here as a working scheme, not a normative prescription.
er range of strategies than many in the discipline have acknowledged, Finally, the work is grounded within an Anglo-American tradition
whilst extending the rigour of evaluation. Key informants among the dis- of investigation, reflecting the origins and education of the authors. It
cipline’s editorial gatekeepers have highlighted the importance of rele- makes no claims to universal validity, nor does it apologise for its par-
vance, fitness for purpose, and transparency, in research evaluation. When ticularity. Our overall hope in presenting the work is that it will stimu-
combined with other established methodological criteria, this creates a late responses and debate that will in turn strengthen the discipline to
potentially very robust yet adaptable set of tests. Moving beyond the pre- which we are committed, and thus enable the constructive contribution
determination of research legitimacy based upon the conventions of oth- of landscape architecture to the resolution of the wider challenges fac-
er disciplines, emphasises wider possibilities of approach, and highlights ing humanity.
these research criteria and skills. The next steps are to debate such crite-
ria and formalise protocols that emphasise deliberative choice of research Acknowledgements
strategies based upon weighing and balancing criteria in context. We thank the editors of JoLA and anonymous readers for their helpful sug-
Three qualifications are needed. First, the working classification is gestions, as well as all the authors on whose work we have drawn for these
based upon the evidence of a limited number of peer-reviewed English examples. The scholarly material presented is developed from the con-
language journals. It is neither conclusive nor prescriptive. There are tent of Landscape Architectural Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design, (Deming and
many fields of scholarly activity within the discipline that are not sur- Swaffield 2011), John Wiley and Sons, New York, by kind agreement of the
publishers.

References
Abbott, M. 2008. Designing wilderness as a phenomenological Brandt, R., Chong, G.H. & Martin, W.H. 2010 Design Informed: Costanza R. & Voinov, A., eds. 2004. Landscape Simulation
landscape: Design-directed research within the context of New Driving Innovation with Evidence Based Design. Hoboken, NJ: Modeling: A Spatially Explicit, Dynamic Approach.
Zealand’s conservation estate. PhD diss., Lincoln University, John Wiley and Sons. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Brown, R.D. & Gillespie, T.J. 1995. Microclimatic Landscape Creswell, J.W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
Armstrong, H. 2004. Making the unfamiliar familiar: Research Design: Creating Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency. and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
journeys towards understanding migration and place. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and
Landscape Research 29(3): 237–60.
Bruns, D., Ortacesme, V., Stiles, R., De Vries, J., Holden, R. & Perspective in the Research Process. St. Leonards, Australia:
Armstrong, H., 1999. Design studios as research: An emerg- Jorgensen, K. 2010. Tuning Landscape Architecture Education in Allen and Unwin.
ing paradigm for landscape architecture. Landscape Review 5(2): Europe. www.le-notre.org. Accessed January 2010.
Dee, C. 2002. ‘The imaginary texture of the real…’ Critical visu-
5–25.
Castells, M. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. al studies in landscape architecture: Contexts, foundations and
Barnett, R. 2000. Exploration and discourses: A nonlinear ap- Berkeley: University of California Press. approaches. Landscape Research 29(1): 13–30.
proach to research by design. Landscape Review 6(2): 25–40.
Coombs, C. H. 1953. Theory and methods of social measure- Dee, C. & Fine, R. 2005. Indoors outdoors at brightside: A criti-
Benson, J. 1998. On research, scholarship, and design in land- ment. In Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, L. Festinger cal visual study reclaiming landscape architecture in the femi-
scape architecture. Landscape Research 23(2): 198–204. and D. Katz, eds. New York: Dryden. nine. Landscape Journal 24(1): 70-84.
Booth, W., Colomb, G. & Williams, J. 1995. The Craft of Research. Cooper Marcus, C. & Francis, C., eds. 1998. People Places: De Jong, T. M., & Van der Voordt, D.J.M. 2002. Ways to Study
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. 2nd ed. New York: and Research: Urban, Architectural, and Technical Design.
Van Nostrand Reinhold. Delft: Delft University Press Science.
Bowring, J. 2002. Reading the phone book: Cultural landscape
myths in public art. Landscape Research 27(4) 343-58. Corner, J., ed. 1999. Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary De Landa, M.& Ellingsen, E. 2007. Possibility spaces 306090.
Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Models 11: 214–17.
Bowring, J. 1997. Research by design: The refereed studio.
Landscape Review 3(2): 54–55. Deming, M.E.,& Swaffield, S.R., 2011 Landscape Architectural Re-
search: Inquiry, Strategy, Design. New York; John Wiley and Sons,

44 Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011

Doxtater, D. 2000. Rethinking the sacred landscape Minoan McIntyre, L. J. 2005. Need to Know: Social Science Research Methods. Thwaites, K. 1998. Landscape design as research: An explora-
palaces in a georitual framework of natural features on Crete. New York: McGraw-Hill. tion. Landscape Research 23 (2): 196–98.
Landscape Journal 28(1):1-20.
Meyer, E. 1997. The Expanded Field of Landscape Architecture. Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P. & Bell, S., eds. 2010. Innovative
Echols, S. & Pennypacker, E. 2008. From storm water manage- In Ecological Design and Planning G. F. Thompson & F. R. Steiner, Approaches to Researching Landscape and Health: Open Space: People
ment to artful rainwater design. Landscape Journal 27(2): 268-90. eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Space. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Eckbo, G. 1950. Landscape for Living. New York: F. W. Dodge. Milburn, L-A., Brown, R.D., Mulley, S.J. & Hilts, S.G. 2003. Weller, R. 2008. Planning by design: Landscape architectural
Assessing academic contributions in landscape architecture. scenarios for a rapidly growing city. Journal of Landscape Archi-
Ervin, S. M. 2001. Digital landscape modeling and visualiza-
Landscape and Urban Planning 64:119–29. tecture Autumn 2008: 18–29.
tion: A research agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4):
49–62. Montgomery, D.C. 2005. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Whitmore W., Cook, E.. & Steiner, F. 1995. Public involvement
6th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. in visual assessment: The Verde River corridor study.
Francis, M. 2001. A case study method for landscape architec-
Landscape Journal 14(1): 26-45.
ture. Landscape Journal 20 (1): 15–28. Moore, K. 2010. Overlooking the visual: Demystifying the art of
design. Abingdon, U. K.: Routledge. Wolcott, H.F. 1990. Writing Up Qualitative Research.
Frayling, C. 1993. Into, through, and for research: Research in
Los Angeles: Sage.
art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers 1(1). Mulkay, M. 1977. Sociology of the scientific research communi-
ty. In Science, Technology and Society: A cross disciplinary perspective,
Giere, R. N. 1997. Understanding Scientific Reasoning.
I. Spiegel-Rosing & D.D.S. Price, eds. London: Sage.
4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. Illustration Credits
Nassauer, J. I. & Opdam, P. 2008. Design in science: Extending
Gobster. P. H., Nassauer, J.I. & Nadenicek, D.J. 2010. Landscape Tables 1,2,3, 4 are based upon material first published in Dem-
the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23(6): 633–44.
Journal and scholarship in landscape architecture: The next 25 ing and Swaffield 2010, with kind agreement of the publisher,
years. Landscape Journal 29 (1): 52–70. Pedhazur, E. J. Schmelkin, L.P. 1991. Measurement, Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Goliĉnik, B., & Ward Thompson, C. 2010. Emerging relation- Figure 1 is reprinted from Golicnik & Ward Thompson,
Lawrence Erlbaum.
ships between design and use of urban park spaces. ©2010 with permission from Elsevier.
Landscape and Urban Planning 94:38-53 Peirce, C. S. 1935. Deduction, Induction and Hypothesis.
Figure 2 is reprinted from D. Hulse, S. Gregory, J. Baker. (eds).
In Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2. Cambridge,
Greider, T., & Gardovich, L. 1994. Landscapes: The social con- 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of environ-
MA: Harvard University Press.
struction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology 59(1) mental and ecological change. (2nd edition), Oregon State Uni-
1–24. Perry, G. L. W. 2009. Modelling and simulation. In A Companion versity Press: Corvallis, Oregon, by permission of Oregon State
to Environmental Geography, N. Castree, D. Demerritt, D. Liver- University Press.
Grinnell, F. 2009. Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition
man & B. Rhoads, eds. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
and Passion meet Objectivity and Logic. Oxford: Oxford Univer- Figure 4 is reprinted from Echols & Pennypacker 2008
sity Press. Popper, K. 1963. Conjecture and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific by permission of the University of Wisconsin Press,
Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ©2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Groat, L. & Wang, D. 2002. Architectural Research Methods.
New York: John Wiley and Sons. Powers, M. & Walker, J. 2009. Twenty-five years of Landscape Figure 7 is reprinted from Doxtater 2000 by permission of
Journal: An analysis of authorship and article content. the University of Wisconsin Press, ©2008 Board of Regents of
Harrison, R.T.& Livingstone, D.N. 1980. Philosophy and prob-
Landscape Journal 28(1): 96–110. the University of Wisconsin System.
lems in human geography: A presuppositional approach.
AREA 12: 25-31. Riley, R. 1990. Editorial commentary: Some thoughts on
scholarship and publication. Landscape Journal 9(1): 47–50.
Hesse-Biber, S. H. & Leavy, S.H. 2008. Handbook of Emergent Biographical Notes
Methods. New York: Guilford Press. Schöbel, S. 2006. Qualitative research as a perspective for urban
Simon Swaffield PhD, is professor of Landscape Architecture at
open space planning. Journal of Landscape Architecture
Hitchmough, J. 2009. Diversification of grassland in urban Lincoln University, NZ. He is former founding editor of Land-
Spring 2006: 38–47.
greenspace with planted, nursery-grown forbs. Journal of Land- scape Review, member of the editorial advisory boards of JoLA
scape Architecture Spring 2009: 16-27. Selman, P. 1998. Landscape design as research: An emerging and Landscape Journal, and member of the CELA Academy of
debate. Landscape Research 23(2): 195–204. Fellows.
Höppner, C., Frick, J. & Buchecker, M. 2008. What drives peo-
ple’s willingness to discuss local landscape development? Silverman, D. 2005. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage. M. Elen Deming D.Des, is professor and head of Landscape Ar-
Landscape Research 33 (5): 605–22. chitecture at the University of Illinois, USA. She is former edi-
Steenbergen, C. 2008. Composing Landscapes: Analysis, Typology,
tor of Landscape Journal, serves on the advisory boards of JoLA
Hulse, D., Eilers, J., Freemark, K. & White, D. 2000. Planning al- and Experiments for Design. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.
and Landscape Journal, and is Fellow and President of the Coun-
ternative future landscapes in Oregon: Evaluating effects on
Steinitz, C. 1995. Design is a verb, design is a noun. cil of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA).
water quality and biodiversity. Landscape Journal 19(1-2): 1-19.
Landscape Journal 14(2): 188-200.
Hulse, D., Gregory, S.V. & Baker, J.P., eds. 2002. Willamette River
Steinitz, C., Arias, H., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Mad-
Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Contact
dock III, T.,. Mouat, D., Peiser, R. & Shearer, A. 2003. Alternative
Change. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Futures for Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin M. Elen Deming
LaGro, J.A., 1999. Research capacity: A matter of semantics? in Arizona and Sonora. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Department of Landscape Architecture
Landscape Journal 18(2):179–186. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Swaffield, S. R. 2006. Theory and critique in landscape architec-
USA
Laurel, B., ed. 2003. Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. ture. Journal of Landscape Architecture Spring 2006: 22–29.
[email protected]
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Swaffield, S.R. & Deming, M.E. 2007. Embodied knowledge:
Simon Swaffield
Lawson, l. 2005. Dialogue through design: The East St Louis Research strategies in landscape architecture. In Negotiating
School of Landscape Architecture
Neighborhood Design Workshop and South End Neighbor- Landscapes: Abstracts of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Council of
Lincoln University
hood Plan. Landscape Journal 24(2): 157-171. Educators in Landscape Architecture, B. Szczygiel & M. Bose, eds.
New Zealand
State College, PA: Department of Landscape Architecture.
Lewin, K. 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems. [email protected]
Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34–46. Thering, S. & Chanse, V., eds. 2011. The scholarship of transdis-
ciplinary action research: Toward a new paradigm for the plan-
McAvin, M., Meyer, E.K., Corner, J., Shirvani, H., Helphand, K.,
ning and design professions. Theme issue of Landscape Journal
Riley, R.B. & Scarfo, R. 1991. Landscape architecture as critical
30(1) (In press).
inquiry. Landscape Journal 10 (1): 155–72.

Journal of Landscape Architecture / spring 2011 45

View publication stats