RESEARCH By Alison Galbraith
Building links between academic research and landscape practice In the first of a series of articles, we explore the benefits of closer contact between academia and practice.
K
enji Shermer (East Devon District Council), talking recently about his work on proposals for Cranbrook healthy new town1 and the importance of making sure design decisions don’t have unforeseen consequences, quoted Bertrand Russell from a 1959 BBC interview: “Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficial social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at the facts.”’ Kenji’s assertion that we designers often rely on hunches to inform how we design things struck a chord with me. We know that what landscape architects do is important. We recognise that what we do could always be improved or may need to change. But are we learning and growing in the best possible way? Jane Findlay, President of the LI, recently called for landscape architects to base our work on a body of evidence, and in doing so making landscape architecture as vital engineering, so that it cannot be sidelined.2 I’ve had the privilege over the past 7 years of working with the landscape architecture team at the University of Gloucestershire as part of the LI’s Professional Review Group. I greatly value having regular contact with students starting out in their studies and with the experienced staff who are guiding them and inspiring them. During my time with the PRG, the courses have benefitted from an increasing presence of PhD staff who regularly publish papers and students writing their PhD theses. For me, talking to them about their work gives 52
an insight into the world of research and the possibilities it offers. But an insight is as far as it goes for me! I feel that there is a lot of good work going on but also that I don’t know what it is or how to get to it, or indeed, how to contribute to it. When I approached course leaders Dr Alessio Russo and Dr Ying Li about writing this article, they kindly sent me a number of papers about the relationship between research and practice – it was clear that it is not just me who feels the relationship could be better. The papers show there are challenges relating to what is researched, what should be researched, how research is carried out, and how research is presented and disseminated. Even what constitutes research is debated by academics – this distinction is important to them and their work. Helpful and encouraging as the academic papers were to me in starting to think about this subject, they in themselves illustrated to me what I perceive to be part of the problem. They were published in journals I’ve barely heard of; they were written in language I struggled to keep up with; and seemed long-winded, including (as they necessarily do) lots of detail about methodology used and responses to questionnaires, and statistical breakdown of findings. For people like me, used to reading straightforward technical text or a more engaging, conversational style of writing (sprinkled with humour and opinion, and with lashings of pretty pictures and colourful graphics), the papers were a struggle. However, struggle I did, and the
key findings resonated with my own perception that research is somewhat of a ‘dark art’ to us practitioners. To try and better understand the world of research and to explore some possible ways forward, I spoke to Drs Russo and Li. The primary aim for researchers is to be published in refereed journals. Refereed journals publish content which is subject to peer review: a rigorous process which can take many months, but which is necessary to ensure originality and robustness. One paper referred to a 2013 US study (Chen3 ) which found that only around 25% of US professionals regularly read refereed journals to keep informed of new knowledge. Professional magazines were much more popular, being read by 78% of professionals questioned, with the most popular form of research being internet searches (91%). Even “everyday life” was used as a resource more than refereed journals, at 77%. The same paper reported discrepancies between what professionals, as opposed to academics, felt needed more research. Subjects important to professionals included plants and materials, sustainable design, site engineering, construction techniques, water management and grading / circulation. Topics of interest to academics were less focused on design and construction, covering a broader spectrum of assessment and management, heritage, character, value. Some overlap was identified between human dimensions of planning and design, global landscape issues, and green urban development.
