Research into Teaching – Teaching into Research
Working Group Coordinators
Landscape Design
Rekittke, Jörg(NL)
ok
Landscape Planning
Karadeniz, Nilgul(TR)
ok
Cultural Landscape
Bell, Simon(UK), Sarlov-Herlin, Ingrid(SE) d
History and Conservation
Goodchild, Peter(UK)
ok
Theory and Methodology
Kuhlmann, Friedrich(EE)
ok
Vegetation and Plant Material Koster, Arie(NL)
m
Information Technology
Buhmann, Erich(DE)
m
Urban Open Space
Mertens, Elke(DE)
ok
Materials and Construction
Isable Martinho de Silva
ok
Landscape Management
Semenzato, Paolo(IT), Vugule, Kristine(LV) ng
Infrastructure Projects
no session
Professional Practice
Meireles, Frederico(PT), v. Dooren, Noël(NL) ok
WG Coordinators and overview
Landscape Design
In this session we wish to develop connections between teaching and
research. For each working group we need the following:
What research areas do you consider to be important in the field?
Landscape Design Theory
History of Landscape Design
Landscape Visualisation
Landscape Design and Behavoiur
Landscape Design and Ecology
Perception of Landscape Architecture
Design Methods
Aesthetics
What disciplines (other than landscape architecture) do you consider to be
relevant in research in the area?
Sociology
Psychology
Urban Design
Ecology
Architecture
Criminology
Innovative Technology
Geography
Soil Science
GIS
Pedagogy
History
Arts
Phenomenology
Hermeneutics
What key research methodologies do you consider to be important in the
area?
Where do you think the strongest research is being carried out (leaders in
the field)?
How much research is being undertaken in landscape architecture
departments?
How does the research find its way into teaching?
What do you consider to be the main gaps in research in the field?
These points were not answered by the group in that session.
___________________________________________________________________
Landscape Design
Landscape Planning
Coordinator:
Nilgül Karadeniz
[email protected]
Participants of the WG in the first session:
Jasminka Cvezic
Nevena Vasilevic
Brian Orland
Adnan Uzun
Veli Ortaçeşme
Simon Swaffield
Min Wang
Dihua Li
Milena Tasheva-Petrova
Ruben Joye
Audur Sueinsoottir
Maija Rautamaki
Sebahat Açıksöz
Diedrich Bruns
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]; [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Session 4 – Friday 15th of March, 2008 – Research into Teaching – Teaching for Resarch
The Working Group had no enough time to discuss the issue but identified research question
for potential collaborative project
POTENTIAL RESEARCH TITLE
What are the barriers to success in implementing LP projects?
Landscape Planning
Cultural Landscape
Cultural Landscape
History and Conservation
TOPIC (B): TEACHING FOR RESEARCH- RESEARCH FOR TEACHING.
AND
TOPIC (C ): E-LEARNING. (Discussion chaired by Peter Goodchild)
1.0 Summary.
1.1 Discussion of Topic B was combined with that of Topic C.
1.2 The Working Group decided that it would be very useful to have ready access, via the
Le:Notre website, to reliable and good quality case studies that can be used for teaching,
learning and study purposes. The case studies would focus on the history and the
conservation of places of historical and heritage interest in different countries.
1.3 The Working Group agreed that the easiest and most practical way forward for both
research and e-learning in relation to ‘History and Conservation’, would appear to be:
(1) To focus, initially, on building up a portfolio of important, significant, and representative
landscapes (including gardens and parks).
(2) To develop educational initiatives using the portfolio of case studies.
(3) To develop research initiatives using the portfolio.
1.4 This led to the adoption of the idea that the Working Group should take action to
establish a Portfolio of Historical and Conservation Case Studies that will be accessible
through the Le:Notre website.
2.0 A Portfolio of Historical and Conservation Case Studies.
2.1 Once a general format has been agreed, case studies can be added to the portfolio on a
flexible basis. Depending on circumstances, it will be possible to build up the portfolio
gradually, in bursts, or more rapidly as time and resources allow. The case studies might be
prepared by existing teaching and research staff, but also by research students who are
completing Masters and Doctorates by research. The case studies might for example be a byeproduct of their main research topic. But there are several ways in which the case studies
might be prepared, added to the portfolio, and augmented from time to time.
2.2 Because the portfolio is intended for teaching, learning and study purposes it will provide
material, in the form of case studies, that can be used for the purposes of e-learning and
research.
2.3 The portfolio could also be used as a vehicle for initiating and stimulating further and
wider dialogue, and this in turn could lead to the setting up and on-going development of elearning and new research initiatives.
2.4 Members of the Working Group agreed that this method of obtaining reliable and good
quality information, and of encouraging further and wider dialogue, of engaging with elearning, and of developing research, is practicable and an approach that they can envisage
adopting and using.
2.5 Peter Goodchild will develop an outline description for the proposed Portfolio of
Historical and Conservation Case Studies, and investigate possible sources of funding to get it
established.
3.0 Research.
3.1 The following areas of research were identified as being important for the topic of
‘History and Conservation’:
(1) Reliable inventory descriptions, and case studies of sites.
(2) The clarification and explanation of terminology in an international context.
(3) Monitoring and keeping the conservation of sites under review.
History and Conservation
3.2 The following disciplines that are relevant to ‘History and Conservation’ were
identified:
(1) Agriculture.
(2) Architecture.
(3) Archaeology.
(4) Art History.
(5) Botany.
(6) Civil Engineering.
(7) Ecology.
(8) Economics
(9) Forestry, Silviculture, and Arboriculture.
(10) Geography.
(11) History.
(12) Horticulture.
(13) Human Ecology.
(14) Law and Governance..
(15) Literature.
(16) Management and Administration.
(17) Sociology.
(18) Zoology.
3.3 The following research sources and their associated methods were identified as being
important for the topic of ‘History and Conservation’:
(1) Historical and current published sources.
(2) Historical and current documentary (archival) sources.
(3) Field survey and recording (including critical personal observation and measured survey).
(4) Archaeology.
3.4 The following observations were made concerning the current level of research in the
topic of ‘History and Conservation’:
(1) In general, the application of research to the topic is still in the early stages of developing.
(2) 4 of the 8 Universities represented at the discussion, are engaged in research on history
and
conservation of landscapes, but the research is often at a basic and primary level.
(3) It is recognised that significant improvements are needed.
3.5 The following comments were made about the relationships between research and
teaching in the topic of ‘History and Conservation’:
(1) A distinction needs to be made between a ‘search’ and ‘research’.
(2) Often it is a ‘search’ that is conducted and this is for the purposes of teaching.
(3) It is not an uncommon experience that there is too little time for research to be undertaken
by
teaching staff, even where time is formally allocated for it.
(4) The research undertaken by teaching staff can be too far ahead of the needs of the
students to
find direct application.
(5) Landscape Architecture is a practice-led discipline and profession. This does not mean
that
theory and research are not important to practice, but that they are complementary and
secondary in this context.
(6) Students undertake both searches and research as part of their course work.
(7) Amongst the universities represented in the discussion most did not have research-based
Masters and PhD programmes dealing with the topic of ‘History and Conservation’.
History and Conservation
3.6 Amongst the representatives of the 8 universities that were present, the following main
gaps were identified in connection with the topic of ‘History and Conservation’:
(1) A lack of readily available reliable information about the history and conservation of
sites that
can be used for teaching and research purposes.
(2) A lack in the amount and level of discourse on the history and conservation of landscapes.
(3) Foreign publications are often not available in a commonly read international language
(eg
English)
(4) A major topic on which information is needed is how to deal with the rapid and extensive
changes that are currently occurring in landscapes.
(5) Significant improvements are needed in visual and aesthetic education in connection with
landscapes.
(6) Significant improvements are needed in connection with raising general levels of
awareness
about landscapes.
History and Conservation
Theory and Methodology
Representing the group
In some way, the working group was simulating what happens, when professional teachers and
researchers with different scientific backgrounds are trying to define theory: We introduced ourselves
and each one of us gave a statement about their background and how it is related to theoretical
approaches.
Research into teaching
Important research areas for landscape architecture theory are the critique and discourse of built and
planned projects, of terms or of approaches. Landscape Architecture Theory also questions
interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity in the profession. As we are confronted with an abundant
amount of knowledge it questions the problem of accelerating information for projects in practice as in
teaching. Of course this would lead into linking research and teaching and practice and therefore
being pioneers of discussing upcoming themes...
Running
There are meetings of the members in the theory group on the Vitero-platform to present and discuss
different teaching methods at their schools and how they are linked to the individual research
questions of the members. These integrate aspects of e-learning and research into teaching in an
ongoing platform. The first meetings were in May and June
Theory and Methodology
Vegetation and Plant Material
Vegetation and Plant Material
Information Technology
Information Technology
Urban Open Space
Participants:
Ana Braganca
Aleksander Böhm
Martha Fajardo
Sarah Foque
Daniela Gazova
Serif Hepcan
Virginia Laboranti
Jonna Majgaard
Elke Mertens
Piet Minten
Cornelius Scherzer
Richard Stiles
Jan Subuka
Jean-Noel Tournier
Margreet van Kuijk
Concern of the working group is also the further establishment of the EULP
Research institutions were written down as a starting point for a database on the
web site to be constantly added:
Research on Urban Open Space
Institutions /
Persons
Topic(s)
Methods
Open Space
Use and
Surveys,
R.C.
experimence
biography
Edinburgh
of open
space
Peking
Philosoph.
Prof Yu
open space
University,
Urban Open Space
Roots in
Neighbouring
Disciplines
sociology
Relationship
E-learning /
teaching
information
research -
additional
design
Royal
Open Space
Empirical,
Antropology,
Copenhagen,
cities and
Dialogue
Ecology, Urban
Academie
Center f.
Open Space
use in inner
suburbs
Theory,
Philosophy,
Planning,
Housing,
Research
Urban Design
Roger Trancik Book: Lost
Urban Planning
CIP Buenos
Agronomy,
Aires
Biology,
Space
and Design
Province,
Urban Planning
Centro de
Investigatione
de Paisaje
(Landscape
Research
Center),
University
Buenos Aires
Univ. Catolica
de Cordoba
Research
Center,
Argentina
CIBIO, Univ.
of Porto
Landscape
Forestry,
Architecture
Agriculture
research;
Metropolitan
Parks
Assessment
Univ. Ege,
Serif Hepcan,
Usability of
sidewalks,
Adnan Kaplan master
planning for
Urban Open Space
Empirical,
Observation,
Interview
public
spaces
TU Delft, NL
Urban
TU
Urban
Eindhoven,
development
WUR, Alterra,
Landscape
U.R.C.
-planning, -
NL
Wageningen
architecture,
ecology, -
perception,
etc.
V.U.B,
Brussels, BE
EhB, BE
Sociology,
urban
Univ.
Hannover
Univ. Kassel
TU Berlin
IOER
Dresden
CABE Space,
Empirical,
London
Action
research
ASLA
Database
ETH Zürich,
Chr. Girot
URGE,
Function,
Greenkeys
Use, Policies
of Urban
Space
Ali
Public
Mananipour,
spaces
Urban Open Space
England
CURE, Univ.
Manchester,
John Handley
Claire
CooperMarcus
Slovak
Environmental
Agriculture
conditions for
Slovakia
elements
Univ., Nitra,
urban green
growth;
Social
aspects –
aesthetic
values etc.;
Space
aspects –
green urban
structure etc.
Additions:






Interreg Proposal 2008: Network of Universities and Cities / Municipalities (EULP)
Design of open space in relation to urban structure and type of use
Biodiversity and Open Space Structure
Open Space and Behaviour (Crime)
7th EU Framework Programme: Quality of Urban Space – min. 4 countries / 4
institutions
In NL: “Lectors”
To be completed and more institutions / Persons to be added!
Result of the discussion process, presented to the plenary:
Urban Open Space
Urban Open Space
“Rough Material”
Urban Open Space
Urban Open Space
Materials and Construction
In Professional Practice
Landscape Management
Joint other group
Materials and Construction - Landscape Management
Professional Practice
Coordinators:
Noël van Dooren Academy of Architecture Amsterdam (NL)
Frederico Meireles University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real (PT)
Former Coordinator:
Robert Holden
Group Members:
Francesca Mazzino
Laura Costa
(PT)
Gulsen Guler
Ahmet Yildizci
Haris Piplas
Ola Bettum
University of Greenwich (UK)
University of Genova (later) (IT)
UTAD University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real,
Istanbul Technical University (TR)
Istanbul Technical University (TR)
University of Sarajevo (BA), ELASA
Norwegian University of Life Science (NO)
Materials & Construction Working Group Members: (joined the group for this
session)
Isabel Silva
University of Porto (PT)
Cornelie Stoll
University of Osnabruck (DE)
Ian-Tobias Welzel University of Erfurt (DE)
Peter Ramboer
Ghent University Association (BE)
The group first started from a short
round through all the members in
order to understand what sorts of
research,
concerning
Professional
Practice, are being developed by the
universities represented
Some
were
pointed
–
Urban
Development research (As, NO);
Inventory of contemporary parks
(Vila
Real,
PT);
Inventory
of
Landscape Art (Vila Real, PT);
Research on Materials for solar
energy (Osnabruck, DE); Research on
Plant Material (Osnabruck, DE) – although the major interest of this round was
the discussion about the typologies of research specifically on Professional
Practice, which led to also interesting outputs:
1. Research related, supporting and practice-oriented
2. Research explicitly about practice of landscape architecture
The first one – Research related, supporting and practice-oriented – includes
research about materials, vegetation, about parameters or standards which can
find the way into practice and teaching through technical books or legislation.
Also includes research about landscape planning and management components,
which outputs can also be considered fundamental to practitioners, such us
research on local microclimate conditions, new technologies applied, neighbour
disciplines, etc..
The second typology – Research explicitly about practice of landscape
architecture – includes research about the practitioners and good practices, such
as the ones which answers the questions of ‘What do they feel about Landscape
Architecture in their country?’, or ‘What work of their own they would like to
show as the example of good practice?’. Also includes research on practitioner
methods (not only about the ‘product’ but also about the ‘process’), research on
professional identity, research on how to get a job (p.e. Robert Holden’s
Internship Guide).
One perspective was highlighted by Frederico, considering the practice that
becomes research and that might go back to practice and be a resource for
teaching p (p.e. ‘Why isn’t this park working?’, ‘What were the problems along
the process of design and construction?’, etc.).
In the end of the session the last questions were raised: Where are the stronger
centres and major groups on researching Professional Practice? Which fields and
typologies of research in Professional Practice are not being covered? What are
the gaps?
Not very easily, some names and places were pointed such as Newcastle and Ian
Thompson and Maggie Roe, Sheffield and Cathy Dee; Arnalp; Copenhagen
(Torben Dam and Ian Jorgensen).
The gaps mentioned by Robert Holden cover cost Information (Capital cost,
Exchanging rates) and Research on management (office management and
product management).