Teaching Fieldwork in Landscape Architecture in European Context; Some Backgrounds and Organisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting topic about the impact and meaning of fieldwork for a higher educational training of landscape architect. Most of the presented conclusions I can agree with based on my own experience with fieldwork. But for a scientific paper these should be based on a well structured line of reasoning, not only the own observations of the authors. Now I'm confronted with many anecdotic situations, showing many different (interesting) situations and options with often own fieldwork but also studio/atelier activities in a broader setting. However all these situations are not structured  which takes the reader by the hand and guide him/her through your arguments, leading to your conclusions. I'm missing a better 

When there is much more structure in the paper and the arguments and presented situations are more build up based on theoretical educational findings, important for fieldwork (which are sometimes presented in the paper, but then often only as a statement or observation and with no follow-up) then this topic could be worth publishing. Now it is merely a long list of own experiences, interesting to read, but not directly in an academic journal.

Author Response

The Reviewer 1 recognises the content of the article from his/her own experience and finds it interesting to read but misses a scientific basis (more publications on the subject instead of personal experiences).

A structured line of reasoning is also missing, in which personal observations are linked to scientific research. There are mainly general remarks, and all criteria must be improved (no other specific suggestions)

Accordingly, we reworked the text integrating the specific remarks of all three reviewers and we have followed the ratings of the criteria: reviewer 1, reviewer 2, reviewer 3.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article gives an overview of rather personal experience with fieldwork. It is often stated that there is not a lot of research in this area, which I do not understand. There is whole educational Programmes based only on outdoor teaching ... like the (rightfullly mentioned) Lucius Burckhardt « strollogy «  in Kassel. 

Ptactical information about excursions dating back 50 or 20 years , that have no visible  urgent importance are showing that there might be too limited on personal experience.

A arkward liebe is: “hand writing (ha, ha!)“ what is the meaning of this? 

lenghty Space is used for commonplace définitions that are not allways too sharp or helpful ...

some comments are just opinions like the complaints about lack of skills in goehraphy, biology etc relayed to savings ... I am not sure if I can support that , it’s too vague and general 

also the bachelor / master sister / Bologna educational reform is mentioned in a rather vague way. Is there really an impact on the subject of fieldwork ? 

i think better use fewer material, a clearer direction (is this a objective overview or a subjective case study) definition of the cases ... framing, comparing them more clearly, juxtapose your own experiences with those of others ... 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 considers only the first criterium (Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?) sufficient and the other four as 'can be improved'

Accordingly, we reworked the text integrating the specific remarks of all three reviewers and we have followed the ratings of the criteria: reviewer 1, reviewer 2, reviewer 3.

Our comments in detail:

 „The article gives an overview of rather personal experience with fieldwork. It is often stated that there is not a lot of research in this area, which I do not understand.”

-> see for instance: Doherty, 2019 who came to the same conclusion and was included in the references. In fact reviewer 3 agrees on this point.

„There is whole educational Programmes based only on outdoor teaching ... like the (rightfullly mentioned) Lucius Burckhardt « strollogy « in Kassel. Practical about excursions dating back 50 or 20 years, that have no visible urgent importance are showing that there might be too limited on personal experience. A arkward liebe is: “hand writing (ha, ha!)“ what is the meaning of this?”

 -> removed

„…lenghty Space is used for commonplace définitions that are not allways too sharp or helpful ... some comments are just opinions like the complaints about lack of skills in goegraphy, biology etc relayed to savings ... I am not sure if I can support that, it’s too vague and general also the bachelor / master sister / Bologna educational reform is mentioned in a rather vague way. Is there really an impact on the subject of fieldwork?”

-> new text has been added in the introduction of Pedagogy and didactics related to fieldwork

„I think better use fewer material, a clearer direction (is this a objective overview or a subjective case study) definition of the cases ... framing, comparing them more clearly, juxtapose your own experiences with those of others ... „

-> goals have been redefined and more references have been added

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Many thanks for this manuscript, it is undoubtfully an important piece of research as we need more publications exploring the important of fieldwork in landscape architecture. The structure of the paper is clear, however, some general observations thus far. First, the manuscript lacks on references, there are many statements that do not have backup. Second, the methodology is unclear. I have no idea on how the materials were collected and what sort of criteria was used to select the case studies. Third, the language used to write the manuscript is at times very casual and clunky. The manuscript needs a good editing. There are many inconsistencies of spelling between American and British English.

My comments more in detail:

Introduction

Introduces clearly the problem under investigation and contextualises it within the disciplinary body of knowledge. However, many assertions are made and the authors do not provide many references to support their statements. The topic of fieldwork is for instance widely explored by some prestigious landscape architects, such a Christoph Girot and the importance of the 4-trace concepts as well as in many chapters of the book Research in Landscape Architecture: methods and methodology (eds Van den Brink, Bruns, Tobi & Bell). In addition, if you look at professional accreditation of degrees, many bodies require that fieldtrips and fieldwork as part of the different curricula. The authors do not mention any of that.

Section 1.3.2 there is lack of clarity around what type of publications were collected, where and how many. Furthermore, there is no criteria identified to how case studies were selected. The entire section 1.3 should be revised and strengthen.

Pedagogy and didactics related fieldwork

I find this section written in a very clunky manner. It hard to understand the core ideas being debated here. The authors never define the 3 different categories of fieldwork, nor compare or contrast, and above all, it lacks on references.

Professional vs academic education, similarly, reads as an opinion piece. As previously stated, the authors do not provide evidence that most or some of the current programmes lack on fieldwork. For instance, many geography and geology programmes worldwide do primarily their teaching through fieldwork and lab work. Similarly, most of the landscape architecture programmes I am aware of always include many fieldworks. The International Federation of Landscape Architects provides education policy and guidelines, which also support fieldwork.

In L202, how does the 4 approaches play a role in landscape education? Please expand.

In L220 you need references to support that statement.

In L229, you need to explain how the 3 issues were selected and why.

L246 – authors left the name of the reference, I assume, by mistake.

L273, with the introduction of 3 different types of fieldwork, the authors need to expand and explain why and how. As well, in the following page, instead of writing the different types of fieldwork as questions, the authors should name them instead. It makes it easier to read. For the last category, I would encourage you to read this paper, especially the discussion and conclusion: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arched/char/2018/00000005/00000001/art00006#

L417, figure 4 looks incomplete.

This section ends up with many examples of successful strategies, however, the authors are unable to summarise the key points of this section. What’s the message the authors want the readers to retain here?

Organisation of learning and teaching in the outdoors

This section is clearer in nature. I’d encourage the authors to look at the following work:

Steven Holl, ‘Phenomena and Idea’, in The Material Imagination: Reveries on Architecture and Matter, ed. by Matthew Mindrup (Australia: University of Canberra, 2015) pp.47-56

Martin Soberg, ‘Theorizing the image of architecture: Thomas Ruff's photographs of the buildings of Mies van der Rohe.’in Conference Architectural Inquiries, (Gothenburg, Sweden, 2008) pp. 1-10.

Graeme Brooker and Eric Northey, ‘Framing Space Agendas and Content in the Architectural Topography’, Journal of Architecture,13(2) (2008), pp.117-131

Bryant, Martin; Allan, Penny; Kebbell, Sam. 2017. "A Settlers’ Guide: Designing for Resilience in the Hinterlands" Buildings 7, no. 1: 23.

http://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/content/research-interface-bi-cultural-studio-new-zealand-case-study

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/97903/

https://conference.eclas.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ECLAS_UNISCAPE_Conference_2019_single_page_small_size.pdf#page=191

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10111-012-0232-9

https://research.brighton.ac.uk/files/405370/Fieldwork%20Uncovering%20Cultural%20Landscapes%20%20(1).pdf

Practical Issues

I do appreciate this section, however, all the work previously done around pedagogy vs didactics has completed vanished in this section. What are the general pedagogical and didactic issues found? Benefits?

What is/are the clear direction/s that any curriculum should be taking in 2021 and in the near future? Should be replace fieldwork with something else? Shall we re-invent what a fieldtrip is? I want to read more from the authors on these and other matters.

Conclusions

Mostly is there but it is written in a casual manner. The authors should revise it and write it appropriately.

Author Response

The Reviewer 3 consider too much focus on personal experiences that are not related to other research on the subject. The conclusion of too much focus on personal experiences of the reviewers, does not match the facts of the text; there are 5 projects taught by the authors that are used as illustration (largely based on references as well) while there are more than 120 references on the subject not related to these personal experiences. These references come from a great diversity of publications, both books, articles, peer-reviewed papers. It means that these references form the core of the content and argument.

The suggestions for references from Reviewer 3 have been particularly a great help for us. Some of the suggested references could be easily integrated in the text. After reading the reviews — especially review 3 — we came up also with additional references ourselves.

According to Reviewer 3 the criteria 1, 2, 4 as 'can be improved' and the criteria 3 and 5 'must be improved'; see a lack of scientific background in the references and just a collection of personal experiences.

We reworked the text accordingly to indications and the specific remarks of all three reviewers.

Our comments in detail:

Introduction Introduces clearly the problem under investigation and contextualises it within the disciplinary body of knowledge. However, many assertions are made and the authors do not provide many references to support their statements. The topic of fieldwork is for instance widely explored by some prestigious landscape architects, such a Christoph Girot (-> Girot, 1999) and the importance of the 4-trace concepts

as well as in many chapters of the book Research in Landscape Architecture: methods and methodology (eds Van den Brink, Bruns, Tobi & Bell).

-> 'fieldwork' as term is mentioned but not in the context of teaching in landscape architecture but as a form of research; 'fieldwork' is not specially dealt in the study and not mentioned in the index.

In addition, if you look at professional accreditation of degrees, many bodies require that fieldtrips and fieldwork as part of the different curricula. The authors do not mention any of that.

-> indeed; we have added Bruns et al., 2010; EU-Land21, 2017 in which fieldtrips, excursions and practical work are mentioned

Section 1.3.2 there is lack of clarity around what type of publications were collected, where and how many. Furthermore, there is no criteria identified to how case studies were selected

-> case studies have been selected on pragmatic basis; what we could find in the publications complemented with material from our own experiences.

The entire section 1.3 should be revised and strengthen.

-> yes, we have reworked the entire section Pedagogy and didactics related fieldwork I find this section written in a very clunky manner.

Pedagogy and didactics related fieldwork I find this section written in a very clunky manner. It hard to understand the core ideas being debated here. The authors never define the 3 different categories of fieldwork, nor compare or contrast, and above all, it lacks on references.

-> references provided

Professional vs academic education, similarly, reads as an opinion piece. As previously stated, the authors do not provide evidence that most or some of the current programmes lack on fieldwork. For instance, many geography and geology programmes worldwide do primarily their teaching through fieldwork and labwork. Similarly, most of the landscape architecture programmes I am aware of always include many fieldworks. The International Federation of Landscape Architects provides education policy and guidelines, which also support fieldwork. In L202, how does the 4 approaches play a role in landscape education? Please expand.

-> In landscape architectural education all four play a role in different teaching modes and different stages of the study.

In L220 you need references to support that statement.

-> With the introduction of the Bachelor/Master system in Europe the educational goals of all university programs have changed.

In L229, you need to explain how the 3 issues were selected and why.

-> We have chosen three issues to illustrate some of the pedagogical backgrounds in design education in general and in landscape architectural education in particular.

done L246 – authors left the name of the reference, I assume, by mistake.

-> corrected: [46].

L273, with the introduction of 3 different types of fieldwork, the authors need to expand and explain why and how. As well, in the following page, instead of writing the different types of fieldwork as questions, the authors should name them instead. It makes it easier to read. For the last category, I would encourage you to read this paper, especially the discussion and conclusion:https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arched/char/ 2018/00000005/00000001/art00006#

-> Marques & McIntosh, 2018

L417, figure 4 looks incomplete.

-> Figure 4. Didactics of fieldwork is first of all based on the distinction between different levels in sites, landscapes and projects

Organisation of learning and teaching in the outdoors This section is clearer in nature. I’d encourage the authors to look at the following work:

> Steven Holl, ‘Phenomena and Idea’, in The Material Imagination: Reveries on Architecture and Matter, ed. by Matthew Mindrup (Australia: University of Canberra, 2015) pp.47-56

> http://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/content/research-interface-bi-cultural-studio-new-zealandcase-study -> Allan & Smith, 2012

> Martin Soberg, ‘Theorizing the image of architecture: Thomas Ruff's photographs of the buildings of Mies van der Rohe.’in Conference Architectural Inquiries, (Gothenburg, Sweden, 2008) pp. 1-10. -> Søberg, 2008

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/97903/ -> Armstrong, 1999

> Graeme Brooker and Eric Northey, ‘Framing Space Agendas and Content in the Architectural Topography’, Journal of Architecture,13(2) (2008), pp.117-131

> Bryant, Martin; Allan, Penny; Kebbell, Sam. 2017. "A Settlers’Guide: Designing for Resilience in the Hinterlands" Buildings 7, no.1: 23. -> Bryant et al., 2007

> ECLAS_UNISCAPE_Conference_2019_single_page_small_size.pdf#page=191 https://conference.eclas.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ -> Doherty, 2019; (…) to address a surprisingly large gap in the literature by demonstrating how fieldwork can inspire and inform landscape architecture and planning education. Few courses on fieldwork exist specifically adapted for landscape architects.

> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10111-012-0232-9 https://research.brighton.ac.uk/files/405370/ Fieldwork%20Uncovering%20Cultural%20Landscapes%20%20(1).pdf -> Cheyne, 2014

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved considerably and the story line seems much more consistent for the reader. Yet there are still a few aspects that need attention.

In the abstract the main goal is described, but with this description it is suggested that it is merely an overview of experiences or a sort of review article, not really a scientific article. In the article itself a link is made towards pedagogic and didactical aspects, so includes more than just an overview.

The introduction has improved, but then I’m missing some more information about the different EU-programs. An overview table of the 21 countries would have been very informative. For instance, you stated that “between 40-60% of the whole program is not specified”. Where and how did you establish this. Furthermore, you mention that “in many landscape architectural programs the first week(s) are spent on a field trip”. How do you know? What is your source for this?

The start of 1.1 has important information that should be in the abstract. And further on you mention that you focus on Europe, but actually the focus is on Hungary and the Netherlands with a few examples from elsewhere. And there is also no consistent comparison made, just several impressions provided. In your research question in 1.3 you actually limit yourself already to “some European schools”. So it is better not to suggest more than you deliver.

The structure of 2.1, especially 2.1.3 is a bit of a mess. Please try to reorganize this and make clear sub sections, consistent and in line with the text.

Why is the third aspect “landscape architecture” not visible in figure 4? It seems to be there, at least I can spot a line and the start of text. In the caption text of figure 4 suddenly ‘projects’ pops up.

Chapter 3 has also a more chaotic structure of sections which don’t have consistent titles either. Can you make that also more consistent?

In figure 13, third block you used ‘what is the from’ instead of ‘what is the form’ of the landscape.

The conclusion section is now much better and more elaborated.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

„The manuscript has been improved considerably and the story line seems much more consistent for the reader. Yet there are still a few aspects that need attention.

In the abstract the main goal is described, but with this description it is suggested that it is merely an overview of experiences or a sort of review article, not really a scientific article. In the article itself a link is made towards pedagogic and didactical aspects, so includes more than just an overview.

The introduction has improved, but then I’m missing some more information about the different EU-programs. An overview table of the 21 countries would have been very informative. For instance, you stated that “between 40-60% of the whole program is not specified”. Where and how did you establish this. Furthermore, you mention that “in many landscape architectural programs the first week(s) are spent on a field trip”. How do you know? What is your source for this?

The start of 1.1 has important information that should be in the abstract. And further on you mention that you focus on Europe, but actually the focus is on Hungary and the Netherlands with a few

examples from elsewhere. And there is also no consistent comparison made, just several impressions provided. In your research question in 1.3 you actually limit yourself already to “some European schools”. So it is better not to suggest more than you deliver.

The structure of 2.1, especially 2.1.3 is a bit of a mess. Please try to reorganize this and make clear sub sections, consistent and in line with the text.

Why is the third aspect “landscape architecture” not visible in figure 4? It seems to be there, at least I can spot a line and the start of text. In the caption text of figure 4 suddenly ‘projects’ pops up.

Chapter 3 has also a more chaotic structure of sections which don’t have consistent titles either. Can you make that also more consistent?

In figure 13, third block you used ‘what is the from’ instead of ‘what is the form’ of the landscape.

The conclusion section is now much better and more elaborated.”

Answer

The suggestions has been integrated in the text, and the whole article has been reworked taking into consideration the indications and remarks of all three reviewers.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am gratful for teh study now giving more context in the form of mire references to educational studies and literture. Also the Bologna Reform was explained more cleraly, which is helpful (we do like to refer to it as Bolognese , but that is more about pasta then science ... )

Detected a minor spelling mistake in Prof. Dr. Sanda Lenzholzer at Wageningen UR

31.    Lenzhölzer, S. Designing atmospheres - Research and design for thermal comfort in Dutch urban squares, WUR Landscape architecture, Wageningen, 2010
32.    Lenzhölzer, S.; & Brown, R.D. Climate-responsive landscape architecture design education

Although i do not see a conflict of interest, I think I know at least the Dutch author. I think we met briefly in Delft 2008-2015, I am frequently in Versailles although not (yet) teaching steadily and tought in Wageningen 2015-18.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

„I am gratful for teh study now giving more context in the form ofmire references to educational studies and literture. Also theBologna Reform was explained more cleraly, which is helpful (wedo like to refer to it as Bolognese, but that is more about pastathen science ... )

Detected a minor spelling mistake in Prof. Dr. Sanda Lenzholzer atWageningen UR

31. Lenzhölzer, S. Designing atmospheres - Research anddesign for thermal comfort in Dutch urban squares, WURLandscape architecture, Wageningen, 2010 32. Lenzhölzer, S.; & Brown, R.D. Climate-responsive landscapearchitecture design education. Although i do not see a conflict of interest, I think I know at leastthe Dutch author. I think we met briefly in Delft 2008-2015, I am frequently in Versailles although not (yet) teaching steadily and tought in Wageningen 2015-18.”

Answer

Reviewer’s requests were fulfilled

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Many thanks for taking the feedback onboard and for improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

Regards

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

„I am gratful for teh study now giving more context in the form ofmire references to educational studies and literture. Also theBologna Reform was explained more cleraly, which is helpful (wedo like to refer to it as Bolognese, but that is more about pastathen science ... )

Detected a minor spelling mistake in Prof. Dr. Sanda Lenzholzer atWageningen UR

31. Lenzhölzer, S. Designing atmospheres - Research anddesign for thermal comfort in Dutch urban squares, WURLandscape architecture, Wageningen, 2010 32. Lenzhölzer, S.; & Brown, R.D. Climate-responsive landscapearchitecture design education. Although i do not see a conflict of interest, I think I know at leastthe Dutch author. I think we met briefly in Delft 2008-2015, I am frequently in Versailles although not (yet) teaching steadily and tought in Wageningen 2015-18.”

Answer

Reviewer’s requests were fulfilled

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.