**Figure 3.**

*A drawing of the landscape research universe from 2006 to 2016.*

**Figure 5** is an ordination plot of the fifteen schools based upon the first two dimensions. All fifteen schools are very good schools and share much in common. However, some schools emphasize one area over another. While the MSU landscape architectural program is not highly mathematical or visual in emphasis, it is relatively more than its peer institutions. If the schools were drastically different, the scale on the dimensions would be in the tens not the single digits.

*The American Landscape Architecture Research Universe and a Higher Education Ordination… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99119*

**Figure 4.** *A drawing of the landscape architectural program education universe 2016 overlaid upon Figure 3.*


#### *Landscape Architecture Framed from an Environmental and Ecological Perspective*


#### **Table 5.**

*Percentage of subject categories taught at the top 15 American undergraduate schools.*

#### **Figure 5.**

*An ordination plot of the fifteen school based upon the first two dimensions (dimension one horizontal, dimension 2 vertical).*

### **4.3 Blending the two universes**

It becomes apparent, that to teach landscape architecture and to do research in landscape architecture occupy two different realms. This understanding is not new to those who work in the academic treadmill. However, the results revealed in this study supports this belief. A tenure stream academic in landscape architecture may have to balance two worlds: the more narrow focus of training landscape architects and the extremely broad and diverse world of landscape research. And it is not surprising that many landscape architecture undergraduates would have little connection or interest in research. And it is not surprising that many newly hired professors coming from their professional training would be unprepared to tackle a research endeavor.

The co-authors asked Dr. Burley about his observations concerning this change, as he has observed, witnessed, and participated in this transition. "I believe much of the change began in the 1970s. The push for research has to do with money and university ranking. Schools around the world are now competing with each other for status and position. Administrators compete for a ranking, as the ranking is based upon publications, citations, and money. Therefore, administrators need to coerce/ urge their faculty to obtain grants, publish, and be cited. I was told by someone who had been a faculty member in the MSU department of geography that in the mid-1970s, it was very rare for anyone to have a grant, although in their department many published. In the 1970s very few published, if ever in landscape architecture at MSU. This was frustrating for MSU administration. The merits of landscape architecture in service to society are admirable; however, these merits do not contribute to university ranking and comparatively, teaching landscape architecture

#### *The American Landscape Architecture Research Universe and a Higher Education Ordination… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99119*

as a major is expensive (small classrooms, dedicated studio space). The landscape program at Michigan State University was slated for closure in the 1980s because the faculty were slow to adopt the mission of publication and grant writing. Then Dr. Jo Westphal was hired in the landscape program and the transition began. The hiring of myself and Dr. Mary Ann Kniseley was the second phase of that transition. To explain further, university priorities change based upon where the money is to be found. In the past the state often funded many public schools, but that money has long disappeared at many institutions. The money has been found by raising tuition quickly and by seeking eternal funding for research. Majors in the humanities and general education may give way to majors in medicine and physics. Schools change their identity. It is in this academic environment landscape architecture educators and students find themselves placed within. It is easy to imagine where conflict can arise and also where opportunities may exist. In the 1970s, the mindset of landscape architecture academics was purely in a setting similar to **Figure 4**. But now on the research side of things it has evolved in the last 40 years to something similar to **Figure 3**. I was a part of that change. I am not saying it is for the good and the better, nor suggesting that it is negative either. That is for others to decide. I am too close to the middle of it to make a judgment. But indeed, it has been fun to discover and uncover measures and analytic approaches to understand what has happened and to work with fine colleagues from around the world." stated Dr. Burley.

The co-authors also asked Dr. Burley about his interpretation of what this change means for landscape architecture faculty. "Well, first it is a source of conflict at many levels. I have witnessed it many times around the world at many landscape architecture programs and in discussions with many faculty. To illustrate how successful this has been, not one hired landscape architecture assistant professor has made it to full professor at MSU in over the last 40 years. That is a tragic track record. But it really does not matter from the university's perspective because very few know this track record--administrators and most faculty have a very short time frame in their positions. The two deans who were recently hired to oversee our department/school did not even finish one full term—they left. When I was hired, there were four of us as new assistant professors in a multi-disciplinary department, but after 8 years, I was the only one who remained, the rest had left. Of the last nine landscape faculty to leave the landscape program over the last 30 years, I can say all left somewhat disgruntled, jaded and often disillusioned. I am sure it will be no different for me. Yet the university can present a positive perspective to the outside world. From the thousands of professors it hires, it only needs to show possibly 20 or so success stories each year to market the university in a very positive manner (that is 4/10ths of one percent of the instructor population at MSU). In the 30 years I have been at MSU, rarely are individuals in my department/school ever featured. It has happened; however planning and design scholars are not a priority (remember in the 1980s they tried to dispose of this group) and not what the university may wish to project as an image. Often, I see publications featuring laboratories and medicine. There is often an optimistic attitude about the future. While past events may have resulted in dismal failure, the belief that the next person hired will bring a bright and happy future is a consistent theme. Then reality sets in, problems occur, people leave, and the bright and happy future of the next forthcoming hire is all that is discussed. Over 40 years ago at another institution, I would listen to a certain dean's yearly report to stakeholders. He would always paint a bright and beautiful future. But after several years of this, I would recall the new initiatives he had promoted the years before, most ending in an unpleasant manner. But it did not matter, no one remembered them (but I did). All that mattered was that the forthcoming year was going to be marvelous. Universities struggle with this all the time. The quest for money, publications, and citations at an ever increasing level generate

many internal problems. And because most universities accept this incremental race for recognition and prestige, in many ways they generate the problems and issues that arise at the institution. As has been said before, 'We have met the enemy and it is us.' While universities may claim to be bastions upholding diversity and equity; often instead, they are halls of elitism, intolerance, insecurity, and arrogance with no chance for true inclusion and diversity – in fact it can be quite brutal. This is often what I have observed for landscape architecture faculty at many institutions around the world. Still many try, and some do succeed; but one will rarely hear about the many who did not succeed. I am not attempting to present a dreary image, but rather I have been in academic for over 45 years and at one institution for nearly 30 years, plus have lectured at around 35 universities world-wide, and at many more conferences, so eventually one gets an understanding of what is occurring. **Figures 3** and **4**, make a lot of sense to me. They help to explain the setting and the situation." noted Dr. Burley.

To cope with this duality, one approach that universities have been employing is something known by some as the 'Stanford Academic Educational Model.' The model establishes two classes of instructors and researchers. In the Stanford Academic Educational Model, one academic class of employees, the researchers, are highly paid, in the tenure stream, teaching only advanced graduate student courses, focus upon producing research papers in the most highly respected journals possible, usually seeking research grants to support their efforts. The other academic class of employees, the instructors, are paid at a lower level, not in the tenure stream, teaching the masses of undergraduate students, have no research responsibilities, and are not required to produce journal articles. The researchers may have a very high opinion of themselves and the instructors will wonder why the researchers are not as engaged with the students. It is the difference between **Figures 3** and **4**. At some institutions and within departments this causes great internal strife and battles. The differences are reflected in the expectations of those serving educational professional practice and those serving the search for new knowledge. Universities attempt to be entrepreneurial with their research faculty and still serve the needs of the student body, searching for relevance, contributions, and meaning for the public [38–40].

"At MSU, it used to be that most of the faculty were a blend between the two types, one in the tenure stream, conducting research, writing papers, and teaching all levels of students. There were very few employees in the purely instructional model. But MSU has drifted towards the Stanford Academic Educational Model where now about half of the faculty are instructors. This approach saves the university substantial salary money. Since the instructors are not in the tenure stream, it brings administrators more flexibility to hire, fire, and change academic offerings/majors. It used to be that the instructors were not even considered faculty, but with about half of the academics now being non-tenured stream, universities have found means to label them as faculty. Titles are easy to give/anoint and cost almost nothing. And it would not help the university's cause for it to be known that the number of what had been known as faculty staffing had been reduced in half. Universities struggle to find approaches that still serve their student body clientele bringing in tuition dollars and striving to maintain their academic ranking and position with journal articles, citations, and research dollars. I find neither fault nor praise for what has transpired, but rather based upon the differences between **Figures 3** and **4**, I understand why this has happened. At one time there was an interesting documentary film shown on American Public Television, describing the struggles and challenges of one part-time instructor at Stanford, but I have been unable to find a citation for this film. It is very revealing. Stanford has a very well respected Department of Art and Art History which produces many excellent documentaries." reflected Dr. Burley.

#### *The American Landscape Architecture Research Universe and a Higher Education Ordination… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99119*

"The push to maintain university rank and standing continues. In the past most educators in landscape architecture had master's degrees. I recall one European nation that urged landscape faculty to each earn a PhD., using termination as a stick and the promise of increased pay as a carrot. Eventually most earned a PhD. Upon conclusion, there no terminations but also was no money to support pay increases, but the faculty had earned PhD.s and started writing and publishing as part of their duties—mission accomplished. Faculty need to recognize that the goals and requirements for faculty by universities are going to constantly change, universities are going to expect more, not less and it will be driven by the need to sustain ranking and status above all else. For landscape architecture faculty, they need to understand that their existence is based both on the expectations of planning and design professionals to produce students illustrated in **Figure 4**, and to conduct research illustrated in **Figure 3**. And they need to understand that they are in competition with other departments and professional schools in their university. According to recent metrics in GoogleScholar, the top landscape architectural citated author in the world, William Sullivan at the University of Illinois, he has over 13,000 citations as of July 2021; but for example as my institution, the top cited authority was Joey Hudson a physicist, with over 336,000 citations. It was not until one reached down to about the 140th cited researcher that one was at the 13,000 metric. Approaching 1,000 citations, I am usually in the top 40 of cited landscape architecture researchers in the world, but I am not even close to the top 500 at my university. Universities look at these standings. It is not easy for landscape architecture faculty to compete in such an environment with the other departments and professional schools. When universities make decisions about where to invest, it is easy to understand their priorities. **Figures 3** and **4** offer insight into those challenges." observed Dr. Burley.
