采访人：朱怡晨
采访时间：05/16/2014
翻译：张引
Lucinda R. Sanders是宾夕法尼亚大学景观系的客座教授，讲授职业实践（Professional Practice）课程。同时也是OLIN的首席执行官。她是美国风景园林协会的会员，近期著名的设计包括纽约的卡耐基音乐厅屋顶和费城的特拉华滨水区规划。风景园林新青年志愿者就她开设的职业实践课程进行了访谈。
Q: 您对职业实践课（Professional Practice）的定义是什么？如果这课改名叫个人实践（Personal vs Professional），您认为怎样？
这个问题很有意思，我也问过Richard Weller1教授是否应该改个名字。很多大学里的职业实践课有一些特定的讨论话题，比如合同签订等商业方面的话题。当我最初开始教这门课的时候，或者说James Corner2想让我教这门课的时候，我跟很多同事和朋友聊过这个问题，每每问到他们职业实践课程的相关事宜，他们的回答都是糟透了。因此我决定让自己的课程不那么糟糕，想做点不太一样的有创造性的事情。
我做了很多不同的尝试，从一开始就在试图拓展课程的边界。有一些突破是围绕特别设计的课程单元来完成， 例如“职业规划1，2，3.”3，坦白说其他任何学校都没有这样的先例。而另一方面我也在尝试突破或者改变课程的训练重点，这一改变也使职业实践这门课区别于其他任何课程。这些尝试与调整有一部分归功于我个人关于领导力的研究。我发现景观设计师大部分时间都在扮演追随者的角色而非领导者，而这使我对景观设计行业的思考产生了很大的变化。我一直坚信景观设计师所思、所说、所做对人类未来发展有着非常重大的意义，但是现在他们仅仅只是被动的响应。
或许因为我已经从事这个职业多年，在人生的这个时刻我认为景观设计师应该更具有引导性。他们应该发出更加强有力的声音，而不是仅仅被动的等待机会的到来。这是我研究领导力的原因。宾夕法尼亚大学景观设计专业的职业实践课既然如此特别，那它该不该有改名？也许吧，我只知道有一个叫风景园林认可委员会的机构，职业实践课是为了获得认可必须的一门课程。或许课程的名称并不会改变，但我深深的相信只有通过这些深层次的对话，我们的学生才能被赋予力量去发出更强有力的声音。
Q：那么在您看来，学生通过课程应该学到什么呢？
显然，我要教学生一些基本又传统的专业实践，合同签订、风险控制、业务发展、财务管理都涵盖在内。我并不奢求学生离开课堂就马上知道该怎么做所有这些事情，但我希望他们能了解事物的运作规律，真正明白他们将要在实践中面临的挑战。这些是传统层面上的教学，我觉得我仍有必要将这一部分传达出来。而这门课的不同之处则在于，课程从头到尾都是围绕这领导力这个主题展开，而且我希望我的学生们能够发散开来，如果他们还没有对这个行业的未来产生不同的想法，那我希望他们能够赋予自己的人生自我主导的能力。
我相信这样的引导，会让学生自我探索并且转变，而滴水穿石，终会对个人的发展带来很大的转型。因此我们谈论的变革型领导力，其实是多维度的。首先它作用于每个个体的人，最终它作用于大宇宙，影响所有人。而发展到哪种维度，却掌握在我们手里。
Q：您认为风景园林这个行业真的如此重要吗？景观设计师的真正位置在哪里？
这个问题无法直接回答。我认为前景广阔，未来光明，但这个问题的答案却根据设计师的不同而不同。比如在OLIN，我们事实上是在探索建立更正式的研究可能性。因此，我们研究什么呢？是城市土壤，是气候变化对植物的影响，还是如何使得行为更有效地改变世界？我敢说，这些探讨是不能被普遍定义的，就像设计师要在两个点上寻找平衡，我认为答案来自于个人。
我有一个深刻的信念，景观设计师需要走到更广阔的平台。这既然是一个涉足广阔的行业，那么我们必然要做更多层次的努力。举个例子，Olin和宾大一起做的RBD4竞赛。一般正常的流程是项目已经被定义，然后我们再来做设计。设计一些将要被建成的东西，又或者规划一些将要在几十年之后才能完成的事物。而RBD的过程则完全不同，它要求我们在项目被定义之前就要与城市中的社区和各个层面的政治团体协商。这意味着我们需要多更多样的探讨和对话，而不是仅仅坐在电脑前画图。
我的回答好像偏离了你的问题，但它们紧密相连，而我的答案是肯定的。我确实深信景观设计师能够领导这些会话，这带我们回到了这门课程的目的，也是我为何相信领导力存在于这个行业的原因。如何将下一代的景观设计师推向新世界，发挥更大的作用，又如何让他们主动地去领导而非被动地跟随，这是我的兴趣所在。
Q：您认为什么是在学校理论学习和在社会实践工作的枢纽？
始终让实践充满活力的，其实是学生。我认为如果没有学生，实践面临枯竭。我前不久跟一些CEO在圆桌上讨论过人类实践活动的转型，大家都认为实践的变化代代相传。我发现让很多办公室充满活力的，并非我们自己，而是不断来到实践岗位的学生。是学生，让实践永葆青春。
当然这并不意味着从学校到实践是无缝衔接的。在学校，学生回答的问题大多数是普遍会被问及的问题，而且在某一些场合你会产生一种你在这个对话中占有相当分量的错觉。你相信你会拥有的话语权其实远远小于真正付诸实践时所扮演的角色。这就是学校和社会的差距，也是我极力想缩小的部分。这是从一方面回答你的问题，而问题的另一方面在于，如果你不想进入一个传统的工作室，对传统工作的未来不感兴趣会怎么样？如果开创属于自己的实践体系又会怎样？像Kate Orff5，她就有超强的信念，在玩一场与传统景观设计师完全不同的游戏。她离开学校的时间并不长，却来到了一个完全改变景观设计师传统信念的新世界。
Q：你在这个课上教了多少年了？
我已经在宾大教了15年了，但开始教这门课程，大约10年。它在不断变化，不断革新。
Q：那你怎么保持它的不断革新呢？根据个人的经验和学生的表现？
是的，我观察和聆听我的学生，然后确立自己的位置。我也做许多其它的事情，比如当学生的未来并未受到良好的指引时，我会在通过我的课上完成。另一件影响我的事是2008年的经济衰退。在那一年，所有的事都一团糟，对我的思想产生了深远的影响。我发现自己在教授一门职业实践的课程，而事实上我的学生毕业后根本没有任何工作机会。这让我对行业可能性的探索和发掘上越走越深，什么样的思维才能使这些学生也能在其它的领域发挥作用？因此，我开始邀请各行各业的人来同学生交流，让他们意识到即使没有在设计事务所工作，他们仍然有其他可能性继续影响景观行业的发展。这一点对我产生了十分有趣的影响，因为它让我开始系统地思考这个行业的可能性。
Q：那么，领导对话在经济衰退之后就诞生了？
对，这是我在过去三年中特别关注的点。
Q：在调整课程您有多大的自由度？您与景观建筑系的关系是什么？
当James是系主任的时候，他说：“我只是想让他们知道RFP、RFQ是什么。”这是极小的期望。有趣的是，这个课程不是必修课（在宾大），但在美国其它的学校却都是必修。后来Richard Weller当了系主任，我告诉他我想做的，他说好，这很有意义。我从这里获得了尊重和鼓舞，我相信他也看到了这学期很多同学的转变。他曾经告诉我说这门课对学生非常重要，因此我获得了很大的自主权，他一直相信我能做好。
Q：您认为该课程应该是必修课吗？
这也是一个好问题。让我们先忘记课程，我来告诉你我到底想做什么。我真的想与学生们分享他们的生活，从他们初次到宾大，到正式开学前的夏季课程，从而看到他们对未来产生懵懂的疑问。我想看到这些可能性，也想影响这些学生在宾大的经历。到那时，我会想和他们分享毕业之前的那个秋季，因为希望他们对来年的春天做好充分的准备，而不是仅仅让毕业和就业自然发生。我期待这个秋季学期的到来，以鼓励他们在来年的春天更加积极进取。
Q：现在我们的课程有50%的授课，另外50%是对话、讨论和展示。如果你们班有30个学生，你会怎么做呢？
我设计的课程规模是15个人，今年我们有三为旁听生，其他14位则要获取学分。Richard也问过我，为什么不对更多人开放这门课。当人数扩大了，要维持这种深度的会话就变得十分困难。当人数超过18个，就变成了讲课性质的课程。当我最初教这门课时，它就更像讲座。那时课上会有更多人，有时甚至超过了20个。这样的课程很糟，并且是无效的。如果我必须把它发展为一个30人的大班，那么课程需要重新设计。也许它的开端是一个小讲座，然后会被分为单独的研讨小组，进行不同的讨论。
如有你有一个30个学生的班，有的信息能够以讲座的形式提出，那么完全可以这么做。但我真的认为，谈话中的深层次的探索和自我聚焦需要在一个小单位中发生，最少是12+人。因此，如果你有一个30或32人的讲座，也许最好有两到三个不同的教授带来主题对话，然后再聚集到一起进行讨论，探讨每一组会话的成果。
Q：您如何看待中国的景观设计？
一个词概括：年轻。我看到它非常年轻，并且在不断探索。我发现很多人都想知道景观设计师究竟能做什么，即使对于我们这些来自于行业发展相当成熟地区的设计师，他们也是想知道我们究竟能做什么。因此对中国的景观设计师来说，这一点是他们值得注意的。
如果你处在一个工业社会，以社会认可的方式难以置信地努力工作，那么你会活得太辛苦。但如果以另一种方式，你同样会获得认可。就像我在工作室对学生强调的那样，质量远比数量重要，深度永远大于广度。这是质与量之间的博弈，也是很多中国学生到美国之后经历的最大的转变。
为什么我会说这个，要回归你的问题。我将在中国探索苗木行业的发展，目前的园艺实践实在太糟糕了。总要有人来做这件事。很多中国人忙于变得高效而多产，我不知道谁会担心，又有谁真的在意。我不知道谁的到来会让这改变。我相信一定有人在努力改变，只是我暂时没有找到。但你真的要脱离传统的商业来全新地思考这个问题，来接受这些挑战。我下一个愿望是中国的景观设计师能牵头治理中国的空气污染问题，他们的声音可以掷地有声、铿锵有力。当然，作为旁观者，这些总是说得轻松。
注释：
- Richard Weller是宾夕法尼亚大学景观系的教授及系主任。
- James Corner是宾夕法尼亚大学2000-2012年设计学院景观系的系主任，现在也是学院教授。
- “职业规划1，2，3”（Career I, II, III）是课程训练单元之一，通过三个独立作业促使学生思考从事景观设计的初衷、外界对景观设计的看法和未来职业规划。
- Rebuild by Design (RBD)是2013年开始展开针对飓风桑迪破坏区域重建的设计竞赛，旨在通过设计增强当地的复原力和弹性发展。
- Kate Orff 是曼哈顿的景观设计和城市规划事务所SCAPE的创始人，哥伦比亚大学建筑与规划学院的副教授。
与Sanders教授合影
Interview with Lucinda R. Sanders
Interviewer: Yichen Zhu
Interview Time: 05/16/2014
Q: How do you define the concept of Professional Practice? Should it be named something else, like Personal vs Professional?
This is an interesting question, because I asked Richard Weller if I could change the name of the class. Professional Practice in most universities has a very prescriptive set of topics that are discussed, and in most courses you will find that things like contracts and other more business-like aspects of practice would be discussed. When I first started teaching this class, and James Corner asked me to teach it, I went around and had a lot interviews with all of my friends and all of my colleagues, and when I said “tell me about your professional practice class”, they all said the professional practice classes were awful. So I made a decision to have a class that is not awful; I wanted to do something different and something innovative.
I did a couple of different things; even from the beginning I started kind of pushing boundaries. Some of boundaries were around projects, CareerⅠ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ, which honestly nobody ever does in any of the other schools. I pushed and changed the emphasis, the emphasis was even different for your class that had been for any other classes. Part of it had to do with my own personal study of leadership. I have come to the conclusion that landscape architects react rather than lead. That is a very big difference in my mind. I have come to the conclusion that what landscape architect think about, talk about, do, is so significant for the future of humanity. Yet they always just react.
Maybe it’s because I’ m sixty years old; it’s come to this point in my life where landscape architects should be leading more. They should be a stronger voice. They shouldn’t be waiting for others to come to them. So that’s one of the reasons for my study on leadership. The landscape Professional Practice class in the University of Pennsylvania is certainly unique. And should it be called something else? Probably. But there is a thing called the Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board, and they want schools to offer a class called Professional Practice in order to receive the accreditation. The name probably won’t change, but I deeply believe that only through those conversations are students going to truly be empowered to have a stronger voices.
Q: In your opinion, what should students get by taking the class?
Obviously, I have to teach you or expose you to some sort of fundamental traditional professional practice. So that’s where we do the contracts, we do the risk management, we do business development, and we do a bit of finance. You know I don’t expect any student to walk away from that class knowing how to do everything, but I expect them to understand the process of the things you have to be dealing with. So at the traditional practice level, I feel I still need to deliver that. I am expecting students to be walking away understanding the topics they are going to have to engage. But, here is a but, and here is the difference, the class is organized around pieces of conversations about leadership, both the beginning and at the end. And I would hope students walk away, if they haven’t been jolted to think differently, I’m hoping that they have been empowered about their own leadership.
What I believe is that the inclination is there, for students to explore and engage their personal transformation. And I believe that one cannot transform without undergoing a certain degree of personal transformation. And so when we talk about transformational leadership, it’s actually operating on multiple scales. It’s operating first, within each one of us; and then we understand that we can engage the broader universe, which is on everybody’s mind today, and anything between.
Q: Do you believe that landscape architecture is so important or can be so important that it needs to have a bigger voice in the world? What’s the real position of landscape architects?
I don’t have an answer to this question. I actually think the potential is very broad, the possibilities are very wide, and the indication is wide open. The answer to that is going to come from each individual, each landscape architect. So, we are actually investigating the possibility of setting up of a more formal aspect of Olin’s research. So what do we research? Do we research urban soils? Do we research our behavior in the world to become more effective in terms of changing the world? Do we research the effect of climate change on plants? And I dare say that those conversations are not to be universally defined, like every landscape architects needs to be focused between these two points, I believe it comes from individual.
I have another deep belief that landscape architects need to be engaging on an even broader level. We are considered to be a broad profession anyway, but I think for us to be relevant in the world we have to be prepared to be engaged on more levels. I can give you an example, Olin and Penn came together to do Rebuild By Design (RBD) . So, the normal course would be the project is identified, and we do the design. We produce the design that is going to be built, or plan something that is to be built over decades. Instead this was a very different process, a process that tells us to engage community, and to engage many political levels in the city. So this is what I mean about broadening. We have to become more effective agents of design, which means often times that we need to be having conversations that don’t look like sitting down in front of the computer and drawing something. There are different kinds of conversations.
It’s getting far from your question, but it is linked and I think the answer is yes. I do believe that many landscape architects are capable of leading those conversations, which takes me back to the purpose of the class; that’s why I have leadership there. It’s because I’m really interested in putting the next generation of landscape architects out in the world understanding their power, and their possibility to contribute in a proactive not just a reactive way.
Q: What do you think the connection is between students studying in the university and practicing in an office?
I think one of the things is the students always keep practice fresh. I think without students, practice is dying. I just gave a talk for CEOs at the roundtable about transformation of people’s practices, and they are thinking the transition from one generation to the next. And I found one of the things that is so powerful in many offices, not only ours, is the introduction of students into a practice. To answer that question, students keep practice fresh.
It doesn’t always mean that it’s a seamless movement from academy into practice. In academy you are asked to answer questions that are the most contemporary kinds of questions that could be asked, and in some ways you are misled to believe that you are very powerful in these conversations. You believe that you have a greater authority than you really do when you are put into the world. That’s a gap, and it’s a gap I’m determined to close. That’s one aspect of your question. The other aspect of your question is the therefore, what if you didn’t join a traditional office, or a traditional office that wasn’t interested in moving into the future? What if you started your own practice? Like Kate Orff , who has some very strong beliefs and is playing a completely different ballgame than many traditional landscape architects. She’s actually not that far away from school, and she’s coming to a world that’s completely changing the traditional view of landscape architect.
Q: How many years have you been teaching in this course?
I have been teaching at Penn now for about 15 years. But I didn’t start out teaching this class. I believe it’s about ten years now and it keeps changing. It keeps evolving.
Then how did you keep evolving? Based on your experience and the performance of the students?
Yes, just watching and listening to my students and forming my positions. I also do a lot of other things; one is the students were perhaps not advised very strongly, you know, in their future lives. I perceived that and I found that my class could make that happen. The other thing that happened is the recession, the economic recession in 2008. In 2008, everything crashed. That had a profound impact on my thinking. I found I was teaching a class of professional practice that had to get my students plugged into a world that had no job for them when they graduated. What this caused me to do is actually to dig deeper in what possibilities actually existed out there. What kind of thinking could they be employed in other fields. So I started inviting people from all works of life to talk to the students. For them to understand that they could keep having these conversations, even they were not in a professional practice firm. That was very interesting because what it made me realize was actually a narrative of my thinking about the possibility of the profession. It had a very interesting impact on me.
Q: So the leadership conversation really happened after the recession?
Yes, and it’s something I have been particularly focused on for the last three years.
Q: How much flexibility do you have to adjust the course? Like, what’s your relationship with the landscape architecture department?
Well, when James was the chair, he said “I just want them know what RFP, RFQ is”, very minimal expectations. What’s interesting is the course is not a required course (at Penn), and it’s required at all the institutions across the America. When Richard Weller came on board, I told him what I wanted to do and he said “that’s Ok, that’s fine.” And I think it’s gathered a respect from Richard, what happening is I think he has seen some of you transformed this semester. He has told me the importance the class to students. So I kind of have a fair amount of autonomy. He trusts me to do good things.
Q: Do you think the course should be required?
Well, it’s also a good question. Let me tell you what I’d like to do, forget the course for a minute. I would really like to have time with students in their lives, when they first come to Penn, whether during their summer session, or whether to do some kind of early questioning. Just to plan to see the possibility, I think it could transform these students’ experiences at Penn. And then, I would like to see them in the Fall before their graduate. Because I’d like them to be ready for Spring next semester, rather than have this happen before everybody graduated. I would like this step to come in the Fall semester, because I think it could encourage students to be active in the next semester.
Now we have 50% lectures, and the rest of the 50% in class is conversation, discussions, and presentations. What if you have a class size of 30 students?
I have calculated the class of 15. We have three audits, and fourteen taking it for credit (this year). Richard asked me why I wouldn’t open the course up to more people. It’s hard to have that kind of what I consider deeper conversation going on when you have many people. Over 18 it becomes a lecture class, and when I first start teaching the class it was more like a lecture class. There were more people in class, sometimes more than 20 people. So it’s horrible. I don’t think it is effective. I get pressured for classes up to 30. If it takes up to 30, it has to be redesigned. I think it would have to be a lecture, and then divided up to separate seminars, to separate conversations.
If you have a class of 30 students, some of the materials could be presented by lecture format, you can absolutely do that. But I really think the deeper explorations and focus on self in this conversation needs to happen in a small unit, ideally 12+ people. So I would say you take those 30 or 32 people and have a lecture, and maybe have two to three different breakouts with different professors, who have come together to describe and identify outcomes of those conversations.
Q: How do you see landscape architecture in China?
Young. I see it young, I see it figuring itself out. And I see people trying to figure us out. Even for us who come from a place well established, the people who hire us are trying to figure out what we really can do. So for the landscape architects in China, it becomes what should they be paying attention to.
You are in an industrial society, incredibly hard working, and I mean that in a full respectful way, that you are almost too hard working. And I mean that respectfully too, like something I told my students when I was in my studio, it’s not how much you put out it’s the quality you put out, and the depth you thought. So there is confusion between production and the quality. That’s a major shift that every Chinese student goes through when they come to America.
And why do I have to say that, it goes back to your question. I’m going to take on the nursery industry in China. The horticultural practices are terrible. And somebody should take it on. I think most people are too busy being productive in China. I don’t know who’s been worrying about that. I don’t know who cares about it. I don’t know who’s taking the time to make it better. I’m sure there are people there, I just don’t find them. But you really have to break away from business as usual to be able to think about those things to challenge it. My next great hope is landscape architects start leading the charge in air pollution in China. Landscape architects could have such an amazing voice. Of course, it is easier to say that as an outsider.
