编者按：为了介绍“设计研究”（Design Research）的学术动态，促进风景园林学设计理论的发展，“风景园林新青年”联合《风景园林》学刊对“设计研究”领域的国际知名专家学者进行了邮件 访谈，在访谈中针对“设计研究”的一些基本概念和问题，根据各位专家各自的学术特长进行了针对性的交流。希望通过这些访谈的成果，我们能够向读者介绍“设 计研究”的概念，并逐渐推动“设计研究”尤其是“通过设计的研究”（Research through Design）在风景园林学领域内的发展。
本文系“风景园林新青年”与《风景园林》杂志联合刊出
Prof. Jürgen Weidinger
- 2009 柏林工业大学第六学院-规划建造环境学院教授
- 2004-07 柏林工业大学与北京大学访问教授
- 1993-98 柏林工业大学与凡尔赛国立高等景观学院助理教授
- 1995 成立Weidinger景观事务所（www.weidingerlandschaftsarchitekten.de）
- 1984-91 在维也纳自然资源和应用生命科学大学、柏林工业大学以及凡尔赛国立高等景观学院学习
Weidinger教授所负责的景观与环境规划系致力于空间设计方法研究，尤其在（城市）公共空间方面。他曾在德国、意大利、英国和中国的多所大学任教和访问。自2008年，他被任命为都柏林大学的外请考官（external examiner），并成为哈勒（Halle）城市建筑咨询委员会的活跃成员。1995年，他在柏林成立了Weidinger景观事务所，专注于公园、城市广场和建筑外部空间的设计营造。
Prof. Jürgen Weidinger
为什么您认为在风景园林设计领域里通过设计做研究是最为恰当的研究方法？
有两个重要的原因。正如我们所知道的，设计问题的界定是模糊的。设计问题的本质是复杂的，原因是设计问题和设计过程中总是涉及范围甚广的不同方面，因而不可能在一开始就将问题定义。只用通过进行设计，利用主观的立意来应对设计问题，才能更好地对设计问题进行理解。（1）一般的科学方法不接受这种解决问题的“野路子”，即便一些科学哲学家证明了科学也同样时不时地下意识地运用同样的野路子。（2）第二个原因是风景园林致力于设计原型和美学品质，不同于诸如区域规划、城市规划等规划学科致力于设立标准。
标准可以得益于语言以及最终可计量的数字以量化方式进行形式化。风景园林设计方案的品质不能被计量，而且空间品质很难通过语言描述，要完全理解必须通过体验。
从风景园林设计的角度看，很明显，美学和空间价值是风景园林媒介中所有工作的源头。风景园林中的知识可以被描述为一种综合知识，这一称谓由Wolfgang Jonas提出。（3）实践和对实践的概念化组成了一枚硬币的两面。大部分的学术性风景园林设计研究方法派生于历史、生物学或社会学，它们不能完全包含风景园林设计。对于设计技巧，“知其然”理应相伴于“知其所以然”。（4）那就是为什么我作为一名风景园林设计师和风景园林设计教师会相信通过设计做研究是在风景园林设计领域内进行研究的最好方法。
设计研究对于风景园林从业者的意义是什么？对于学术研究的意义又是什么？
谈到一枚硬币之两面的比喻，设计实践和对实践的概念化，这两个问题应该一起回答。今天风景园林领域的学术论文越来越与实践脱节，而且项目界不喜欢批评性的讨论和理论概念化工作。通过设计做研究则将实践界和学术界彼此间互相拉近。
通过设计做研究对克服风景园林的另一消极进程非常必要：设计过程在不同子领域上的分解，像项目管理、设计、生物学和社会学专业、照明规划和效果图的规划，实施规划等等。这种隔离是科学思路造成的，即将“模糊界定”的设计问题分解成一些更小的可以“清晰界定”的问题。（参见1）主要发生在学术界的这种隔离现象也导致了在实践界出现同样的隔离现象。在分离化的运作发生之后，又出现了多学科化的呼吁。如果设计过程的整体性结构和它的跨学科特点能够保持不变，那么根本就不需要出现这种呼吁。
通过设计做研究也要求另外一种类型的研究人员。研究的态度必须在设计经验的基础上建立和发展。应该讲，整合学术研究适宜的知识和设计经验是一种很不容易达到的条件。通过设计做研究为富有经验的设计师将他们的知识带回学术论文中提供了机会。来自实践界的“知其所以然”的知识是与学术界高度相关的也是应该被学术界认可的。富有经验的设计实践人员都是高度专业化的，可以快速地发现问题并勾勒出解决问题的第一方案。当然并不是每一次实践都是优秀的实践，然而也不是每一个科学结果都与实践相关。一种新的形式例如工作营或者设计师与非设计专业的科学家合作形成团队的思想库，可能会得以建立以求得解决实际问题的新方法，这些方法可以在日后通过科学的方法和途径进行研究。
目前为止，风景园林方法体系中尚没有形成对“通过设计做研究”方法论的共识。同时我们运用以下标准来判断来自“通过设计做研究”之实践的研究成果。这一研究成果必须来自“三个方面”：设计项目，设计项目中所应用之原则的概念化以及与其他学术成果的比较和讨论。通过这个“三方面方法体系”通过设计做研究可以在风景园林中起步。一旦将来出现了一些成果，下一步将是对方法体系的评价和改进。
(1)Rittel, Horst: Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning, Panel on Policy Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1969, 155-169.
(2)Feyerabend, Paul: Against method. Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. 1970.
(3)Chow, Rosan, What should we do with different versions of Research-Through-Design?, in: Mareis, Claudia / Joost, Gesche / Kimpel, Kora (Hrsg.), Entwerfen-Wissen-Produzieren. Designforschung im Anwendungkontext, transcript, Bielefeld 2011.
(4)Ryle, Gilbert: The concept of mind, 1949.
Prof. Jürgen Weidinger
- 2009 University Professor at the TU Berlin, Faculty VI, Department of Landscape and Public Space Planning
- 2004-07 Visiting Professor at Peking University and at the TU Berlin
- 1993-98 Professorial Assistant at the TU Berlin and at the Ecole National Supérieure du Paysage,Versailles.
- 1995 Established Weidinger Landscape Architect www.weidingerlandschaftsarchitekten.de
- 1984-91 Studied at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences in Vienna, at the TU Berlin and at the école National Supérieure du Paysage, Versailles.
Professor Jürgen Weidinger runs the Department of Landscape and Public Space Planning focusing on spatial design solutions, primarily for (urban) public space. He was previously both a teacher and visiting professor at several universities in Germany, Italy, England and China. He was appointed an external examiner at University College Dublin from 2008 onwards, and since 2008 he has been an active member of the architectural advisory board to the city of Halle. In 1995 he established the offices of WEIDINGER LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS (www.weidingerlandschaftsarchitekten.de), in Berlin. His office specializes in the implementation of parks, urban squares and in open spaces/parks located around buildings.
Why do you think research through design is the most proper way to do research in the field of landscape architecture design?
There are two important reasons. As we know design problems are ill defined. The nature of design problems is a complex one, because there is always a wide range of different aspects involved in the design problem and the design process, so it is impossible to define the problem in the beginning. Only through designing, in using a subjective theses to tackle the design problem, the design problem can be better understood (1). General scientific methods do not accept this “wild way” of problem solving, even if some philosophers of science proofed that science is unconsciously using the same wild ways from time to time (2). The second reason is that landscape architecture is interested in prototypes and aesthetic qualities, in contrast to the disciplines of planning like regional planning, city planning which are interested in the setting up of standards.
Standards can be formalized as quantities with the help of language and numbers, which could be measured in the end. The quality in landscape architecture design solutions cannot be measured, and spatial qualities can hardly be described in language, they have to be experienced to be completely understood. From a landscape architecture design point of view it is getting obvious that aesthetic and spatial values are originated through the work within the medium of landscape architecture. The knowledge in landscape architecture can be described as a synthetic knowledge, a term introduced by Wolfgang Jonas (3). Practice and conceptualization of the practice constitute two sides of a coin. Most of the academic landscape architecture design research methods, which are derived from history, biology or sociology, do not cover landscape architecture design in a complete way. The “knowing what” should be accompanied by the “knowing how” (4) of the design skill. That’s why I am convinced, as a landscape architecture designer and landscape architecture design teacher, that research through design is the best way to do research in the field of landscape architecture design.
What’s the significance of design research to the practitioners of landscape architecture? And what’s the significance to the academic research?
Referring to the metaphor of the two sides of the coin, design practice and conceptualization of the practice, these two questions should be answered together. Today the academic discourses in landscape architecture are more and more disconnected from the practice and the world of the projects dislikes critical discussion and theoretical conceptualization. Research through design brings the world of practice and the academic world of discourses closer to each other. Research through design is necessary to overcome another negative evolution in landscape architecture: the decomposition of the design process in different sub-disciplines, like project management, design, biological and sociological expertise, light planning and scenographic planning, implementation planning and so forth. The segregation results from the scientific approach to isolate the “ill-defined” design problems in smaller “well-defined” problems ( see 1). The segregation which is primarily taking place in the academic world leads consequentially to the same segregation in the world of practice. After the segregation has been executed occurs a call for multidisciplinary– a call, which would not be necessary if the holistic structure of the design process and its trans-disciplinary nature would be kept untouched.
Research through design also asks for another type of researcher. The attitude of research has to be built up on and developed through design experience. By the way this is a tough condition, to gather appropriate knowledge of academic discourses and design experience. Research through design offers an opportunity for experienced designers to bring back their knowledge in the discourses. The knowing-how-knowledge coming from the world of practice is of high relevance and should be registered by academia. Experienced design practitioners are highly professional and very fast in problem finding and in sketching first solutions for the problem. Of course not every practice is good practice, but also not every scientific result is relevant for the practice. A new format like workshop or think tanks of teams, where designers and scientists of non design disciplines cooperate, could be established to gain new approaches to practical problems, which could be studied afterwards by the means and methods of the sciences.
So far there is no research through design methodology in landscape architectural methodology agreed. Meanwhile we use the following criteria to judge a research result from research through design practice. The research result has to be inquired in “three fields”: design projects, conceptualization of the principles applied in the design projects and comparison and discussion with other academic discourses. Using this “three field methodology” research through design in landscape architecture can be started. Once there will be several results the next step will be evaluation and improvement of the methodology.
