1 Background
The development of doctoral education of Landscape Architecture in China has undergone a complex evolutionary process, which constitutes the historical premise for understanding the 2022 adjustment of the professional degree catalogue, when Landscape Architecture was abolished as a first-level discipline and its professional degree was reclassified at the doctoral level
[1]. Throughout its history, prior to Landscape Architecture becoming a first-level discipline in 2011, the training of high-level professionals had long been dependent on related disciplines such as Architecture, Urban and Rural Planning, Landscape Ecology, Geography, Horticulture, and Forestry, resulting in a pluralistic yet fragmented knowledge production paradigm
[2]. After 2011, although the doctoral education was systematically structured within an independent first-level discipline framework
[3], a mature and complete knowledge system and an ontological methodology suited to the complex Landscape Architecture system had not yet been established
[4].
At present, the discipline of Landscape Architecture stands at a juncture, transitioning from a focus on spatial aesthetic form toward addressing the complex existential crises of human habitats. Issues such as climate change and biodiversity conservation have emerged as "wicked problems" confronting the international community. Simultaneously, the comprehensive implementation of major national agendas—including ecological civilization construction, the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals, urban renewal, and rural revitalization—has endowed the discipline with an unprecedented mission. This context has produced today's complexity that the discipline faces: on the one hand, disciplinary self-awareness has been continuously strengthened
[5]; on the other hand, the disconnect between existing doctoral training models and the highly complex and uncertain global challenges and national strategic demands has become increasingly prominent
[6–
8].
Research on higher education indicates that the core of doctoral education is to cultivate academic schloars, and its essence lies in the conduct of knowledge production activities
[9]. However, because Landscape Architecture research is broadly embedded in Ecology, Urban and Rural Planning, History, and other disciplines, its knowledge boundaries with those fields remain blurred
[8], greatly increasing the complexity of doctoral knowledge production. How to reconstruct the knowledge production mode of Landscape Architecture doctoral education to align with its new disciplinary orientation is a key issue urgently demanding attention from the Landscape Architecture academia
[6–
8,
10–
11]. In terms of disciplinary development, scholars have explored topics such as the disciplinary mission, the sources of its theoretical system, the connotation and extension of its professional knowledge system, the development trajectory of the Chinese Landscape Architecture theoretical system, and the innovation and expansion of the knowledge system
[7–
8,
10–
14]. In terms of degree education, scholars have also investigated coping strategies for the practical demands of the professional doctorate, developmental requirements and directions for professional degree education, and the relationship between academic theory and practice in professional degrees
[6,
15–
16]. However, current discussions largely focus on either disciplinary knowledge systems or professional degree education as isolated topics. Faced with the global common challenges and national strategic demands above, core questions—such as how Landscape Architecture doctoral education identify key problems and how to produce strategic knowledge capable of effectively addressing wicked problems—have yet to be explored in depth. Based on this, the present article focuses on transformation strategies for knowledge production for Landscape Architecture professional doctoral students, and examines the responses to changes in Landscape Architecture degree education through three dimensions—knowledge production mode, knowledge production attributes, and knowledge production pathway—so as to provide insights and references for the transformation of professional doctoral education.
2 Transformation of Knowledge Production Mode: From the Pursuit of Academic Excellence to the Exploration of Solutions to the Practical Problems
2.1 Knowledge Production in Doctoral Education
Generally speaking, the development of degree education is inseparable from knowledge production. The change in knowledge production mode lays the foundation for knowledge evolution and determines the organizational form, knowledge characteristics, and operational mechanism of knowledge production
[17]. Knowledge production is a collective process of cognizing, creating, and innovating knowledge
[18]. In contrast to material production—which centers on the transformation of physical forms—knowledge production emphasizes the entire process by which knowledge is created, accumulated, disseminated, and applied
[19].
Within the context of doctoral education, knowledge production is manifested as a disciplined practice of innovation: it refers to the process by which doctoral students employ knowledge production tools to generate new knowledge from existing stocks of knowledge—that is, knowledge innovation
[20]. Specifically, doctoral students apply conceptual tools and methodological frameworks to critically deconstruct existing knowledge and achieve breakthroughs in knowledge boundaries through the dialectical interaction between theoretical modelling and empirical testing. Landscape Architecture doctoral knowledge production discussed in this paper refers to the generation of "new" knowledge in doctoral education—namely, the academic practice process of producing new knowledge, such as spatial cognitive theories, spatial practice theories, and technical methods of disciplinary evolutionary value, through the critical deconstruction of the existing Landscape Architecture knowledge system and the creative integration of multiple cognitive paradigms
[11].
2.2 Transformation of Knowledge Production Mode and Degree Education Form
As direct participants in knowledge production, doctoral students' education mode is closely linked to the knowledge production mode, and the development of degree education is inseparable from changes in knowledge production modes. The traditional knowledge production mode (Mode Ⅰ) is typically discipline-based, generating knowledge in academic settings such as universities and research institutes
[21]. In this mode, knowledge production takes place within strictly separated disciplinary frameworks, with each discipline possessing independent research questions and methodologies. New knowledge production mode (Mode Ⅱ), by contrast, emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature and practical application of knowledge. In this mode, knowledge production emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration and application orientation
[22], and takes place in more open, flexible contexts
[19] (Table 1). Mode Ⅱ represents a transcendence and applied reconstruction of Mode Ⅰ: on the one hand, it inherits Mode Ⅰ's pursuit of systematic knowledge while breaking through its disciplinary-centrism; on the other hand, it transforms Mode Ⅰ's linear knowledge accumulation into problem-oriented, spiralling cognitive iteration.
2.3 The Characteristics of of Landscape Architecture Doctoral Knowledge Production
Before discussing the characteristics of Landscape Architecture doctoral knowledge production, it is necessary to clarify the basic distinction between the academic doctorate and the professional doctorate. The academic doctorate, with the core goal of training academic researchers, emphasizes systematic basic research in specific disciplinary directions to advance the frontier of disciplinary theories. The professional doctorate, with the core goal of cultivating high-level applied practitioners, emphasizes the comprehensive and creative application of multidisciplinary knowledge to resolve complex practical problems in industry and professional fields. The two are not hierarchically superior or inferior to each other; rather, they are different types of talent cultivation with distinct functional positioning—the former undertaking the innovation and deepening of the disciplinary knowledge system, while the latter undertaking the transformation of knowledge into strategies and solutions for addressing realworld problems
[18]. This basic distinction constitutes the premise for this paper's discussion of the transformation of Landscape Architecture doctoral knowledge production.
Landscape Architecture is a practice-oriented discipline that coordinates the human–nature relationship. On the one hand, Landscape Architecture knowledge production aims at solving complex problems in the real world, emphasizing practicality and applied value; on the other hand, it is also shaped by social needs, policies, and economic factors, emphasizing interdisciplinarity and social interactions. Under the academic degree orientation, Landscape Architecture doctoral education has been primarily based on the Mode Ⅰ—that is, discipline-oriented knowledge production emphasizing in-depth research and knowledge innovation within specific disciplinary directions. However, the practice-oriented nature of the discipline urges professional doctoral education to pivot toward knowledge application.
Consequently, the knowledge production of Landscape Architecture professional doctoral students should be primarily grounded in the Mode Ⅱ, emphasizing a shift from the sole pursuit of academic excellence in disciplinary basic research toward a dual pursuit of both interdisciplinary applied basic research and practical problem response (Table 2).
2.4 International Paradigms of Landscape Architecture Professional Doctoral Education and China's Challenges
Internationally, leading universities have accumulated rich experience in Landscape Architecture professional doctoral education. According to their differing application orientations, these can be categorized into three paradigms: 1) macro-level strategic intervention, 2) reflective practice, and 3) evidence-based technology integration. Drawing on these international paradigms helps analyze in depth the structural misalignments and practical challenges facing China's current doctoral education.
First, Harvard University represents the macro-level strategic intervention paradigm. The Doctor of Design (DDes) programme at the Harvard Graduate School of Design is clearly distinguished from the traditional Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree, which focuses on historical interpretation. Its core lies in emphasizing the strategic-intervention attribute of research—that is, doctoral research should not merely stop at explaining the world, but address wicked problems (e.g., climate change, urbanization) through policy formulation and spatial strategies
[23]. Constrained by the inertia of traditional disciplinary paradigms, the current doctoral education exhibits an obvious structural shift in its orientation of knowledge production. Many scholars have pointed out a deep disconnect between Landscape Architecture research and the complex practical needs in the industry/profession
[6–
8] and have also noted obvious deficiencies in the current doctoral education from professional practice needs. At the level of knowledge production, this is primarily manifested in research topics that often describe phenomena and interpret regularities. In the face of major national strategic demands such as territorial spatial planning and urban regeneration, existing knowledge production pays excessive attention to "what" and "why, " while lacking innovative strategies or operational frameworks for addressing "how." This structural imbalance between "explanatory knowledge" and "strategic knowledge" has led to a serious disconnect between high-level academic research and the exploration of solutions to pressing practical problems
[24].
Second, RMIT University represents the reflective practice paradigm. This paradigm advocates "research through Design, " which transforms tacit knowledge embedded in design practice into explicit knowledge that can be disseminated
[25]. China's current doctoral education evaluation system still tends to exclude design practice from core knowledge production, undervaluing "design inquiry" and lacking legitimacy for "design ontology knowledge." This has compelled doctoral students to suppress their exploration of authentic design in order to conform to standardized empirical paradigms. This divorce of academic research and design practice not only makes it difficult to refine and transform high-level design thinking—such as holistic problem-construction ability and reflective judgment ability formed in design practice—into an inheritable academic theory, but also causes a vast amount of innovative engineering practice experience to remain as silent tacit knowledge
[26–
27].
Third, Delft University of Technology represents the evidencebased technology integration paradigm. This paradigm emphasizes design as a heuristic tool that integrates ecology, engineering science, and big data technology within a scientifically evidencebased framework, demonstrating strong engineering rationality and practicability
[28]. In contrast to this model, China's Landscape Architecture doctoral education is still lagging behind in interdisciplinary integration. Although the profession has broadly recognized the importance of multi-disciplinary fusion, it still faces deep-rooted disciplinary barriers in specific knowledge production. Moreover, existing design research often lacks rigorous data support and scientific model validation, making it difficult to achieve the paradigm shift from perceptual aesthetics to evidence-based design
[24]. This gap between "soft aesthetics" and "hard technology" directly weakens the discipline's authority and credibility in addressing hard-constraint problems such as flood management and carbon sink measurement.
3 Transformation of Knowledge Production Attributes: From Single-Type Discipline Knowledge to Dual-Type Domain Knowledge
The transformation of knowledge production mode not only reshapes the organizational structure of knowledge, but also fundamentally determines the attributes of knowledge production—that is, the core question of "what kind of knowledge is being produced"
[17]. The evolution from the Mode Ⅰ to Mode Ⅱ drives the attributes of knowledge production from discipline-orientation toward domain-orientation. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the essential differences in attributes between discipline knowledge and domain knowledge, and clarifies the direction of attribute transformation for Landscape Architecture professional doctoral knowledge production.
3.1 Disciplinary Knowledge and Domain Knowledge
Against the backdrop of the transition of Landscape Architecture from an discipline to a professional degree program, its "discipline–sub-discipline" organizational structure has shifted towards a "professional degree program–specialized professional domain" professional framework
[29] (Fig. 1). This transformation prompts further reflection on the relationship between the knowledge organizational structures of the discipline and the domain. According to Basil Bernstein's theory of knowledge structures
[30], knowledge organization exhibits either a vertical hierarchical structure or a horizontal integrative structure. In the Mode Ⅰ, in order to accumulate and disseminate knowledge, a series of closely interrelated conceptual and categorical systems are organized vertically to form knowledge systems with clear boundaries that are mutually independent—a typological, tree-like knowledge organization, which constitutes the "discipline." In the Mode Ⅱ, knowledge from different disciplines is extracted and reintegrated to form a knowledge system for solving real-world problems—a network-like, modular knowledge organization, which constitutes the "domain." The discipline and the domain differ fundamentally in their research motivation, research boundaries, and organizational forms of knowledge production
[31–
33] (Fig. 2). From the perspective of knowledge form characteristics, disciplinary knowledge focuses on understanding the essential laws of things; its function is to explain the regularities of phenomena, and it is primarily manifested as principle-based knowledge, which is abstract and explanatory. Domain knowledge focuses on resolving a particular type of real-world problems; it is primarily manifested as applied knowledge, involving the intersection and integration of multiple disciplines, and has applicability and practicality
[34].
3.2 The Dual Orientations and Two Types of Knowledge in the Landscape Architecture Domain
The domain knowledge of Landscape Architecture is oriented toward both theory and practice. With the evolution from the Mode Ⅰ to Mode Ⅱ, the production framework of knowledge has gradually shifted from discipline to domain
[30], which is reflected in two types of knowledge with strong practical characteristics
[10]: one type is oriented toward spatial interpretation, referring to the extraction of basic principle knowledge—such as concepts, theories, and methods—from other disciplines, which are then integrated and synthesized to form applied principle knowledge that explains the research objects of Landscape Architecture; the other type is oriented toward spatial operation, referring to the conversion of the modular knowledge derived from the above spatial interpretation into processual forms, generating the applied strategic knowledge of planning and design.
In order to address practical problems relating to technology, organization, and management, it is necessary to integrate disciplinary knowledge to form a "toolbox of applied knowledge, " and then to generate planning and design strategies through spatial translation, thereby producing stable and disseminable knowledge. Because Landscape Architecture knowledge production involves multiple disciplines, the authors take the field of terrestrial spatial ecological conservation and restoration as an example to briefly analyse the domain knowledge system (Fig. 3). The basic principle knowledge in this domain mainly derives from disciplines such as Urban and Rural Planning, Landscape Ecology, Restoration Ecology, Geography, and Management Science. The theories within these disciplines—for example, Pattern–Process Coupling Theory and Regional Differentiation Theory—have been integrated to form modular applied principle knowledge (such as the "pattern–process–function–service–sustainability" theory paradigm), which is further translated through spatialization into operational applied strategic knowledge in the technologies and methods of terrestrial spatial ecological conservation and restoration (such as the ecological security pattern construction method).
4 Transformation of the Knowledge Production Pathway: From Reductionist Decomposition to Integrative Construction
The production pathway of discipline knowledge is driven primarily by the exploration of theoretical problems. Following a reductionist epistemological orientation and specific disciplinary research paradigms (i.e., theoretical hypothesis and verification), the theories of a discipline are decomposed and reduced before being deepened further, thereby forming basic principle knowledge that reveals phenomena and explains regularities. The production pathway of domain knowledge, by contrast, is driven primarily by the engagement with practical problems. According to specific principles of knowledge organization, the concepts and theories of traditional disciplines are re-selected, re-positioned, re-distributed, re-associated, and re-configured (i.e., theory selection and integration, technical scheme construction and validation), thereby forming applied principle knowledge pointing to specific problems in the domain and applied strategic knowledge for transforming the world
[34] (Fig. 4).
Following the general scholarly logic of problem-oriented inquiry in academic research—that is, starting from the cognitive system of problem raising, problem analysis, and problem response
[35]—the authors propose a general knowledge production pathway for Landscape Architecture professional doctoral students, so as to systematically resolve the logical dilemmas in knowledge production within the Landscape Architecture professional doctorate and promote the integration of knowledge and methodological innovation.
4.1 Problem Raising: Problem Domain Identification and Knowledge System Construction
The research problems addressed in the knowledge production of Landscape Architecture professional doctoral programs originate from practical problems within the domain. In the context of Landscape Architecture, the following steps are undertaken. First, identify the domain with problems: clarify the relationship between existing research problems and the current research problem, including the historical background and hierarchy of the problem; and examine the relationship between the problem and the domain, including whether the problem has been effectively addressed and the degree to which it has been resolved. Second, conduct systematic reviews to form a clear understanding of the knowledge hierarchy within the domain (i.e., knowledge element–knowledge unit–knowledge module–knowledge domain–cross-domain knowledge), thereby establishing shared knowledge space so that the research problem can be precisely represented on this common platform. Finally, on this basis, research gaps are identified and the research problems requiring resolution are distilled (Fig. 5).
4.2 Problem Analysis: Cross-domain Selection and Knowledge System Integration
Problem analysis in the knowledge production of Landscape Architecture professional doctoral students should rely on an applied research orientation. Applied research emphasizes the selection of theory and the integration of knowledge. First, new theories, technologies, and tools from other disciplines are compared and selected according to their relevance to the research problem. Second, these are combined with existing knowledge within the domain through integration and synthesis to construct a theoretical analytical framework for explaining spatial mechanisms—that is, the operative relationship between landscape spatial goals and landscape design proposals.Finally, based on the theoretical analytical framework, an implementation pathway of research (i.e., technical approach) is proposed (Fig. 6).
The integration of the domain knowledge system aims to help analyze problems and formulate implementation pathways by expanding the shared knowledge space. The integration of a domain knowledge system is intended to analyze spatial mechanisms and enhance understanding of landscape spaces. Constructing a theoretical analytical framework that is deeply matched to the research object and research problem generates modular knowledge pointing to spatial mechanisms, better enabling the exploration of possible pathways for resolving real-world problems.
4.3 Problem Response: Domain Expansion and Knowledge System Reconstruction
In the process of Landscape Architecture professional doctoral knowledge production, problem response refers to the transformation of a domain's existing knowledge hierarchy, structure, and relationships through the rational application of innovative knowledge—new theories, new methods, and new strategies—in response to new problems, ultimately reconstructing and reconstituting the domain's knowledge system. First, conduct research practice in accordance with the technical approach, translating the theoretical analytical framework into concrete operations to obtain empirical evidence. Second, based on empirical evidence and the practical context of the specific research object, verify the feasibility, rationality, and rigor of the theoretical analytical framework and propose applied principle knowledge. Subsequently, propose contextualized applied strategic knowledge, and evaluate and validate the quality of the strategic knowledge through multi-context verification to construct a general response and intervention strategy for the problem. Finally, having undergone the above verification and validation, the domain's existing knowledge framework can be substantively rewritten, forming new knowledge boundaries (Fig. 7).
5 Discussions
Students enrolled in professional degree programs are trained according to their respective professional degree categories, with emphasis on meeting the development needs of industry and cultivating practice-oriented innovative professionals with a solid disciplinary foundation, strong applied competence, and high vocational quality. The core purpose is to strengthen the application orientation of knowledge production in responding to major national strategic demands and addressing complex practical problems. However, in this process of transformation, three pairs of core relationships must be carefully distinguished and handled in coordination to avoid falling into either-or cognitive misunderstandings.
5.1 Origin and Expansion: Professional Degree Education Is Not a Substitute for the Foundational Disciplinary Knowledge Base
It should be emphasized that the foundation of disciplinary development lies in the continuous deepening and innovation of its knowledge system. Even against the backdrop of vigorous growth in professional doctoral education, the innovative output of basic principle knowledge remains a cornerstone of Landscape Architecture's sustainable development. The academia's exploration of frontier questions is, in essence, governed by the inherent logic of scientific discovery, which is still primarily undertaken by academic doctoral education. Such research is fundamental to constituting the theoretical core of the discipline and enhancing the discipline's academic authority, providing principles for all applied research.
5.2 Tool and Law: Degree Provision Is a Phased Tool to Serve Disciplinary Development
The current establishment of the professional doctorate is a form of policy guidance and institutional tool adopted by the state at the contemporary juncture, in response to the immense demand for high-level, innovative, practice-leading professionals within the industry. Its core purpose is to fill the gap in the Pasteur's Quadrant (i.e., application-inspired basic research) and to strengthen the application of knowledge production in responding to major national strategic demands and addressing complex practical problems. It serves as an important supplement to the existing spectrum of degree types and talent training structures, rather than a replacement for academic research aimed at exploring the unknown.
5.3 Complementarity and Synergy: Building a Healthy Ecosystem of Academic and Professional Doctoral Education
The inherent developmental laws of a discipline are long-term, stable, and universal, whereas degree provision, as an educational policy, is more flexible and must be dynamically adjusted in response to socio-economic development. The cultivation of professional doctoral students aims to enrich and expand the discipline's knowledge production repertoire, and its success must ultimately be measured with the discipline's own developmental laws. The ideal configuration is one in which Landscape Architecture academic doctoral education and professional doctoral education form a clear functional complementarity, realizing the mutual promotion and coordinated evolution of discipline and degree.
6 Conclusions
Based on a reconceptualization of the relationship between domain and discipline, this article explores in depth the knowledge production paradigm of the Landscape Architecture professional doctorate in China. Through three dimensions—the mode, attributes, and pathway of knowledge production—it analyses the connections and distinctions between the Landscape Architecture professional doctorate and the academic doctorate, and proposes three transformation strategies: 1) the knowledge production mode shifts from the pursuit of academic excellence toward the response to real-world problems; 2) from a discipline knowledge organizational structure toward a domain knowledge organizational structure, the attributes of knowledge production shift from the single basic principle knowledge of disciplines toward the dual applied knowledge forms of the domain; and 3) the knowledge production pathway shifts from reductionist decomposition to integrative construction—from the abstraction of theoretical interpretation to the application of theoretical integration—forming applied principle knowledge pointing to specific domain problems and applied strategic knowledge for transforming the world. This article then proceeds, from the cognitive system of problem raising, problem analysis, and problem response, to innovatively propose a three-stage knowledge production pathway: problem domain identification and knowledge system construction; cross-domain selection and knowledge system integration; and domain expansion and knowledge system reconstruction.
It should be noted that this article has discussed the transformation strategies of professional doctoral education solely from the single dimension of knowledge production, without addressing topics such as teaching reform programs, research output evaluation standards, or knowledge system updating. Future research may deepen inquiry along these dimensions to respond to the contemporary reforms required of disciplines and education, as well as the demands of industry and society. In addition, this article has discussed only disciplines and domains without further exploring their relationships with the industry. Future work may build on the ternary discipline–domain–industry interactions: the discipline knowledge system constructs the cognitive schema through basic theoretical research to explain the world (e.g., landscape process mechanism models); the domain undertakes the intermediary function of transforming cognitive schemas into operational programs for transforming the world; and the innovation demands of industry, through the reverse feedback of practice, shape the knowledge production agendas of both disciplines and domains. The core value of professional doctoral education lies precisely in cultivating cross-boundary knowledge workers capable of penetrating the theory–practice interface—professionals who not only possess the ability to deconstruct foundational theory into modular, practice-applicable knowledge, but also have the wisdom to reconstruct domain knowledge systems within complex real-world contexts. This transformation in the mode of talent cultivation will effectively bridge the gap between Landscape Architecture theoretical research and practical application and promote the interactive development of the discipline, the domain, and the industry.
PDF
(988KB)
