After reading the first four chapter of Landscape Architecture Research, I keep thinking about the nature of the theory in landscape architecture. Is it more like a model of positivist science, or more like an interpretative approach to theory？
In China, we always notice that landscape architecture has a relatively weak position in the discipline system. It is pathetic that architects or planners may actually do the landscape design in the practical projects.
The book evokes me to think deeply into this phenomenon. The Chinese scholars used to explain this by a reason that the theory system of landscape architecture is incomplete. In my opinion, the saying is fine but not enough. The true problem here is we are not quite clearly about the foundation of the theory in landscape architecture, let alone the integrity of the theory. And this is the main issue the author keeps talking about through the book.
The core of theory in landscape architecture is between subjectivity and objectivity. The research method of landscape architecture can refer to neither the natural sciences nor social sciences. Due to the peculiarity of the landscape architecture, design has a pretty embarrassed position in the theory research. We always try to find an balance between the techniques and the poetic dwelling, but there is a dilemma in the proposition that none exact ways have been admitted by the gatekeepers. The book brings up reflexive and interpretative ways as the solution to the problem, but none of them has been widely accepted until today.
I am still confused about the issue and begin to think in other ways. In a closely related discipline （architecture）, the similar nature of the discipline also exists. How can architecture has a much powerful theory system? I think I will keep on reading some books about how scholars in the architecture area handle the same problem, hoping to find some valuable reference for landscape architecture.