INTRODUCTION
“Universities have long been viewed as resistant to change, monolithic and highly inflexible” (Kaplan, 2021, p. ix). Fortunately and unfortunately, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been a game changer throughout our society, including in higher education. The disruption from COVID-19 has affected how people interact with each other for the time being, and such change is likely to remain for a while. Although the impact of the pandemic is unprecedented and could be long-lasting, the silver lining is that we have observed, experienced, or performed what used to be believed difficult or impossible in higher education and administration, particularly in landscape architecture programs. Thus, the authors choose to view this disruption as a positive stimulus. The pandemic provided a training moment that compelled leadership to become more adaptive to either anticipated or unexpected changes, and in response, leaders did become more resilient.
Much literature has been published about academic leadership during the COVID-19 crisis. Dumulescu and Muţiu (2021) investigated perceptions and experiences of academic leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic and compiled some literature on academic leadership associated with the pandemic, including Fernandez and Shaw (2020), Samoilovich (2020), and Strielkowski and Wang (2020). Lalani and colleagues (2021) examined specific leadership behaviors that influence educational technology adoption and implementation in higher education. Lawton-Misra and Predorius (2021), both psychologists, explored leadership theory and leadership during the pandemic. However, no literature has reflected on academic leadership in landscape architecture during the COVID-19 crisis. Although much knowledge from the literature is appliable to higher education, the authors’ reflection and prospect specifically contribute to landscape architecture that heavily relies on knowledge synthesis for site analysis and design, interactive experiential learning, and community building.
Mid-level university administrators such as program chairs, department heads, or school directors (hereafter chairs) are front-end managers responsible for many aspects of an academic unit’s operations, including fiscal resources, accreditation, personnel hiring, faculty annual review, workload assignment, student affairs, infrastructure, curriculum continuity, development, and stakeholder relations. As reflected by Gordon Harvey (2021), who served as a chair for 14 years, chairs’ jobs are among the hardest at the institution. Chairs must lead a unit between the demands and expectations of those above and below the unit. Many have full or reduced teaching loads in addition to their administrative duties. That said, chairs have the greatest opportunities to direct the unit and help people (faculty, staff, and students) because they work closely with them.
As difficult as it is to be chair, many chairs wish to be known for their accomplishments in a productive climate, including their contributions to a collegial atmosphere, program advancement, quality staffing, and quality leadership (Gmelch, 2015). With or without COVID-19, chairs constantly face disruptions, small or big. Successful chairs learn to adapt and adjust or find ways to turn crises into opportunities. As the disruption from the pandemic has been unprecedentedly large in scale, far-reaching, and long-lasting, the authors encountered challenges that were completely unexpected and tried to summarize them as 1) inward- and 2) outward-facing issues.
Inward-facing issues include the chairs’ essential priorities for their units:
how to handle frequent and/or developing policy changes from the university;
how to maintain a viable and cohesive teaching/learning community;
how to identify and provide resources needed to support studio, lecture, and seminar instructors, many of whom are unfamiliar with online teaching and online teaching options;
how to handle challenges for remote students working across time zones;
how to replace or reframe off-campus curricular experiences and other experiential learning;
how to respond to instances of local and national social/political unrest;
how to communicate critical messages;
how to handle physical, mental, and social health for faculty, staff, and students; and
how to conduct a crucial conversation with those who are burning out.
Currently, as we settle into a new baseline of normalcy, additional issues include:
how to handle changed and changing expectations or desires for remote work arrangements for faculty and staff, along with work and learning arrangements for students; and
how to handle contemporary physical, mental, and social health within our academic community.
Outward-facing issues include the following: what messages leaders should convey to their advisory boards; how to handle virtual accreditation review; how to recruit students and program allies when no in-person events can be held; how to convince potential employers to participate in virtual career fairs and other student events; how to recruit and evaluate faculty and staff candidates in virtual interviews; how to support place-based student and faculty research; how to maintain community engagement programs; how to convince students and parents that we have students’ welfare and best interests in mind; and how to continue to cultivate prospective donors.
The authors conclude by articulating lessons learned about what the lockdown experience resulting from the pandemic has brought to landscape architecture educators and administrators, as well as speculating about the prospects of landscape architecture instruction, research, and scholarship in the immediate and longer-term future. The authors advocate for advancing the good, acknowledging and avoiding the bad, and defusing the ugly revealed during pandemic responses.
INWARD-FACING ISSUES
Adjusting Priorities
When facing uncertainties and anticipated budget reductions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors adjusted unit priorities to focus on 1) essential tasks, and 2) areas in which they have been excelling. Key priorities during a crisis period include: 1) enrollment; 2) productivity and efficacy in teaching, research, and outreach; 3) finance or revenue generation; and 4) overall climate. Other areas such as infrastructure, performance evaluation, and fund-raising & development could be put on hold until the chairs have figured out how to handle the crisis.
Frequent Policy Change
Chairs are caught between the demands and expectations of those above and below their unit. That means they must first understand any new policies and procedures coming from the upper administration before calculating their potential impact and explaining them clearly to the colleagues in the unit. For example, COVID-19 tested institutions’ responses to the need for virtual teaching in terms of preparedness, agility, quality, and sustainability. When the lockdown was mandated and all teaching had to be conducted virtually, chairs had to assist colleagues in making it happen. What made this more challenging was ambiguity in new policies that necessitated their continuous review and modification; in some cases, policies were at odds with the intended purpose of the unit’s mission. Chairs had to manage the implementation of new policies while also requesting further clarification from above. In some instances, chairs were forced to ignore ambiguous policies developed at the university level and instead make decisions based on concerns over colleagues’ and students’ safety, welfare, or urgent needs. For example, landscape architecture studio teaching is best conducted in person, but social distancing is difficult to maintain during in-person, one-on-one reviews. Thus, protecting studio instructors and students during the early stages of the pandemic was a higher priority than short-term learning outcomes. During the crisis period, chairs’ discretion over how to protect faculty, staff, and students while following or interpreting policy for the sake of compliance becomes critical.
Holding the Community Together
Holding the learning and teaching community together relies on clear and timely communication and action. In the first year of the pandemic, many felt unsafe, isolated, ignored, or abandoned when they heard little or nothing from their leaders. Measures such as weekly virtual meetings with staff, weekly updates distributed to faculty and student LISTSERVs, and regular kudos announcements were effective in holding communities together during COVID-19 in higher learning institutions where authors work. Leaders found themselves responding not only to the pandemic but also to the national reckoning that was taking place in the wake of news and social media coverage of gross racial injustices. Leaders’ responses to grave injustices take on particular importance during times of social isolation, when members of their academic communities need to hear the values of their chosen institutions affirmed. George Floyd’s murder and other instances of racial violence constitute the kinds of moments that call upon chairs to stand up and condemn such egregious acts. Issuing a statement, holding a virtual town hall, or facilitating an open dialog are possible responses. Helping faculty to develop studio courses that impact underserved communities can serve as a way to put these values in action.
Checking in with Each Other
The pandemic has affected people differently. Some have felt a need or desire to disclose what they have experienced, but many others have chosen to remain private about what they have been going through. During lockdown, we repeatedly reminded our colleagues to set up appointments so that we could chat about matters affecting them. That said, we tried to maintain clear boundaries between ourselves and colleagues. Chairs should always have a list of university resources such as counseling services, work-life balance information, and university ombudsperson information. Leaders should avoid getting directly involved with colleagues’ and students’ personal matters to maintain strong working relationships and connections. While graduate and undergraduate students have different levels of need as well as social and family support networks, all need to know about the resources available to them and the expectations for self-care and academic achievement. Most importantly, chairs should lead and manage units with empathy during the crises, promoting unity and solidarity in accomplishing the unit’s education mission. Simultaneously, it is important for chair to meet with student leaders across their degree programs on a regular basis to hear their concerns and provide any needed help.
Crises Becoming Opportunities
Online learning and distance education have played a role in delivering knowledge in higher education for quite some time before COVID-19. The pandemic forced all instructors in higher education to learn cutting-edge technology and use it on a regular basis. Chairs also had to help faculty navigate university restrictions and policies on third-party software relating to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other digital information risks. When the shift occurred from in-person to virtual learning in March 2020, faculty were given only a few days to shift to 100% virtual teaching. Looking back, the quality of the first virtual teaching for many instructors was not satisfactory, and many things could have been performed differently. For example, chairs should have arranged training workshops or tutorials on online teaching immediately. While many LA studio instructors believed that design studios could never be taught virtually and even refused to learn about the technology in assisting studio teaching before the pandemic, they all taught and ran meetings virtually during the lockdown period of the pandemic. Although fatigue in virtual learning settings is real, in general, students and faculty are now more receptive to online meetings and instruction. Indeed, many students and faculty members now expect to have online alternative options to in-person gatherings. In addition, online offerings have allowed for more participation by program guests, including critics and speakers. The pool from which to draw these remote guests suddenly became much larger. As the general public also accepts virtual meetings and learning as a normal option, opportunities such as additional online course offerings and online degrees or certificates could be developed to expand a unit’s academic portfolio. Certainly, the convenience of online lectures and other programs increases the reach of all programs.
Remote Work Arrangements
After more than two years of lockdown and constraint due to COVID-19, the society at large, government, private industry, and general public are expecting or even demanding some sort of flexible work arrangement moving forward. While it is still uncertain what the future norm may look like, chairs who have the authority to allow remote work can start by knowing the related requirements of their institutions, collecting information from their university leadership and chair cohort as well as listening to their colleagues before making a flexible arrangement decision. Issues such as equity, safety (when the office is less than 100% staffed), productivity, and fulfilling the unit’s mission as a residential unit are considerations. Remote work arrangements were made for some students, faculty, and staff with medical issues once the universities returned to in-person or face-to-face teaching. These arrangements generally created extra work for teaching faculty and support staff and included—but were not limited to—recording lectures, seminars, and live online critique sessions for project assessment and progress.
OUTWARD-FACING ISSUES
Communications and engagement with stakeholders and outsiders such as alumni, prospective students, candidates for faculty and staff positions, guest speakers, industry companies, accreditation reviewers, and so on are essential position expectations for chairs. During COVID-19, in-person means of interacting with people and each other were unavailable. No visitors were allowed to come to campus, and no in-person activities could be held. Consistent external communications and modes of distribution proved essential. Well-developed and maintained communications plans enhanced program visibility and efficacy. This included unit websites, social media platforms and campaigns, virtual connections, and good communication records. Despite the visitation constraints, the authors have tried and experienced virtual events that brought unexpected positive outcomes, summarized below:
Attendance for virtual lecture series was higher and had more diverse participation despite the challenge of low interpersonal engagement. For example, we have observed more lecture attendees from out of state, as well as from relevant professions such as planning.
Virtual project reviews worked unexpectedly well as digital sharing technologies were integrated into the coursework. Reviewers were able to digitally mark on drawings to keep audiences engaged. The tradeoff is that we lost face-to-face interaction but gained more external reviewers joining from places far away.
Community engagement projects had higher community member participation when internet reliability was not an issue.
Hiring faculty candidates through virtual interviews was not easy but possible, partially due to virtual tours and interactive discussions integrated into the process. One benefit of virtual interviews was that we were able to assess candidates’ capability of using digital technologies in engaging with audiences.
Employers from the industry were willing to participate in virtual career fairs because a professional virtual platform was used and clear instructions were provided. Results were mixed. When both employers and students understood the platform and rehearsed prior to the event, they were satisfied with the experience and outcomes. Some platforms worked better than others. None provided the spontaneous meetings and discussions that are usually typical of networking events.
Meeting alumni who were considered prospective donors virtually proved successful and to some extent was better than usual. Maybe it was easier and more convenient for donors because they could avoid travel. Many people were eager to know how to help their alma mater.
Being honest with alumni advisory board members about the unit’s struggles helped motivate them to provide timely and meaningful support.
Hosting open house events for prospective students worked well when the events were promoted effectively and extensively.
Providing regular updates and sharing students’ and faculty’s success stories on social media attested to the unit’s commitment to education and professional development.
LESSONS LEARNED AND SPECULATIONS
Although there are many lessons learned, we focus on what landscape architecture unit leaders should consider when facing disruptive phenomena. They are summarized below.
Without the online platforms and applications available for virtual learning in March 2020, landscape architecture education in general would have been completely paused and severely set back. Constantly updating the technological infrastructure and requiring all faculty and staff to renew their technological skill sets are essential aspects of meeting today’s needs and expectations. We can look to developments in professional practices and educational technologies to help guide us.
Landscape architecture educators should be aware that students who entered the major after taking initial leveling or prerequisite courses in the academic year 2020–2021 (spring 2020 and fall 2021) may not have attained and/or practiced some of the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for advanced-level courses. This can be attributed to the fact that they missed out on some of the incidental knowledge and skill development associated with studio culture. In addition, some students and faculty were unprepared for online learning and teaching; may have experienced mental stress resulting from isolation; and may not have had sufficient opportunities to practice concepts in studios, seminars, and lectures. Additional support for this cohort should be provided in a timely manner so that these students will be ready to enter the profession upon graduation.
Effective use of social media helped the units connect with current students and family members, alumni, and other stakeholders. Unit-wide communication planning is essential. Social media managers must be professionally trained to ensure that postings are professional, ethical, and informational for the unit.
Setting personal and professional boundaries helped chairs create strong connections with colleagues and students. Providing resources proved more helpful than robustly engaging with individuals’ personal issues.
Mental health issues were magnified by the prolonged impact of the pandemic. Inviting guest speakers to facilitate conversations about work-life balance, stress relief, and self-care during faculty meetings was found to be effective. Chairs checking in with each colleague periodically and providing timely support was much appreciated by colleagues. Chairs should creatively bring in new opportunities that help build their communities during the time when colleagues are isolated from each other by disruptions.
Sudden and long-lasting disruptions disproportionately affected minoritized students and low-waged staff. We specifically learned that reaching out to those students who did not have the financial resources for purchasing books, supplies, computing hardware, and software was helpful. We also organized online-students-only webinars with guest speakers who talked about work-life balance, stress relief, and self-care. We also checked in regularly with staff to ensure they were supported by the unit.
Extending from lessons learned and anecdotes received, we speculate the following things, in which many of them are still unfolding and deserve to be further investigated:
Landscape architecture online learning is no longer impossible. While challenges remain in creating an accredited landscape architecture degree program to be delivered online, online micro-credentials such as certificates targeting mid-career professionals are much more promising. Online delivery of some coursework can also make more off-campus experiential learning available to students.
We have learned that effective student interaction was a critical factor during the mandated online learning. Parameters of student interaction include but are not limited to nonparticipation, ineffective participation, lack of willingness to participate, and lack of online accessibility. Ironically, student interaction has long been an issue for in-person learning as well. It is necessary for landscape architecture educators to conduct research on how to increase effective interaction with students during both online and in-person learning, taking into account how new generations approach learning, whether they are on campus, at home, or in a café. Significant research in the scholarship of teaching and learning is available and transferable to instruction in landscape architecture.
Virtual recruitment is becoming more common as prospective students and parents expect to have a choice of in-person or online recruitment events. Landscape architecture recruitment campaigns traditionally relying on visuals for communication will benefit from recruitment that is conducted virtually because videos and images can be effectively shown on screens. The key to success is to inject interactive components into events. Meanwhile, chairs should be mindful of minoritized students who may lack access to online resources and recruitment information and should be provided options other than virtual means. Virtual recruitment should be part of any well-developed student recruitment plan.
As virtual engagement is becoming common, we speculate that the Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board may include a component in its accreditation standards to assess instructors’ and students’ ability to interact via a virtual platform. This may be considered part of any program’s professional communication learning objective. This is to ensure that future graduates are prepared to enter a job environment that will be more complex than it was a few years ago. We further speculate that landscape architectural education will develop new teaching methodologies that will effectively balance the advantages of both online and in-person teaching.
Flexible work arrangements are a new big thing in the workforce, and job applicants are inquiring about flexible arrangements more and more. While many landscape architecture academic units require local residency for the purposes of performing expected duties, staff and faculty may begin to demand an environment that provides some flexibility to work remotely or use a hybrid model. Not providing any flexibility may risk losing productive and talented employees for the unit.
As current technology makes real-time communications possible, we propose that the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture should explore the possibility of setting up a digital platform with subcategories for teaching, research, and administration. This platform, unlike a typical LISTSERV, allows educators to interact in real time and exchange concerns and best practices during normal or disruptive times. The next crisis will test whether the platform is conducive to overcoming unexpected challenges in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the special issue coeditors, Rob Corry and Charlene LeBleu, for their initial review and comments, which were very helpful in finalizing the manuscript.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.