Abstract
Professional licensure among faculty within landscape architecture (LA) programs is often undervalued. In 2021, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) and the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA) met to discuss the importance of faculty licensure and, more broadly, the role of academic programs in preparing students for LA licensure. Prior to that, the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) received feedback from practitioners, through the open review process of its 2020 standard revisions, stating the need for more of the following: licensed LA faculty, licensure advocacy, and preparation for LA licensure for students. Meanwhile, recent research also finds a perceived growing divide within faculties between practice‐based faculty and traditional research faculty, due in part to the amplifying demand for research productivity among LA faculty. As a result of these concerns, CELA, working in collaboration with ASLA and LAAB, issued a survey in 2021 to all 801 CELA members to discover: 1) who among LA faculty are licensed (and why or why not) and 2) whether and how LA academic programs and faculty serve as licensure advocates for their faculty and students. Results indicate strong interest among faculty for obtaining and maintaining licensure and preparing students for licensed practice, but the findings also suggest a need for greater financial and institutional support from academic programs to help LA faculty achieve these goals. As a result of these findings, several strategies are suggested to prioritize greater support for LA licensure in academia by ensuring that faculty obtain or maintain licensure and that students have enhanced opportunities to become licensed post‐graduation.
Introduction
Landscape Architecture Program Faculty and the Value of Licensed Faculty
Landscape architecture (LA) programs across the United States comprise faculty with a range of academic and professional backgrounds and credentials that qualify them for both tenure‐track and non‐tenure track positions. They include the terminal Master of LA degree (MLA), PhDs in LA and related disciplines, professional licenses (regulated through state licensure boards and the Council of Educators of Landscape Architecture Board, or CLARB), as well as other certifications and degrees in allied fields. A diversity of academic and professional expertise among program faculty affords a full delivery of knowledge and skills by professional programs in LA, as required by the Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB). As a recognized accrediting agency for LA programs by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, LAAB is also required to conduct a comprehensive review every six years of programs meeting its standards. This review includes documentation of the quantity and qualifications of faculty meeting the program objectives relative to LAAB standards.
An unfortunate tension exists over the different qualifications, albeit equal value, of faculty whose expertise includes professional practice versus research‐focused faculty with PhDs. This is especially true for programs situated in research‐intensive institutions. Specifically, among current faculty, the credential of a professional license is not always accorded equal value to a PhD (Jørgensen et al., 2022). The requirement or desirability of a professional license is also often inconsistently applied in the criteria for faculty hiring and tenure decisions. Further, although reported annually to LAAB through faculty profiles, professional licensure is not required in the current LAAB standards among program faculty. Yet most students enrolled in professional degree programs are preparing for practice in jurisdictions that require licensure to practice LA. Faculty with professional practice experience, encompassing the design, communication, environmental, technical, social, and legal knowledge of practice and the synthesis among these domains of knowledge, are essential to students’ preparation for a LAAB‐accredited BLA or MLA.
To obtain a professional LA license in the United States, one must satisfy education, experience, and exam requirements (CLARB, n.d.‐a). A common profile of a faculty member licensed in LA is someone with an accredited degree in LA (not all faculty have one) who has spent a minimum of two years in professional practice under the supervision of a landscape architect (many faculty have practiced far longer) and has passed the Landscape Architecture Registration Exam (LARE), the national licensing examination that measures knowledge, skills, and abilities as they relate to the profession of LA. (Note that equivalents of this exam in other fields include the bar and medical licensure examinations.) The professional practice undertaken and the study and preparation for the LARE can take multiple years. Relatedly, the CLARB Uniform Licensure Standard for LA is a policy guidance document outlining detailed model requirements for the education, experience, and examination that should precede LA licensure. CLARB’s recent revision to the Uniform Licensure Standard provides alternative pathways to licensure, with various options in education and experience accepted to offset economic or geographic challenges to obtaining a license, while the LARE remains a uniform requirement. Further, an accredited degree (based on the previously described LAAB standards) in LA is the preferred and shortest educational pathway in CLARB’s newly revised Uniform Licensure Standard.
In short, licensure and the knowledge and resources required to obtain and maintain it provide value to professional programs, yet there is a widespread underestimation of its value and hence a growing recognition that advocacy and support for licensed faculty needs attention. This essay offers a perspective on this issue. It shares questions, methods, and results of a national survey on faculty licensure and support for students. The results of the survey help to identify recommendations on ways to systemically support licensure of faculty and, where needed, to support individuals, programs, and the profession.
A Brief Lineage of LA Licensure
LA, involving the planning, design, management, and nurturing of the built and natural environments (Zachariasz, 2018; Nijhuis & de Vries, 2020; Xiaodong, 2023), is one of many professional design‐related disciplines to become its own distinct, recognized, and regulated profession through a lengthy academic and professional evolution. Through the initial establishment of LA and related training schools and apprenticeship opportunities, early educational responsibilities became codified and were eventually adopted into university curricula (Baird & Szczygiel, 2007). Local, and then national, associations were formed, leading to the establishment of state licensures and internal codes and standards in the United States (Sonar, 2010; Steinitz, 2020; Liu et al., 2021), the country of this essay’s focus.
The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) was founded in 1899, and Harvard University opened the first LA academic program in the United States a year later. By 1913, the first ASLA Chapter was founded in Boston, and now all U.S. states have ASLA chapters. As ASLA chapters developed, a Code of Professional Ethics for Landscape Architects was adopted in 1930, and by 1953 the state of California adopted the first official registration for the title of LA, rapidly followed by New York and Connecticut (Sonar, 2010). Eight years later, in 1961, CLARB was organized to coordinate and assist the growing number of state registration boards. CLARB was incorporated in 1970 as a singular organization and began administering the Uniform National Exam (UNE) for LA licensure. The UNE would eventually (in 1992) evolve into the LARE, the current test for obtaining LA licensure. In 2008, the Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System (LA CES) was established through a multi‐organization collaborative, which included ASLA, CLARB, the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), CELA, and LAAB, to offer continuing professional education for licensed LAs. As such, LA CES affords licensed LAs the opportunity to obtain Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) each year, a requirement for maintaining licensure in many states. Currently, licensure is a necessary qualification for the practice of LA, although a person can be employed in an LA office as unlicensed staff or personnel.
Licensure and Academia
Recent research suggests a current and growing divide between LA academia and professional practice, which can be largely attributed to the increased demand for research production in academia (Ozdil, 2021; Milburn et al., 2001; Milburn & Brown, 2003; LaGro, 1999). The pendulum in LA academia seems to be swinging more toward the value of the production of scientific knowledge rather than the teaching of professional knowledge (Christensen et al., 2023, 2019; Christensen & Michael, 2014; Milburn & Brown, 2016). The literature points to immense growth in research productivity and faculty activity, and its shows increasing demand for a research orientation across universities (Cushing & Renata, 2015; Chen et al., 2011). Parallel to this development is an increase in the number of faculty who hold doctoral degrees (Brown et al., 2020; Brown & Corry, 2011). Interestingly, growth is also evident among professionally licensed LA practitioners who serve in tenured or tenure‐track roles in academia, even though licensed LAs with PhDs are increasing in number but still rare (Milburn & Brown, 2016). Nevertheless, the relationship between design and research in LA is one of mutual dependency and reciprocity concerning methods and discoveries. Educational and professional trajectories merge and therefore are highly dependent upon one another (Aruninta, 2007). Although a perceptible dichotomy is developing between requirements for academic versus professional qualifications in LA, a balance between the two and acknowledgment of the value of both kinds of faculty are essential to the success of these profession‐oriented programs (LAAB, 2016).
Currently, LA programs exist within vastly diverse universities offering both undergraduate and graduate degrees and a multitude of courses related to each program’s content. Most program curricula are accredited through a non‐government and non‐mandatory system of self‐regulation based largely on self‐assessment by LAAB (Pritchard & Gonzalez, 2022). As of 2022, there are 100 LAAB‐accredited programs in 74 universities across the United States, including 53 graduate and 47 undergraduate programs. LAAB assesses each LA professional program in reference to its accreditation standards. These standards encompass program mission and goals; program autonomy, governance, and administration; professional curriculum; student outcomes and experiences; program faculty; outreach to the institution, communities, alumni, and practitioners; and facilities, equipment, and technology (LAAB, 2021). With an accredited degree, graduates are recognized as having met the rigorous requirements needed to ensure public safety and professional competency in the field (CLARB, n.d.‐b).
In 2019–2020, during the regular review and assessment of the standards and procedures—conducted a minimum of once every five years (LAAB, 2021)—LAAB received feedback during the public comment review period about the need for more licensed faculty and licensure advocacy, including more preparation for students for practice. Since at the state level substantial threats to eliminate LA licensure regulations have increased (Zacks, 2021), ASLA and CELA began to assess the role of LA academic programs in broadly advocating for licensure and in supporting LA licensure for faculty. This situation has underscored the integral, two‐way relationship that professional programs of landscape architecture have with the profession. LAAB‐accredited programs may not exist if professional LA licensure is eliminated.
Objectives
Considering the above‐mentioned issues, CELA worked in collaboration with ASLA and LAAB to distribute a survey in Spring 2021 to obtain information regarding 1) who among LA faculty are licensed (and why or why not) and 2) whether and how LA academic programs and faculty serve as licensure advocates for their faculty and students. The survey aimed to learn about the challenges facing faculty licensure and to locate potential resources to support broader licensure among faculty. The survey also intended to probe a topic that has been insufficiently studied: the reasons why a perceived dichotomy between PhD and professional faculty often exists in academia.
Methods
Closed‐Ended Questions
The survey, distributed to CELA members, consisted of both closed‐ended and open‐ended questions. It was distributed via email to the individual emails of 801 CELA members in spring 2021. LA Faculty were given six weeks to respond. This was the first survey issued to assess the status of licensed faculty and was of great interest at the time since LAAB (at that time) did not collect such data annually. As such, the questions served to provide basic data collection about the respondents while also giving qualitative feedback based on respondents’ knowledge and experience (see Appendix for full survey). Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the outcomes of the survey’s closed‐ended questions, focusing on professional practice and licensure involvement as well as program support. This analysis included examining responses grouped by various licensure statuses to understand patterns and differences within the data. It is important to note that certain questions permitted multiple responses. For example, respondents could self‐identify as unlicensed while concurrently expressing a desire to obtain licensure.
Open‐Ended Questions
Three open‐ended questions at the end of the survey invited respondents to share 1) how they have been involved in preparing students for practice and licensure; 2) how their program supports students for practice, the LARE, and licensure; and 3) additional thoughts on licensure of landscape architecture faculty. These responses were data mined and assessed through text categorizations using the Voyant and Hotjar Tools (explained in detail below) and then assessed collectively as well as separated by responses from licensed and unlicensed faculty for comparative purposes.
To reveal the patterns in the answers to the open‐ended questions, we conducted text mining, the process of extracting information from unstructured textual data (Feldman & Sanger, 2007). We used the Voyant tool, an analysis environment for digital texts (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2021), for mining and revealing the most frequently used phrases in answers to the survey questions. The tool automatically analyzes text to reveal patterns and trends in open‐ended questions (Miller, 2018) to reveal the most frequently used terms in the corpus (Hendrigan, 2019).
To analyze the responses and compare the results between different categorizations of responses, we used the Hotjar open‐ended question analysis template, a technology service where survey results can be processed to perform in‐depth, qualitative open‐ended question analyses once content has been categorized (Glaser & Strauss, 2017; Mila, 2020; Zgraggen, 2021). The template allows for input and analysis of answers to open‐ended questions. Through the matching and observing processes within Hotjar, we identified phrases with similar meanings within the existing categories as well as responses not identified by the Voyant content analysis that had similar meanings but used differing phrases. Through this process, we then added more categories to the analysis if these sub‐fields were captured by at least 10% of the responses (Williams et al., 2021). Responses with no answer or a simple reply of “no” were placed into a new category as well. Some responses had multiple records since open‐ended questions allow for multiple points on a particular question, so the total number of categories developed sometimes exceeded the total number of responses. To compare the responses of participants with and without licensure, we also divided the answers into two groups and broke down their distributions separately for a sub‐analysis. This is done to compare differences in responses between licensed and unlicensed faculty members.
Closed‐Ended Results
From the 801 CELA members surveyed, 187 responses were received, resulting in a 26% response rate. A majority of survey respondents are licensed (66% = 124 faculty out of 187 respondents). Tables 1 and 2 show the overall responses to the closed‐ended questions. It should be noted that for most closed‐ended questions, an “other” option was added to allow respondents to write in their own answers should the choices provided prove inadequate.
Closed‐Ended Question Responses—Academic Positions and Landscape Architecture Licensure Profile
Closed‐Ended Question Responses—Licensure Relevance and Institutional Support in Landscape Architecture Education
Most reasons responding faculty gave for having a license included: 1) that they were currently or formerly in practice and maintained a license (n = 108), 2) that they believed it was important for LA faculty to be licensed (n = 85), and 3) that licensure was a credential they thought was important to have on their CVs (n = 85). Other responses to this question included: “I believe that being a licensed professional serves as a role model to my students,” “Licensure is a form of peer review and gives me professional credibility,” “Credibility with professionals, also MD [Maryland] has title law,” and “It’s part of my professional identity—a female theorist who is licensed” (CELA Survey, 2021). Their support for licensure centers on the credibility it lends them in the eyes of others both inside and outside the profession and its connection to professional identity (See Table 2). It should be noted that a full‐time tenured or tenure‐track faculty member might have answered differently from an adjunct instructor, who might have been more of an LA practitioner than a full‐time academic. This survey does not make a distinction between these different types of faculty members.
Likewise, one set of reasons for not having a LA license that was identified in the “other” category of answers included: 1) the process for obtaining and maintaining licensure was too time consuming, 2) they had never practiced LA, 3) licensure did not impact their teaching or research, 4) licensure was not valued for tenure, 5) faculty did not want to compete with private practitioners, 6) obtaining licensure was not cost‐effective or worth the undertaking, and 6) there were no faculty incentives for being licensed.
When asked whether faculty members’ departments advocate for and support licensure, the responses were relatively split between yes (33%), no (36%), and uncertainty (29%); 61% responded that their academic institutions/units did not provide resources for licensure such as compensation or time for exams or continuing education, while only 14% said their departments did support and advocate for licensure among LA faculty. Twenty‐four percent were not sure whether incentives were provided. Most of the support for faculty LA licensure comes in the form of time off for exams, financial support to attend conferences, or flexibility in using funds for professional activities, according to the survey results.
When given choices on what type of support they would like to receive, 44% of faculty members responded that they would like financial compensation for exams and annual licensing dues, 33% requested financial compensation to obtain CEUs, and 32% desired additional time to prepare for and take the necessary exams. Other responses included merit, course releases, or some form of credit in annual evaluations for being licensed.
When asked about the importance of faculty being licensed, 79% responded that it is very or somewhat important that eligible faculty be licensed; 58% responded that only some faculty should be licensed, not all eligible faculty; and 7% responded that it is not important for eligible faculty to be licensed (see Table 2). Due to the variation in these responses, we assume that licensure obtainment could primarily depend on faculty roles within their respective units/departments, their coursework areas, and their fields of research.
Open‐Ended Results
Table 3 presents the categorization of respondents’ final answers as derived from the Voyant and Hotjar analyses for each open‐ended question. The responses to each question have been systematically organized into distinct categories, encompassing both prevalent answers and themes identified across questions. Here, an additional category, labeled as “other,” is reserved for responses that are either infrequent or notably divergent from the predominant categories, thereby challenging direct classification. Primary categories derived from the Voyant and Hotjar tools are defined below:
Professional Practice—courses and actions focusing on strategic planning, business models, organizational structures, logistics, and regulatory paradigms associated with professional practice in LA
Design Studio—a collaborative academic workspace where LAs conceive, develop, and refine LA projects
Internship—a hands‐on learning experience where aspiring professionals gain practical skills and industry knowledge by assisting with design projects under the guidance of experienced practitioners
LARE Prep—studying relevant materials, practicing exam‐style questions, and reviewing key concepts and case studies for the ALRE
Student Organization/ASLA—a group formed by students with common interests or goals related to LA and ASLA, focused on extracurricular activities, advocacy, community service, and professional development.
Survey Results for Open‐Ended Questions, Overall and Licensed vs. Unlicensed
In response to the question “How have you been involved in preparing students for professional practice and licensure?” nearly 40% of the respondents cited professional practice/internship courses as the most utilized preparation approach. This is followed by design studios as another frequently mentioned response, accompanied by examples such as using real‐world projects in studio; offering design‐build studios; teaching design integration and implementation; and leading community‐based practice, service learning, and engagement projects. When respondents are separated into licensed versus unlicensed, the results are fairly similar to those of the total responses, with professional practice courses, again, being mentioned most often. The use of LA technical design courses (such as grading and drainage, site engineering, and construction) as a preparation technique for LA licensure attainment is nearly even with design studios, overall, but licensed LA faculty tend to use technical courses as a preparation method much more than unlicensed faculty do. We assume this could correlate to the distribution of licensed faculty who actually teach technical courses as greater than the overall distribution of construction course instructors.
Currently, other than professional practice courses, construction and technical courses, and design studio courses, LARE prep is integrated in various ways, from using sample vignettes in grading courses to offering workshops on the LARE. There is a general sentiment that programs should not “teach to the LARE,” but certainly that education prepares one for the examination. In the “Other” category, responses included other forms of preparation: student advising, teaching skills related to the LARE and providing LARE workshops, supporting student chapters of ASLA, encouraging licensure after graduation, reviewing portfolios, coordinating career fairs and practitioner panels, creating professional mentoring opportunities, hosting charrettes with practitioners, finding and providing internship opportunities, involving students in extra‐curricular programs, leading office visits, and sitting on the state licensure board.
In answer to the question “How does your program support students for practice, the LARE, and licensure?” professional practice courses (33.5%) are again the approach most mentioned. Nearly 30% of the respondents also mentioned that LARE test preparation techniques are integrated into course materials, and this percentage remains relatively stable across licensed and unlicensed faculty. ASLA student chapters (9.1%) and other student organizations are also being used to prepare students for the LARE, with licensed faculty appearing to take the lead in promoting this approach. Further, when respondents are separated into licensed and unlicensed faculty, the results are nearly identical, with the one exception that unlicensed faculty tend to prepare students for licensure within studio courses more than unlicensed ones do. This finding makes sense in that those answering this question were responding on behalf of their programs, not themselves. It is worth noting that some of the respondents (5.2%) made unsolicited mention of the fact that their department provides little or no support for obtaining or retaining licensure. This observation is reinforced by the 61% of respondents who stated that their departments do not provide support for LA licensure.
When respondents were invited to add their thoughts (“Please share any additional thoughts on licensure of landscape architecture faculty”), a slight argument arose as to whether all LA faculty should obtain licensure. Across the board, although to varying degrees, both licensed and unlicensed faculty support licensure among faculty. Overall, however, the position that not all faculty need to be licensed (35%) appeared to be the highest pattern found in the responses. Fifty percent of unlicensed faculty also held this position, with 28.48% of licensed faculty also agreeing with this sentiment. Still, over 30% of respondents stated that more faculty should be licensed and that there should be a stronger emphasis placed on licensure in LA academia. Of these respondents, many emphasized the importance of bringing more licensed practitioners into the faculty body rather than having a focus on employing faculty with only doctoral degrees. Some respondents, again, were concerned about the cost of pursuing and maintaining licensure without support from the department, school, or college. Expenses and incentives are the most frequently mentioned reasons for not obtaining or retaining licensure.
When respondents were separated into licensed and unlicensed faculty, a much higher percentage of the unlicensed group, compared to licensed respondents, felt that not all faculty needed to be licensed. In response to the prompt “Please share any additional thoughts on licensure of landscape architecture faculty,” around 45% of respondents mentioned that licensure should be emphasized in either faculty requirements or the promotion and tenure evaluation process; 7% stated that licensure was essential for landscape architecture faculty; and 17% suggested that not all faculty need to be licensed. A balance of PhD and licensed (in‐practice or former) practitioners was mentioned frequently during the discussion of faculty distribution. Some respondents expressed concern that LA degrees would become disconnected from practice if the number of licensed faculty did not increase. On the other hand, 7% of the respondents mentioned that the lack of financial support from their department hindered full‐time scholars from pursuing and maintaining licensure. Further, 9% of the respondents mentioned that they were licensed landscape architects but had decided not to maintain their license either because they did not use it or lacked financial support for maintaining it.
Recommendations and Discussion
As noted, this survey sought to determine why LA faculty are or are not licensed and what, if anything, LA academic programs and faculty are doing to serve as advocates for licensure for LA faculty and students. Also, as noted, a majority of the survey respondents were licensed (66% = 124 faculty out of 187 respondents). The survey was administered prior to having complete faculty data, which became available through LAAB in 2022, revealing that 31% of 1,110 LA faculty nationally are licensed (a total of 344) (Pritchard & Gonzalez, 2022). Licensed faculty are overrepresented in the respondent data as a percentage. This may suggest that licensed faculty are more eager to respond on the subject, or it may suggest that unlicensed faculty may be disinterested or reluctant to respond to a survey about a professional credential (licensure) that they do not possess.
We find, however, that even with the uneven representation of licensed and unlicensed faculty in the survey and with a perceived historical division between LA faculty licensure and LA faculty research productivity, according to the literature (Ozdil, 2021; Milburn et al., 2001; Milburn & Brown, 2003; LaGro, 1999), licensed and unlicensed faculty alike appear to be in favor of increased licensure and associated support. Further, it is clear that more incentives, particularly at the program/department level, are needed for faculty to acquire and maintain licensure: 61% of faculty stated that their departments offered no support for licensure, and a large number of respondents brought up this issue in the open‐ended questions without being prompted. LA faculty and programs are preparing students for practice, the LARE, and licensure throughout their academic degrees in a myriad of curricular and extra‐curricular programs. Further, we suggest that more licensed faculty teaching professional practice courses, construction and technical courses, and design studio courses would lead to more opportunities for students to be better prepared for practice and obtaining licensure, if desired, upon graduating. Results from the survey showing that most universities are using these courses for LARE preparation substantiate these claims.
These findings lead us to suggest several strategies for improving the culture of academic LA programs and increasing faculty licensure. First, LA programs should increase their support for licensed faculty and promote faculty licensure. This could take the form of incentives at the program or department/school level. Recommendations include course releases or partial course releases, payment or partial payment of the licensure exam costs (at least for a one‐time opportunity), coverage of travel and expenses for continuing education to maintain licensure, and service or teaching credit in annual faculty reviews for obtaining or retaining licensure (and building this credit matrix into promotion and tenure guidelines). All of these can be effective ways to encourage licensure, especially when used in combination. Of course, hiring licensed LA faculty would be the easiest pathway to achieve the goal of increasing faculty licensure. Nevertheless, these incentives, support, and resources, in our opinion, should be extended to non‐tenure track, part‐time, and/or adjunct faculty to acknowledge their contributions toward preparing students for professional practice and supporting their professional development as valued faculty.
Second, increased collaborations with allied organizations supporting LA licensure and research could contribute new and creative ways of bolstering faculty licensure numbers. One such example is the draft‐named CELA/CLARB Licensure Program. The program, currently being piloted, will allow for annual CLARB certification of a set number of LA faculty (the exact numbers are still being determined). CLARB certification is an industry‐recognized distinction that signifies attainment of the professional standards established by CLARB. The certification comes with a recommendation of licensure without further review. It would allow for faculty in specific states that only require CLARB Certification for licensure to automatically receive that licensure. It would also make obtaining licensure easier in many other states. Ultimately, CLARB certification fast‐tracks the path to licensure as it allows LA personnel to demonstrate that they meet the professional standards used by many registration boards. Collaborative, cross‐organizational programs such as this will greatly enhance the percentage of licensed LA faculty over time. With or without a developed minimum standard for licensed faculty in academia from LAAB, such programs are still beneficial.
Third, given the value and contributions of licensed faculty to LA academic programs, LAAB may want to consider creating a standard or minimum recommendation for the number of licensed or CLARB certified faculty within a given academic program, similar to its requirement for the minimum number of faculty with terminal degrees in landscape architecture. This acknowledgment would not only give value to the central contributions of licensed faculty to a professional program, it would also support and justify institutional support of licensed faculty in the form of resources to obtain and maintain licensure. These recommendations could serve as suggested minimums or goals for accredited programs.
Fourth, more research and publication opportunities for faculty that cross over into professional practice could help bridge the perceived divide between research and practice (Deming & Swaffield, 2011; Gobster et al., 2010; LaGro, 1999). The Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Case Study Investigation Program, which links LA firms with faculty partners to measure landscape performance, is a successful example of this. Other journals such as Landscape Architecture Frontiers have begun allowing practice initiatives as peer‐reviewed article types in their submission model. Landscape Journal is also considering a publication pathway for this type of work. While these examples have set a sound foundation for integrating LA practice into LA research, much more should be done to support publication of critical professional work in peer‐reviewed journals to recognize the combined contributions of LA practitioners and researchers to the field.
Overall, opportunities are available to faculty members with limited professional experience and a desire to become licensed. The recently adjusted Uniform Licensure Standard for LAs allows several pathways for people to become licensed based on a myriad of academic and experience levels and backgrounds. One of the primary reasons that more LA faculty are not licensed is that contemporary academia does not often value professional practice experience or licensure nearly as highly as it values funded research and traditional research products (e.g., peer‐reviewed journal articles). This reality needs to be addressed head‐on; it typically manifests itself in two ways: 1) hiring new faculty members with PhDs is often prioritized over hiring licensed practitioners, and 2) licensure and the associated practice‐based research often receive less recognition than traditional research productivity when it comes to tenure review, promotion, and efforts at faculty retention. Most LA programs do not require, incentivize, or encourage licensure to the extent that they could. The discipline needs to engage in honest discussions about this as it advocates for the importance of licensure in programs where emerging practitioners are trained.
The reasons for the perceived dichotomy between research and professional faculty in academia have not been adequately studied. While understanding this issue is not a primary objective of this research, the findings presented in this article expose its importance in the case of LA licensure and suggest the need for more research in this area. Further, since many respondents from the survey emphasized the importance of hiring more licensed practitioners as faculty members rather than focusing on only employing faculty with doctoral degrees, future research on this subject would also assist in better understanding the existing barriers and solutions to increasing LA licensure. Some of the survey respondents in this study expressed their concern that without an increase in the number of licensed faculty, the landscape architecture degree will lack sufficient connection to practice in the field. Future studies comparing how well academic programs and accrediting organizations for other professions deal with this issue might help to determine whether LA is in line with other professions or is an outlier in not requiring or at least supporting licensure of its teaching faculty.
Peer Review Statement
Landscape Journal uses a double‐blind peer review process for research manuscripts, systematic literature reviews, and other article types.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Sadik Artunc, David Myers, Kristopher Pritchard, Roxi Thoren, Lynn Ewanow, Jack Ahern, Elizabeth Hebron, and Veronica Meadows for their contributions.
Appendix
Faculty Licensure Survey
Questions
1. Your name (Optional question, open text field, no word limit.)
2. Your university, school, and department or program (Open text field, no word limit.)
3. What is your position or title? (Check all that apply.)
Department head, chair, director, or other program leader designation
faculty member, full or associate, tenured
Faculty member, assistant, tenure‐track
Faculty member, full‐time, non‐tenure track or visiting
Faculty member, part‐time, adjunct or visiting
Faculty member, other status (please describe)
4. Are you a licensed landscape architect? (Check one.)
Yes
No
I am currently working on obtaining licensure (e.g., planning or currently taking the LARE exam)
5. Do you hold any of the following other licenses or private certifications? (Select all that apply.)
Licensed Architect
Licensed Professional Engineer
Certified Planner (AICP)
Other:
None of the above
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO LICENSURE IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.
6. If you are a licensed landscape architect, what is the reason that you hold a landscape architecture license? (Check all that apply.)
I am currently or was previously in practice, and I maintain a license
I think it is important to be licensed as a landscape architecture faculty
My department requires it for my faculty position
Licensure is a professional credential that I prefer to have on my CV
Other, please explain:
7. If you are not licensed in landscape architecture, what is the reason that you do not hold a license? (Check all that apply.)
I was never in practice, so I didn’t pursue a license
I have a PhD, so I didn’t pursue a license
I don’t qualify for landscape architecture licensure (e.g., I don’t have a landscape architecture degree)
No reason or incentive from my department to be licensed
Too expensive
Other, please explain:
8. Does your department advocate and show support for you to be licensed in landscape architecture? (Choose one.)
Yes
No
Uncertain
9a. Does your department provide resources for landscape architecture licensure, such as reimbursement for licensing fees or other compensation? (Choose one.)
Yes
No
Uncertain
9b. If yes, what resources does your department provide? (Check all that apply.)
Compensation for LARE exam fees and/or annual licensing fees
Compensation for obtaining CEUs required to maintain licensure
Time off to take exams and/or attend professional events such as the Annual ASLA Conference
Compensation for registration and/or travel to professional events to earn CEUs to maintain licensure
Annual bonus or other financial salary‐based compensation for earning/retaining licensure
Other, please explain:
9c. If no, what are some licensure incentives and/or resources that your department should provide? (Check all that apply.)
Compensation for LARE exam fees and/or annual licensing fees
Compensation for obtaining CEUs
Time off to take exams and/or attend professional events such as the Annual ASLA Conference
Compensation for registration and/or travel to professional events to earn CEUs to maintain licensure
Annual bonus or other financial salary‐based compensation
Require licensure for faculty position
Other, please explain:
10. How important do you think it is for faculty members who teach in a landscape architecture program, and are licensure eligible, to be licensed? (Check one.)
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
Other, please explain:
11. If you answered very or somewhat important, how many faculty members who teach in a landscape architecture program, and are licensure eligible, should be licensed? (Check one.)
All eligible faculty in a program
Some eligible faculty in a program
Uncertain
12. How have you been involved in preparing students for professional practice and licensure? (Open text field, no word limit.)
13. How does your program support students for practice, the LARE, and licensure? (Open text field, no word limit.)
14. Please share any additional thoughts on licensure of landscape architecture faculty. (Open text field, no word limit.)
References
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.