Introduction
These case studies are presented in the conviction
that they can be an aid both to creative work and
to education. As Peter Blundell-Jones has written,
‘starting with the case rather than the laws at least
assures dialogue with the material’.^2 In similar vein,
Mark Francis has observed:
For professional education, case studies are
an effective way to teach by example, to learn
problem-solving skills, and to develop useful
evaluation strategies. For the profession as
a whole, case studies are a way to build a
body of criticism and critical theory, and to
disseminate the effectiveness of landscape
architecture outside the profession. A case
study is a well-documented and systematic
examination of the process, decision-making
and outcomes of a project, which is underta-
ken for the purpose of informing future prac-
tice, policy, theory, and/or education.^3
There has been considerable discussion of the case
study methodology as a research tool within aca-
demic and professional circles, in both architecture
and landscape architecture. Blundell-Jones can see
the advantages of the case study method: ‘Looking
at a small sample detail, one can feel more confi-
dent of getting at least something right than when
building an edifice of theory that might crumble
into a thousand pieces in the face of contradictory
evidence.’^4 Rolf Johansson says that the adoption
of case studies as a research methodology links
research and practice.^5 And Malene Hauxner says
that to criticise works of garden art without knowing
the circumstances of their creation can lead to even
greater misunderstandings. Gardens are created in
a particular time, on a particular programme, inten-
ded for a particular place by a particular person. ‘In
assuming this double nature, that the work, besides
being a work of art, is a social product, the method
requires both a critical reading of its context and a
close reading of the landscape.’^6
Natural science attempts to reduce the variables
and to control the sampling method in order to
obtain unequivocal results, but this approach cannot
work in the complex situations faced by landscape
designers. The case study method, conversely,
keeps all the variation and the complexity, but res-
tricts the number of cases examined in order to
look at them in more depth. Nevertheless, case stu-
dies need to be systematic and well documented.
Johansson suggests a format involving three pha-
ses: deductive, inductive and abductive. The deduc-
tive is linked to natural science and positivism; the
inductive methodology has its roots in ethnography
and what in recent years has become known as
‘grounded theory’. The abductive is similar, but dif-
fers in that it attempts to reconstruct the case from
the accessible facts. Although the contributors to
