An Examination of the Difference between “sample” and “case” concepts and their relations with “design research” in landscape architecture.

The two term "sample" and "case" are widely used in the field of landscape architecture. But there is rarely significant study about the meaning of these two common concepts. This research tries is to verify the difference between the two concepts "sample" and "case", and examining their relationship with the paradigm of "design research" in landscape architecture discipline. The goal is to reduce its theoretical difficulties and the weakness of related terminology and research methodology.

The strategy of the research is logical/argumentation. First, by documentary study, the main periods in which the terms appear in their context have been extracted. Second, with the qualitative analysis and coding of this context, definitions have been proposed to distinguish between terms. Third, through a questionnaire among students, the results of the second step have been examined and finally a conclusion has been drawn.

The documentary study results show that there is an important methodological semantic difference between "sample" and "case", which can at least lead to the extraction and separation of five different terms "precedents", "example", "statistical sample", "case study" and "Research case", but this difference is not well verified and lacks intersubjective aspects among the respondents. According to the results of the documentary study, investigation of "Cases" compared to "Samples", due to the existence of high capacities to face diversity, complexity, and uncertainty, have a greater ability to integrate with research design, but a very small part of the respondents are familiar with research design paradigm.

Considering the limitedness of the terms mentioned by the respondents and the incoherence of the difference between the meaning of "sample" and "case", it can be concluded that there was no comprehensive methodological vison. On the other hand, since "doing superficially" and "imitation" are the most frequent problems of using the case or Sample, it can be concluded that the current status is the first level among the five possible levels for action through the investigation of sample or case. Results also show that the extracting and verifying of intersubjective terms is still difficult and requires various research and practical works.

Results also shows that the findings about terminology of case studies and its methodologies are still limited. Now there is a need to do and systematic review, make a network for researchers and do continuous field work along with training and discourse of ideas. It is necessary to avoid simplistic examination of "sample" or "case" and plan and set goals for methodological and action clarity. Because there is this ability in "sample" or "case" to be present and play a significant role in any lesson or experience in a different form and methods. The results confirming the previous and still indicate the existence of weakness in this field. finally although the separation of the meaning and the proposed terms of this paper could not achieve an intersubjective agreement or verification, it construct a basis for dealing with the difference between the sample and the case, which can be the context It is for future research.