Landscape architecture offices are increas-ingly being asked to justify design decisions through performance metrics. In response, research is increasing within professional offices. However, while the breadth of academic research has been well-studied, little is known about research within the professional design office. To address this gap, interviews were conducted with research leaders and principals of U.S. landscape architectural firms that promoted research as part of their services. This pilot study explored the range of research conducted; motiva-tions for engaging in research; and firms' relationships to practice, research methods used, and perceptions of the research skills needed by employees. Examples of what constituted research in practice varied widely between in-terviewees and was more expansive than the traditional analytic, replicable research conducted in academia. The study found that firms had a range of organizational strat-egies, from research labs to non-profits, internal grants, and informal projects. Firms engaged in research to have a creative outlet and to inform existing projects. Engaging in research helped firms promote innovation, leadership, and marketing. Research allowed practitioners to follow topics that they were passionate about beyond the constraints of project contracts, and generally research was funded through overhead. A surprising result was that firms en-gaged in research to recruit and retain employees and promote continuing education. Interviewees indicated that academic programs should teach research and critical thinking skills so that graduates are better trained in justifying design decisions. Practitioners perceived a mis-match between academic research and the profession's project-based knowledge needs, but they were receptive to collaborations with academics to address the chal-lenging questions facing the profession. Future studies are needed to understand how practitioners and academics define research as a starting point for collaboration.