Malzeme Bazlı Tasarımda Fikir Geliştirme Süreci İçin “Yabancılaştırma” Aracı Önerisi

Abstract

Malzeme bilimi sürdürülebilir bir dünya inşa etmek için çalışırken, çoğu zaman endüstriyel tasarımcılar malzeme süreçlerine dahil olamamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, endüstriyel tasarımcıların malzeme konusunda yenilik üretme potansiyelini desteklemek adına, fikir geliştirme süreçlerinde kullanabilecekleri yabancılaştırma tekniği önerisi geliştirilmiştir. Bu öneriyi geliştirirken fikir geliştirme ve yaratıcı düşünce yöntemlerinin yanı sıra bir edebi biçem olan yabancılaştırma tekniği incelenmiştir. Bir yandan da tasarım alanyazınındaki malzeme bazlı çalışmalar incelenerek malzemelerin anlamlandığı boyutlar, fiziksel özellikler, ki bu özellikler ürünlere ve diğer malzemelerin özelliklerine bağlıdır, pratikler ve sosyal bağlam olarak analiz edilmiştir. Daha sonra bu boyutlarda yabancılaştırmaya odaklanılarak, yabancılaştırma tekniğinin edebiyat ve dilbilim alanından, malzeme geliştirme alanına kavramsal olarak uygulanması konusunda egzersizler geliştirilmiştir. Yabancılaştırma tekniğinin fikir geliştirme sürecinde kullanılmasına dair bu egzersizler, her birine yaklaşık 90 öğrencinin katıldığı 3 dizi çalıştayda denenerek nitel yöntemlerle değerlendirilmiş ve yenilik, nitelik ve akış açısında başarılı olduğu görülmüştür. Modelin son hali, tanımlı bir proje kapsamında 14 öğrenci ile denenmiştir. Özetle, bu çalışma ile hem malzeme bazlı tasarım yaklaşımları için tasarımcıya yol gösteren bir model sunulmuş hem de genel anlamda fikir geliştirme süreçlerine uyarlanabilecek bir “yabancılaştırma” tekniği ortaya konmuştur.

Keywords

• Malzeme Bazlı Tasarım
• Fikir Geliştirme Teknikleri
• Yabancılaştırma Tekniği

Ethical Statement

Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından 21/03/2025 tarihli 0127-ODTÜİAEK-2025 sayılı etik kurulu onayı alınmıştır.

Developing A Defamiliarizations Tool for Idea Generation in Materials-Based Design

Abstract

While materials science works toward building a sustainable world, industrial designers are more often than not excluded from material processes. This study develops a defamiliarization tool to be used in idea generation processes for materials-based design with the aim of bringing materials into the creative domain of design. To develop this tool, idea generation methods and creativity literature are reviewed, alongside the defamiliarization technique as it appears in both literary and linguistic traditions. Alongside which, materials-based design literature is examined and the dimensions through which material qualities are enacted are analyzed as follows: physical qualities – deriving from products and other materials, practices, and social context. Building on this framework, the study develops a series of defamiliarization exercises focused on these dimensions. These exercise series are tested in 3 workshops, each of which hosted around 90 students, and qualitative evaluation concluded that the proposed defamiliarization exercises were successful in terms of novelty, quality, quantity, and flow. The finalized version was tested against a defined project brief, with 14 students. This study thus provides a tool to guide designers in material processes, while also introducing a defamiliarization mechanism applicable to idea generation methods more broadly.

Keywords

• Materials Based Design
• Idea Generation Methods
• Defamiliarization Technique

References

1. Ashby, M. F., Brechet, Y. J. M., Cebon, D., & Salvo, L. (2004). Selection strategies for materials and processes. Materials & Design, 25(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00159-6
2. Barry, A. (2005). Pharmaceutical matters: The invention of informed materials. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(1), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405048433
3. Bell, G., Blythe, M., & Sengers, P. (2005). Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 12(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067862.
4. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
5. Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Stengers, I. (1996). A history of chemistry. Harvard University Press.
6. Bergdoll, B., & Dickerman, L. (2009). Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for modernity. The Museum of Modern Art.
7. Borgianni, Y., Maccioni, L., Fiorineschi, L., & Rotini, F. (2020). Forms of stimuli and their effects on idea generation in terms of creativity metrics and non-obviousness. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 8(3), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1766379
8. Callon, M., Méadel, C., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2002). The economy of qualities. Economy and society, 31(2), 194-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140220123126

9. Carlson, K., Alaoui, S. F., Corness, G., & Schiphorst, T. (2019, October). Shifting spaces: Using defamiliarization to design choreographic technologies that support co-creation. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Movement and Computing (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3347122.3347140
10. Chou, J. R. (2014). An ideation method for generating new product ideas using TRIZ, concept mapping, and fuzzy linguistic evaluation techniques. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 28(4), 441-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2014.06.006
11. Conkan, M. (2016). Betraying reality: Defamiliarization’s effect on fantasy worlds. Caietele Echinox, (31), 268-276.
12. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. Bennett, J., Cheah, P., Orlie, M. A., & Grosz, E. (Eds). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (ss. 1-43). Duke University Press.
13. Cross, N. (2021). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-bass.
15. Dant, T. (2008). The pragmatics of material interaction. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540507085724
16. Da Silva, R. H., Kaminski, P. C., & Armellini, F. (2020). Improving new product development innovation effectiveness by using problem solving tools during the conceptual development phase: Integrating Design Thinking and TRIZ. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(4), 685-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12399
17. Davenport, G., Holmquist, L. E., & Thomas, M. (1998). Fun: A condition of creative research. IEEE MultiMedia, 5(03), 10-15.
18. Dehkordi, R. M., & Atapour, A. (2021). Methods of Creating Creativity through De-familiarization Technique and the Role of the Audience in Interactive Graphics. SIASAT, 6(4), 178-189. https://doi.org/10.33258/siasat.v6i4.103.
19. Deo, S., Blej, A., Kirjavainen, S., & Hölttä-Otto, K. (2021). Idea generation mechanisms: Comparing the influence of classification, combination, building on others, and stimulation mechanisms on ideation effectiveness. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143(12), 121403. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051239
20. DiPaola, S., McCaig, G., Carlson, K., Salevati, S., & Sorenson, N. (2013, June). Adaptation of an autonomous creative evolutionary system for real-world design application based on creative cognition. ICCC (ss. 40-47).
21. Drazin, A. (2015). To live in a materials world. In Adam D. & Küchler E. (Eds.) Social Life of Materials: Studies in Material and Society (ss. 3–28). Bloomsbury.
22. Duran, E. (2024). Stranger in the mirror: Exploring somatic defamiliarization. Sociological Theory, 42(2), 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/07352751241240527
23. Ferreira, M. C., & Scaraboto, D. (2016). “My plastic dreams”: Towards an extended understanding of materiality and the shaping of consumer identities. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.032
24. Fisher, T. H. (2004). What we touch, touches us: Materials, affects, and affordances. Design Issues, 20(4), 20-31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511999
25. Freinkel, S. (2011). Plastic: a toxic love story. Text Publishing.
26. Gabrys, J. (2013). Plastic and the work of the biodegradable. Gabrys, J., Hawkins, G. & Michael M. (Edt.) Accumulation: The Material Politics of Plastic (ss. 208–228). Routledge.
27. García-Manilla, H. D. (2023). Application of design thinking and TRIZ theory to assist a user in the formulation of an innovation project. Robles, C. G. (Ed.), TRIZ in Latin America: Case Studies (ss. 57-79). Springer International Publishing.
28. Georgiev, G. V., & Georgiev, D. D. (2018). Enhancing user creativity: Semantic measures for idea generation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 151, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.016
29. Gero, J. S., Jiang, H., & Williams, C. B. (2013). Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(4), 196-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.801760
30. Goldschmidt, G., & Sever, A. L. (2011). Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design studies, 32(2), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.006
31. Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological review, 64(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048280
32. Gunn, D. P. (1984). Making art strange: A commentary on defamiliarization. The Georgia Review, 38(1), 25-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41398624
33. Hawkins, G. (2013). Made to be wasted: PET and topologies of disposability. Gabrys, J., Hawkins, G. & Michael M. (Eds.) Accumulation: The Material Politics of Plastic (ss. 49-67). Routledge.
34. Ingold, T. (2012). Toward an ecology of materials. Annual review of anthropology, 41(1), 427-442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920
35. Ingold, T. (2021). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
36. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M., 1991, Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F
37. Karana, E. (2009). Meanings of materials [Doktora Tezi, Delft University of Technology].
38. Kirjavainen, S., & Hölttä-Otto, K. (2021). Deconstruction of idea generation methods into a framework of creativity mechanisms. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143(3), 031401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4048539
39. Knoll, S. W., & Horton, G. (2011). Changing the perspective: Using a cognitive model to improve think lets for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280104
40. Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Korde, R. M. (2011). Conceptual combinations and subsequent creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595659
41. Kotecha, M. C., Chen, T. J., McAdams, D. A., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2021). Design ideation through speculative fiction: Foundational principles and exploratory study. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143(8), 080801. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049656
42. Latour, B. (1994). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Edt.) Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (ss. 225-258). MIT Press.
43. Light, A., Blythe, M., & Reed, D. (2008). Defamiliarising design. Design Principles and Practices, 1(4), 63-72.
44. Logler, N., Yoo, D., & Friedman, B. (2018, June). Metaphor cards: A how-to-guide for making and using a generative metaphorical design toolkit. Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference (ss. 1373-1386). https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196811
45. Malaga, R. A. (2000). The effect of stimulus modes and associative distance in individual creativity support systems. Decision Support Systems, 29(2), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00067-1
46. Marsh, R. L., Ward, T. B., & Landau, J. D. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task. Memory & cognition, 27(1), 94-105.
47. Matchett, E. (1973). Introduction to the discipline of fundamental design method. Systematics, 11(3), 163-173.
48. Miller, D. (Ed.). (2005). Materiality. Duke University Press.
49. Misa, T. (1994). Controversy and closure in technological change: Constructing ‘Steel’. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Edt.) Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (ss. 109–139). MIT Press.
50. Molotch, H. (2004). Where stuff comes from: How toasters, toilets, cars, computers and many other things come to be as they are. Routledge.
51. Ramalhete, P. S., Senos, A. M. R., & Aguiar, C. (2010). Digital tools for material selection in product design. Materials & Design (1980-2015), 31(5), 2275-2287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.12.013
52. Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2000). Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: effectiveness metrics and design of experiments. Journal of mechanical design, 122(4), 377-384. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1315592
53. Shklovsky, V. (1917). Art as technique. Literary theory: An anthology, 3, 8-14.
54. Shove, E. (2007). The design of everyday life. Berg Publishers.
55. Tian, M. C., Eschrich, J., & Sterman, S. (2024, June). Designing AI with metaphors: Leveraging ambiguity and defamiliarization to support design creativity. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (ss. 537-541). https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3664250
56. Tonuk, D. (2016). Making materials: The case of elaborating qualities of bioplastics. Design Issues, 32(4), 64-75. https://doi.org/101162/DESI_a_00417
57. Tonuk, D. (2018). Materials as temporally specific phenomena: Specialization and compromise in bioplastics production. Journal of Material Culture, 23(1), 114-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183517725547
58. Tonuk, D., & Fisher, T. (2020). Material processuality: alternative grounds for design research. Design and Culture, 12(2), 119-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2020.1717779
59. Tsur, R. (2009). Defamiliarization revisited. Language in Life, and a Life in Language. (ss. 399-404). Brill.
60. Van Kesteren, I. E. H. (2008). Product designers’ information needs in materials selection. Materials & Design, 29(1), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2006.11.008
61. Wang, K., & Nickerson, J. V. (2017). A literature review on individual creativity support systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 139-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.035