A New Methodology for Design Studios: Incorporating a Defined Set of Need-Based Design Drivers

Abstract

This research offers an interpretation of Maslow's hierarchical human needs theory, exploring how the prioritization of needs within a human-centered design (HCD) framework can function as a structuring principle in design studio education by positioning a specific human need as the central design driver. By investigating how highlighting different levels of human needs within sequential project modules influences the design process and outcomes, the study aims to provide practical insights for design educators and students. This paper presents a case study of fourth-year industrial design students, in which the course was divided into three modules, each addressing a different need level (Benefit, Joy, Inspiration) for the defined target user group and design context. Drawing on the findings, the study proposes a structured methodology that helps students navigate layered human needs, demonstrating how their engagement evolves from functional concerns to emotional and aspirational dimensions. The study also highlights the value of clear module framing, a progressively intensifying timeline, structured question development, and reflective sessions in fostering a more holistic design process.

Keywords

• Design studio
• Human-centered design
• Design education
• Design methodologies
• Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Tasarım Stüdyoları İçin Yeni Bir Metodoloji: Tanımlanmış Bir İhtiyaca Dayalı Tasarım Bileşenlerinin Entegre Edilmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırma, Maslow’un hiyerarşik insan ihtiyaçları kuramına, insan odaklı tasarım yaklaşımı çerçevesinde bir yorum sunmakta ve belirli bir insan ihtiyaç grubunu tasarım sürecinde itici temel faktör olarak konumlandırarak, tasarım stüdyosu eğitiminde nasıl yapılandırıcı bir ilke olarak işlev görebileceğini incelemektedir. Çalışma, ardışık proje modüllerinde farklı insan ihtiyaç düzeylerinin vurgulanmasının tasarım süreci ve çıktıları üzerindeki etkilerini araştırarak, tasarım eğitmenleri ve öğrencileri için pratik içgörüler sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makale, dördüncü sınıf endüstriyel tasarım öğrencilerinin yer aldığı bir vaka çalışmasını sunmaktadır. Bu kapsamda ders, tanımlanmış hedef kullanıcı grubu ve tasarım bağlamı için farklı ihtiyaç düzeylerine (Fayda, Neşe, İlham) odaklanan üç modüle ayrılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda çalışma, öğrencilerin katmanlı insan ihtiyaçları arasında yön bulmalarına yardımcı olan yapılandırılmış bir metodoloji önermekte; tasarım sürecinde işlev odaklı ihtiyaçların yanı sıra duygusal ve özgerçekleştirme boyutlarının da önemine değinmektedir. Ayrıca araştırma, modül çerçevelerinin açık ve anlaşılır şekilde tanıtılmasının, hangi modülün ne kadar uzun bir tasarım süreci gerektirdiğinin belirtilmesinin, geri bildirim oturumlarının ve yapılandırılmış soru geliştirme süreçlerinin daha bütüncül bir tasarım sürecinin gelişimindeki önemini de vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Tasarım stüdyosu
• İnsan odaklı tasarım
• Tasarım eğitimi
• Tasarım metodolojileri
• Maslow’un ihtiyaçlar hiyerarşisi

References

1. [1] Auernhammer, J., & Roth, B. (2021). The origin and evolution of Stanford University’s design thinking: From product design to design thinking in innovation management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(6), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12594
2. [2] Blessing, L. T., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM: A design research methodology (13–42). London; Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1
3. [3] Buchanan, R. (2004). Human-centered design: Changing perspectives on design education in the East and West. Design Issues, 20(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793604772933748
4. [4] Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
5. [5] Cassim, F. (2013). Hands on, hearts on, minds on: Design thinking within an education context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 190–202.
6. [6] Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). LA; SAGE Publications.
7. [7] Emmanouil, M. (2015). Human‐centred design projects and co‐design in/outside the Turkish classroom: Responses and challenges. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 34(3), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12087
8. [8] Fink, A. (2024). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (7th ed.). LA; SAGE Publications.

9. [9] Halley-Wright, A. (1988). Cross-cultural consumer characterisation. In Proceedings of the Mix Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa.
10. [10] Hatunoğlu, D. C. (2022). A study on understanding the influence of different design approaches to design democratization. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning, 10(4), 785–799. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/gujsb/issue/74633/1205609
11. [11] Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
12. [12] IDEO. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design. https://www.designkit.org/resources/1.html (accessed 15 May 2025).
13. [13] Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
14. [14] Levy, R. (1990). Design education: Time to reflect. Design Issues, 7(1), 1–5.
15. [15] Lupton, E. (2017). Design is storytelling. NY: Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum.
16. [16] Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
17. [17] Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. NY: Harper & Bros.
18. [18] Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002 [19] Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American lifestyles. NY: Warner Books.
19. [20] Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. (1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. [21] Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books.
21. [22] Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (New ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
22. [23] O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). Unsatisfactory saturation: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106
23. [24] Rousseau, D. (1990). Developing and testing a model of psychographic market segmentation. South African Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 184–194.
24. [25] Ruegemer, J. (2024). Learning from the crisis–how elements of compulsory virtual classroom settings in architectural higher education permanently improve architectural teaching over time. In EDULEARN24 Proceedings (pp. 8610–8619). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2024.2074
25. [26] Ryd, N. (2004). The design brief as carrier of client information during the construction process. Design Studies, 25(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.003
26. [27] Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
27. [28] Sanders, E. B.N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
28. [29] Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualisation and operationalisation. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
29. [30] Slade-Brooking, C. (2016). Creating a brand identity: A guide for designers. London: Laurence King Publishing.
30. [31] Smith, C. M., & Sweet, J. (2021). Analysing the relationship between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and consumer spending patterns. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 75(4), 36–43.
31. [32] Takva, Ç., & Akçay, F. Ç. (2023). Designing for designers: The campus and building of Atatürk University Faculty of Architecture and Design. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning, 11(2), 371–389. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3193620
32. [33] Walter, A. (2011). Designing for emotion. NY: A Book Apart.
33. [34] Wellington, J., & Szczerbinski, M. (2007). Research methods for the social sciences. London: Continuum.
34. [35] Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Designs and methods (4th ed.). LA: SAGE Publications.
35. [36] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Consumer Expenditure Surveys. https://www.bls.gov/cex/ (accessed 13 May 2024).
36. [37] Apaydın, B. (2015). İçerik üretirken hedeflenmesi gerekenler: Fayda, eğlence ya da ilham. Medium. https://medium.com/batuhanapaydin/i%C3%A7erik-%C3%BCretirken-hedeflenmesi-gerekenler-fayda-e%C4%9Flence-ya-da-i%CC%87lham-910c8baaa563 (accessed 15 September 2023).