ACİL DURUM HİZMETLERİNDE TASARIM AKTİVİZMİ: SOSYAL DEĞİŞİM İÇİN AKTÖRLERİN KATILIMI

Abstract

Bu araştırma, sosyo-teknik sistemleri şekillendirmede tasarım aktivizmi, aktör-ağ teorisi (ANT) ve tasarım odaklı düşünme arasındaki simbiyotik ilişkiyi araştırmaktadır. Kasıtlı tasarım müdahaleleri yoluyla sosyal, çevresel ve ekonomik değişim için siyasi motivasyonlarla hareket eden tasarım aktivizmi, kamu sektörü inovasyonunda hükümetler ve kuruluşlarla işbirliği yapmaktadır. Bu bağlamda faaliyet gösteren tasarım aktivizmi, olumlu dönüşümler yaratmak için tasarım odaklı düşünmeyi, hayal gücünü ve pratiğini kullanır. Çalışma, çeşitli aktörlerle işbirliğini vurgulayarak tasarım aktivizminin acil servislerdeki uygulamalarını incelemektedir. Gönüllü tasarımcıların Kahramanmaraş'ta depremden etkilenen vatandaşlara destek verdiği İzmir'deki bir vaka çalışması, tasarım odaklı düşünmenin tasarım aktivizmine pratik entegrasyonunu göstermektedir. Gönüllü tasarımcılar süreçleri iyileştirmiş, paydaşları koordine etmiş ve kullanıcı dostu arayüzler oluşturarak acil durumlarda tasarım aktivizminin dönüştürücü potansiyelini ortaya koymuşlardır. Araştırma hem insan hem de insan olmayan aktörleri barındırmak için tasarım odaklı düşünmenin yinelemeli ve kolektif süreçlerini içeren sosyo-teknik bir yaklaşımın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ağlar içinde iş birliğini ve sürekli katılımı vurgulayan çalışma, ANT'nin tasarım aktivizminde başarı perspektifiyle uyumludur. Bulgular, tasarım aktivizminin iş birliğine dayalı çabalar ve dönüştürücü tasarım metodolojileri aracılığıyla acil durum hizmetlerini geliştirme potansiyelinin altını çizmekte ve olumlu toplumsal etki için sosyo-teknik sistemleri anlamaya ve şekillendirmeye yönelik kapsamlı bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Tasarım Aktivizmi
• Aktör-Ağ Teorisi (ANT)
• Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme
• Acil Durum Hizmetleri
• Gönüllü Tasarım Topluluğu

Supporting Institution

İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi

Thanks

Yazarlar, sürece ortak olduğu ve verilerin bu araştırmada kullanılmasına izin verdiği için İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi'ne ve çalışmanın ana aktörleri olan gönüllü tasarımcılara teşekkür eder.

DESIGN ACTIVISM IN EMERGENCY SERVICES: ENGAGING ACTORS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

Abstract

This research explores the symbiotic relationship among design activism, actor-network theory (ANT), and design thinking in shaping socio-technical systems. Design activism, driven by political motivations for social, environmental, and economic change through intentional design interventions, collaborates with governments and organizations in public sector innovation. Operating within this context, design activism utilizes design thinking, imagination, and practice to generate positive transformations. The study delves into the application of design activism in emergency services, emphasizing collaboration with various actors. A case study in İzmir, where volunteer designers supported earthquake-affected citizens in Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, illustrates the practical integration of design thinking within design activism. The volunteer designers improved processes, coordinated stakeholders, and created user-friendly interfaces, showcasing the transformative potential of design activism in emergencies. The research highlights the significance of a socio-technical approach, incorporating design thinking's iterative and collective processes to accommodate both human and non-human actors. Emphasizing collaboration and continuous engagement within networks, the study aligns with ANT's perspective on success in design activism. The findings underscore the potential for design activism to enhance emergency services through collaborative efforts and transformative design methodologies, offering a comprehensive approach to understanding and shaping socio-technical systems for positive societal impact.

Keywords

• Design Activism
• Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
• Design Thinking
• Emergency Services
• Volunteer Design Community

Supporting Institution

İzmir Metropolitan Municipality

Thanks

The authors thank the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality for being a partner in the process and allowing the data to be used in this research, and the volunteer designers who were the main actants of the study.

References

1. Ashman, R., Patterson, A., & Kozinets, R. (2021). Netnography and design thinking: development and illustration in the vegan food industry. European Journal of Marketing, 55(9), 2491-2514. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-02-2020-0155
2. Baron, L. F., & Gomez, R. (2016). The Associations between Technologies and Societies: The Utility of Actor-Network Theory. Science, Technology and Society, 21(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721816640615
3. Becker, F. (2002). Organisational dilemmas and workplace solutions. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 4(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcre.2002.4.2.129
4. Birkirabiryuva.org. (n.d.). https://birkirabiryuva.org/
5. Bizizmir.com. (n.d.). https://www.bizizmir.com/
6. Cetin, O. D. (2016). Design activism from the past to present: A critical analysis of the discourse. In The 10th Conference of the International Committee for Design History & Design Studies, Blucher Design Proceedings, Volume 8, 2016, 388-393. ISSN 2318-6968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/despro-icdhs2016-04_016
7. Clarke, A. J. (2013). Actions Speak Louder. Design and Culture, 5(2), 151-168. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470813X13638640370698
8. Dilnot, C. (1982). Design as a socially significant activity: an introduction. Design Studies, 3(3), 139-146.

9. Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eriş, Ö., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
10. Ekomadyo, A. S., & Riyadi, A. (2020). Design in socio-technical perspective: An actor-Network theory reflection on community project “Kampung Kreatif” in Bandung. Archives of Design Research, 33(2), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2020.05.33.2.19
11. Elsbach, K. and Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: a review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252
12. Fischer, G., Lemke, A., McCall, R., & Mørch, A. (2020). Making argumentation serve design., 267-293. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003064053-12
13. Fox, S., Lim, C., Hirsch, T., & Rosner, D. K. (2020). Accounting for design activism: On the positionality and politics of designerly intervention. Design Issues, 36(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00571
14. Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. Earthscan.
15. Johnston, J. (2016). Australian naplan testing: in what ways is this a ‘wicked’ problem?. Improving Schools, 20(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216673170
16. Julier, G. (2011). Political economies of design activism and the Public Sector. Nordes 2011: Making Design Matter. https://doi.org/10.21606/nordes.2011.005
17. Julier, G. (2013). From Design Culture to Design Activism. Design and Culture, 5(2), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470813X13638640370814
18. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40878163
19. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
20. Lee, A. (2013). Casting an architectural lens on disaster reconstruction. Disaster Prevention and Management an International Journal, 22(5), 480-490. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm-10-2013-0178
21. Lees-Maffei, G. (2012). Reflections on Design Activism and Social Change: Design History Society Annual Conference, September 7-10, 2011, Barcelona. Design Issues, 28 (2): 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_r_00147 Lenksjold, T. U., Olander, S., & Halse, J. (2015). Minor design activism: Prompting change from within. Design Issues, 31(4), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00352
22. Manzini, E. (2010). Small, local, open and connected, design for social innovation and sustainability. The Journal of Design Strategies, 4(1), 8-11.
23. Seshadri, P., Joslyn, C., Hynes, M., & Reid, T. (2019). Compassionate design: considerations that impact the users’ dignity, empowerment and sense of security. Design Science, 5. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.18
24. Storni, S. (2015). Notes on ANT for designers: ontological, methodological and epistemological turn in collaborative design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 11(3-4), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081242
25. Togay, A., Coşkun, M., Güneş, S., & Güneş, Ç. (2016). Computer aided design in education and its interpretation through design thinking. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 328-337. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v2i1.315
26. Umuthareketi.izmir.bel.tr. (n.d.). https://umuthareketi.izmir.bel.tr/
27. Wessells, A. T. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory by Bruno Latour. International Public Management Journal, 10(3), 351-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490701515606
28. Whittle, A., & Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor network theory critique?. Organization Studies, 29(4), 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607082223
29. Zellner, M. and Campbell, S. (2015). Planning for deep-rooted problems: what can we learn from aligning complex systems and wicked problems?. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(4), 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1084360
30. Zhang, H., Z, M., & Zhang, W. (2015). Design charrette as methodology for post-disaster participatory reconstruction: observations from a case study in fukushima, japan. Sustainability, 7(6), 6593-6609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066593