From Space to Place: The Formation of Place Attachment in the Interior Architecture Studio

Abstract

The design studio, as the core of many design-based disciplines, is also the central learning environment of interior architecture education. This study aims to understand how the bonds that interior architecture students establish with the studio—a collaborative ecosystem where they learn, design, produce, share, and experience both individually and collectively throughout their education—transform it into a meaningful place, and how the social, cultural, and physical dimensions of the studio interrelate. The study was conducted with 16 volunteer interior architecture and environmental design students. During this process, focus group interviews were carried out with the students, and the data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The findings reveal that while social and collective experiences strengthen the sense of community and support belonging, certain physical aspects may negatively affect daily practice, potentially weakening attachment to the studio. Understanding this reciprocal relationship between the studio and place attachment, and consciously shaping learning environments accordingly, is one of the essential conditions for cultivating future designers. The study demonstrates that place attachment within the studio becomes possible through the overlap between its social potentials and physical adequacies and argues that such attachment directly influences students’ learning processes and the construction of their professional identities, offering recommendations in this context.

Keywords

• Interior architecture studio
• Design studio
• Studio culture
• Place attachment
• Learning environment

Ethical Statement

This research was conducted with the approval of the Hacettepe University Rectorate Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee, dated July 5, 2024, and numbered E-44513094-300-00003633139.

Thanks

This research was derived from the doctoral dissertation currently being conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author at the Hacettepe University Institute of Fine Arts, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design. The Gemini 3.1 Pro version was utilized for language support during the writing process of the study. We would like to thank Suna Eylül Pekcan for her contributions during the proofreading, spelling, and grammar check stages of the research.

Mekandan Yere: İç Mimarlık Stüdyosunda Yere Bağlılığın Biçimlenişi

Abstract

Tasarım stüdyosu tasarım tabanlı pek çok disiplinin merkezi olduğu gibi iç mimarlık eğitiminin de merkezindeki öğrenme ortamıdır. Bu çalışma, iç mimarlık öğrencilerinin eğitim hayatları boyunca hem bireysel hem kolektif olarak öğrendikleri, tasarladıkları, ürettikleri, paylaştıkları, deneyimledikleri bir ekosistem olan stüdyo mekânıyla kurdukları bağların stüdyoyu nasıl anlamlı bir yere dönüştürdüğünü ve bununla birlikte stüdyonun sosyal, kültürel, fiziksel boyutlarının birbirleriyle nasıl ilişkilendiğinin anlaşılması amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışma 16 gönüllü iç mimarlık ve çevre tasarımı öğrencisiyle yürütülmüştür. Bu süreçte öğrencilerle odak grup görüşmesi gerçekleştirilmiş olup veriler yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik analizle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular öğrencilerin topluluk hissini pekiştirerek aidiyeti destekleyen sosyal ve kolektif deneyimleri ortaya çıkarırken bir yandan belli fiziksel boyutların günlük pratiği olumsuz etkilemesiyle stüdyoya duyulan bağlılığın zayıflayabileceğini göstermektedir. Stüdyo ve yere bağlılık arasındaki bu karşılıklı ilişkiyi anlamak ve bu doğrultuda öğrenme mekânlarını bilinçli olarak şekillendirmek, geleceğin tasarımcılarını yetiştirmenin en temel koşullarından biridir. Bu çalışma stüdyodaki yere bağlılığın, mekânın sosyal potansiyelleri ile fiziksel yeterlilikleri arasındaki örtüşmeyle mümkün olabildiğini göstermekte, bağlılığın öğrencinin öğrenme süreçlerini ve mesleki kimlik inşasını doğrudan etkilediğini temel alarak bu bağlamda öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• İç mimarlık stüdyosu
• Tasarım stüdyosu
• Stüdyo kültürü
• Yere bağlılık
• Öğrenme mekanı

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma Etik Kurulunun 05.07.2024 tarihli ve E-44513094-300-00003633139 sayılı izin kararı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Thanks

Bu araştırma, ikinci yazar danışmanlığında birinci yazar tarafından Hacettepe Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü İç Mimarlık ve Çevre Tasarımı Anabilim Dalında yürütülmekte olan doktora tezinden üretilmiştir. Çalışmanın yazım sürecinde dil desteği amacıyla Gemini 3.1 Pro sürümünden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmanın son okuma, yazım ve imla kontrolleri aşamalarındaki katkılarından dolayı Suna Eylül Pekcan'a teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Al Maani, D. ve Roberts, A. (2023). An attempt to understand the design studio as a distinctive pedagogical setting. The International Journal of Design Education, 17(2), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v17i02/31-44
2. Alarabi, S. (2026). Dynamics of first home selection for new families in Riyadh: Analyzing behavioral trade offs and spatial fit. Buildings, 16(3), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16030570
3. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Brooks: Cole.
4. Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 395-407. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878
5. Barstow, C. (2025). Reimagining space, time, and belonging: visualizing Henri Lefebvre’s trialectic space through creative practice. The International Journal of the Image, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8560/CGP/v16i01/39-62
6. Biliş Özgün, S. ve Mutman Uluegin, D. (2025). Home and belonging in digital nomad culture as a new lifestyle: The backpacked home. Mimarlık ve Yaşam Dergisi, 10(2), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1651480
7. Boys, J. (2010). Towards creative learning spaces: Re-thinking the architecture of post-compulsory education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203835890
8. Bozdoğan, S. ve Benek, S. (2021). Modern coğrafi düşüncede mekân ve yer kavramlarının teorik temelleri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Coğrafya Dergisi, 43, 177-195. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2021-892074

9. Canter, D. (2023). Readings on the psychology of place: Selected works of David Canter. Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003313052
10. Choi, S. H. (2022). Observing inter-objects: The vernacular spatial culture of Hong Kong through a place attachment lens (Yayın no. 31869225) [Doktora tezi, The Chinese University of Hong Kong]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
11. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K. ve Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107.
12. Çorluluoğlu, G. ve Karakaya, A. F. (2022). On the interaction between shared design studios and interior architecture students: A new spatial experience with extended reality for supporting place attachment. Journal of Design Studio, 4(spi2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1149634
13. Friedman, K. (1997). Design science and design education. University of Art and Design Helsinki https://doi.org/10.25916/sut.26255147
14. Giuliani, M. V. ve Feldman, R. J. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80179-3
15. Glaros, A., Newell, R., Benyam, A., Pizzirani, S. ve Newman, L. L. (2024). Vertical agriculture's potential implications for food system resilience: Outcomes of focus groups in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Ecology and Society, 29(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14547-290112
16. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. ve Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436
17. Gülcan, C. (2021). Nitel bir veri toplama aracı: Odak (focus) grup tekniğinin uygulanışı ve geçerliliği üzerine bir çalışma. Mersin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), 94–109. https://izlik.org/JA45FC32UZ
18. Hamilton, O. (2018). Commoning interior design pedagogy. Interiors, 9(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/20419112.2019.1565678
19. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. Harper & Row.
20. İlerisoy, M. (2023). Nitel bir araştırma yöntemi: Yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik analiz. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(46), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1176444
21. James, O., Delfabbro, P. ve King, D. L. (2021). A comparison of psychological and work outcomes in open-plan and cellular office designs: A systematic review. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020988869
22. Jorgensen, B. S. ve Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners’ attitudes towards their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
23. Kopec, D. A. (2018). Environmental psychology for design. Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.
24. Kyle, G., Graefe, A. ve Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269654
25. Lefebvre, H. (2020). Mekânın üretimi (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık. (Orijinal eserin yayımlanma tarihi 1974)
26. Li, J. Y. (2025). Dwelling deeply with less: An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) of urban minimalism [Doktora tezi, Wilfrid Laurier University]. Scholars Commons @ Laurier. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/2841
27. Low, S. M. ve Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_1
28. Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.002
29. Manzo, L. C. ve Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286160
30. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2020). Algılanan dünya (Ö. Aygün, Çev.). Metis Yayınları. (Orijinal eserin yayımlanma tarihi 1948)
31. Nigbur, D. ve Chatfield, S. L. (2025). Naming themes in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): Recommendations and examples. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241312792
32. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. Rizzoli.
33. Oluka, A. (2025). Phenomenological research strategy: Descriptive and interpretive approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 14, 725. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1
34. Osborne, L., Franz, J., Savage, S. ve Crowther, P. (2011). Dichotomy in the design studio: Adapting to new blended learning environments. A. Garcia Ricos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovations içinde (ss. 5579-5588). IATED.
35. Özçam, I. (2022). Fenomenolojik yaklaşımın mimaride tasarımcı kimliği ve malzeme kullanımı üzerinden okunması. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, 7(2), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1052777
36. Özeren, E. B. ve Dinç Kalaycı, P. (2025). The reflection of architectural design studio practices on student experiences: A phenomenology-based focus group study. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2025.2584642
37. Palmer, M., Larkin, M., de Visser, R. ve Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(2), 99-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880802513194
38. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
39. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. ve Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), 84-107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
40. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. ve Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8
41. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
42. Riskiyanto, R. (2023). Material-based learning in architecture design studio: From ‘Beaux-Arts’ to ‘Bauhaus’ into current educational era. Journal of Architectural Design and Urbanism, 5(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.14710/jadu.v5i2.18448
43. Sadio, R., Henriques, A., Nogueira, P. ve Costa, A. (2025). Barriers and facilitators to older adults' engagement in social prescribing: A qualitative study using focus groups. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(13), 4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134780
44. Scannell, L. ve Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
45. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.
46. Seamon, D. (2015). The phenomenological contribution to interior design education and research: Place, environmental embodiment, and architectural sustenance. J. A. Thompson ve N. H. Blossom (Ed.), The handbook of interior design içinde (ss. 415–431). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118532409.ch24
47. Seamon, D. (2023). Phenomenological perspectives on place, lifeworlds, and lived emplacement: The selected writings of David Seamon. Routledge.
48. Shin, H., Sharma, A., Nicolau, J. L. ve Lee, J. (2025). Transformative outcomes of workcation: Satisfaction, place attachment, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 65(3), 673-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875251318317
49. Simonsen, K. (2005). Bodies, sensations, space and time: the contribution from henri lefebvre. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 87(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2005.00174.x
50. Smith, J. A., Larkin, M. ve Flowers, P. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage.
51. Smith, J. A. ve Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (ss. 51-80). SAGE.
52. Stedman, R. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16(8), 671-685.
53. Stokols, D. ve Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People and places: A transactional view of settings. J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment içinde (ss. 441–488). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Strangward, C. (2025). On regular urban recreational walking: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of being and place [Doktora tezi, Birkbeck, University of London]. https://doi.org/10.18743/PUB.00056977
55. Suddick, K. M., Cross, V., Vuoskoski, P., Galvin, K. T. ve Stew, G. (2020). The work of hermeneutic phenomenology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920947600
56. Tomkins, L. ve Eatough, V. (2010). Reflecting on the use of IPA with focus groups: Pitfalls and potentials. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), 244-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903121491
57. Tuan, Y. F. (2001). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. (Orijinal eserin yayımlanma tarihi 1977)
58. Twigger-Ross, C. L. ve Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0017
59. Ulubay, S. ve Önal, F. (2020). Mekân üzerine sorunsallar ve kavrayışlar: Fenomenoloji kuramının yirminci yüzyılın mekân anlayışına etkileri. Megaron, 15(4), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2020.28482 Usta, G. (2020). Mekân ve yer kavramlarının anlamsal açıdan irdelenmesi. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 10(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.7456/11001100/003
60. Vella, J. (2025). Reclaiming dialogue: Focus groups and hermeneutic phenomenology. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 21, 811-816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsap.2024.11.002
61. Vinsel, A., Brown, B. B., Altman, I., ve Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial displays, and effectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1104–1115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077718
62. Waks, L. J. (2001). Donald Schön’s philosophy of design and design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011251801044
63. Watts, B. R. (2025). An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): Reflections on navigating uncertainty in design [Doktora tezi, Old Dominion University]. https://doi.org/10.25777/d16c-j496
64. Williams, D. R. ve Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/49.6.830
65. Williams, J. (2017). Design studio: A community of practitioners? Charrette, 4(1), 88–100.
66. Willis, D. G., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K. ve Cohen, M. Z. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(9), 1185-1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916645499
67. Yemini, M., Engel, L. ve Ben Simon, A. (2025). Place-based education – a systematic review of literature. Educational Review, 77(2), 640-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2177260
68. Zohora, F. T. ve Chowdhury, S. (2026). Tracing nomadic imprints in sedentary settings: A case study on the housing and settlement patterns of the Bede community. Built Heritage, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-025-00241-9