Fiziksel Ürünler ve Dijital Temsilleri: Sosyal Medyada Okul Çantaları ile Etkileşim

Abstract

Bu çalışma tasarım nesnesi, kullanıcı özne ve sosyal pratiklerin türetilmesi bağlamında ürünlerin dijital temsillerinin rolünü araştırmaktadır. Tasarım nesnesi, kullanıcı özne ve sosyal pratiklerin oluşturduğu bir ekosistemde var olur. Dijital teknolojilerin yaşamın her alanında yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte fiziksel ürünlerle etkileşimimiz, yani onları edinme, kullanma, anlamlandırma süreçlerimiz, fiziksel olmayan çevrimiçi dijital temsillerden geçmektedir. Tasarım nesnesinin ve dijital ortamların birbirlerini ve dolayısıyla kullanıcı süjeyi ve pratikleri yeniden ürettikleri anların incelenmesinde, Bourdieu’nun Habitus kavramının, Dijital Habitus olarak uyarlandığı, dijital pratikleri de sosyal üretime dahil eden kavramsallaştırması temel alınmıştır. Bu bağlamda günlük yaşam pratiklerinde fizikselliğiyle temel bir role sahip okul çantaları ve çantalar üzerine sosyal medya paylaşımlarına odaklanılmıştır ve dijital iletişimin içine doğmuş Z kuşağını temsil eden 23 lise öğrencisi ile mülakatlar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kimi durumlarda kullanıcıların çevrimiçi ortamları aktif bir şekilde fiziki, ‘gerçek’ olan dünyalarını şekillendirmek için kullandıkları görülmüştür. Bazı durumlarda ise dijital ortamın nesnel dünyaya etkisi daha saklıdır ya da kullanıcılar aktif bir şekilde bunu aramadan gerçekleşir. Çarpıcı olan aslında bu etkileşimlerin ürün tasarımcıları tarafından öngörülmemiş olmasıdır, ancak dijital ile entegre yaşamlarda kendini göstermiştir. Fiziksel ürünler ve dijital temsillerin arasındaki ilişki, tasarım sürecinde ürün etkileşiminin farklı ve güncel bir boyutunu dahil etmek adına faydalı olacaktır.

Keywords

• Dijital Habitus
• Dijital Temsil
• Nesnellik
• Okul Çantası
• Sosyal Medya
• Süje

Physical Products and Their Digital Representations: Social Media Interaction via School Bags

Abstract

This study explores the role of digital representations of products with respect to reproduction mechanisms of designed objects, including doings with objects – practices – and the user subjects. To understand these relationships, practice theory that explains objects, subjects and practices as co-constituted is instrumental. The study builds on the concept of digital habitus, an appropriation of Bourdieu’s habitus that includes digital technologies within the reproduction patterns of social practices and so designed objects. Focusing on school bags as physical objects and their digital representations on social media, data is collected by social media harvesting and interviewing 23 high school students. The ways in which designed objects, digital environments, and the user reproduce one another is analysed. It is found that in some cases digital representations are actively utilised to interfere with the real world and in some cases the effect of digital representations on the real world is rather obscure and passive. What catches attention is that these moments of interactions are not designed into these products, rather they are enacted as users live in the digital habitus. Hence, the study aims to provide insights to guide product designers in contemporary product ecosystem that includes digitalized circulation of meaning, by pointing out the ways in which digital representations circulate in the physical realm of our interaction with designed objects.

Keywords

• Digital Habitus
• Digital Representations
• School Bags
• User Subject
• Object-Subject

References

1. Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1984a). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1984b). The habitus and the space of life-styles. In J. J. Gieseking, W. Mangold, C. Katz, S. Low, & S. Saegert (Eds.), The people, place, and space reader, Routledge, pp. 139–144. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315816852
4. Boyd, D. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites, Routledge, pp. 39–58.
5. Davis, K. & Gardner, H. (2013). The app generation: How today's youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. Yale University Press.
6. Davis, K., & Weinstein, E. (2017). Identity development in the digital age: An Eriksonian perspective. In M. F. Wright (Ed.), Identity, sexuality, and relationships among emerging adults in the digital age, pp. 1–17. Information Science Reference/IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1856-3.ch001
7. Descartes, R. (1637). Discourse on method: Part one. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–16.
8. Ditchfield, H. (2020). Behind the screen of Facebook: Identity construction in the rehearsal stage of online interaction. New Media & Society, 22(6), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819873644

9. Gibson, W. (1997). Neuromancer. Penguin Putnam.
10. Gök, M. O. (2021). Sanal ortamda giysi tasarım süreci: Project Müze örneği. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, (28), pp. 263–277.
11. Güneş, S., & Güneş, Ç. (2018). From evolution IoT to revolution of design profession. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning, 6(1), pp. 57–69.
12. Güneş, S. (2022). Tasarımda öznenin diyalektik anları ve nesneleştirme süreci. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, -(30), pp. 53-70.
13. Hoefel, F. & Tracy, F. (2018). 'True gen': Generation Z and its implications for companies. Consumer Packaged Goods.
14. Huang, J., Kumar S., and Hu, C. (2021). A literature review of online identity reconstruction. Front. Psychol. 12:696552. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696552
15. Ignatov, G. & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the digital, information. Communication & Society, 20(7). 950-966. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301519
16. Kahraman, A. D. (2020). The relationship of Generation Z with digital technology. Uluslararası Anadolu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2).
17. Kiernan, L. & Ledwith, A. (2014). Is design education preparing product designers for the real world? A study of product design graduates in Ireland. The Design Journal, 17(2), pp. 218-237. DOI: 10.2752/175630614X13915240576022
18. Kolko, J. (2005). New techniques in industrial design education. In 6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design Proceedings. http://www.jonkolko.com/writingNewTechniques.php
19. Kolko, J. (2011). Thoughts on interaction design. Morgan Kauffman. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-61348-9 Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
20. Miller, D. (2005). Materiality. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.
21. Liang, H., & Zhu, J. J. H. (2017). Big data, collection of (social media, harvesting). In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0015
22. MacKinnon, R. C. (1995). Searching for the Leviathan in usenet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.). Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 112-137.
23. Miller, D. (2005). Materiality. Duke University Press.
24. Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity Press.
25. Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies, 27(3), pp. 229-265
26. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), pp. 3-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
27. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), pp. 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
28. Roth, Y. (2014). Locating the “scruff guy”: Theorizing body and space in gay geosocial media. Annenberg School for Communication. 8, pp. 2113–2133.
29. Schatzki, T. (2010). Materiality and social life. Nature + Culture, 5(2), pp. 123-149. DOI:10.3167/nc.2010.050202
30. Shove, E., Watson M., Hand M. & Ingram J. (2007). The design of everyday life. Berg Publishers.
31. Turkle, S. (1999). Cyberspace and Identity. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), pp. 643–648. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655534
32. Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. New York, NY: Atria.
33. Veblen, T. (1967). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Viking Press.
34. Vieta, M. (2005). Rethinking life online: The interactional self as a theory for internet-mediated communication. Iowa Journal of Communication.
35. Vitelar, A. (2019). Like me: Generation Z and the use of social media for personal branding. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 7, (2), pp. 257-268. doi:10.25019/MDKE/7.2.07.
36. Wei, K. K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), pp. 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273