gujspb Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning 2147-9534 Gazi Üniversitesi Industrial Product Design Endüstriyel Ürün Tasarımı Theory Building in Multi-Paradigmatic Discipline of Industrial Design https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4377-528X Güneş Serkan GAZI UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0826-9023 Yavuz Merve Gazi Üniversitesi 03 31 2024 12 1 87 100 01 23 2024 03 28 2024 Copyright © 2013, Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning 2013 Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning

The complex and multidimensional nature of industrial design activity requires the consideration of multiple perspectives in its exploration. Therefore, design theories have often been developed using various perspectives from various disciplines. While this has facilitated the expansion of knowledge in the field, the expansion is often comprised of singular theories that claim universality despite their limited scope, resulting in conflicting and contradictory theories. As a result, the inability to establish communication between different theories appear as a significant barrier to cumulative knowledge building in the field. The study explores the field of industrial design in terms of paradigm conceptualization, a criterion for distinguishing what is considered scientific or not, in the philosophy of science of the 20th century. Since a nomothetic theory cannot be built in multi-paradigmatic disciplines, a research strategy for industrial design has been proposed, suggesting the hybrid use of activity theory and grounded theory. This strategy aims to construct partial theories that facilitate communication among different paradigms and support the cumulative knowledge in the field.

 Industrial Design Multiparadigmality Activity Theory Grounded Theory [1] Redström, J. (2017). Making Design Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 94. [2] Friedman, K. (2003). Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approaches, and Methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507-522. [3] Findeli, A. (1998). A Quest for Credibility: Doctoral Education and Research in Design at the University of Montreal. Doctoral Education in Design, 1. [4] Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. T. (2014). Anthology of Theories and Models of Design. London, UK: Springer London Limited. [5] Kaptelinin, V. ve Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 333. [6] Love, T. (2002). Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: some philosophical issues. Design studies, 23(3), 345-361. [7] Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 1. [8] Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. K. (2014). Constraints and Conditions: Drivers for Design Processes. In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations (pp. 395-415). London: Springer London. [9] Lektorski, V. A. (2016). Özne, Nesne, Biliş 1. Ed. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap. [10] Horkheimer, M. (2018). Akıl Tutulması 3. Ed. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.