TASARIM DEĞERLENDİRMESİNİ GENİŞLETMEYE YÖNELİK ÖLÇÜM TEORİLERİ İLE ÇİZİLMİŞ HERMENÖTİK BİR ÇERÇEVE

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 27 - 46, 31.03.2021

Deniz Oskay Ethem Gürer

Öz

21. yüzyıla bakıldığında ölçmenin, insan bilimleri ve doğa bilimlerini içeren tüm deneysel ve teorik araştırmaların temeli olduğu söylenebilir. Öte yandan, tasarım süreci disiplinlerarası ve çok katmanlı yapısı ile hem insan bilimleri hem de doğa bilimlerinin anlayışlarını içermektedir. Tasarım süreçlerine Alexander (1964) ve Archer (1968) gibi araştırmacılar tarafından önerilmiş farklı yaklaşımlar bulunması, tasarım aktivitesi için ortaklaşılmış bir payda olmadığını göstererek tasarımın muğlak doğasını ortaya koymaktadır. Çok katmanlı bir yapıya sahip olan tasarım süreçlerinin en muğlak aşamalarından biri, bir yanı ile objektif değerlendirme ve analiz içermesi, diğer yanı ile yorumlama ve soyutlama gibi subjektif yargılar içeriyor oluşu ile tasarım değerlendirme süreci olarak ele alınabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, tasarım değerlendirme sürecini, ölçme biliminden gelen anlayışlarla genişletmek için hermenötik bir çerçeveyi açıklığa kavuşturmaktır. Yunanca 'metrein' kelimesinin sözlük bilimsel tarihi, 'metrein' kelimesi ile ölçmeyi bir değerlendirme ve yargı olarak ifade etmektedir. Bu durum, ölçme aktivitesinin bir değerlendirme süreci ile birlikte kurulduğunu göstermekte ve tasarım değerlendirmesinden bahsederken, ölçme bilimlerinden yararlanmanın potansiyellerini açıklığa kavuşturmak amacıyla disiplinlerarası bir yaklaşım benimsemeyi gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu makale, tasarım süreçlerindeki değerlendirici eylemlerin ölçme ve yorumlama teorileri ile yeniden formüle edilmesi gerektiğini göstermek amacıyla, tasarım değerlendirme süreci açısından ölçülebilirlik problemini yeniden ele almayı ve tasarım kararlarında nicel ve nitel değerlemelerin bütünsel bir yeniden ele alınışı önermekte ve hali hazırda tasarım değerlendirmesinde örtük olarak kullanılmakta olan anlayışları ölçüm teorilerinin anlayışları ile birlikte formüle etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tasarım değerlendirmesi, Tasarım süreci, Hermenötik, Ölçme bilimi

A HERMENEUTICAL FRAMEWORK DRAWN WITH MEASUREMENT THEORIES TO EXTEND DESIGN EVALUATION

Öz

In the 21st century, it can be argued that measurement is considered as the basis of all experimental and theoretical researches including human sciences such as sociology and psychology and natural sciences both physical and life sciences, whereas design process can be considered both in the field of human sciences and natural sciences due to its cross disciplinary and multilayered constitution. There are different approaches to design processes offered by many pioneers of the field such as Alexander (1964) and Archer (1968). This plurality of proposals shows that there is not a singular and absolute consistency while supporting the ambiguous nature of design processes. Design evaluation can be regarded as one of the most ambiguous design sub-processes since it both includes objective evaluations and analysis, yet it includes subjective understandings such as interpretation and abstraction as well. Measurement activity emerges in disparate stages of a design process, such as doing site surveying, calculating project budget and feasibility studies can be considered as objective measurements and making questionnaires, site queries and sustainability outcomes as subjective measurements. Depending on this fact, design evaluation can be regarded as one of the most controversial design sub-processes in terms of its measurability because of the co-occurrence of objectivity and subjectivity. In that regard, the paper aims to clarify a hermeneutical framework to expand the design evaluation process with theories from measurement science since the studies in measurement science can guide the measurement activity in design evaluation with its constitution of a clear understanding of information and its qualitative features. By doing so, both objective and subjective understandings in design evaluation are addressed with a hermeneutical process for clarification of the evaluation within the dual nature of hermeneutics. The lexicological history of the Greek word ‘metrein’ confirms that design evaluation includes measurement inherently since ‘metrein’ conveys measurement as evaluation and judgment. Thus, discussing design evaluation obviously necessitates discussions about measurement as well and a cross-disciplinary approach should be adopted for such an endeavor, considering the importance of measurement in design evaluation. Therefore, a hermeneutical design evaluation process is formulated by using the understanding of measurement theories since they are implicitly active in design evaluation. This paper proposes to retake the problem of measurability, specifically through an examination of evaluation processes, to show that evaluative actions in design processes can and must be re-formulated with the understanding of theories of measurement and hermeneutics to build up a holistic and integrated negotiation of quantitative and qualitative information in design decisions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Design evaluation, Design process, Hermeneutics, Measurement science

Kaynakça

• Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press.
• Berka, K. (1983). Measurement: its concepts, theories and problems. D. Reidel Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7828-7
• Bernstein, R. J. (2009). Objektivizmin ve rölativizmin ötesi: bilim, hermenoytik ve praxis. Paradigma Press.
• Cartwright, N., Bradburn, N., & M., Fuller, J. (2016). A theory of measurement. Working Paper. Centre for Humanities Engaging Science and Society (CHESS).
• Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press.
• Dilthey, W. (1999). Hermeneutiğin doğuşu, (D. Özlem, Ed.). Hermeneutik ve tin bilimleri. Paradigma Press.
• Finkelstein, L. (2003). Widely, strongly and weakly defined measurement. Measurement, 34(1), 19-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2241(03)00018-6
• Gadamer, H. (1975). The problem of historical consciousness. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 5(1), 8–52.
• Gadamer, H. (2009). Hakikat ve yöntem ikinci cilt. Paradigma Press.
• Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Criteria for design evaluation: a process oriented paradigm. (Y. E. Kalay, Ed.). Evaluating and predicting design performance, 67-79. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hand, David J. (2016). Measurement: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Hesse, M. (1964). The explanatory function of metaphor. (Y. Bar-Hillel, Ed.). Congress of the International Union for the Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 249-259. North-Holland Publishing.
• Kuhn, T. (2018). Bilimsel devrimlerin yapısı (10th ed.). Kırmızı Press.
• Kuhn, T. (1973). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. (T. Kuhn,Ed.). The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press.
• Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Architectural Press.
• Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: the design process demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press.
• Michell, J. (2020). Representational measurement theory: is its number up?. Theory&Psychology, 1(21), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320939817
• Moles, A. (2018). Belirsizin Bilimleri (5th ed.). Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Press.
• RIBA. (2020). Plan of Work 2020 Overview. https://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Test-resources-page/Additional-Documents/2020RIBAPlanofWorkoverviewpdf.pdf
• Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Snodgrass, A. & Coyne, R. (1992). Models, metaphors and the hermeneutics of designing. Design Issues, 9(1), 56-74. https://doi:10.2307/1511599
• Snodgrass, A. (1996). Can design assessment be objective?. Architectural Theory Review, 1(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264829609478260
• Snodgrass, A. & Coyne, R. (1996). Is designing hermeneutical?. Architectural Theory Review, 2(1), 65-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264829609478304
• Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677-680.