INNOVATIVENESS AND INTERIOR DESIGN EDUCATION: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Öz
Although the concept of innovativeness is studied in many various disciplines, it is obvious that innovative attitudes of individuals and organizations have great importance in adapting themselves to changing world order. The field of education, which is one of the academic fields examining innovativeness, approaches this concept as a form of adaptation to the changing world order. The field of education should adapt itself to the changing world order as any other occupational field. The fields which offer design education also should define the qualifications which are gained with this education to adapt themselves to changes. In the field of interior design education, one of the design fields, the qualifications which should be gained at the end of the education process are identified by some specific institutions and organizations. This study, which aims to examine the relationships between innovativeness and learning outcomes of interior design education by considering fifteen qualification levels having been identified by European Council of Interior Architects as gained qualifications during interior design education, has been designed as qualitative study. The study uses survey model of document analysis since it analyzes the data which are available in the literature. As a result of this examination, it was seen that innovativeness is not among these qualifications specified by ECIA. However, when the definitions of the innovativeness and interior design profession and education were examined, it was revealed that many concepts and attitudes used in these definitions are similar.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Innovativeness, Interior Design, Interior Design Education, The Charter of Interior Architecture Training., The Charter of Interior Architecture Training.
Kaynakça
- Barutçugil, İ. (2020). Stratejik inovasyon yönetimi. Kariyer Yayıncılık: İstanbul.
- Cascini, G., Nagai, Y., Georgiev, G. V., Zelaya, J., Becattini, N., Boujut, J. F., Casakin, H., Crilly, N., Dekoninck, E., Gero, J., Goel, A., Goldschmidt, G., Gonçalves, M., Grace, K., Hay, L., P. Le Masson, M. L. Maher, D. Marjanović, D. Motte, P. Papalambros, R. Sosa, Srinivasan V, M. Štorga, B. Tversky, Yannou, B, & Wodehouse, A. (2022). Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research: 10 years later, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2022.2021480
- Cancion, F. (1967). Stratification and risk taking: A theory tested on agricultural innovations. American Sociological Review, 32, 912-927.
- Danko, S. (2003). Designing emotional connection into the workplace: A story of authentic leadership. J. A. A. Thompson ve N. H. Blossom (Eds.). In The handbook of interior design (128–147).
- Demir Başaran, S., & Keleş, S. (2015). Yenilikçi kimdir? Öğretmenlerin yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (4), 106-118.
- Drucker, P. (2017). İnovasyon ve girişimcilik: Uygulama ve ilkeler. İstanbul: Optimist Yayım Dağıtım. Ertürk, S. (1984). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Yelkentepe Yayınları.
- Fitoz, I. (2015). Interior design education programs during historical periods. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 4122-4129.
- Goldsmith, R. E., & Foxall, G. P. (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. L.V. Shavinina (Ed.). In The international handbook of innovation (321-329). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences Ltd.
- Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research,4, 58-65.
- Kaçar, T. (1997). İçmimari ve resimde mekan kavramının irdelenmesi ve De Stijl grubu içinde etkileşimleri. Unpublished master’s thesis. Eskişehir: Anadolu University, Social Sciences Institute.