Different goals, different criteria: Perspectives of jury members in industrial design competitions in Turkey

In the last decade, popularity of industrial design competitions organized in Turkey has increased significantly. The increase in their number, and the educa- tional scholarships offered to the winner design students and young designers as a prize, led industrial design competitions to become prominent among design promotion activities in Turkey. Industrial design competitions also carry impor- tance in terms of bringing professionals from different fields of expertise togeth- er in their evaluation juries. Considering the increased importance of industrial design competitions, this article explores the perspectives of jury members from various fields of expertise in jury evaluations of industrial design competitions in Turkey. The fieldwork consists of observations in the evaluation juries of five design competitions and interviews with 15 jury members from different fields of expertise. Based on the findings obtained from the fieldwork, the study shows that the relationship between jury members are patterned by their different, in some situations even conflicting, perspectives on both the goals to be achieved with these competitions, and the priorities that shape their evaluation criteria.

Kaynakça

Busseri, M. A., & Palmer, J. M. (2000). Improving teamwork: The effect of self-assessment on construction design teams. Design Studies, 21(3), 223–238.

Design Competitions [Tasarım Yarışmaları]. (2016). Endüstriyel Tasarım. Retrieved from: http://www.tasarimyarismalari.com/ category/endustriyeltasarim/

Düzakın Yolsever, E. (2000). Son Yirmi Yılda Türk Endüstrisinde Türk Tasarımcıları (Endüstri Tasarımı Eğitiminin Beraberinde Endüstrinin Tasarımcıları İstihdam Etme Biçimleri) [Turkish Designers in Turkish Industry During the Last Twenty Years] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara University, İstanbul.

Dykes, T. H., Rodgers, P.A., & Smyth, M. (2009). Towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design practice. CoDesign, 5(2), 99- 116.

Eder, D., & Fingerson, L. (2001). In- terviewing children and adolescents. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Con- text and Method (pp. 181-202). Sage Publications.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2001). Participant Observation and Fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnogh- raphy (pp.352-369). Sage Publications.

Eppinger, S., & Kressy, M. (2002). Interdisciplinary product development education at MIT and RISD. Design Management Journal, 13(3), 58–61.

Erhan, I. (2015). Yarışma ihra- cata ivme kazandırıyor. In İMMİB Endüstriyel Tasarım Yarışmaları 2005- 2015. (pp.114-115). İstanbul: Küçük Mucizeler Yayıncılık.

Erlhoff, M., & Marshall, T. (2008). Design dictionary: Perspectives on design terminology. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.

ETMK [Industrial Designers Soci- ety of Turkey]. (2016). Hakkımızda. Retrieved from http://etmk.org.tr/tr/ hakkimizda/ Feast, L. (2012). Professional per- spectives on collaborative design work. CoDesign, 8(4), 215-230.

Fixson, S. K. (2009). Teaching inno- vation through interdisciplinary cours- es and programmes in product de- sign and development: An analysis at 16 US schools. Creativity and Innova- tion Management, 18(3), 199–208.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five Misunder- standings About Case-Study Research, Qualitative Research Practice, eds. C. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium, D. Silver- man, Sage, London, 420-34.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Quali- tative Researchers an Introduction (4 th ed., pp. 63-182). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Hasdoğan, G. (2016, April). Endüstri ürünleri tasarımı mesleği açısından Türkiye’nin son 27 yılı. Arredamento Mimarlık, (300), 109-111.

Hasdoğan, G. (2012). Characteriz- ing Turkish design through good de- sign criteria: The case of ‘Design Turkey’ industrial design awards. METU Journal of Faculty of Archi- tecture, 29(1), 171-191. doi: 10.4305/ metu.jfa.2012.

Hasdoğan, G. (2009a). The institu- tionalization of the industrial design profession in Turkey: Case study- The Industrial Designers Society of Turkey. The Design Journal, 12(3), 311-337.

Hasdoğan, G. (2009b). Türkiye’de devletin endüstriyel tasarıma yönelik girişimleri ve Endüstriyel Tasarımcılar Meslek Kuruluşu’nun bu girişimlerde- ki rolü. In Tasarım veya Kriz 4. Ulu- sal Tasarım Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı (pp.173-190). İstanbul.

IMMIB. (2016). İmmib Endüstriyel Tasarım Yarışmaları. Retrieved from http://tasarim.immib.org.tr/tr/yaris- malar

Kaygan, P. and Demir, Ö. 2017. Learning about others: Developing an interdisciplinary approach in design education. In E. Bohemia, C. de Bont, & L. S. Holm (Eds.), Conference Pro- ceedings of the Design Management Academy, Vol 5: 1595-1611. London: Design Management Academy.

Kaygan, P. 2014. ‘Arty’ versus ‘real’ work: Gendered relations between in- dustrial designers and engineers in in- terdisciplinary work settings. The De- sign Journal, 17(1), 73-90.

King, N. (2012). Doing template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational re- search: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 426-450). Sage Publica- tions.

KwanMyung, K. & Kun-Pyo, L. (2014, June 16-19). Industrial designers and Engineering designers; Causes of conflicts, resolving strategies, and per- ceived images of each other. Paper Pre- sented at The Design Research Society 2014, Umea, Sweden.

Levi, D. (2007). Group Dynamics for Teams (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyer, D.Z., & Avery, L.M. (2008). Excel as a qualitative data analysis tool. Field Methods, 21(1), 91-112. doi: 10.1177/1525822x08323985

MOSDER. (2016). Mosder Tasarım Yarışması. Retrieved from http://www.mosder.org.tr/index.php/ faaliyetlerimiz/mosder-tasarim-yaris- masi

Oak, A. (2010). What can talk tell us about design?: Analyzing conversation to understand practice. Material Cul- ture & Design Studies, 32, 211-234. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003

Pei, E., Campbell, I. R., & Evans, M. A. (2010). Development of a tool for building shared representa- tions among industrial designers and engineering designers. C o D e s i g n , 6(3), 139–166.

Rasoulifar, G., Eckert, C., & Prud- homme, G. (2014). Supporting com- munication between product de- signers and engineering designers in the design process of branded products: A comparison of three ap- proaches. CoDesign, 10(2), 135– 152.

Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and out- comes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Educa- tion, 34(1), 29–45.

Steinheider, B. (2000). Cooperation in interdiscipllinary R&D teams. In Proceedings of ISATA 2000: Simul- taneous Engineering & Rapid Product Development. Epsom: ISATA-Dus- seldorf Trade Fair, pp. 125- 130.

Tezel, E. (2011). Industrial design in Turkey: A historical segmentation in policy, industry and design. Intercul- tural Understanding, 1, 99-103. TİM. (2011). TİM’in görevleri. Re- trieved from http://www.tim.org.tr/tr/ kurumsal gorevleri.html

Torrisi, V. S. & Hall, A. (2013). Miss- ing communications in interdisciplinary design practice. In J. Lawlor, G. Reilly, R. Simpson, M. Ring, A. Kovacevic, M. McGrath, W. Ion, D. Tormey, E. Bohemia, C. Mcmahon & B. Parkin- son (Ed.), Proceedings of E&P- DE 2013, the 15th International Con- ference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 581-586). Dub- lin, Ireland.

Turkish Design Advisory Coun- cil [Türk Tasarım Danışma Konseyi]. (2014). Tasarım strateji belgesi ve eylem planı. [PDF]. Retrieved from http:// www.tasarimkonseyi.gov.tr/konsey/ uploads/dosya/strateji.pdf

Yim, H., Lee, K., Brezing, A., & Low- er, M. (2014). A design-engineering interdisciplinary and German-Korean intercultural design project course. In M. Laakso & K. Ekman (Eds.), Proceedings in NordDesign 2014 con- ference (pp. 27–36). Espoo: Aalto University.

Kaynak Göster