Mesleki Öz Bilgi Olarak Tasarım Düşüncesi

Yıl 2017, Sayı: 19, 55 - 73, 22.06.2017

Serkan Güneş , Çiğdem Güneş

https://doi.org/10.18603/sanatvetasarim.323085

Cited By: 2

Öz

Meslekler bir birbirine bağımlı bir sistem oluşturur. Bu
sistem içinde meslekler arası çatışmalar daha ziyade yetki çerçevesi dâhilinde
oluşur. Yetki alanlarının belirsizliği hem icrada güçlük hem de diğer mesleklerin
o alana müdahalesini mümkün kılar. Bu nedenle, her meslek alanı, yetki alanının
sınırlarını belirleyecek kendine has özel bilgi kümesini oluşturmalıdır.

Bu çalışma endüstriyel tasarım mesleğinin temel bilgi
kümesine yoğunlaşmaktadır. Bu amaç dâhilinde, çalışma, öncelikle meslek
sosyolojisi hakkında bilgi verecek, mesleki bilginin mesleki farklılaşma
üzerindeki etkisi irdelenecektir. İlerleyen bölümlerde, endüstriyel tasarım
mesleğine ait öz bilgi olan tasarım düşüncesi üzerindeki mesleki tekel
tartışmaları, profesyonelleşme tezleri üzerinden değerlendirilecektir.
Çalışmanın son bölümünde tasarım düşüncesi üzerindeki tekel olma stratejileri
tartışılacaktır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Endüstriyel Tasarım, Tasarım Düşüncesi, Profesyonelleşme

Kaynakça

• Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Abbott, A. (1991). “The Future of Professions: Occupation and Expertise in the Age of Organization”, Research in theSociology of Organizations, 8(1), 17-42.
• Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., ve Blessing, L. T. (2003). “Understanding the Differences Between How Novice and Experienced Designers Approach Design Tasks”. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1-11.
• Ahmed, S., ve Wallace, K. M. (2004). “Understanding the Knowledge Needs of Novice Designers in the Aerospace Industry”. Design Studies, 25(2), 155-173.
• Barber, B. (1963). “Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions”, Daedalus, 92(4), 669-688.
• Birkett, W.P. ve Evans, E. (2005). “Theorising Professionalisation: A Model for Organising and Understanding Histories of the Professionalising Activities of Occupational Associations of Accountants”, Accounting History, 10(1), 99-127.
• Blackler, F. (1995). “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation”, OrganizationStudies, 16(6), 1021-1046.
• Brante, T. (2011). “Professions as Science-Based Occupations”, Professions and Professionalism, 1(1), 4-22.
• Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins Publising.
• deMozota, B.B. (2003). Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. New York: Allworth Press.
• DiMaggio, P. (1989). “Review of the Book The System of Professions, by A. Abbott”, American Journal of Sociology 95(2), 534–535
• Dogan, M. (1999). Marginality. M. A. Runco ve S. R. Pritzker (Editörler). Encyclopedia of Creativity. Kaliforniya: Academic Press. s.179-183.
• Evetts, J. (2013). “Professionalism: Value and Ideology”, Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 778-796.
• Fitzgerald, L. (2016). Interprofessional Interactionsand Their Impact on Professional Boundaries. E. Ferlie, K. Montgomery ve A.R. Pedersen (Editörler). The Oxford Handbook of HealthCare Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. s. 188-209.
• Freidson, E. (1970). Professional Dominance. Şikago: Atherton.
• Foote, NN. (1953). “The Professionalization of Labor in Detroit”, AmericanJournal of Sociology, 58(4), 371-372.
• Gispen, K. (1989). New Profession, Old Order: Engineers and German Society, 1815–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gorman, E. H. ve Sandefur, R. L. (2011). “Golden Age Quiescence and Revival: How the Sociology of Professions Become the Study of Knowledge-Based Work” Work and Occupations, 38(3), 275-302.
• Goode, W. (1957). "Community Within a Community: The Professions" Americani Sociological Review, 22, 194-200.
• Govier, T. (1997). Social Trust and Human Communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
• Greenwood, E. (1957). "Attributes of a Profession",Social Work, 2, 45-55.
• Hatano, G. ve Inagaki, K. (1986). Two Courses of Expertise. H. Stevenson, H. Azuma ve K. Hakuta (Editörler). Child Development and Education in Japan. New York: Freeman. s.262-272.
• Hatano, G. ve Oura, Y. (2003). “Commentary: Reconceptualizing School Learning Using Insight from Expertise Research”,Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26-29.
• Haug, M. (1972). “Deprofessionalization: An Alternate Hypothesis for the Future”, Sociological Review, 20(1), 195–211.
• Hughes, E. (1963). “Professions”, Daedalus, 92(4), 655-668.
• Katzenbach, J. R., ve Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating The High-Performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
• Kelly, T.,Littman, J. ve Peters, T. (2001). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm. New York: Doubleday.
• Kuhlmann, E. (2006). “Traces of Doubt and Sources of Trust: Health Professions in an Uncertain Society”, Current Sociology, 54(4), 607-620.
• Lam, A. (2002). “Tacit Knowledge, Organiztional Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework”, Organizational Studies, 21(3), 487-513.
• Larson, MS. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, California: University of California Press.
• Liikkanen, L. A., ve Perttula, M. (2009). “Exploring Problem Decomposition in Conceptual Design Among Novice Designers”. Design Studies, 30(1), 38-59.
• Lockwood, T. (2009). Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value. New York: Design Management Institute.
• Mclaughlin, J. ve Webster, A. (1998). “Rationalising Knowledge: IT Systems, Professional Identities and Power”, The Sociological Review, 46(4), 781-802.
• Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
• Morris, T.ve Empson, L. (1998). “Organisation and Expertise: An Exploration of Knowledge Bases and the Management of Accounting and Consulting Firms”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(5-6), 609-624.
• Myers, P. (1996). Knowledge Management and Organizational Design. Boston: Butterworth&Heinemann.
• Oppenheimer , M. (1972). “Proletarianization of the Professional”, Sociological Review, 20(1), 213–227.
• Özkan, O., ve Doğan, F. (2013). “Cognitive Strategies of Analogical Reasoning in Design: Differences Between Expert and Novice Designers”. Design Studies, 34(2), 161-192.
• Parsons, T. (1954). Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe: Free Press.
• Parsons, T. (2005). The Social System. Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Polyani, M. (2009). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Popovic, V. (2004). “Expertise Development in Product Design—Strategic and Domain-Specific Knowledge Connections” Design Studies, 25(5), 527-545.
• Rasmus, D.W. (2011). Management by Design: Applying Design Principles to the Work Experience. New Jersey: John Wiley&SonsCo.
• Ritzer, G. (1975). “Professionalization, Bureaucratization and Rationalization: The Views of Max Weber”, Social Forces, 53 (4), 627-634.
• Rothman, R.A. ve Perrucci, R. (1971). “Vulnerability to Knowledge Obsolescence Among Professionals”, Sociological Quarterly, 12 (2), 147-158.
• Schwartz, D. L.,Bransford, J. D., ve Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer. J. Mestre (Editör). Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective. NC: Information Age Publishing. s.1-51.
• Sonnenwald, D. H. (1996). “Communication Roles That Support Collaboration During the Design Process”. Design Studies, 17(3), 277-301.
• Stempfle, J., ve Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). “Thinking in Design Teams-An Analysis of Team Communication”. Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496.
• Stones, C., ve Cassidy, T. (2007). “Comparing Synthesis Strategies of Novice Graphic Designers Using Digital and Traditional Design Tools”. Design Studies, 28(1), 59-72.
• Svensson, L.G. (2006). “New Professionalism, Trust and Competence”, Current Sociology, 54(4), 579-593. Young, M. ve Muller, J. (2014). Introduction and Framing the Issues. M. Young, ve J. Muller. (Editörler). Knowledge, Expertise and Professions. Oxon: Routledge s.3-17.
• Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing.