Advertisement

Creating learning bridges through participatory design and technology to achieve sustainability in local crafts: a participatory model to enable the transfer of tacit knowledge and experience between the traditional craftsmanship and academic education

  • Behiç Alp Aytekin
  • Kerem Rızvanoğlu
Article
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

While technology-based developments have produced a wealth of information and experience, the rate of interaction between the academic institutions and craftsmanship establishments is observed to decrease gradually. The purpose of this study is to enable the transfer of tacit knowledge and experience between these two foundations by creating “learning bridges” through the use of technology in order to achieve sustainability in local crafts in long term. The qualitative multi-method approach adopted, which included the use of participatory design methodology and ethnographic field study in the Mardin. The study indicated that “learning bridges” could be formed and thus facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge and experience between the academy and workshops through the use of technology. A sustainable educational model presenting a new interactive experience was recommended in light of the findings.

Keywords

Computer-assisted learning Communication and interaction design Facebook for educational purpose Participatory design Sustainability in local crafts Tacit knowledge transfer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The full version of this study was completed as a doctoral thesis project for the Ph.D. Program in Media and Communications Studies at Galatasaray University’s Graduate School of Social Sciences in Istanbul, Turkey. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Professor Kerem Rızvanoğlu, Ph.D. (Galatasaray University) for his valuable contributions and guidance throughout the study. I would also like to extend my thanks to Associate Professor Serhat Güney, Ph.D. (Galatasaray University) and Associate Professor Asım Evren Yantaç, Ph.D. (Koç University) for their additional support and contributions. Also, I owe a big thanks to Nurhak Polat, Ph.D. (Bremen University) to her important contributions.

References

  1. Amin, A. T. M. N. (1987). The role of the informal sector in economic development: Some evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh. International Labour Review/International Labour Office, 126, 611–622.Google Scholar
  2. Assmann, J. (2001). Kültürel Bellek: Eski Yüksek Kültürlerde Yazı, Hatırlama ve Politik Kimlik. (A. Tekin Trans.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.Google Scholar
  3. Aytekin, B. A. (2015). Yerel Zanaatların Sürdürülebilirliği İçin Akademi-Atölye Arası Örtük Bilgi Aktarım Süreçlerinin Katılımcı Tasarım Yöntemi ve Teknoloji Desteği ile Yeniden Düzenlenmesi. (Unpublished doctoral thesis) Galatasaray University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  4. Bakır, K. (2014). Demokratik Eğitim: John Dewey’in Eğitim Felsefesi Üzerine. İstanbul: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  5. Bal, H. (1991). John Dewey’in Eğitim Felsefesi. İstanbul: Kor Yayın.Google Scholar
  6. Bas, D. (1988). Cost-effectiveness of training in developing countries. International Labour Review/International Labour Office, 127, 355–369.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining costumer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan and Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. Blomberg, J. L., & Burrell, M. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The Human computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, 2nd ed., (pp. 965–986). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  10. Blomberg, J. L., & Henderson, A. (1990). Reflections on participatory design: Lessons from the trillium experience. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 1990 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 353–359).Google Scholar
  11. Broadie, S., & Rowe, C. (2002). Aristotle Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. M. (1996). Encountering others: Reciprocal openings in participatory design and user-centered design. In Humancomputer interaction (pp. 285–290). Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Cater, J. K. (2011). Skype a cost-effective method for qualitative research. Rehabilitation Counselors & Educators Journal, 1, 10–17.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, P. (2000). Internet as medium of qualitative research. South African Journal of Information Management, 2(2/3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), In the nature of insight (pp. 329–363). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two Ph.D. researchers. Qualitative Research, 14, 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey, J. (1907). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. In F. W. Garforth (Ed.), John Dewey: Selected educational writings (pp. 181–196). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (1961). Philosophy of education (problems of men). New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
  21. Dewey, J. (1996). Demokrasi ve Eğitim: Eğitim Felsefesine Giriş. (T. Yılmaz Trans.). İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1997a). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone Book.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1997b). How we think. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. (2013). Deneyim ve Eğitim. (S. Akıllı, Trans.). Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  25. Dormer, P. (Ed.). (1997). The culture of craft: Status and future. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analayzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Boylston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  28. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2008). Narrative ethnography. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 241–263). New York, NY: Guildford.Google Scholar
  29. Güney, H. S., & Rızvanoğlu, K. (2009). Bir Topluluk İletişim Modeli: İnternette Çocuk Radyosu. Selçuk İletişim, 6(1), 200–213.Google Scholar
  30. Güvenç, B. (1997). Kültürün ABC’si. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  31. Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hockey, J. (2002). Interviews as ethnography? Disembodied social interaction in Britain. In N. Rapport (Ed.), British subjects: An anthropology of Britain (pp. 209–222). Oxford, NY: Berg.Google Scholar
  34. Kaya, Ç. (2009). Tasarım Olarak Ev Eksenli Üretim. 4. Ulusal Tasarım Kongresi: Kriz Veya Tasarım, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 8-9 Ekim 2009, İstanbul. Google Scholar
  35. Kaya, Ç. (2011). Designer as enabler: A methodology of intervention for designers. İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  36. Kaya, Ç., & Gelmez, K. (2013). Grassroots empowerment with design in a community of practice in Turkey. Journal of Arts & Communities, 5(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaya, Ç., & Yançatarol, B. Y. (2011). Design in informal economies: Craft neighborhoods in İstanbul. MIT Design Issues, 27(2), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2001). Experiential learning theory bibliography 1971–2001. Boston, MA: McBer and Co.Google Scholar
  39. Kottak, C. P. (2001). Antropoloji: İnsan Çeşitliliğine Bir Bakış. Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  40. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lahti, H., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2005). Towards participatory design in craft and design education. CoDesign, 1(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lahti, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Piloting participatory designing within a collaborative learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 185–207.Google Scholar
  43. Lave, J. (1993). The Practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marion, T., Fixson, S., & Meyer, M. H. (2012). The problem with digital design. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 63–68.Google Scholar
  46. Merritt, S., & Stolterman, E. (2012). Cultural hybridity in participatory design. New York: ACM, PDC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42, 837–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  52. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  53. Quartiroli, A., Knight, Sharon M., Etzel, Edward F., & Monaghan, M. (2017). Using Skype to facilitate team-based qualitative research, including the process of data analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile phone communication: Extending Goffman to mediated interaction. Sociology, 43, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reubens, R. (2010). Bamboo canopy: Creating new reference-points for the craft of the Kotwalia community in India through sustainability. Craft Research, 1, 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rızvanoğlu, K. (2007). Grafik Kullanıcı Arayüzlerinde Metaforların Kültürlerarası Kavranışı Fransa ve Türkiye’de Bir E-Öğrenim Sitesi Üzerinden Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma. (Unpublished doctoral thesis) Marmara University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  57. Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (2012). Challenges and opportunities in contemporary participatory design. Design Issues, 28(3), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanoff, H. (2006). Multiple views of participatory design. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 131–143.Google Scholar
  59. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Schwandt, T. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sennett, R. (2013). Zanaatkar. (M. Pakdemir, Trans.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.Google Scholar
  62. Shin, M. J., & Westland, S. (2017). Digitizing traditional cultural designs. The Design Journal, 20(5), 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Şişman, O., Ünlü, C. E., & Kaygan, H. (2009). Fate of Turkish traditional crafts: A case of economic, legal and political marginalization. Making Futures, 1, 96–104.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, R. C., & Kjersgaard, M. G. (2014). Design anthropology in participatory design from ethnography to anthropological critique?. New York: ACM, PDC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sullivan, J. R. (2012). Skype: An appropriate method of data collection for qualitative interviews? The Hilltop Review, 6, 54–60.Google Scholar
  66. Treadaway, C. (2007). Digital crafting and crafting the digital. The Design Journal, 10(2), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ünlühisarcıklı, Ö. (2001). Training on the job in İstanbul: A study of skills acquisition in carpentry and car-repair workshops. International Review of Education. Internationale Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft. Revue Internationale de Pedagogie, 47(5), 443–458.Google Scholar
  68. Weller, S. (2017). Using internet video calls in qualitative (longitudinal) interviews: some implications for rapport. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wood, N. (2006). Transmitting craft knowledge: Designing interactive media to support tacit skills learning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.Google Scholar
  71. Wood, N. (2007). Discourse through making: Eliciting knowledge to support craft skills learning. In European academy of design conference. İzmir, Turkey.Google Scholar
  72. Wood, N., & Rust, C. (2003). Design for tacit learning: An investigation of design strategies for multimedia supported learning in the crafts. In Proceedings of European academy of design conference, University of Barcelona. Google Scholar
  73. Wood, N., Rust, C., & Horne, G. (2009). A tacit understanding: The designer’s role in capturing and passing on the skilled knowledge of master craftsmen. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 65–78.Google Scholar
  74. Yağız, B. Y., & Kaya, Ç. (2013). Tasarım Eğitiminde Zanaatın Yeri Üzerine Bir Önerme. Unpublished manuscript, İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  75. Yair, K., Press, M., & Tomes, A. (2001). Crafting competitive advantage: Crafts knowledge as a strategic resource. Design Studies, 22, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yantaç, A. E. (2009). Engelli Bir Ortamda Kullanılan Mobil Bilgi-Destek Araçlarının İdeal Arayüz Tasarımı için Özel Grafik Arayüz Tasarım Kurallarının Belirlenmesi. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  77. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Visual Communication Design Department, Faculty of CommunicationAdnan Menderes UniversityAydınTurkey
  2. 2.Informatics Division Department, Faculty of CommunicationGalatasaray UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations