본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

결과 내 검색

동의어 포함

고급검색

인명/단체명

저자정보 상세정보
인명/단체명을 입력하세요.

키워드

  • 대표어

  • 외국어

-

목차보기

Title Page 2

Abstract 5

Contents 8

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 15

1.1. Research Background 15

1.2. Problem Definition 17

1.3. Theoretical Framework & Motivation 21

1.4. Research Aim & Scope 23

1.5. Thesis Outline 26

REFERENCES 29

Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 33

2.1. Design Innovation & Meaning 33

2.1.1. Design Innovation 34

2.1.2. Design Innovation & Meaning Change 40

2.2. Everyday Design & Meaning Transformation 45

2.2.1. Everyday Design 46

2.2.2. Everyday Design & Transformation of Meaning 47

2.3. Conceptual Blending & Product Semantics 49

2.3.1. Conceptual Blending Theory 49

2.3.2. Design Innovation & Conceptual Blending 58

REFERENCES 64

Ⅲ. RESEARCH APPROACH 71

3.1. Introduction 71

3.2. Research Through Design (RtD) 73

3.3. Everyday Design Product Hacking as Study Design Resource 75

3.4. Staged Approach to Research: Studies A, B and C 76

3.5. Conclusion 80

REFERENCES 83

Ⅳ. STUDY A. IDENTIFICATION & MEASUREMENT OF MEANING TRANSFORMATION 85

4.1. Introduction 85

4.2. Method 87

4.2.1. Study A1: Classification of 100 IKEA hacking cases 87

4.2.2. Study A2: User evaluation of IKEA hacking cases 90

4.3. Results 92

4.3.1. Study A1 Results: Classification of 100 IKEA hacking cases 92

4.3.2. Study A2 Results: User evaluation of IKEA hacking cases 94

4.4. Discussion & Conclusions 97

REFERENCES 102

Ⅴ. STUDY B: INVESTIGATION IN MEANING TRANSFORMATION PROCESS 103

5.1. Introduction 103

5.2. Method 106

5.3. Results 109

5.3.1. Hacking Process 109

5.3.2. Product Hacking 111

5.3.3. Outcomes 114

5.3.4. Review in Post-workshop Interview 117

5.4. Discussion & Conclusions 119

REFERENCES 124

Ⅵ. STUDY C: DESIGN TRANSFORMATION & USER SEMANTIC RESPONSES 126

6.1. Introduction 126

6.2. Method 128

6.2.1. Control Blending on Design Stimuli 129

6.2.2. Design Process of Stimuli 137

6.2.3. Exhibition Set-up 141

6.2.4. Audience 142

6.2.5. Survey 143

6.2.6. Focus Group Interview 144

6.3. Results 148

6.3.1. Blending Degree & Interest 148

6.3.2. Significant Relationship between Novelty & Function 149

6.3.3. Prior Brand Exposure & Identification of Blended Meaning 150

6.3.4. Influential Factors for Semantic Evaluation 152

6.4. Discussion & Conclusions 155

REFERENCES 165

Ⅶ. DISCUSSION 168

7.1. Key findings & Discussion 168

7.1.1. Study A: Identification & Measurement of Meaning Transformation 168

7.1.2. Study B: Investigation in Meaning Transformation 172

7.1.3. Study C: Design Transformation & User Semantic Responses 174

7.2. Discussion & Conceptual Blending for Design 178

7.3. The Construction and Evaluation of Meaning in Design Transformation through Conceptual Blending 188

REFERENCES 195

Ⅷ. CONCLUSION 198

8.1. Conclusion 198

8.2. Limitations & Further Study 203

REFERENCES 209

APPENDICES 210

Appendix A. Taxonomy of 100 IKEA product hacking cases 210

Appendix B. AI Prompt Transcription 229

Appendix C. Blended design concpet Boards 234

Appendix D. Survey Questionnaires of Study C 239

Appendix E. Focus Group Interview Questionnaires on Study C 239

REFERENCES 240

List of Tables 14

Table 4.1. Five Questions for Evaluation 90

Table 6.1. Encoding Criteria for Focus Group Interview Data Analysis 146

Table 6.2. Cross-tabulation Analysis of Novelty & Function 150

Table 6.3. Cross-tabulation Analysis of IKEA Experience and Most Related to the Stool 151

Table 6.4. Percentage frequencies of encoding across design hacks and encoding categories 152

Table 6.5. The Percentage Frequencies mentioned in the Blended Space 153

List of Figures 11

Figure 1.1. Sony Walkman (1979) 16

Figure 1.2. Anna G. cork opener by Alessi (left) and Swatch watch advertisement in 1986 (right) 20

Figure 1.3. Visualization of the thesis outline 28

Figure 2.1. The Brief of Video Games :... 36

Figure 2.2. Kitchen Utensil Designs by Alessi's project, Family Follows Fiction 39

Figure 2.3. The hill-climbing paradigm of innovation 43

Figure 2.4. Three Levels of Everyday Design 47

Figure 2.5. Conceptual Blending Network adopted from Fauconnier and Turner (2002) 50

Figure 2.6. Conceptual Blending of Excalibur Toilet Brush 54

Figure 2.7. Metaphoric mapping adopted from Hekkert & Cila (2005) 56

Figure 2.8. Conceptual Blending Example of Anna G 59

Figure 3.1. Research through Design approach with IKEA hacking 73

Figure 3.2. The overall structure of Research-through-Design approach in this project 77

Figure 3.3. IKEA Hacking Design Exhibition :... 79

Figure 3.4. Design Prototypes by Blending 80

Figure 4.1. Blended theory in meaning change adopted from Kraszewski's (2019) work 86

Figure 4.2. Taxonomy Structure with Example 88

Figure 4.3. Hacking Case Analysis 89

Figure 4.4. Userevaluation question 92

Figure 4.5. Examples of Meaning Innovation Scores:... 93

Figure 4.6. Type A agree vs. disagree (left) and disagreed comparison pairs in Type A : +1/+3 (right) 95

Figure 4.7. Type B agree vs. disagree (left) and disagreed comparison pairs in Type B : +1/+5 (right) 96

Figure 4.8. Type C agree vs. disagree (left) and disagreed comparison pairs in Type C : +3/+5 (right) 97

Figure 5.1. IKEA workshop materials : 15 IKEA Products (top), Presentation material image (bottom... 107

Figure 5.2. Timeline of Design Workshop (left) and Post-workshop Interview(right) 108

Figure 5.3. IKEA Product hacking process 109

Figure 5.4. Material Exploration:... 110

Figure 5.5. Hacking Design Process: A stand light 111

Figure 5.6. Hacking Design Process: a dog accessory holder 112

Figure 5.7. Hacking Design Process: A tea table and A stand light for the workstation 113

Figure 5.8. Hacking design outcomes... 115

Figure 6.1. IKEA Hacking Design Exhibition 129

Figure 6.2. Four hacking designs and degree of conceptual blending: (a) Low-blend Desk Lamp with... 130

Figure 6.3. Experimental Design Stimuli 132

Figure 6.4. Conceptual Blending of Side Lamp (Stool-Lamp) 133

Figure 6.5. Conceptual Blending of Frakta Beanbag (Bag-Beanbag) 134

Figure 6.6. Conceptual Blending of Snack Station (Stool-Table) 135

Figure 6.7. Conceptual Blending of Fidget Rocker (Stool-Rocking horse) 136

Figure 6.8. The Initial Ideation 137

Figure 6.9. The 2nd Ideation outcomes: (a) Coffee Corner, (b) Kitchen Trolley, (c) Cat Tree 138

Figure 6.10. The 3rd Ideation 139

Figure 6.11. Conceptual Model to Control Blending Degree (left) & Idea Selection (right) 139

Figure 6.12. Prototyping 1:.. 140

Figure 6.13. Prototyping 2 141

Figure 6.14. Exhibition Composition:... 142

Figure 6.15. Exhibition Promotion Poster 142

Figure 6.16. IKEA Hacking Design Exhibition: User interaction with hacking designs on-site (left)... 143

Figure 6.17. The Procedure of the Focus Group Interview 145

Figure 6.18. Reported User Interest (Red) and Original Stool Recognition (Yellow) 148

Figure 6.19. Application of CB framework in the analysis of Snack Station design (left), and use image of... 158

Figure 6.20. Application of CB framework in analysis of Frakta Beanbag design (left), and use image of... 160

Figure 7.1. Conceptual Blending Framework for Design-driven Innovation in Meaning 181

초록보기

 From words, and gestures to oureveryday products, we are living surrounded by meanings. The significance of meaning extends profoundly into the realm of design, which is a meaning-making activity that communicates and conveys meanings to users through physical artifacts. Interestingly, the significance of meaning extends beyond design to encompass innovation, with Verganti (2003) introducing the concept of design-driven innovation. Through the analysis of successful products from companies such as Sony, Alessi, and Kartell, Verganti identified that radical transformations in design meaning drive substantial changes in user experience and product typology. Consequently, meaning change has emerged as a primary driver of design innovation.

Despite their importance and promise, the mechanisms of understanding meaning remain elusive and inexplicable. This often leads to a gap between designers' intended meanings and users' interpretations. From there, my Ph.D. project aims to address this gap in communicating meanings between designers and users by elucidating the meaning construction in design transformation.

Interestingly, there is a theory that explains such cognitive operations of understanding new meanings by combining two or more existing concepts from cognitive linguistics, and it is called Conceptual Blending theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998). To address the gap, this research adopts conceptual blending as a theoretical framework to understand how we identify and evaluate the meaning in design transformation. This study extends conceptual blending's relevance beyond linguistics, providing a theoretical framework to understand how transformations in design elements convey new meanings. Supported by empirical validation, this research contributes to design practice by exploring the applicability of conceptual blending theory to design transformation, which might link to design-driven innovation.

Design transformation is wide-ranging, so my research focuses on IKEA product hacking, which repurposes existing designs into new uses through transformations in form and function. Around the transformative nature, which is commonly shared by product hacking, conceptual blending, and design innovation, IKEA hacking is utilized as a design resource, transformative activity, and design implementation of meaning change in this research. Adopting a Research through Design approach, the study aims to enhance conceptual blending's utility in evaluating and generating design meanings, addressing the semantic gap between designers and users.

The exploration is conducted through three studies:

1) Study A (Chapter 4) examines the applicability of conceptual blending theory to assess existing IKEA hacking cases, focusing on meaning change through everyday design transformation. This study derives meaning innovation scoring questions based on CB theory and measures the degree of meaning change, then compares theory-based scores with user semantic evaluations.

2) Study B (Chapter 5) investigates the design transformation process within the context of IKEA hacking in an experimental workshop setting. We observe the design process based on conceptual blending closely to identify moments and factors triggering meaning changes in design.

3) Study C (Chapter 6) focuses on how users identify and evaluate new meanings in design transformation controlled through conceptual blending. I conduct an IKEA hacking design exhibition to gather users' semantic responses on-site, showcasing controlled blending degrees in the designs.

These studies collectively offer a comprehensive exploration of meaning change in design transformation through conceptual blending theory. Empirical results suggest conceptual blending's utility in identifying and evaluating meaning transformation within the dynamic landscape of design. Utilizing conceptual blending theory as a theoretical tool for design could offer enhanced understanding and control of meaning construction in design transformation.

However, conceptual blending theory is not without limitations when applied to design. Rooted in linguistics, it does not always align with design's multifaceted and dynamic nature. This project identifies three key areas for adaptation: delicate manipulation of blending degree in the design process, consideration of utilitarian functionality and usability in meaning transformation, and consideration of prior experience related to product archetypes and brand products.

By identifying these critical areas for design implications, conceptual blending theory can be leveraged to underpin design-driven innovation, elucidating and understanding meaning in design transformation. The blending design approach conducted in this research might also be utilized in design practice fields as a way to communicate abstract meaning with designers and get insights into generating meaning-change designs. By doing so, this thesis tries to mitigate the gap between theoretical findings and empirical validation.

Finally, this research advances the field of design-driven innovation in meaning by demonstrating the applicability and limitations of conceptual blending theory in design contexts, offering a refined model for understanding and applying meaning transformation in design.

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차

권호

기사명 원문보기 기사목차
닫기