Seite - 120 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

and so on. The method for searching the biophilic features of products has consisted of two phases. First, there was the need for a group of objective judges to set the biophilic product features. The latter one is to crosscheck it with the users. A product pool was made to use in the research of this study which includes 95 images of various products. The following specifications were the key elements to select the products. The products might have one or more of the features below. • Formal reference to the natural and living beings • Natural and/or artificial materials • Reference to social status and/or prestige • The images of the same or similar products in front of different backgrounds (natural or artificial backgrounds) • The importance of the function (if it heads off the other features or not) • Permission to the user for interaction, intervention, inclusion to active usage process • Different color and pattern alternatives of the same/similar products A set of interviews was held with the objective judge group through the product pool. The members of the group were academic and/or professional designers who took education in a degree of industrial design. There were 40 members; 24 of them were women, 16 were men; 31 were academics, nine were professional. Their work experience was in a range of 3 to 45 years; the average was 14 years. They were asked to create a word pool by free association with the concepts of ‘biophilic', ‘non- biophilic' and ‘biophobic'. First, they were briefly introduced to the concepts and the studies about them in the literature. Then they created a concept pool which included words, abstract notions, adjectives, adverbs, phrases, anything about the concepts come to their mind about each title. Then they evaluated the products as biophilic, non-biophilic, biophobic or none of them. Highlights from the interviews: • They frequently said: ‘means neutral' for the concept of ‘non-biophilic'. It was found hard to understand and place in the frame of the study. It took place with the title of ‘biophobia’ instead of an independent concept in the user survey study not to cause any vagueness. • The review showed that there are more common and consistent expressions for ‘biophobic' than the ‘biophilic’. It can be related to the vital role of the phobia in the evolutionary survival. • Each participant has considered the products according to their professional specialties, and the effects of this were visible in their responses. For example, if one had profession on materials, then s/he interpreted the biophilia through the concept of 'material' and evaluated the products according to their materials. • Although they have seen the products through their professional designer identity instead of their user identity, they were apparently under the effect of their tastes and value judgments. Even they noticed the inconsistencies in their expressions; they frequently named their favorites as biophilic. • Variations in the cross-section of the structural frames (esp. seating units) were mostly 120