Page - 121 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

found biophilic. The living beings are also constructed by the amorphous units which have variable sections rather than the perfect geometrical ones. • They have categorized the products which they regarded kitsch under the title of biophobic. It varied from person to person which product was kitsch, but the state of being kitsch was biophobic for them who mentioned it. That can be related to the approaches of the prevailing education system of the profession. • Another expression which was defined as biophilic is "being able to follow the flow of water", "to see the spring of the water". • The participants were tended to choose the wood in a comparison between wood and stone; even they both are considered in the same category of being ‘natural'. Wood was found warmer and more biophilic. Since ‘bio' indicates the living beings, the stone is not ‘bio'; but the wood was once. Thus the participants did not express that kind of difference when they were asked to reason their choice. It may lead to think that if the human mind can unconsciously recognize that material came from a being which had been alive before. • In some occasions, some of them have labeled a product biophilic while some said biophobic or they could agree to describe a product as biophilic or biophobic but with different arguments. The innate dispositions may be in charge when deciding if it is biophilic or not; however, the differentiation of justifications may come from the differences in cultural and professional backgrounds. After the review of the interviews with the group of objective judges, both a word pool and a product pool were available. The words which were categorized as ‘biophilic', ‘non-biophilic' and ‘biophobic' have been listed separately and determined the conflicted ones. Those words/ concepts were classified according to the table "Elements and Attributes of Biophilic Design" by Stephen Kellert with considering the explanations under each item. Some words especially the examples of products did not fit under any title and stayed out. Each word that was told by the participants was placed under the titles of Kellert's table and categorized by the concepts of "biophilic", "non-biophilic" and "biophobic". The categorization of Kellert's was remained inadequate because of: • The word pool was a work of free-association brainstorming. That is why all the words/ concepts are not appropriate for the categories that Kellert put forward. • Kellert's classification was for the architectural and urban design, so it remained insufficient for the product-specific design in some aspects like scale and specific design elements. Products did not fit the titles like "geomorphy", "filtered diffused light", the ones about the space and light, etc. • Some of the titles remained empty because there were no words about them in the interviews even though they could be related to the product design (e.g., Central Focal Point, Light as Shape and Form, Complementary Contrasts). The review showed that there is a need to add categories like "human scale/ human-friendly", "naturality", "liveness/animalism", "energy". Moreover, also it needs to elaborate the category of "Simulation of Natural Features" according to product design. Kellert has another classification for the biophilia values. Compared with the previous chart, this 121