Page - 123 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

relevant to the product and rate how much relevant it was and finally, would they prefer to use it or not. Average of the participants’ age was 33; 20 of them female, nine were male, and 20 of them were married, nine were single. Their professions included: engineering (software, electronics, mechanical, telecommunication, textile), product design, interior design, graphic design, academic, design student, attorney, banking, housewifery, news reporting, technical service, archive specialist, medicine and public accountancy. While selecting the products from the generic ones; it was aimed not to cause to the misunderstanding about the utility of them. Nevertheless, during the interviews, the participants asked the material of the product, how to use, how it works, how to hold, etc. That was a limitation of the study. Surely the responses would be more practical if the real products could be used in the survey. The other limitation of the study was about the dispersion of the results. Since the participants chose the words to rate; the evaluation was not through the same concepts for all the products. Thereby a comparison between the products was not made; instead, the assessment was independent for each product. The acquired data was listed for each product separately. The classification of products was according to: • the objective judges' analysis of biophilic or non-biophilic / biophobic • the operational definition made by the researcher before the study • Kellert's chart of A Typology of Biophilic Values (Kellert, 1993, p. 59). During the interviews with the judges it was foreseen that it would not be possible to label a product as ‘fully biophilic' or not; rather it would vary according to different features of the product. That is why user survey had the rating method. The words which have already been specified as biophilic or not by the objective judges. They also were classified under the titles of operational definition and Kellert's chart by matching the highlights of the contents. Thereby a product could be evaluated how biophilic it was according to which aspect. For example, if a product was found ‘aesthetic' %85 in the average of the responses of the users; the concept of ‘aesthetic' is; • biophilic according to the objective judge group • under the title of Aesthetic in Kellert's table • indicating the category of Form in the operational definition. It means that product was found %85 biophilic in the context of Aesthetic and Form. This demonstration represents a summary of the method. Indeed, it was not as direct as the concept of aesthetic for the other concepts. Term Definition Function Utilitarian (functional, primitive, comfortable, safe, healthy, balanced) Practical and material exploitation of nature Physical sustenance/ security Naturalistic (natural, alive, interesting) Satisfaction from direct experience/ contact with nature Curiosity, outdoor skills, mental/ physical development 123