Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Designed Objects
__________________________________________________________________________
designprinciplesandpractices.com
EDITORS
COMMUNITY EDITOR
ADVISORY BOARD
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
COPYRIGHT
For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit
www.designprinciplesandpractices.com/journals/collection.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
ORDERING
Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at
www.ijg.cgpublisher.com.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made in
this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein.
Introduction
regarding cultural contactencourages and accepts ethnocultural diversity, which allows cultural
pluralism3 to exist. The multiculturalist ideology has necessitated the need to understand the
complex multidimensionality of acculturation. Acculturation is a concept used in numerous
disciplines to describe patterns and processes of cultural adaptation typically occurring after
contact takes place between two or more different cultures (Berry 1980).
Immigrants undergo the acculturation process with regard to many different aspects of
culture including beliefs, behaviors, and material culture (Gbadamosi 2012; Sam and Berry
2010). Ethnic traditions and values are expressed through material culture and important to the
maintenance of ethnocultural identity. 4 Dress5 products are a type of material culture.
Chattaraman, Rudd, and Lennon (2010) explain that apparel6 products communicate an
individuals ethnocultural identity.
A review of the findings in acculturation literature has shown that individuals choose to
acculturate within the host culture to varying degrees and with different strategies. Berry (2005),
for example, discussed several acculturative strategies that encompass varying levels of
involvement with the host culture: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. 7
Integration is generally regarded as a strategy with positive outcomes, as well as an option that
allows for maintaining ones heritage culture while in daily interactions with other groups
(Berry 2005, 705). There will also be varying degrees of how much individuals wish to visually
identify with their home ethnocultural group once in the acculturation process. For example,
Gbadamosi (2012), in her study of clothing consumption among Black African women in
London, noted that individuals resolve the wide range of clothing choices available to them in a
variety of ways. It is important to consider how the design process can support the acculturation
process because dress products whose design processes are informed by culture can provide a
source of integration for acculturating individuals.
32
Lin 2007; Mullet and Park 2011). Therefore, designers need a clear understanding of cultural
features to participate in both the global market and local design endeavors.
The increasing migration of people around the world creates a variety of challenges for the
design of cross-cultural products.11 Cultural value is added to an object by incorporating cultural
features.12 There can be difficulty in adding cultural value via cultural features in such a way that
meets the needs of more than one ethnocultural group. There are also many factors that affect
how individuals choose to relate to their home culture during the acculturation process. For
example, Sam and Berry (2010) explain that where and with whom an individual lives can affect
the acculturation process and the degree to which heritage13 culture is maintained. How often an
individual has contact with other individuals affiliated with his or her ethnocultural group is
another such factor. Design is, therefore, a complex negotiation of cultural features.
Cultural Features
The foundation of several existing cultural product design models includes the systematic
integration of cultural features into the design of an object. Leong and Clark (2003) and Norman
(2004) have defined three layers of cultural features to include in the design process. Leong and
Clark (2003) identified three levels on which culture can be understood: tangible, behavioral, and
intangible (See Figure 1). The tangible level is defined by the visual and material aspects of
culture. The behavioral level is defined by the social and behavioral aspects of culture. The
intangible level is defined by the spiritual, emotional, and philosophical aspects of culture. The
understanding of a culture that results from the examination of cultural levels can be translated
into the following culture design features: visceral, behavioral, and reflective (see Figure 1).
Visceral design is characterized by physical and visual attributes. Behavioral design is
characterized by use and function. Reflective design is characterized by the personal and cultural
meaning of a design (Lin 2007). Mullet and Park (2011) provide examples of how design
features are applied to dress products: textile patterns or shapes are examples of visceral design,
athletic shoes with high heels are an example of behavioral design, and the use of a color on a
dress product with a culturally-specific connotation is an example of reflective design.
Norman (2004) discusses the importance of the three levels of cultural features in the context
of an argument that the emotional aspects of design are of as much importance as the practical
aspects of design. Emotion and cognition work together when it comes to how individuals
consume and interact with products; products can evoke powerful personal or symbolic meaning
that can, in turn, guide ones thinking process. Norman proposes that there are three levels of
design that stimulate emotion and cognition from a potential user: visceral, behavioral, and
reflective. While the names of the design features are the same, Norman defines them slightly
differently than Leong and Clark. Visceral design involves the consideration of physical
appearance. Behavioral design involves the consideration of usability and function. Reflective
11
Cross-cultural product refers to a product that is designed with the intent to meet the needs of more than one
culture/ethnocultural group.
12
Lin (2007, 45) explains that cultural features are the unique characteristics that can be embedded into a product both
for the enhancement of its identity in the global market and for the enhancement of the individual consumer experience.
13
Heritage is defined as representations of culture in material and non-material form that provide information about past
and present beliefs, values, and behaviors of importance to an ethno-cultural group.
33
design involves the message that the product sends to the user and others, personal
remembrances evoked by the product, and self-image.
Figure 1: An Illustration of the Relationship Between Cultural Features and Design Features
34
Figure 2: Lins Cultural Product Design Model, Including the Steps in the Cultural Design Process
Source: Adapted from Lin 2007, 47
Situating the Reflective Pyramid Process among Existing Cross-Cultural Design Models
The authors used Lins Cultural Product Design Model and Mullet and Parks Cross-Cultural
Design Framework for Apparel Design as a foundation for the development of a new crosscultural model for dress product design: The Reflective Pyramid Process Model. This new design
process examines the traditional cultural features of a home culture, the acculturative processes
14
Mullet and Park (2011) chose to describe the three levels of design features as tangible, behavioral, and reflective
levels. Previous scholars (e.g., Leong and Clark 2003; Norman 2004) working with these levels used the term visceral
to describe design features associated with the outer tangible level. Though the terminology is slightly different, the
intended meaning is the same.
15
Though the step-by-step process involved in this framework is not fully articulated in the article, Mullet and Park
(2011) explicitly identify the first step in the process. The authors of the present work summarize subsequent steps to the
extent that they could be ascertained from the explanation of the process in Mullet and Parks article.
35
of individuals merging into a host culture, and fashionable elements of the host culture that
connect to the home culture. The end result is a cross-cultural dress product that can assist
individuals in maintaining their cultural heritage and acculturating to a host culture.
The RPP Model includes the following steps (see Figure 3): (1) Selection of home culture,
(2) broad research of home culture, (3) determination of design focus, (4) design and design
feature planning, (5) creation of design prototype, (6) collection of cultural contact data, (7) data
analysis, (8) connection of literature and cultural contact data findings, and (9) modification of
design prototype. If further modifications are needed, the designer can repeat any of the steps as
necessary. The title of reflective pyramid was chosen because the process begins with a broad
review of sources that inform a prototype, members of the home culture reflect upon the
appearance and function of the prototype, and then the designers reflect upon how all of the data
can contribute to a comprehensive design that meets the needs of an ethnocultural group. The
two parts of this process are represented in pyramid shapes (see Figure 3).
Lins model and Mullet and Parks framework were chosen to inform this design process
because of their use of the three levels of cultural understanding and their demonstrated use for
designing cross-cultural products. Mullet and Parks framework was particularly important to
include because it is devoted to the specific type of product under investigation. While it is
important to apply design processes, it is also necessary to assess and critique them. The RPP
Model was conceived in the context of assessing these two models. Strengths and weaknesses of
the models were identified and used, in part, to inform the RPP Models development. There are
three ways to contextualize the RPP Model among these (and other) existing models: the (1)
development of a more systematic and detailed design process, (2) use of cultural contact and
features as the foundation of the design process, and (3) definition of the design process end goal.
36
The use of the three levels of cultural understanding as a framework for grounding a design
in cultural features was identified by the authors as a common strength among existing cultural
product design processes. Several scholars have demonstrated that the three levels of cultural
understanding and their corresponding design features (see Figure 1) provide a strong foundation
for cultural product design (see Hsu, Lin, and Lin 2011; Lin 2007; Mullet and Park 2011).
Therefore, the authors used these three levels of cultural understanding as the foundation of their
proposed design model.
37
38
acculturation literature. The case study is presented in subsequent sections that explain (1) how
each step in the design process was applied to the case study and (2) the literature that informed
each step.
39
features. Further scholarly sources were sought as needed. Leong and Clark (2003) cited the
value of having a holistic picture of the host culture in the design process; obtaining a holistic
picture is rooted in comparative cognition because it provides a source of comparison for the
information gathered in step two. Another part of this step is to determine where the design will
be worn, which is informed by the story-telling approach in the interaction step of the Lin model
(see Figure 2). This step also includes the research of recent/current trends and material culture in
the host culture that align with the design focus. The work of Littrell, Ogle, and Kim (1999)
informed the research of fashion trends; they conclude that ethnic apparel should incorporate
elements of current fashion in their study of consumer segments for the marketing of ethnic
apparel.
A product category of headdress was chosen. The inspiration for the Althea Headdress came
from the connection between two key sources: (1) traditional Armenian wedding headdress
designs (e.g., the Akhalzikha headdress, a small fez-like cap with attached decorative coins)
(Lind-Sinanian and Lind-Sinanian 2010) and (2) American body jewelry trends. Electronic
fashion databases (e.g., Fashion Snoops) and fashion magazines were used to research body
jewelry. The literature revealed that it has become popular to adorn several areas of the body
(e.g., the shoulders, legs and head) with jewelry in American culture, specifically within the
bohemian style tribe (see Nelson 2013). The authors also observed that American popular culture
has been affected by Armenian American acculturative processes related to dress. For example,
celebrity Kim Kardashian wore an Armenian-inspired headpiece for her 2011 wedding (see
Krupnick 2011), which contributed to the ongoing trendiness of body jewelry.
40
18
See Leong and Clark (2003, 56) for more information about the cultural cognition-design criteria-cultural integration
framework.
41
A list of all design features included in the prototype was created. When deciding upon
design features to include in the prototype, the authors selected those with a stronger American
influence because some sources (e.g., Takooshian 2000) discussed the acculturation process of
younger Armenian Americans who do not wish to participate in traditional aspects of their
heritage/home culture. It is important to note that several pieces of information from the
scholarly literature overlapped among the three design levels. To ensure the clarity of how
literature is applied to the design, each design element of the headdress is discussed individually
with an explanation of how it meets one (or more) of the design feature levels.
The Althea Headdress design, as a whole, represents all three levels of design. The overall
appearance of the headdress represents a visceral design feature because it is reminiscent of the
historic Akhalzikha bridal headdress (Lind-Sinanian and Lind-Sinanian 2010). The headdress
fulfills behavioral design because it is used to perform rituals before a wedding ceremony. For
example, single women wave the headdress over the head of the bride for luck in her marriage
(Hintz 2004). Another ritual includes the throwing of pomegranate seeds at the wedding (Hintz
2004; Petrosian and Underwood 2006), which is similar to the throwing of rice in American
culture. Materials meant to represent traditional displays of wealth in historic Armenia (e.g.,
silver and gems) are emphasized on the headdress as a display of heritage, which fulfills both
behavioral and reflective design. The headdress represents the brides golden bracelet, which
fulfills reflective and behavioral design because it is a meaningful cultural symbol associated
with tradition that also served the function of a mobile bank in historic times (Lind-Sinanian and
Lind-Sinanian 2010).
Behavioral design is also represented in the customizability of the headdress. Each aspect of
the headdress is customizable and removable in order to suit American brides, Armenian
American brides, or other customers who do not wish to include certain materials. The
customization option also extends to the transformative aspect of the headdress; the headdress
transforms into a necklace that can be worn for everyday occasions as a representation of
Armenian heritage and reflective design (see Figure 5d). The option to customize the Althea
Headdress was also informed by Leong and Clark (2003), who stated that individuals choose to
express the aspects of culture that are most valuable to them. Customization provides the wearer
with an opportunity to change the design so that it accurately reflects their position within the
acculturation process.
The blue gem on the brides forehead fulfills visceral design because it is visually
identifiable as a traditional Armenian evil eye talisman and fulfills behavioral design because it
serves the function of protecting against evil spirits (see Figure 5a). A superstitious aspect of
Armenian culture is also represented by the blue gem because of the cultural belief in evil spirts
and the need for protection from them (Hintz 2004). Red jewels are also included as a visceral
interpretation of semi-precious jewels that were found on traditional Armenian bridal
headdresses (Lind-Sinanian and Lind-Sinanian 2010). Pomegranate seeds are a popular visual
icon in Armenian culture, so the red beads are meant to viscerally resemble pomegranate seeds
and reflect their symbolic importance (see Figure 5b). The red beads are supported by reflective
design because Armenian superstition includes the linking of pomegranate seeds with fertility
(Hintz 2004; Petrosian and Underwood 2006).
Diamonds fulfill visceral design because they are a shiny gem found in and exported from
Armenia (Hintz 2004). Behavioral design is fulfilled by diamonds because they indicate wealth
and social status; they are used on American bridal wear for the same reasons. Diamonds
symbolize love and marriage in American culture, which fulfills reflective design. Pearls serve as
visceral design because they are a common decorative feature found on traditional Armenian
bridal headdresses. Pearls fulfill behavioral design because they are worn by the bride to fulfill a
queen-for-a-day status bestowed upon the bride for her wedding (Lind-Sinanian and LindSinanian 2010).
42
The seven chains that cascade down the back of the headdress are meant to symbolize the
traditional seven day celebration with extended family before the wedding; reflective design is
represented by the seven chains because they represent an aspect of Armenian heritage (see
Figure 5b). The traditional Armenian wedding headdress is characterized by elements of
adornment, including silver chains, that encircle the face (Hintz 2004; Lind-Sinanian and LindSinanian 2010). The headdress fulfills visceral design because the cascading chains resemble
American wedding veils and create an option for Armenian brides to wear the headdress in lieu
of a veil or with a veil. A lace-like embroidery pattern created with silver chains fulfills visceral
design because it resembles the lace trim that accompanies traditional Armenian wedding dress.
Intricate embroidery patterns were discussed as an indication of wealth and social status in the
literature. Only wealthy individuals could afford such decoration, so behavioral design is
fulfilled. The center chain that lies upon the top of the head represents behavioral design because
it replaces the traditional turret hat for stability and support (see Figure 5a) (Lind-Sinanian and
Lind-Sinanian 2010).
Coins fulfill visceral design because they are found on traditional Armenian bridal
headdresses (Lind-Sinanian and Lind-Sinanian 2010). The coins were traditionally located
around the frame of the face and the forehead (Hintz 2004; Lind-Sinanian and Lind-Sinanian
2010), but the headdress features coins on the back to adorn the seven cascading silver chains
(see Figure 5b). Reflective design is fulfilled because good fortune is a common wish for married
couples and Armenian superstition includes a connection between coins and good fortune (Hintz
2004; Petrosian and Underwood 2006).
design to the participants with an explanation of the design choices and the meanings that had
been attributed to Armenian culture in the scholarly literature. Participants were then asked a
series of open-ended questions with the intent to elicit assessment of the design. A list of sample
focus group questions can be found in Table 1.
44
The second theme was the addition of materials to the Althea Headdress. The main critique
of the headdress was that the quantity of each decorative material applied to the design was
sparse by the participants standards. Lala exclaimed it needs to be more busy and Seda
quickly added, yeah, morebigger! Lucine also emphasized that additional silver chains
needed to be added along the forehead and under the chin of the Althea Headdress; this
suggestion was made with the intention to assist the design in looking more Armenian. One
author showed the participants how one of the chains could be removed or flipped over to the
front to be positioned under the chin. In this way, the design included elements of flexibility to fit
both varying levels of participation in Armenian tradition and individual preferences. The
customization of materials is an intentional feature of the design that the participants appreciated.
The third theme was the shifting of focus. The Althea Headdress was designed with the
focus on the back of the head so as to draw a visceral connection between the two cultures. The
authors had designed the headdress with the focus on the back of the head; a series of chain
strands that resembled an American wedding veil were draped in a cascading pattern so as to
draw a visceral connection between the two cultures. However, the participants expressed that
the design would reflect Armenian culture more successfully if the focus was brought to the front
where more flashy materials (e.g., beads, coins, gemstones, and pearls) were placed. Lucine
suggested that the authors add another chain that draped across the forehead. If a veil is desired,
Lala said that it would be acceptable to attach a veil to the headdress. All of the participants felt
that the representation of a veil across the two cultures was a successful aspect of the design
because, as is, the chains represent a veil or a fabric veil could be attached to a modified version
of the design.
The fourth theme was the representation of heritage in the design. Heritage was represented
in three ways: (1) the passage of Armenian family history through material culture, (2) the
importance of family in Armenian culture, and (3) showcasing Armenian heritage through
popular culture. Armenian family history is passed down through written and spoken word and
material culture. Lucine talked about a white wedding headdress with coins that her grandmother
had worn for her wedding and again for her 25th wedding anniversary. The white headdress was
inherited by a family member 200 years ago and remains in the family. An unexpected
behavioral design benefit of the headdress was that it could be worn to represent heritage upon
subsequent wears for wedding anniversaries.
Another important aspect of heritage fulfilled by the Althea Headdress is the maintenance of
tradition. Lucine said that she would buy this design, if slightly modified and made with solid
silver, and present it to her daughter for her wedding day. Possible use as a piece of heritage
jewelry was an unexpected reflective benefit of the design. She added that passing possessions
down to children or other family members to maintain heritage is important in Armenian culture;
it is common to inherit family heirlooms because of the Armenian cultures tumultuous history.
When individuals fled from Turkey during the Armenian genocide in the early 20 th century,
Lucine explained that individuals buried their possessions in the ground for safe keeping and
carried one special object with them as a cultural keepsake that was kept in the family. The
symbolism of the multi-day celebrations with the seven chains cascading down the back of the
headdress was well-received by participants; they spoke of the importance of celebrations with
family and friends over many days and expressed that this was an innovative way to symbolize a
traditional aspect of Armenian weddings.
The authors learned that heritage is still a significant component of Armenian culture; it is
even infused into popular culture. When discussing the general appearance of the headdress, the
majority of the participants took out their cell phones and began showing photos of the popular
contemporary Armenian singers known as Anush and Inga Arshakyans. The women explained
that what set these singers apart is their commitment to modernity, while incorporating
traditional Armenian dress into their stage costumes and music videos.
45
46
Figure 6: Illustration of the Modified Althea Headdress Design Based Upon Participant Feedback and a Review of the
Connection Between Scholarly Literature and Participant Feedback
47
One source of crucial information in the design process was the cultural contact that
included a focus group with Armenian American women. The authors assessment of existing
cross-cultural product design models revealed a lack of in-depth contact with the home culture.
Mullet and Parks model only incorporates the designers feedback during the design process and
information about his or her own culture. Lin incorporated some consultation of ethnocultural
with group members in the form of product user-based observation, but did not explicitly include
in-depth conversations with product users. Lin recommended that designers consult members of
the culture being studied when creating an object. The RPP Model has incorporated this
recommendation as a required step in the process. The authors concluded that this is, in fact, a
vital step in creating a successful cross-cultural product.
Limitations
There are limitations to the use and application of the model in this case study that are important
to note. The RPP Model is experimental and has only been tested once thus far in the context of
the Althea Headdress case study. Further assessment is needed to determine the extent of its
efficacy. The authors identified improvements that could be made to existing cross-cultural
product design models in the context of a controlled learning environment. The model could be
improved with further assessment of the models proposed by Lin and Mullet and Park in a more
applied consumer research scenario. The authors tested the model with a small convenience
sample of Armenian American participants from one region of the United States. The focus
group participants stated that there is a large Armenian diasporic population in California; the
authors recommend that the model be tested with a sample from this population. In so doing, the
user feedback dataset would become more valid and comprehensive. Connectedly, the authors
recognize that it is a limitation to only test the model with one pairing of home and host cultures;
it is recommended that other home and host culture pairings be tested as well.
While the authors conducted a broad search of literature, they were limited by what was
available based upon geographic proximity and what had been published about the topic by
reputable sources and in the authors primary language of English. The literature review revealed
that Armenian culture has not been studied in great depth. Few sources have addressed material
culture and, more specifically, dress. However, it is important to note that the availability of
literature may not be a limitation for all cultures that are researched using this design process.
The authors contend that the findings from the cultural contact data still render the RPP Model
useful even if the available literature is weak or incomplete. The authors also had difficulty in
deciphering the appearance of Armenian material culture objects because photos were sparse and
the text of a source often mentioned the name of an object without providing a description of its
use or appearance.
The literature also indicates that there is a difference between the acculturative processes of
older and younger individuals within an ethnocultural group. As a result, the headdress was
designed with younger Armenian American women in mind. The participants in the Althea
Headdress case study were adult women of various ages who had largely worked through the
acculturation process and had a more traditional connection to Armenian culture. It would be
useful to test this model by also including the participants children or other adolescent Armenian
Americans to compare preferences among different age groups and generations. Another
limitation is that the current model was created with only dress products in mind and used Mullet
and Parks framework to inform specific steps in the design process. However, it is possible that
the model would apply to other product categories as well. Further testing of the model could
explore this possibility.
48
The RPP Model calls for the designer to be from the host culture; in the case study, the
authors self-identified as members of the American ethnocultural group. There may be additional
negotiation involved in the design process, but the authors agree with Mullet and Park (2011)
that designers from one cultural background can design for other cultural backgrounds as long as
information about the other culture is available.
Concluding Invitation
The Althea Headdress case study suggests that the RPP Model shows promise for future use in
cross-cultural dress design. The goal of the design process is to produce a product that promotes
cultural heritage and incorporates the merging of a home and host culture in a distinguishable and
meaningful way. The Althea Headdress showcased successful inclusion of Armenian heritage,
represented the veil and cultural symbols in a way that can be meaningful across cultures, and
provided opportunities to customize the design according to ones preferences and individual
acculturation process. The authors even discovered that there are other possible uses for the
Althea Headdress by Armenian American women, such as a heritage piece worn for
anniversaries or to be put away for a daughter to wear on her wedding day.
Future research may include further application of the RPP Model in the context of other
cultures and product categories. The authors also suggest the inclusion of this model in design
process courses at the university level, as it is important to equip students with a process-oriented
approach to design. The authors advocate for further testing of the RPP Model and invite
interested authors to join this endeavor. As a result, the efficacy and precision of cross-cultural
product design could be refined.
REFERENCES
Berry, John W. 1980. Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation. In Acculturation: Theory,
Models and Some New Findings, edited by Amado M. Padilla, 925. Boulder:
Westview Press for American Association for the Advancement of Science.
. 2005. Acculturation: Living Successfully in Two Cultures. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 29: 697712.
. 2011. Integration and Multiculturalism: Ways towards Social Solidarity. Papers on
Social Representations 20: 2.121.
Berry, John W., and Saba Safdar. 2007. Psychology of Diversity: Managing Acculturation and
Multiculturalism in Plural Societies. In Appreciating Diversity: Cultural and Gender
Issues, edited by Aneta Chybicka and Maria Kazmierczak, 1936. Cracow: Oficyna
Wydawnicza Impuls.
Brooks, Stephen, (Ed). 2002. The Challenge of Cultural Pluralism. Westport: Praeger.
Chang, Tsen-Yao, and Fang-Wu Tung. 2013. Re-engaging with Cultural Engagement:
Innovative Product Design of Cultural Field Experience. Cross-Cultural Design:
Methods, Practice, and Case Studies/Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8023: 39.
Chattaraman, Veena, Nancy A. Rudd, and Sharron J. Lennon. 2010. The Malleable Bicultural
Consumer: Effects of Cultural Contexts on Aesthetic Judgements. Journal of
Consumer Behavior 9: 1831.
Ekandem, Josh. 2009. Designing for Cultures: An Approach for Product Design Using
Components of Regional Culture. Masters thesis, Auburn University.
Forney, Judith, and Nancy Rabolt. 1985. Ethnic Identity: Its Relationship to Ethnic and
Contemporary Dress. Clothing and Textile Research Journal 4: 17.
Gbadamosi, Ayantunji. 2012. Acculturation: An Exploratory Study of Clothing Consumption
among Black African American Women in London (UK). Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16: 520.
Hintz, Martin. 2004. Armenia: Enchantment of the World. Canada: Childrens Press.
50
Ho, Ming-Chyuan, Lin, Chi-Hsian, and Yi-Chun Liu. 1996. Some Speculations on Developing
Cultural Commodities. Journal of Design 1: 115.
Hsu, Chi-Hsien, Chang, Shu-Hsuan, and Rung-Tai Lin. 2013. A Design Strategy for Turning
Local Culture into Global Market Products. International Journal of Affective
Engineering 12: 27583.
Hsu, Chi-Hsein, Lin, Chih-Long, and Rung-Tai Lin. 2011. A Study of Framework and Process
Development for Cultural Product Design. In Internationalization, Design and Global
Development, edited by P.L. Patrick Rau, 5565. Berlin: Springer.
Krupnick, Ellie. 2011. Kim Kardashian Wedding Headpiece: Love It or Hate It? Huffington
Post, August 23. Accessed May 28, 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/kim-kardashian-wedding-559
headpiece_n_933872.html.
Leong, Benny D., and Hazel Clark. 2003. Culture-Based Knowledge Towards New Design
Thinking and PracticeA Dialogue. Design Issues 19: 4858.
Lin, Rung-Tai. 2007. Transforming Taiwan Aboriginal Cultural Features into Modern Product
Design: A Case Study of a Cross-Cultural Product Design Model. International
Journal of Design 1: 45-53.
Lind-Sinanian, Gary, and Susan Lind-Sinanian. 2010. Armenia. In Encyclopedia of World
Dress and Fashion, Vol. 9, edited by Joanne Eicher, 287297. London: Oxford
University Press.
Littrell, Mary A., Paff Ogle, Jennifer L., and Soyoung Kim. 1999. Marketing Ethnic Apparel:
Single or Multiple Consumer Segments? Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 3: 3143.
Lynch, Annette, and Mitchell D. Strauss. 2014. Ethnic Dress in the United States: A Cultural
Encyclopedia. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Miller, Nancy J., J. R. Campbell, Mary A. Littrell, and Daryl Travnicek. 2005. Instrument
Development and Evaluation for Measuring USA Apparel Product Design Attributes.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 9: 5470.
Mullet, Kathy, and Mi-Ryung Park, 2011. A Cross-Cultural Design Framework for Apparel
Design. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal 4: 5764.
Nelson, Karin. 2013. The Excessory Designers. W Magazine, August 7. Accessed May 28,
2015. http://www.wmagazine.com/people/insiders/2013/08/ashley-lloyd-ken-borochovand-juniper-rose/.
Norman, Don. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York:
Basic Books.
Petrosian, Irina, and David Underwood. 2006. Armenian Food: Fact, Fiction and Folklore.
Bloomington: Yekir Publishing.
Reeves-DeArmond, Genna, and Elaine L. Pedersen. 2012. Applied Learning in a Cross-Cultural
Dress and Textiles Course: The Development and Assessment of a Product
Development Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the International
Textile and Apparel Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, November 1317.
Roach-Higgins, Mary Ellen, and Joanne B. Eicher. 1992. Dress and Identity. Clothing and
Textile Research Journal 10: 1-8.
Sam, David L., and John W. Berry. 2010. Acculturation: When Individuals and Groups of
Different Cultural Backgrounds Meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 472
81.
Takooshian, H. 2000. Armenian Americans. In Gale Encyclopedia of Multicultural America,
Vol. 1, edited by Robert Dassanowsky and Jeffrey Lehman, 109-122. New York: Gale
Research Inc.
51
52
ISSN 2325-1379