A study into the use of video probes in the kitchen: Everyday kitchen practices transforming the middle-class interiors in Turkey

Abstract

The aim of the research is to understand and portray how kitchen-related practices of middle-class families in Turkey are constructed, and how they act together to form and transform the organisation and the use of the Turkish kitchen. Kitchen and cooking practices are an essential part of everyday domestic life environment and their material aspects carry meaning and knowledge that shape practices of everyday domestic life. Multiple elements that act and evolve during these practices; create new forms of interactions, structure relations among objects and people, and also transform the interior landscape. In this study, video ethnography was designed and conducted with couples to gain insight about multiple overlapping meanings embedded in practitioner’s kitchen-related needs and actions, and also supported with questionnaires. Findings show that a great variety of foodstuffs and kitchen utensils depending on the richness of Turkish culinary culture requires larger and more comfortable spaces to prevent clutter.

Keywords:

• kitchen practices
• meaning
• materiality
• everyday life
• practice

1. Home as a dynamic network: Objects, people and practice

Home is a dynamic and creative environment including various social and physical contexts to engage in and practise mundane everyday life activities. Ordinary objects around these practices are significantly important for “sustaining and transforming the details and the design of everyday life” (Shove et al., 2007, p. 2) and the physical home environment is full of ordinary everyday life objects.

Objects used in these daily routines act as semiotic intermediaries and carry meaning and knowledge constructed through interactions between objects and their users. With technological improvements, associations between people and objects (human actor and non-human actant) changed (Latour, 1991). Fluid associations between them affect how tasks are accomplished and the behaviour of actors who do the tasks. We claim that actors and actants transform each other. In other words, everyday domestic tasks, environments and social practices are shaped and transformed by the interactions between objects and people.

For Kelley and Littman (2005), it is useful to think and portray objects with verbs instead of nouns—such as tooth brushing in place of toothbrush—and emphasise practice. This suggests that designers do not only create material objects to use, they also create or transform practices.

Materialities and practices evolve through domestic life; create “new forms of house design” (Shove, 2003, p. 135) and transform “the interior landscape” of our homes (de Certeau, 1998, p. 210). To understand constructed habits and social relations through designed objects, it is necessary to observe user behaviour and see “in use” lives of designed artefacts. There is a need for close examination and theorization of the role of material aspects of daily life (Shove et al., 2007).

Material aspects of kitchen-related practices carry meaning and knowledge that shape practices of everyday domestic life. Objects and how people interact with them design the meaning of kitchen routines. The aim of this research is to understand and portray how the domestic kitchen and kitchen-related practices are constructed and how they act together to form and transform materiality and interior landscape of middle-class families in Turkey. The hypothesis in this paper is that the richness in Turkish cuisine has also a significantly important effect on diversity in users’ culinary needs, habits and practices. This multitude makes Turkish kitchens look cluttered and requires larger and comfortable working spaces.

2. Meaning through practice

Social and cultural world can be understood and explained through performances described by many practice-oriented approaches or theories including embodied cognition and phenomenology (1962). These suggest that people can articulate and reflect their lived experiences and personal insights through bodily interactions and reflective actions with their physical environment. They engage in the world through their embodiment (Poulsen & Thøgersen, 2011). Practices around both objects and people form a network (Latour, 1988).

Reckwitz (2002) defines the practice as “a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge” (2002, p.249). Rouse also characterises the practice as “the relational complex of embodied agents in meaningfully configured settings for possible action” (1996, p.150) in which actors or actants incorporate, and a practice as entity is possible with actual and potential performances of real-life practitioners (Shove et al., 2007). Therefore, understanding the performance between person and object has a significant importance for probing into the practice and the meaning behind it.

Social practice includes knowledge, discourse/language, body, mind, things, structure/process and the agent/individual (Reckwitz, 2002). The knowledge in practice is a way of perceiving the world with intertwined actors and actants. This way of perception is mostly “implicit and largely historically-culturally specific” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 253). It contains a tacit dimension of knowing (Polanyi, 1958). People use prepositional language to communicate ideas but self-expression with this language is overwhelming in situations which are not well defined. Practice forms the spoken language-discursive practice (Reckwitz, 2002). Also, discursive practice includes bodily patterns which articulate and share meaning and the “practice can be understood as the regular, skilful ‘performance’ of (human) bodies” (p.251). Embodied (bodily) interaction (Dourish, 2001) is a way of communicating insights and perceiving meaning through experience/interaction with the materiality of the world. Accordingly, the mind is not the only creator of knowledge and people know through these bodily engagements with their material environment (Groth & Mäkelä, 2016). Embodied interaction with the physical environment and surrounding objects helps the users to lighten their cognitive load and perceive the world from another perspective, and results in an unexpected and sudden shift of mind (Tan & Chow, 2018).

The needs of people emerge or disappear “as a result of the ongoing reproduction and transformation of practice” (Shove et al., 2007, p. 135). As designers, we suggest that understanding the practice thoroughly helps us understand the ongoing and changing human needs. Eliciting the knowledge or embodied layers of meanings embedded in these practices is a way of exploring society and culture.

3. Domestic kitchen: Practices around Turkish food making

Pink (2012) emphasises the relation and also distinction between kitchen as a place and kitchen as a place for the recognition of kitchen practices. Pink et al. (2017) describe a kitchen as a place that is “used as a family hub, a space where people and things would come together in and pass through” (p.77). There are six types of kitchen layouts which are one—wall, galley, L-shaped, U shaped, island and peninsula (Orentas, 2023). These affect the experience of the users.

Sutton (2009) emphasises the effects of culture and its importance on embodied knowledge; also explains the habit of chopping vegetables in hand in cultural context. As Ignatow (2007) signifies, embodied knowledge which is rooted in universal embodiments can be associated with culture that shapes ideas, images and social situations. People transmit traditional culinary skills and nutrition culture with the help of social practices that are shaped by the way of using the culinary products. Rinsing the dishes before putting them into the dishwasher is a common behaviour pattern in Turkish culture. The habit of storing leftovers by covering the plate with stretch film can be another example for these.

Güler (2010) states that Turks attach exuberant importance to nutrition, the place, and also eating and drinking in social life. It is stated that the Turkish nation has a rich culinary culture parallel to its historical past (Çakıroglu & Yalçın, 2004). Life in Turkish society is shaped around long meals; Turkish people prefer to socialise by eating or drinking in their daily life. Turkish cuisine is at the forefront with the diversity of the materials used and the delicious dishes made with great effort. There is a saying called “mother’s meal” which magnifies home-cooked meals.

Turkish cuisine contains many healthy and balanced nutrition and vegetarian cuisine, as well as many dishes and food types in terms of variety, richness and taste (Sürücüoğlu & Özçelik, 2008).

Doner, fish stews, fried food, roast, grilled kebabs, meatballs, pot kebabs, stews, casseroles, field food, boiled, meaty stuffing, fruity meat dishes are also among the most common cooked dishes (Baysal, 1993). The vegetables are cooked with meat, onion and tomato paste. Pastries are also common in the traditional Turkish diet.

In Western Anatolia it is common to use olive oil in meals. Eggplants, peppers or zucchini used in stir-fries are fried directly or in oil with flour and served with sauce or yoghurt (Halıcı, 1983). The use of spices is also common in Turkish dishes, especially paprika and salt.

The rich food variety of Turkish cuisine contributes to a rich taste for all users. However, technology and knowledge sharing culture encourages members of this society, which is open to innovation to experience new food alternatives.

4. Methodological approach

In order for deeper understanding and learning about the material aspects of everyday life condense around kitchen-related practices, this study proposes a mixed approach combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Accordingly, short-term ethnographic methods and questionnaires are preferred. This study was carried out in two stages. First, a video ethnography was employed to examine the dinner preparation processes of middle-income Turkish families. Second, insights structured through ethnographic data were evaluated by a wider user group with questionnaires.

Ethnography is reflective, iterative and inductive research looking for “exploring, uncovering, and making explicit the detailed interactive and structural fabric of the social settings” (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 14) and social worlds “can and should be studied in their natural state, with the main aim being to describe what is actually and naturally happening” (Coffey, 2018, p. 6). Studying practices in its natural environment provides prolonged engagement that helps researchers to be present in the location where the study is being done to observe, to learn and to understand (Coffey, 2018).

Lloyd (2010) describes the body as an information source collecting sensory information which eventually reflects practical thinking or know-how, and the only way to investigate bodily narratives and experiential knowledge is observation. Video ethnography is a way of this that reveals the human experience and its association with the place (Pink, 2007). It eases to observe participants’ bodily interactions (Sutton, 2009).

Doing research in a domestic environment differs from traditional ethnography which requires entering into the private home spaces; observe and ask questions about practices that participants mostly don’t share with others (Pink, 2004). Thus, it is hard to accommodate for long days in their homes as a participant observer. In our study, a system of short-term ethnographic methods is designed including a quick video tour and unstructured contextual interviews.

The video tour is a method that researchers are touring around the home with participants and “explore together how everyday life plays out in moments when we are not there to observe” (p.105) while being recorded to document. This provides probing into the material and sensorial environment people engage with (Pink et al., 2017). Researching in its natural environment provides a narrative through how participants engage with the materiality of domestic life. It encourages participants to remember their previous experiences and to perform or to re-enact these practices.

Unstructured contextual interviews are also the main part of the video tours. In addition to observing prolonged engagement visually, we asked for verbal accounts of participants. Conducting interviews contextually makes participants articulate and express more than they can tell unlike traditional structured interviews (Pink et al., 2017).

Qualitative observations were also supported with questionnaires conducted with a larger number of participants to improve, validate and generalise our preliminary findings.

4.1. Participants

This study includes participants randomly selected amongst middle-class couples to prevent significant differences between their life standards or purchasing power. Middle-class in this article refers to the well-educated working class who earn a third more than median income in Turkey. The patterns of their kitchen practices are changing to fit their busy lifestyles. Video tours were conducted with six couples (as seen in Table 1) after one pilot session. Their ages ranged from 30 to 40 years.

Table 1. Participant information

Participants	Level of education	Child
Participant Couple 1	Postgraduate - Bachelor	1
Participant Couple 2	Bachelor - Bachelor	None
Participant Couple 3	Postgraduate - Postgraduate	None
Participant Couple 4	Postgraduate - Bachelor	1
Participant Couple 5	Bachelor - Postgraduate	None
Participant Couple 6	Bachelor - Bachelor	None

The questionnaires were conducted with 70 different couples. One member from each couple was asked to complete the questionnaire who are the active users of the kitchen.

4.2. Procedure

Due to the conditions caused by the global pandemic, ethnography in the domestic environment becomes more challenging to conduct. Researchers or family members would not prefer to exist in the same place physically and they may not be welcomed. Therefore, video tour procedures were conducted online. Videos from both cameras were recorded as split screen with the help of video talk software and screen recorders.

Before the study, participants were informed about the purpose and nature of the research and they were asked for voluntary permission to be video recorded, to use and to publish findings using informed consent forms. All video records include researchers’ and participants’ voices.

At the beginning of the video tours, participants were instructed briefly about research procedures and then they were asked to perform preparation of dinner.

Video tours were conducted through an online video talk software. To achieve this, domestic partners were appealed to help and record the video. Before online meetings, participants were asked to install software on their smartphones. Couples participated in the study with two cameras: one on a higher place allowing a wide-angle view of the kitchen, second to observe the practice in detail from a modular and closer perspective. The invitation links were created and sent to participants.

Interviews were an integral part of the video tours. During observations, we asked unstructured questions to the participants. These questions are asked spontaneously and contextually to the task while participants prepare dinner.

The dishes cooked for dinner during the study were up to participants’ choice. The sessions lasted about 90 minutes each.

After the documentation and analysis of all the data gathered from these observations, questionnaires were conducted with many different couples. Questions were structured according to the prominent findings of video tours to support and generalise qualitative data. Questionnaires were created and conducted through online platforms.

4.3. The pilot study

Before main video tours, a pilot study was conducted to design, test and improve the research environment. The methodology was reviewed and restructured to increase efficacy of research instruments.

The outcomes of the pilot study were used for specifying the duration of the meeting, motivating participants, learning to ask right interview questions, learning to understand how to make participants stimulate and speak more. They were also useful for solving technical issues of online meetings to prevent wasting time for these issues such as determining the appropriate perspectives and the number of cameras in order to observe practices comfortably.

5. Analysis of videos

Documentation gathered through video tours were examined watching video records in detail and analysed with the help of the methods including thematic analysis (TA) and floor plan activity (FPA). TA is used in systematising data that seems vague, mysterious, conceptually challenging and overly complex. TA does not examine the unique and idiosyncratic meanings and experiences in a single dataset, but it aims to identify and make sense of what is common in the way a topic is done or spoken. Its accessibility and flexibility made TA preferable in this study. It uses systematic coding and analysis of qualitative data; TA facilities associated with conceptual and toric issues (Braun & Clarke, 2012). It consists of the researcher familiarising themselves with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing potential themes, identifying and naming themes, and producing the report. With TA, we aimed to determine the themes, ideas and meaning patterns that recur in the text.

First, video recordings were transcribed. In order to analyse the text content, initial codes were created and themes were determined.

FPA proposed and described by Mitchell et al. (2015) is a way of generating “occupancy flow map of” practices of participants” (p.117). This mapping activity helps for understanding the intuitive relationships between the actors/actants of practical actions and Pink (2017) proposed this method in the way that each family member is “plotting their typical daily routines and movement through the home onto a prepared floor plan of their house” (p.2).

Using this activity, participants’ daily routines and movements through their home were plotted onto a pre-prepared plan of their kitchen. In this research, instead of sharing kitchen floor plans with participants to fill themselves, plans were created by the researcher with the help of observations during the video tour. Before online meetings, participants were asked to prepare and share a very basic plan of their kitchens which were also useful for researchers to have an idea of the general plan of the kitchen.

With the help of the recordings of the video tours, practices and related materialities on the kitchen plan and flow maps of participants’ actions from beginning to end were represented. They were organised with the help of computer-aided design tools and supported with the snapshots from video recordings. FPAs created for each participant are shared as figures.

FPA is proposed and described before but hard to find examples to understand how to exercise it. This study also tries to find a way of carrying FPAs in practice-based research that can be exercised in further studies.

5.1. Detangling the kitchen activities

The representation of thematic analysis of conversations in the video tour can be seen in Table 2. Then, detailed explanations about the codes and themes are shared. The storage areas of kitchen utensils and food materials in the kitchen were examined. The cooking processes of the participants were also examined under the headings of preparation, cooking, holding, waste and cleaning.

Table 2. TA for cooking processes and storage

Qualitative data	Codes	Color	Themes
“I am 155 cm tall. For example, I can’t use it much because that closet is L. I can’t use high shelves too much. I don’t know about that place, I have service rooms that I will use when guests come, when someone special comes. I can’t use the top shelves. The ones I use most often are on the first shelf, I can hardly reach the second shelf. I access what I put on the third shelf by climbing on a stool.”(P1)	Storing Kitchenware		Pots, Tableware, Glassware, Plastics, Electronics
“Olive oil comes in the village and I put it in a big gallon under the sink.”(P5) “My spices are all here (Second drawer from the bottom). I tagged them all. For Muharrem to find it, so that my husband does not get tired by lifting it.”(P1)	Storing Food		Storage of dry foods, storage of fresh foods, Categorization
“Tupper chopper is my hand and foot, this little thing smashes everything.”(P2)	Preparing		Cleaning, Use of Tools, Managing Field, Measuring
“I don’t use microwave a lot, I don’t find it suitable for Turkish food. I wouldn’t have bought it if it wasn’t here.”(P3) “The rice pot should be wider, so I take the wide pot. I prefer transparent pot lids so that I can see the colour of the vermicelli.“(P3)	Cooking		Way of cooking, Choice of Equipment, Choice of Material, Environmental requirements
“I soaked the beans overnight in water to soften them. now I’m going to drain and wash them.”(P1) “I chopped the eggplants. I’m getting them on the plate now. I will chop the carrots” (P6) “I keep the greens I reserved for the salad in vinegar water. Sometimes I also add baking soda to the water.”(P1)	Holding		Holding for preparation for cooking, Holding for other ingredients to be ready, Holding for hygiene purposes, Holding kitchenware
“I don’t have a big litter box. I’m putting it in because the house is too small. It’s constantly being thrown out.” (P5)	Wasting		Accumulating, Direct Transfering
“While I cook, I collect it on the one hand, or it got a lot.”(P4) “It is very important to me that there are no drops of water on the counter. Muharrem always leaves it wet.”(P3)	Cleaning		Counter, Dishes, Sink, Dish Rack For Field Management

Apart from TA, the occupancy flow map of activities for each participant in their kitchens were represented in the light of the codes and themes determined.

5.1.1. Participant 1

Participant 1 is a family with a child. White bean stew with meat, rice and salad were prepared. The woman is the one who mostly prepares the meals. The representation of FPA that shows occupancy flow map of participants actions is shared as Figure 1.

Figure 1. Representation of FPA (Participant 1).

Occupancy flow map of first participant that marked with colourful dots describing kitchen-related activities enclosed with snapshots from video tours.

Flow maps show that there is almost no space unused on the countertop during the process. The placement of materials on the countertop causes insufficient working spaces to hold or prepare things on it. The countertop is divided with the cooker and the sink into three different workable areas for users. The countertop is also used for the storage of commonly used kitchenware or food in a reachable area. The teapot and kettle are always ready on the counter to use. The dish rack, washing agent, waste bin, knife rest, cruets and kettle also have their spaces on countertops that are frequently used.

Flow maps indicate intense flow to the cooking area that arises from the frequent stirring and other preparation routine of the participant.

5.1.2. Participant 2

Participant couple 2 has no children and lives in a small apartment and prepared skewered chicken and vegetables in a pan. Both partners have active participation during the different phases of kitchen practices.

FPA flow maps as seen in Figure 2 indicate that users have only limited working space on the countertop to prepare food or to keep related materials on the countertop.

Figure 2. Representation of FPA (Participant 2).

Occupancy flow map of second participant that marked with colourful dots describing kitchen-related activities enclosed with snapshots from video tours.

Preparation processes are centred around the end of the countertop in addition to the cooking area but this area has a central position for all actions and has nearly equal distance to all materials needed during the whole practice. The countertop is divided into small areas with the sink and the dish rack not providing a wide area for participants to work comfortably and there is no space to work together simultaneously. In addition to the dish rack, only washing agents and kettle have a place on the countertop and the much-used waste bin is placed on the stool located on the ground.

The sink also has a central position with washing agents around it allowing to clean the countertop to make room for further practices and washing or scrubbing fresh foods under running water is important for couples for hygiene. The dishes are also accumulated in the sink to wash them all lastly.

5.1.3. Participant 3

Participant couple 3 has no child and prepared cooked split aubergines with meat filling and rice for dinner. The woman is the one who mostly prepares the meals in the kitchen.

The kitchen has a long countertop with many cabinets around it. Divided with the sink and the cooker, three areas are formed on the countertop to use during preparation but preparation practices are condensed around the large and central one as seen in Figure 3. This area has a central position that user activities flow from here to some other practices or materials. Apart from the sink, the dish rack and the cooker, there is a washing agent, waste bin and the kettle located on the countertop providing roomy countertop to work on. There is also a second small countertop in front with its under cabinets and shelves especially used for storing some other kitchenware.

Figure 3. Representation of FPA (Participant 3).

Occupancy flow map of third participant that marked with colourful dots describing kitchen-related activities enclosed with snapshots from video tours.

The cooker is actively used during the whole process and affects circulation of actions due to the frequent stirring routine of the participant for all additional ingredients.

5.1.4. Participant 4

Participant 4 is a family with one child and prepared green beans meal with olive oil and stuffed green peppers. The woman is the one who always prepares the meals.

The kitchen layout that countertops, sink, cooker and white appliances formed is very similar to the one participant 3 has. Preparation practices are centred in the middle of the countertop between the sink and the cooker and this area is also the central space for circulation flow (as seen in Figure 4) including all practices. Cooker, wash rack and other washing agents, kettle, coffee maker, teapot, oil tray and salt cellar are located on countertops and the countertop is a little bit crowded compared to other participants’. This results in a less roomy countertop during preparation. Agents and dish rack are used actively to manage field. The user requires frequent cleaning and making room for further preparation practices. Washing routine accumulates food wastes in the sink and carries them all into the bin at the end of all peeling and chopping actions.

Figure 4. Representation of FPA (Participant 4).

Occupancy flow map of fourth participant that marked with colourful dots describing kitchen-related activities enclosed with snapshots from video tours.

5.1.5. Participant 5

Participant 5 is a family that has no children and prepared pizza for dinner. Both partners have active participation during the different phases of practices.

The kitchen layout of participant 5 is smaller than other participants’. The counter area used for preparation is limited. As Figure 5 indicates that there is almost no space unused on the countertop during the whole process. The least used area is between the sink and the dish rack which is used for the holding and cleaning processes. The countertop seems clean and the kitchenware is placed in cupboards which eases the preparation and cooking processes. The workable area on the countertop is between the cooker and the sink. There are almost no kitchen tools on the counter except for the dish rack and trash. The dishwasher stands independently, not under the counter, and serves as an additional counter; it has an oven and toaster on it. The teapot is always ready on the cooker to use. The dish rack, washing agent, waste bin, also have their spaces on countertops that are frequently used during the process.

Figure 5. Representation of FPA (Participant 5).

Occupancy flow map of fifth participant that marked with colourful dots describing kitchen-related activities enclosed with snapshots from video tours.

5.1.6. Participant 6

Participant couple 6 is a family of two and prepared lasagne and baked vegetables for dinner. The division of labour between spouses is higher compared to other participants.

FPA (as seen in Figure 6) shows that the area between the refrigerator and the stove is the one commonly used. The lower countertop provides easy access to frequently used products such as teapot, coffee machines.

Figure 6. Representation of FPA (Participant 6).

Occupancy flow map of sixth participant that marked with colourful dots describing kitchen-related activities enclosed with snapshots from video tours.

The working spaces to hold or prepare things on it are limited; the countertop on the left of the cooker is not commonly used. The countertop is divided with the cooker and the sink and leaves one main workable area for users. The countertop is also used for the storage of commonly used kitchenware such as kettle and paper towel. There is no space for the dish rack on the countertop and the sink area is used to drain the hand-washed dishes.

Flow maps indicate intense flow to the cooking area that arises from the frequent chopping and slicing routine of the participant.

6. The kitchen texture through discursive practice

Using the data gathered from video ethnography and questionnaires, all findings are discussed, inferences are drawn and common routines for all couples are summarised under subheadings related with previously analysed kitchen practices. There are two types of questions for questionnaires including multiple choice and 7-point (1 to 7) Likert scale. Likert scale is used to measure attitude and opinion of participants and the related data is represented with sentiment score (ss) calculated according to the total number of responses. Percentages also refers to the rate in total number of participants.

Table 3 shows responses for 7-point Likert scale. “4” was taken as a neutral basis.

Table 3. Sample response for 7-point Likert scale

(e.g.) During meal preparation, I rinse/soak the vegetables.
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Very untrue of me	Untrue of me	Somewhat untrue of me	Neutral	Somewhat true of me	True of me	Very true of me

According to the results of the questionnaires, kitchen and kitchen conditions have a determinative effect on choice of housing (ss:6.1). Eighty-two percent of the participants use a closed kitchen and 18% use an open kitchen. L-shaped (41%), single wall (33%) and gallery (19%) are the common kitchen types used by couples but they would prefer (57%) the island type because of the wide area it offers. While the average time spent in the kitchen in a day is 78 minutes, 18% spend more than 120 minutes.

It is seen that Turkish women play a more active role in preparing food than men (ss:5.5 to 2.5) but partners can also play a role together at different stages (ss:4.3). Eighty-five percent of the participants cook regularly in their kitchens instead of eating outside and 87% of them prepare two types of meal at least. The kitchen practices help couples to spend more time together (ss:4.8) and improves communication between partners (ss:4.9). These practices also increase the social interaction between them and activities to do as a couple (ss:5.0). These also help for enjoying quality time together (ss:4.6).

6.1. Storing practices

As Demirkan and Kutlusoy (1998) stated, the middle-class face many problems in the kitchen mostly related to the lack of space and storage in the kitchens. They explain the reason as the houses are built without any research and without determining the real needs in kitchen practices. Observations show that most of the storage spaces for all participants are full of kitchenware or food and more room is required to store. Questionnaires also indicate that participants have a mildly negative opinion towards sufficiency of their storage conditions (ss:3.8). The kitchen cabinets are overflowing and houses too many items (ss:4.4). This often results in removing the one in the cabinet to get the desired one (ss:4.3).

In terms of kitchenware, for example, there is a tendency (ss:4.3) to have and store many different cooking pots, pans and lids for different kinds of foods. In addition to double-handled cooking pots, pressure cookers and pans are common types of cookware for participants. The rice pot is wider and has a transparent lid to check if ingredients are done. The pressure cooker is used for materials such as meat and legumes that are difficult to cook.

Kitchenware is placed according to the purpose and frequency of use, the weight of the products and the height of the actual user. In Turkey, women are the one (86.9%) who spend a great amount of their time preparing food and the average height of Turkish women is 164 cm (TUIK, 2021). Top shelves of high-rise cabinets are not comfortable for frequent daily use. Consequently, cooking pots or pans are mostly (86.7%) placed in undercounter cabinets or drawers to prevent fatigue or danger while carrying. Frequency of use requires items to be easily accessible and some much-used saucepans or pans are also stored in undercounter cabinets close to the cooker and main preparation area (84%). A cutlery tray is also placed in the same way in the undercounter top drawers. Also, if the countertop is enough to give room, a cutlery holder including stirring spoons or spatulas is kept near the cooker on the countertop (45.6%). Some other much-used materials permanently kept on the countertop are declared as washcloth (81.6%), washing agents (75%), kettle (70,6%), dish rack (64.7%), teapot (61,8%), coffeemaker (60.3%) and paper towel (51.5%). Oil trays (60.3%) and cruets (45.6%) can also be counted as foodstuffs located on the countertop.

Glass or plastic deep bowls placed around the central preparation area in undercounter cabinets (78%) are frequently used for many different purposes (s:5.5).

Oil trays and cruets are required to be easily accessible depending upon their value in Turkish cuisine culture. A great variety of spices and oils requires to be kept as a set together with many design alternatives.

In addition to dairy products, butter, meat, fresh fruits and vegetables, there are also home-made canned goods, especially tomato or paprika paste stored in the refrigerator commonly used during observations. Also, preparing a variety of home-made pickles, vegetable preserves, jams or marmalades, instant soup, drying vegetables, and pastry over the pastry board are other traditional activities that occur in the kitchen area (Demirkan & Kutlusoy, 1998). The habit of preparing home-made foods requires keeping jars or plastic containers of consumed foods (ss:5.0) and this causes an accumulation of empty reused jars kept in cabinets.

Dry foods including legumes and cereals are also used very often and placed in glass or plastic containers, canisters or jars. Participants develop their own ways to organise a large number of containers stored in cabinets such as labelling covers, using transparent cover in order to reach the right ingredients quickly.

Almost all fresh, frozen and perishable foods are stored in the refrigerator but potatoes and onions are stored together unrefrigerated in a particular basket or stand.

Besides traditional stews, pastries are also very common in Turkish cuisine that increases the use of ovens. However, the microwave oven is not found useful and commonly used for Turkish foods by participants except for thawing frozen foods.

Even if the tap water is used for washing and cleaning needs, half of the participants do not use it for drinking or cooking. They think that the tap water is not filtered enough and they prefer bottled demijohn water located mostly on the ground at one corner of the kitchen.

All observations and questionnaires show that 95% of all couples prepare two or more dishes for dinner and this can also be associated with storage issues. It is inferred that there are too many items both for utensils and foodstuff in Turkish kitchens depending upon the richness of Turkish cuisine. This cultural richness brings many different user needs and results in some storage issues in the kitchens.

6.2. Preparing and cooking practices

Participants have neutral opinions on whether their kitchen provides comfortable working space (ss:4.0) and allows more than one person to work at the same time (ss:4.5).

The food preparation process starts with putting the necessary equipment (food, pots, etc.) on the counter. According to the observation data, the participants rinse or soak the vegetables and legumes for a while for hygiene concerns and/or for the purpose of getting them ready for cooking. This is also validated with questionnaires (ss:6.1).

The participants preferred to make their preparations in an area close to the kitchen sink (ss:5.5). The importance of this area, which can be described as a central preparation area, is also understood from the results of the FPA.

It has been observed that the chopping and peeling processes take a lot of time during the preparation of the vegetables in a suitable way. Participants tend to keep knives close to the central preparation area. Steel/ceramic knives or peelers/choppers can be used for peeling and chopping. Participants are positive about using cutting mats (plastic/wood) in chopping operations (ss:5.7). Although some experienced participants preferred to chop vegetables directly into the pot “as they learned from their mothers”, the general approach to this attitude is negative (ss:2.4). Although, most of the participants in interviews emphasise the importance of the manual chopper or the food processor for chopping, questionnaires show a mildly negative attitude toward this (ss:3.5). The manual choppers are more practical for them because they work without electricity and they are easy to clean. While 66.5% of the participants use only knives, 23.2% use the chopper and 16,3% use the food processor in addition to the knife during their chopping practices.

Mixing the ingredients during preparation is also another phase and peeled or chopped foods are generally added to the cooking pot one by one after oil. The reason behind it is observed as there is a routine for roasting each added ingredient with oil or butter and this requires stirring periodically. Stirring practices create intense circulation around the cooker. Users stay around the stove as much as possible to care with the meals and cooking process. Stirring practices also require particular spoons mostly made of wooden, silicone and metal and also these spoons require the spoon rest just near the cooker for repetitive stirring actions. Spices are also a significant part of this process that is added after all other ingredients.

Some mixing processes that do not require stirring on the cooker, such as pastry, salad, etc., are mostly made in bowls generally between the sink and the cooker where preparation activities are centred. Participants have a positive attitude towards using large bowls (glass or plastic) during mixing processes (.ss:54).

The experience gained through kitchen practices provides users the embodied knowledge and insight to know the nature of the foodstuff (meat, vegetable or legumes) which affects the way and the duration of cooking. The experience gained by observing and helping mothers since childhood brings lasting habits for kitchen practices.

Preparing and blanching some vegetables or legumes and keeping them ready in the freezer are common routines for participants. Homemade canned tomato paste/sauce, etc. kept in the refrigerator are also commonly used and eases preparation processes.

Turkish dishes are prepared in multiple stages and more than one kind of food is cooked especially for dinner. This makes the use of multiple areas uncomfortable (e.g. operating two stoves at the same time). Soaking, peeling, chopping, mixing, etc., steps are the basic actions of cooking processes; these actions require effective use of countertops and effective organisation of “ingredients and actions”. Leaving the materials and/or dishes that are not needed on the counter makes it necessary to clean periodically in order to expand the central preparation area.

6.3. Cleaning and waste collection

Cleaning and wasting practices have a significant effect on the layout and organisation of the Turkish kitchens.

As it is observed, users try not to clutter the kitchen during the preparation phase and put the items back after using or they send waste (.ss:52). Washing fresh or dried foods such as meat, vegetables or legumes under running water is common practice (.ss:62) using strainers or bowls around the sink area. The potential waste materials that emerge during the preparation of meals are fruit/vegetable peels and packages of the ready materials. In Turkish cuisine, the preparations for summer and winter such as tomato juice, tomato paste, pickles or vinegar, etc. reduce the use of ready-made packages, but the excess number of used jars can be a problem for storage.

For the waste practices, users have different approaches; first, participants prefer to put the trash in a less visible area (64.7%) mostly in the under counter cabinets to prevent narrowing the counter area or due to aesthetic concerns. To do this, accumulation of the waste on paper towels or in the sink and then transferring them to the trash in bulk is one approach preferred (ss:4.0) or they throw directly into the trash (peeling the onion directly into the bin) (ss:4.2). Second is placing the waste bin on the countertop (35.3%) and directly transferring the waste that emerges during preparation (ss:4.2). The waste bin placed on the countertop makes it accessible for participants to throw food waste directly in it. The distance between the waste bin and the food preparation area becomes important at this point.

Cleaning practices are a significantly important part of preparation. These are condensed around the sink area and washing agent, wash cloth, kitchen towel, etc. are widely used items located around it. Participants show a positive attitude towards using dishwashers (ss:5.7). That is also effective for hiding dirty dishes from the view. However, observations show that all the users hand-wash (only rinse) their lightly soiled items such as strainers or bowls and place them into the dish rack during preparations. Therefore, the dish rack is frequently used to quickly dry the hand-washed or just rinsed items which are lightly soiled to use again.

Cleanliness and a tidy look are significantly important for the kitchen and keeping the counter clean and dry is a common attitude in Turkish kitchens (ss:5,2).

7. Concluding remarks

Everyday life practices condense around the kitchen and culinary practices have a significantly important effect on shaping domestic life. Several elements acting and evolving together during these practices that create and transform the material aspect of living spaces. Thus, deeper understanding on related practices is important to gain real insight about socio-technical entities. This study is based on understanding the material aspects of everyday life condense around kitchen-related practices of middle-class families in Turkey through examining social, cultural and technological foundations of these practices. A system of mixed-method approach including short-term ethnographic methods and questionnaires is designed and conducted with middle-class couples. The data analysed with the help of thematic analysis, floor plan activity and sentiment analysis.

Findings shed light on how practices or routines are shaped for product or space usage related to culinary practices coded as storing, preparing, holding, cooking, cleaning and wasting. Findings and guiding insights are presented to the design researchers having an interest in investigating profound user needs and also kitchen-related materials and practices.

In accordance with our hypothesis, findings show that middle-classes in Turkey use a great variety of foodstuffs, kitchenware and appliances depending upon the richness of Turkish culinary culture. User needs are also diversified accordingly. Considering existing Turkish kitchens, they mostly look cluttered. Overflowing kitchen cabinets, drawers, refrigerators and overcrowded countertops are examples for this. This requires larger spaces such as easily accessible large storage areas, large countertops and holding spaces for practical and comfortable use. The desire of participants to have an “island” type kitchen which offers a large counter and storage spaces compared to others also seems correlative with this.

Similar to the approach in this study, the “Frankfurt Kitchen” represented as the “laboratory of the housework” designed by Austrian architect Schütte-Lihotzky in 1926 aims to transform the traditional kitchen to a rationalised working area of modern women and considered to be the forerunner of today’s kitchens (Hagströmer, 2022). This accommodates more functions in a limited space. However, the multitude of Turkish culinary and user needs makes it difficult to standardise Turkish kitchens.

Findings also show that practice-based methodology can be useful for deeper understanding of the knowledge or meaning embedded in practitioner’s kitchen-related actions.

The video tours were only conducted with a limited number of participants due the research environment that has qualitative, laboursome and time-consuming procedures and analysis. Repeating the video tours with more participants is suggested to gather more holistic inferences. This research has been focused on middle-class participants’ whose cooking and eating patterns are changing to fit their lifestyles. The scope of the kitchen-related practices studied could be expanded by including processes such as setting the table and dining.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ahmet Yazici

Ahmet Yazici is a Ph.D. candidate and a research assistant in the Department of Industrial Design at Istanbul Technical University. His research interest is primarily concerned with physical modelling and prototyping in design education and pedagogy;

Begum Tureyengil

Begum Tureyengil is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Industrial Design at İstanbul Technical University. She is a research assistant at Gebze Technical University. Her research interests are emotional design, user research methods, metaverse, design education and pedagogy;

Cigdem Kaya

Cigdem Kaya is professor and chief of the department in the Department of Industrial Design at Istanbul Technical University. She is a researcher in design science exploring the relational phenomena of the object world in trans-sectorial projects of artistic, cultural and scientific production