Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> regarding ecological advocacy groups. i think most designers are now aware
> that this is a stakeholder group one doesn't want to have as an opponent,
>
But such a group may not be a very USEFUL stakeholder for a designer.
Arguably they represent the tame end of the problem - "we need less of
this or more of that". That's a useful starting point but it doesn't
take you very far towards an effective new design.
Valid stakeholders might be those who would lose or gain practically
from changes, those who would have to adapt their behaviour, those who
need to adapt their thinking. One of my personal (not professional)
interests is the development of urban cycling - it's a very complex
arena involving the law, road engineering, urban planning, every kind of
road user, public transport operators, employers etc etc. Comparing
countries where urban cycling is normal (eg Japan, Netherlands,
Switzerland) with those where it is emerging and those where it is
hardly possible reveals a rich stew of contradictory ideas and behaviours.
Almost all the important stakeholders are those who are doing things or
might do things in future - advocacy groups don't really count but
action groups can. I used to be a member of a city cycle campaign group
in the 1980s and we realised we were achieving very little by making a
fuss - so we started organising fun cycling activities instead and that
started to get real people moving in our direction because they were
riding their bikes more. We also became stakeholders because we were on
the streets (and the country lanes around the city) acting and learning
rather than advocating.
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
**********************************
Professor Chris Rust
Chair of Design Research Society Council
Head of Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University
Psalter Lane, Sheffield S11 8UZ, UK
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
|