chuck,
you are advising me "Please, since you are trying to negotiate your meaning
of design, please pay attention to what others are saying or your theory is
void."
let me remind you that in this conversation, i was not pushing a particular
theory of design.
i was suggesting that when people profess to be designers and are accepted
as such by their clients and by other people professing to be designers,
then the meaning of the word design has currency in this particular
community or network of stakeholders. those who use the word design in
interaction with each other may well be and most likely are developing or
negotiating their concept of design, not necessarily shared by all but
sufficiently coordinated con-sensually so that they can work together.
this suggestion is not a theory of design, as i believe you are insinuating
with your comment. it applies to plumbers and physicists as well who
identify themselves as professionals within the social networks in which
they work. it is an expression of unqualified acceptance of professionals
to be able to use their language to define themselves, even if one does not
agree with their definition. it implies the kind of openness that
ethnographers aspire to, and opposes attempts by theorists to impose a
particular (and usually abstract, general, and disembodied) theory of the
practice of importance to a community of professionals.
although this suggestion is not a theory of design, i have argued that
designer's respect for the conceptions of their self-defining stakeholders,
particularly if they differ from their own, is fundamental to human-centered
design. i have called this mode of understanding second-order
understanding, the articulation of one's understanding of other's
understanding, and distinguished it from situations in which this kind of
understanding is not meaningful, e.g. in dealing with causal mechanisms
instead of knowledgeable stakeholders.
so, your comment puzzles me
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles
Burnette
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> terry confuses, and you seem to chime into the confusion between your
> intraspychic activity and how you conceptualize it in accounts of it
> to others and negotiate with others the meaning of such words as
> design.
Klaus: Chuck
|