 |
 |
Terry, That may be an Australian vs American language thing. The Oxford American Dictionary defines constituency as: a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body : the politician who wishes to remain in the good graces of his constituency. • chiefly Brit. the area represented in this way. • a body of customers or supporters : a constituency of racing fans. In American English the individual is a constituent. As to legitimacy, I'm not naive enough to have missed out on the fact that people's claims on design or design process are not always a direct correlation with what I would assign as their legitimate interests. My point was that a general term that did not imply illegitimacy was preferable. The powerful will assert their claims despite any possibly-dismissive term so it is only the less powerful who end up disenfranchised by a term that casts any doubt. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1910 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA [log in to unmask] +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: [log in to unmask] +1 252 328 2839 Terence Love sent: Wed 4/18/2007 11:26 PM > Many, perhaps most, people who influence or are influenced > by a design do not have a direct legitimated interest. > The term constituency applies to single individuals. in reply to me on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:53 PM >> Two advantages of the term "stakeholders" vs. the term >> "constituencies" are that the term assumes legitimacy of >> interest of all parties and that it emphasizes that they are >> individuals rather than a mass.