When we develop a concept, we should consider the purpose so that it works 
productively. If a concept is too broad, its can not reflect the specifics 
of a field. If a concept is too narrow, it is not euristic enough.

Saying that everybody is a designers, philosopher, thinker, researcher, 
teacher, traveler, football player, etc. might be true. The question is -- 
what is the use? Science emerged out of a mundane human tasks and actions. 
But not everyone is considered scientist. Claiming that everybody is 
designer will not make the common ground. Philosophically, the moment you 
grab your umbrella, you redesign it. So what? Are you a designer? Do you 
see the difference between the contents and aspects of the terms in these 
two situations?

Many of the problems on this list stem from lack of terminological 
agreement. We came back to Step One of the Common Ground debate -- let's 
build a common conceptual and terminological language and this will reduce 
the posts and arguments with 99% so that we can concentrate on really 
productive discussions.

Regards,

Lubomir

At 06:17 AM 11/4/2002 -0500, Francois-Xavier Nsenga (fme) wrote:
>I will simply remind Glenn Johnson that his remark posted on Wed. 30 Oct.
>2002 is confused and therefore confusing also. Even worse, it is (surely
>unwillingly but unfortunately) distracting from the real concern, which is to
>devise a common understanding of those "Design" issues that we should be
>working on:  to set realistic and efficient professional ground and
>objectives, to elaborate sound research methods and to exchange views on
>results obtained.
>
>Glen,  I'll remind you that all the activities you are involved in your daily
>life, including your expert position as an Industrial Designer and that of an
>Industrial Design Studio Manager, have at one time been "designed" (I hope
>none of us is still confusing "designing" with "drawing" !) by some other
>"experts"; and why not calling them also "designers" ? They are those who
>proposed that in your particular socio-cultural and physical environment, the
>towel, the pyjamas, the butter layout, an Industrial Designer and Manager
>position, etc. should be as they presently are, and that they should be
>placed at that particular location and used the particular way you use them.
>In all those cases, up to the posture on your executive office chair, YOU are
>not the "designer", YOU  are simply one among the "users" of  those
>enumerated artifacts.
>
>In our human community, there are "designers", i.e. those who decide on and
>propose the course and means that ensure life. There are also those who
>effectively make  and institutionalize those various means or artifacts; and
>finally, there are those who simply use functionally those means, but also
>those who enjoy the outcomes and, alas unavoidably, those who somehow suffer
>of those outcomes. In some occasions one individual may be, however not at
>the same time, a "designer", a maker, or one of the kinds of users of one
>same artifact. In other instances, when life is believed to be somehow at
>stake, individuals and communities would prefer to rely on some level of
>expertise in designing, in making or in ensuring some phases of using
>artifacts. We are constantly either designing, or making, or using artifacts.
>That is the essence of human action, always situated and packed with a
>considerable amount of expertise knowledge not always institutionalized as
>such (="savoirs insus"*)
>
>In the cases you brought up, you might for instance have been, at different
>times, the "expert" designer of the umbrella that you personally use,  of the
>umbrella holder in your office and of the  modalities of "good" use of the
>designed umbrella. But all other users of "your" umbrella may also be
>"designers" in a way that, given their particular location and circumstances,
>they may have to adapt your above different "expert designs" to their
>particular situations. It is in that sense that they also are "designers",
>and eventually "expert designers"; not of your own "designs" but of their
>particular "uses" of your artifactual proposals then taken as new designs
>elements in their particular contexts. For some of them, YOUR umbrella might
>no longer be the same "umbrella" YOU designed, but something else totally
>different: a weapon, a status symbol, a parasol, etc., totally new designs
>situated in different times, different places and other circumstances.
>
>So, in short, I am another of those who consider that each human being is a
>"designer" in the generic sense of the word. Only some of us, in certain
>circumstances, develop expertise in given contexts, for our own survival
>purposes or responding to community demand.
>
>* Jean-Louis LE GRAND: Le savoir - insu des auteurs-acteurs, in Le Groupe
>familial, no. 126, 1990, p. 80-87 (a note in Gaston PINEAU et Jean-Louis LE
>GRAND: Les histoires de vie, PUF, Paris, 1993, 1996, p. 98)
>
>
>
>
>François-X. N.I. NSENGA
>
>Teacher and Researcher
>in Sociology and Industrial Design