Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
exchanges can be attributed to the complexity of the real world. Between
these two pathways, there is a shift in balance. In the first case, difficulties
are dealt with by suppressing the diversity of points of view within the
group, while the complexity of the real world fades into the background.
In the second case, the very purpose of design is to solve difficulties by
managing the complexity of the real world, while being mindful of the
diversity of points of view within the group.
The existence of these two paths raises the issue of the relationship
between knowledge and power. Foucault (2004), who strongly emphasized
the importance of this relationship, set a distinction between two kinds
of devices: 'normation' devices and 'normalization' devices. Normation
is characterized by the fact that knowledge turns into power. It then
becomes the norm, and those who do not conform to it turn to abnormal-
ity. The second device, normalization, consists in the gradual construction
of curves for the development of knowledge, in order to achieve a local
institution of normality.
In many ways, the proposals made in this chapter aim to guide design
toward a less normative form in order to achieve the local institution
of normality through dialogical forms of design. One could also argue
that such an approach is favourable to the health of workers. Indeed,
Canguilhem (1966) has argued that the 'healthy man' is a man who is
not subjected to the constraints of one's environment, but who is capable
of changing them to assert one's own norms (for example, professional
norms) and life project.
The fact remains, however, that normation and normalization are two
sociocognitive frames that are built before the intervention of ergono-
mists. The ergonomist's intervention takes place in a social context that
precedes it
*
. But in any case, the role played by an ergonomist is never
neutral. This joins the position of Daniellou and Garrigou (1993): the
ergonomist plays a very active part in 'reframing' the exchanges between
stakeholders. The ergonomist may even be, I believe, a 'guardian' of this
frame. But such a formulation implies that we must clearly see the social
and axiological dimensions of the frame. Both dimensions constitute an
obligatory background to dialogism in design - and as a consequence, to
developmental approaches in ergonomics.
*
Indeed, this is a dimension that imposes itself on the ergonomist, and that is probably
all the more salient when one considers sectors with low added value, involving workers
with low qualifications.
