What if you are NOT lost?

For a long time, I searched for a definition of myself.

Teacher. Pedagogue. Designer. Bilingual educator. Creative. Entrepreneur. Researcher.

I treated these identities as separate choices, as if I had to select one and abandon the others in order to become professionally coherent. I spent half my life believing that my multiplicity was a lack of focus.

I no longer see it that way.

Some people build their careers along a straight line. Others move across disciplines, cultures, and forms of knowledge. They learn in one field and begin asking questions in another. They accumulate experiences that do not immediately fit into a single professional category.

The difficulty is that the world tends to reward what it can easily classify.

Education has been central to my own understanding of this.

Education can transform lives, but its institutions can also reproduce hierarchies of legitimacy. Certain degrees carry more authority. Certain institutions open doors more easily. Certain career paths are considered more serious than others.

Over time, these external hierarchies can become internal limitations.

We begin to question whether we are qualified enough, whether our experience is legitimate, and whether we belong in certain rooms. We confuse recognition with capacity and wait for external permission to occupy spaces we may already be prepared to enter.

My experience in education has also shown me something else: learning is far more complex than the simple transmission of content.

It is experience, structure, language, culture, design, technology, narrative, and human development. It involves creating conditions in which people can understand, explore, question, practice, and transform.

The classroom has been one of the places where I have learned to observe this complexity most closely.

I have observed how people learn, what creates engagement, how frustration affects participation, how different forms of representation influence understanding, how stories create curiosity, and how carefully designed experiences can make abstract ideas meaningful and memorable.

These observations have shaped the way I think about education, and about my own work.

My background in pedagogy gives me a framework for understanding educational processes. My experience as an educator gives me direct contact with learners and learning environments. Design has taught me to think about structure, communication, and experience. Languages and cultural experience have shaped the way I understand meaning and connection. Creativity allows me to imagine possibilities. Entrepreneurship challenges me to turn those possibilities into something real.

For a long time, I thought I had to choose between these perspectives.

Now I understand that the more important work is to integrate them.

This is where fields such as Learning Experience Design, Instructional Design, Curriculum Design, and Educational Product Design become meaningful to me. Not as additional labels, but as ways of describing the intersection where my experience and interests meet.

The goal is not to know a little about everything. Interdisciplinarity without depth is only accumulation. The real challenge is to develop enough depth in different areas to create meaningful connections between them.

That is the direction I am building now: turning accumulated experience into a coherent practice.

My work in education remains a fundamental part of this process. It is not separate from the work I am developing in design, learning experience, creativity, and educational innovation. It is one of the foundations from which I think, create, and build.

At the same time, education does not define the limits of what I can create.

I am interested in the intersection of education and design, culture and learning, creativity and structure, reflection and action, imagination and construction.

For years, I searched for a place where I could fit.

Today, I am more interested in understanding what can be built at the intersection of the things I already know.

A professional path does not always begin with a clear title. Sometimes it begins with a recurring question, a persistent dissatisfaction with existing solutions, or a pattern of interests that becomes visible only in retrospect.

I no longer want to reduce my trajectory to make it easier to explain. I do not want to treat complexity as a weakness simply because it is more difficult to categorize.

The question is no longer which single identity defines me.

The question is what becomes possible when these different perspectives begin to work together.

That is where I am working now.

Not to find a label that contains everything I am, but to build a body of work that makes the connections visible.

This is the path I'm beginning to define.

Opening some doors to a new universe.