Hi, Jonas, 

It seems to me you have missed the point. This is not a
matter of style. I've asked for a specific and clear series of
references to show that Weick, Simon, and the others use
the triadic conceptual schemes you attribute to them.

So, no, my critique does not refer to your style of writing,
but rather your failure to provide substantive warrant for 
the ideas you attribute to other writers.

The issue of making appropriate use of existing text is
only relevant because you chose to cite existing text. 
You've asserted that eight authors offer triadic schemes.
I could just as well claim that these eight authors had
written something else -- perhaps they use pentagonal 
schemes (Weick 1982), claim that design is transmogrific
(Simon 1976), or even that design concepts operate across
the boundaries of spacetime (Cross 1653).

You are certainly free to dislike my writing style. That's
your privilege and that's your view. If you wish to assert
that Weick (1969) or Kant (1802) don't like my writing
style, you're obliged to demonstrate where they say it.

Now let's be serious: I know you haven't made that claim,
but I am saying that unless you show that the authors to
whom you attribute triadic patterns actually put those
patterns forward, there's not much to the attribution.

It's clear that you believe that conceptulizing is one 
of your strengths. I'd argue that the best evidence of
this belief would be asserting your own conceptual 
schemes without attributing them to distinguished
writers. Argument from authority is particularly weak
when you fail to demonstrate that the authorities on 
whom you draw actually support you view.

Of course, I may be wrong. Then again, I, too, believe
conceptualizing to be one of my strengths. 

Yours,

Ken


On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 11:50:04 +0200, Wolfgang Jonas wrote:

--snip--

>So your critique refers to my style of academic 
>writing, you request "careful references of the 
>form Weick (19xx: ppp-ppp)".
>
>Mea culpa; I confess my occasional sluttishness. 
>And my sometimes sketchy writing.
>
>But this is my style. I see design theory 
>building as a design process with a clear focus 
>on projection and synthesis. Proposing conceptual 
>schemes is definitely as productive as careful 
>analysis of empirical data or existing texts.
>
>By the way: Sometimes I don't like your writing 
>style either.

--snip--

>Once again: I see my strength in conceptualizing. 
>Others have different strengths.

--snip--