 |
 |
Friends, A short apology for several typos in my recent response to Terry. Normally I'd say that everyone can see a typo and overlook the problem to see the meaning behind it, but in this case, my post somehow included two of Terry's paragraphs as though I had written them. Following the URL to my conference paper, appear two paragraphs: --snip-- The conventional approach to building theory in a field is to ground new theoretical and conceptual advances on established theories in the existing literature. Identifying the errors in the existing theory foundation is a different task: that of Schumpeterian destruction of much of the established culture and theory basis of the existing field of design. A few design researchers such as Don, have already embarked on this task The difference in purpose between theory building and theory destruction implies a different sort of approach to using the literature of the design field. It is a different task even from that of Einstein, who was in effect building an extension of existing theory (in the sense that relativity offered an extension of theories of dynamics beyond the scope of Newtonian dynamics). --snip-- These are Terry's words and not mine. They appear correctly attributed to Terry following my post, but they also appear in my note, where they do not belong. My apologies if I seem to have written them. Ken Friedman