Correction to: A principle-based philosophical framework for fashion design praxis and education in new design landscapes (International Journal of Technology and Design Education, (2023), 33, 5, (1883-1900), 10.1007/s10798-022-09794-7)

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

In this article, several corrections were missed to update in the production stage. The corrected text is given below. The ORCiD ID for the first author Prof. Neshane Harvey is https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0363-205X. The incorrect text given below the heading ‘Introduction’ is: The introduction should start with the third paragraph: Fashion, as a construct, is seen as both a noun and a verb. Barnard (2007, p. 2), a well-known scholar in fashion, distinguishes fashion as a noun from fashion as a verb arguing that the former means “kind, sort, style or manner” but the latter signifies “the action, of making or doing something”. Scholars on, fashion as a noun perspective, appear to have borrowed their theories from the fields of humanities and social sciences (Barnard, 2007; Kang, 2019; Matteucci & Marino, 2017; Paulins & Hillery, 2009; Rocamora & Smelik, 2016). Discussions are framed in terms of diverse approaches to fashion, such as modernity, communication, art, adornment, style, taste and dress, society, symbolic dimensions, class divisions, dress and material culture, body and identity (Barnard, 2007; Frisby & Featherstone, 2000; Hebdige, 2007; Hopkins, 2012; Kang, 2019; Matteucci & Marino, 2017; Rhodes & Rawsthorn, 2007; Rocamora & Smelik, 2016; Svendsen, 2012; Wolfendale & Kennett, 2011). Incorrect text: “Scholars on, fashion as a noun perspective, appear to have borrowed their theories from the fields of humanities and social sciences (Barnard, 2007; Kang, 2019; Matteucci & Marino; 2017; Paulins & Hillery, 2009; Rocamora & Smelik, 2016). Discussions are framed in terms of diverse approaches to fashion, such as modernity, communication, art, adornment, style, taste and dress, society, symbolic dimensions, class divisions, dress and material culture, body and identity (Barnard, 2007; Frisby & Featherstone, 2000; Hebdige, 2007; Hopkins, 2012; Kang, 2019; Matteucci & Marino; 2017; Rhodes & Rawsthorn, 2007; Rocamora & Smelik, 2016; Svendsen, 2012; Wolfendale & Kennett, 2011).” The correct text is: “Scholars on fashion as a noun perspective, appear to have borrowed their theories from the fields of humanities and social sciences (Barnard, 2007; Kang, 2019; Matteucci & Marino, 2017; Paulins & Hillery, 2009; Rocamora & Smelik, 2016). Discussions are framed in terms of diverse approaches to fashion, such as modernity, communication, art, adornment, style, taste and dress, society, symbolic dimensions, class divisions, dress and material culture, body and identity (Barnard, 2007; Frisby & Featherstone, 2000; Hebdige, 2007; Hopkins, 2012; Kang, 2019; Matteucci & Marino, 2017; Rhodes & Rawsthorn, 2007; Rocamora & Smelik, 2016; Svendsen, 2012; Wolfendale & Kennett, 2011). Incorrect text: Scholars (Au et al., 2003, p. 5; Lavelle 2013) also claim that there is limited theory in fashion design and argue the need for a “solid design theory in fashion design” that includes design processes to broaden the scope of the discipline. From a slightly different angle, Kawamura (2018) claims that fashion design tends to disregard the material object. Correct text: Scholars (Au et al., 2003, p. 5; Lavelle, 2013) also claim that there is limited theory in fashion design and argue the need for a “solid design theory in fashion design” that includes design processes to broaden the scope of the discipline. From a slightly different angle, Kawamura (2018) claims that fashion design tends to disregard the material object. The incorrect text given below the heading “Problem statement, purpose and research questions” is: The ‘science’ in ‘scientifically’ should not be confused with (natural) sciences. As such, a philosophical framework is theoretical and cannot be ultimately “proved” (Hallström & Ankiewicz, Forthcoming). For example, the dynamic nature of technology as such tends to keep its philosophy in a tentative and flexible state; hence Mitcham’s preliminary philosophical framework (Ankiewicz, 2019a; Ankiewicz et al., 2006).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1657-1663
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Technology and Design Education
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2023

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • General Engineering

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Correction to: A principle-based philosophical framework for fashion design praxis and education in new design landscapes (International Journal of Technology and Design Education, (2023), 33, 5, (1883-1900), 10.1007/s10798-022-09794-7)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this