TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction to
T2 - 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)
AU - Harvey, Neshane
AU - Ankiewicz, Piet
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023.
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - 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).
AB - 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).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85174269047&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10798-023-09858-2
DO - 10.1007/s10798-023-09858-2
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85174269047
SN - 0957-7572
VL - 34
SP - 1657
EP - 1663
JO - International Journal of Technology and Design Education
JF - International Journal of Technology and Design Education
IS - 4
ER -