Research in engineering design: the role of mathematical theory and empirical evidence
The editors of this journal have offered an opportunity to reply to Dr. Hazelrigg’s letter in depth. Indeed, with its numerous points of critique of the paper ‘‘The Pugh Controlled Convergence method’’ (Frey et al. 2009) stated so strongly, the letter demands a detailed rebuttal. We provide a r...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | en_US |
| Published: |
Springer-Verlag
2012
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/70575 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9811-8415 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9886-7512 |
| Summary: | The editors of this journal have offered an opportunity to
reply to Dr. Hazelrigg’s letter in depth. Indeed, with its
numerous points of critique of the paper ‘‘The Pugh Controlled
Convergence method’’ (Frey et al. 2009) stated so
strongly, the letter demands a detailed rebuttal. We provide
a response to the specific points discussed in the letter as
well as the broader issues raised. Writing on these topics
has been an opportunity to explore some issues of interest
to us, including the role of mathematical theory and
empirical science in design research. To pursue this fully,
additional authors participated to add more varied expertise
on social sciences, preference measurement, and industry
practices. We hope that our response will do more than
defend the paper; we hope that it will also suggest some
constructive paths forward in design research. |
|---|