thecookiecrumblepizz

Thank you for joining us today.

As a historian who often writes about things where very little information exists (e.g. New York Burning) what was your thinking behind not talking to Clayton Christensen before writing your piece about Disruptive Innovation. The piece has received praise for attacking the metastasis of disruption, but been criticized for not fully understanding Christensen’s theory and data. As you two are both Harvard professors who work across a small river from each other, why did you choose not to contact him for your piece?

Thank you for your response!

A work of criticism isn't a profile, is the thing.

The above would suggest that the assignment came with a viewpoint (a negative one) already implied. Is this correct?

Do you think that not being able to contact Christensen limited your scholarship at all?