What’s missing in Kozinets diagram?

What’s missing in Kozinets diagram? This diagram (in my opinion) ignores (?) or possibly only hints at, through words such as curiosity and activity, the main driver behind participation and community. This lost element must be associated with ‘need’ and how that need is made tangible. Am I correct here? Does this identify the space where a traditional ‘academic’ approach fails? A traditional ‘academic’ approach to investigation relies on evidence, it seems to me that although vital, this approach is limiting. Intangible phenomena (a notion), possibly through semantic interpretation needs to be taken seriously. Does this draw a line between science and art & design? If this is the case, where to we stand?

Comments are closed.