I can't imagine there is anything scientific about this "study". Not sure how it could "disprove" an idea of disruption. > King, the Tuck professor, along with

I can't imagine there is anything scientific about this "study". Not sure how it could "disprove" an idea of disruption. > King, the Tuck professor, along with Baljir Baatartogtokh, a graduate student at the University of British Columbia, spent two years asking experts about each of the cases Christensen studied. In a third of the cases, old-guard businesses were not actually disrupted, the researchers found. The companies may have contended with innovation, but they were not pushed out of the market by it. What passes as science these days is asking experts about what really happened in specific cases and seeing if it agrees with Christensen narrative? That's not very scientific. To be fair, the theory of disruption is also a non-scientific (albeit useful) narrative and having competing competing narratives is useful but just don't try to mask it as science