All 8 entries tagged Design

Weeky Ramblings Part one: Social Justice

I had an interesting conversation during the week that involved the concepts of Social Justice and Social Action, and the way in which these play a part in the role of the outreach programs offered by churches and in the way that churches can reach out to the wider community and promote an equal, tolerant, and just society. Yes, ok, that’s Theology and you’re probably reading my research blog wondering why I am talking about Theology when my Ph.D. is all about Education. It’s all relative, people, you just have to be open minded enough to view the connections: I can take the concepts discussed at that meeting and apply it to my Ph.D. This blog post shall focus on Social Justice. I shall talk about Social Action another time when I have formed initial thinking around that.

Social Justice can be and is discussed in the context of Education’s role in providing an equal and just society. Former Labour leader, Prime Minister and Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown remarked at a speech at the University of Greenwich in 2007 that “Education is the greatest Liberator mankind has ever known and the greatest for social progress.” The now current Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron remarked in the same year that, “without good Education, there can be no social justice.” However, when it comes to politicians and Education, what is defined as a “good Education” and its link to social Justice differ among political parties and no doubt members within each party.

So what does all that mean exactly for my research? This is very early in my thinking as it’s only in the past week that I have been thinking about this, but essentially I could use Social Justice as a means of evidencing the need and usefulness of my research. In what way could technology enhance Education’s role in Social Justice? What has the impact been so far? In what way could the specific learning processes that I am investigating be further considered and developed to enhance Education’s role in Social Justice? What benefits would a new theory or a new perspective of learning processes enhance Education’s role in Social Justice? In what way could my research move forward in the future beyond the Ph.D. to develop Education's role in providing an equal and just society? This is quite an important consideration given that countries should be united in this approach of developing a just and equal society, through effective Education. But what does this all mean, and in what way can this really be achieved?

Whatever is the case, the idea is to explain the way in which that my research could be considered as improving Education’s role in Social Justice and ensuring that we have individuals who are liberated from any restricted confines of learning barriers and therefore promoting a more just and equal society.

Ok that’s just some brief ideas and thinking that I have been considering very recently and obviously these ideas need to be further developed and deemed appropriate, but it is quite interesting to view my research and Education in general from this perspective!

Alex Darracott : 06 Nov 2015 22:54 |  Tags: Design Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ph.D. research design: as it currently stands

If there is ever a time to really think about the research methodology, the research questions, and the compatibility between research methodology and research questions, it’s now early in the Ph.D. process. The first year was really more of an introduction to research methodologies and to give you a chance to explore various methodologies and methods, but the second year (of the part time version anyway) begins the nitty gritty of really thinking about your methodology and methods in preparation for collecting and analysing data and also in preparation of the Upgrade paper and presentation (not to mention the literature review and methodology chapters of the thesis). When I really think about the design that I am creating, it is fairly flexible: it needs to be, and it needs to be absolutely accurate and correct because the design advocates a theory building context so the validity, reliability, accuracy, compatibility, comparability, and the use and merging of different forms of data and methods are well thought out and documented otherwise the theory could simply fall apart.

Previously I had been thinking about combining quantitative and qualitative data in with Grounded Theory but I’m having difficulties in figuring out the way in which these very different forms of data could merge (even though there are some comments in literature that suggests that this is possible) given that Grounded Theory’s analytical processes really are designed for qualitative data. Even the Constructivist Grounded Theory from what I can currently understand (still learning about it) does not deal with quantitative data. I do understand though that Constructivist Grounded Theory does take into account the values, perspectives, and so on, of the participants and the researcher more so than previous versions of Grounded Theory when it comes to the development of a theory. A potential problem here that I can vision is that a lot of the perspectives of the participants are due to be collected using quantitative processes within a survey method: I might have to redo the design of the survey to increase compatibility but I will have to do more reading and thinking into this area of using surveys with Grounded Theory.

Alternatively, I might not need to alter anything too much as I have found an interesting paper that described its research methodology as a mix of Grounded Theory and other methods including a Survey not in a Mixed Methods context, but in a more flexible context. Further reading into such a design that accommodates both qualitative and quantitative data and the use of multiple methods and perspectives with the aim of developing a new theory has led to the finding of what could effectively and broadly conceptualise and explain my research design. What is it called? Drum roll please………..

A flexible, triangulated theory building design

Now then, obviously I am taking on a fair bit here because I am not planning, designing, developing and implementing a single method, single approach design: I am planning, designing, developing and implementing a multi-method, potentially multi-perspective, research design that aims to develop theory as reliability and valid as is possible.

The biggest challenge here for me is to design not only the individual methods, but to design the entire methodology in a way that the results from all methods can merge as cohesively, coherently, reliably, feasibly and validly as possible, in a way that can assist with effective theory building and a substantial understanding of what is really going on within the phenomenon of investigation.

This shall include very careful consideration of the design of each method, suitability of each method, and very carefully planning the merging of the data at analysis level. There are going to be lots of areas to address in particularly the possibility that the research shall contain both positivist and interpretivist paradigms. I am not sure if this really will occur but if so, given that I am a constructivist this might prove to be interesting. Also what needs addressing are the different arguments for and against different methods, and the problems associated with each method and a way that a cohesive and coherent plan and design can minimise or eliminate these problems and therefore generating more reliable and valid findings, leading to the development of theory that is grounded in research that is well designed.

Interesting times in the research design: lots to think about, lots to write about, lots to read about, and lots of planning, designing, experimenting and implementation! It all feels a little daunting, but I know that I am on the right track and the methodology that I propose is the right methodology for the context and phenomenon of exploration.

Obviously all this shall be in consultation with the supervisor and shall be assessed at the Upgrade presentation. In the meanwhile: strong hot chocolate and late nights!

Alex Darracott : 15 Oct 2015 12:58 |  Tags: Design Methodology |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Initial thoughts about Constructivist Grounded Theory

The more I consider my own perspectives of reality and the way that researchers acquire knowledge of reality, the more I lean towards Grounded Theory as part of my Ph.D. research design. Grounded Theory, regardless of its flavour, is a research methodology that guides the researcher into constructing a theory of a phenomenon from an interpretation of the data itself using a series of codes, concepts and categories. It is a method of abstract and conceptual thinking where theory is built from these codes, concepts and categories and relies on logical, reasonable interpretations of the data and extensive documentation (in my case, the Ph.D. thesis and probably some part of the appendices).

Grounded Theory was originally a marriage between two different perspectives of reality from two different sociologists: Barney Glaser and his stance on Positivism, and Anseim Strauss and his stance on a more interpretivist approach, and eventually because of these differing stances they both professionally separated and promoted their own versions of Grounded Theory in a series of their respective publications. However, despite various flavours of Grounded Theory the variety that is currently receiving a lot of attention from me, and therefore selected as the preferred flavour of Grounded Theory, is Constructivist Grounded Theory, whose Philosophical roots lie in Pragmatism and Relativism and is developed by a student of Glaser and Strauss called Kathy Charmaz.

I first came across Constructivist Grounded Theory right at the beginning of the Ph.D. over a year ago but had not given it much thought at the time: what attracted me initially at the beginning was the term “constructivism,” which immediately suggests that some sort of marriage between the researcher, the participants, and the construction of reality. Now that I have gone back to re-examining my research design, Constructivist Grounded Theory is my favourite type of Grounded Theory so far. There are arguments made by various authors, particularly Glaser, that suggests that Constructivist Grounded Theory goes against the principles behind the development of Grounded Theory, but it can also be suggested that Grounded Theory was originally conceived at the time when Positivism and Realism were the dominant philosophies of research. Constructivist Grounded Theory was developed in the 1990s at a time when Social Science research paradigms began to lean more towards Constructivism, Interpretivism and Relativism based Philosophies.

I shall be using Constructivist Grounded Theory as part of my research design to build a new theory of the phenomenon being investigated, primarily because of the social constructivist orientation and also because it encourages the development of a literature review prior to data collection whereas the other varieties of Grounded Theory advocates the development of a literature review after the data collection and analysis and I do not really agree with that perspective.

Alex Darracott : 15 Oct 2015 12:48 |  Tags: Design Methodology |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Grounded Theory? Mixed Methods? Both? Current ponderings!

In a blog post yesterday I suggested that my research was going to be based on a Grounded Theory approach using Mixed Methods methodology. After spending till after midnight yesterday reading up on the subject and from what I have been reading this evening I can safely assume that I was talking complete nonsense. Well, possibly, but that's the beauty of learning: you think about things, and you develop your ideas and approaches based on your continuous learning and thinking, and the beauty of having a blog such as this is that the thinking, learning and development of ideas can be documented! So, where is my thinking at the moment? Methodologically speaking I can push the research in a couple of different ways: use a pure Grounded Theory approach, or used a Mixed Methods approach using Grounded Theory to explore qualitative data. That’s where my current thinking is: I know for sure that other types such an Ethnographic study, a Phenomenological study, an Action Research study, a Narrative Research study and so on are not appropriate for the aims of this research, and that is to develop a new theory that explains the relationship between constructs of a phenomenon of investigation.

I could use Grounded Theory and use quantitative and qualitative data to generate a new theory that explains this relationship among constructs, or I could develop a Mixed Methods study that initially uses Grounded Theory to develop a theory from qualitative data, and then collect and analyse quantitative data to experiment with this new theory. But I’m not sure at this time if I want to actually implement such a research design because the goal is to create a new theory and not to create and then experiment with the new theory: I’m not sure that there is enough time to create such a massive study and then having to write about everything that there is unless I am allowed to hand in a thesis that is a couple of hundred thousand words!

I’m quite happy that I’m really thinking about this because it shows engagement not just with the phenomenon of investigation but with the research methodology and the extent to which I can develop and push research methodologies and methods to really explore and acquire knowledge of that phenomenon. This refers to what I could class as the Philosophy of Research Methods and thinking about the research methods at this level includes the following questions in relation to my own research:

What extent could Mixed Methods methodology with Grounded Theory explore reality and the relationship between the constructs of the phenomenon that is being investigated?

What impact would the different Mixed Methods approaches have on the findings, and therefore on the development of the theory?

Comparing a pure Grounded Theory approach to a Mixed Methods approach, which method could really assist with contributing towards theoretical development?

What extent could Grounded Theory be pushed to explore the behaviour of a phenomenon of investigation?

Could Grounded Theory represent a more authentic reality and therefore provide the basis of a more convincing explanation of reality than Mixed Methods? Or vice versa?

The current contention is, I shall be using multiple methods within either methodology (Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods are known as methodologies although different authors have classed differently but they all have essentially the same meaning) so determining the answers to the questions asked might in part be answered by the way in which each methodology handles the multiple methods that I shall be using.

So, a lot of thinking to do! I shall be exploring both Mixed Methods and Grounded Theory methodologies over the next few weeks to really find out which would be most suitable for the aim of my research and the questions that I want to explore.

This shall also prove to be interesting for the Upgrade process because in the report and presentation a line of reasoning needs to be given as to why a certain methodology has been selected over other methodologies. Therefore, comparing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods methodologies in the context of my research should provide plenty of material to work with!

Alex Darracott : 11 Oct 2015 00:18 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Mixedmethods Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Weekly ramblings: opportunities and getting settled on methodologies and methods!

Open Doors!

A big opportunity might have opened up during the past week regarding publication of a second research paper! This is because of the positive feedback I had regarding the second assignment of the Advanced Research Methods course that I did as part of the first year of the Ph.D. with regards to the literature that I had critically analysed and explained the need for the questionnaire instrument that I am developing.

The supervisor was pleased that I had explored the literature and offered a unique perspective, and in my opinion that opens the door now to convert and extend relevant discussions for the conference paper at next year’s Warwick University conference early in the Summer. Still early days as to the exact directions this shall take, but my initial thinking is the conference paper shall extend relevant discussions on the survey instrument that I am developing.

Deciding on the methodology!

The following quote from the research methodology book “Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation” sums up the sheer amount of approaches to qualitative research

“The qualitative researcher faces a baffling array of options for conducting qualitative research”

Phenomenology, Ethnography, Case Study, Grounded Theory, and Participant Research are all different types of qualitative methodologies, with the additional different types and variants of each qualitative methodology. Not only this, but there are also various quantitative research methodologies around and also there are mixed methods approaches where a variety of different methods are used to provide a richer set of data, as well as the many different Philosophical perspectives of research (mostly relating to ontological and epistemological perspectives of reality). To the junior researcher, it can turn into a baffling mixture therefore they need to carefully construct their questions and understand their own mind and perspectives of reality before they really tackle the selection of methodology and methods. Many research textbooks emphasise the relationship between perspectives of reality, methodology, methods, and research questions therefore all of this needs very careful consideration from the very beginning and the only real way this is going to be understood is to start reading and keep reading! Questions shall change as reading progresses and therefore it might be likely that methods shall change: I know that I have changed my research questions several times to explore the same phenomenon and probably will change some of the questions in the future with the aim of increasing compatibility between questions asked and methodology selected. The key thing to remember is never believe that this is a once only process: this is a continuous process during the early stages of the Ph.D. as the reading and your thinking progresses and develops.

With my own methodological considerations, I have always liked the idea of Mixed Methods research design to explore the phenomenon of investigation even before starting the Ph.D. and this is something that I have stuck with. I had also very early decided on using surveys as an approach to collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, but also required a pure qualitative method to analyse any interview transcripts or discussion transcripts. Following the reading of various chapters of research methodology books, I have now settled on Grounded Theory. This was fairly easy to decide once I started to compare different qualitative research designs as I have an interpretivist, constructivist perspective of reality and Grounded Theory is compatible with these perspectives.

However, I have not yet decided on the way that survey data is going to be analysed and also have not worked out the way in which cross comparative analysis shall also take place. That is going to take a little while to build (and hopefully another research paper!)

So is that it then? Now that I’ve settled on the majority of the data collection and analysis methods can I just get on with it? Not at all: this is only just the beginning!

What’s next? The following lists some of the activities during the next year or so as part of the upgrade process:

• Develop extensive understanding about the flavours and approaches of Grounded Theory methodology

  
  

• Complete the questionnaire method if possible in time for showcasing at the conference via a conference paper early next year

  
  

• More extensive learning on Mixed Methods methodology: its many flavours and approaches to collecting and analysing data and choose that which is most relevant

  
  

• Develop substantial argumentation that supports the overall research design, the relationships between selected methods, the way they have been integrated, and why certain methods and methodology have been selected over other methods and methodology

  
  

• Panic

  
  

• Drink strong coffee

  
  

• Chant some mumble jumble telling myself that everything will be alright

  
  

• Explore and choose most relevant quantitative data analysis methods

  
  

• Remember why I’m doing a Ph.D.

  
  

• Plan, Design and Develop quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques

  
  

• Figure out in what way this organised chaos of a research design is supposed to work

  
  

• Panic again

  
  

• Drink strong coffee again

  
  

• Chant yet more mumble jumble

  
  

Sounds like a plan! Thanks for reading and shall post up more musings soon!

Alex Darracott : 09 Oct 2015 23:02 |  Tags: Design Methodology Opportunities Reflection |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Whatonology? Part C: why should Ph.D. researchers care?

On the way back to my beautiful home county of Cornwall after presenting at Warwick’s CES Third Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Conference, I continued to read literature on Mixed Methods methodology, which is the type of research methodology that I’m currently planning and designing for my Ph.D. project. Mixed Methods methodology, of which there are various types and various debates for and against, is simply a methodology that combines multiple methods of research to gain a more complete understanding of the phenomena being investigated. Literature on Mixed Methods is quite extensive and the debates and discussions, including from Ontological and Epistemological perspectives, are immense and it shall be difficult for any Ph.D. researcher to be able to identify a general consensus from literature as to the correct approach and correct perspective to take with mixed methods methodology. The best that I personally can do as part of the development of the mixed methods methodology is to develop a full understanding of the different discussions and debates surrounding the methodology and use these discussions and debates as a basis to form my own arguments for using mixed methods methodology, a certain kind of such a methodology, within the context of my research, and why it’s most appropriate for the phenomena being investigated. That in itself shall probably take up eighty thousand words of the thesis nevermind anything else!

My supervisor commented that he doesn’t agree with literature being categorised or polarised within qualitative and quantitative paradigms of research, and also recently among the plethora of literature read on the way back from Warwick, I came across discussions that were divided as to the need and emphasis of articulating ontological and epistemological perspectives within research. This I found very interesting, because in a lot of research methodological textbooks there is a clear emphasis on the need for such discussions and considerations to take place, particularly within a Ph.D. thesis. It just goes to show that not everything is black or white.

So given all that, should the Ph.D. researcher be involved with and concerned with ontological and epistemological perspectives of reality and the way in which these have influenced the design and application of their methodology? I’m going to say yes, whilst acknowledging that this is not a black or white argument.

It is not a black or white argument because there really is no right or wrong answer. Just because a Ph.D. researcher has adopted a Positivist Ontology it doesn’t make that researcher anymore correct, or incorrect, than a Ph.D. researcher who adopts an Interpretivist Ontology. Similarly, a Ph.D. researcher who adopts a single methodology, either qualitative or quantitative, is no more right or wrong in their approach than a person who adopts a mixed methods methodology.

What’s most important is that whichever methodological, epistemological, and so on, perspectives are selected that they are able to contribute effectively towards answering the research questions and be compatible with the phenomena being investigated. What is also very important, I argue, is that a Ph.D. researcher is able to effectively and convincingly argue that their Epistemological, Ontological, and Methodological approaches are suitable; essentially, each Ph.D. researcher must be able to select a particular positioning, and develop and present convincing arguments as to why their perspectives are the most appropriate for the context of their research and phenomena being investigated. Why is this? Because, despite what some literature says, there is a connection between Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology; that there is connection between these considerations, the context being explored, and the phenomena being investigated. When you, as an example, explore the differences between the Sciences and Social Sciences, it is plainly obvious that both context differ, and both contexts carry different Ontological and Epistemological assumptions and perspectives, and therefore influencing methodological concerns and considerations.

My own arguments that argue for the positions that I’m currently positioning myself in are in the developmental stage and they will be in development for quite some time as I explore all these debates and discussions among the other work as part of the Ph.D. that I am currently involved with. I find it all an exciting challenge, and it’s something that is extremely intellectually stimulating and satisfying; therefore the reasons of an intellectual challenge and intellectual stimulation should further encourage Ph.D. researchers to become fully engaged and involved with their own Philosophical and Epistemological perspectives and developing arguments for these perspectives through engaging with debate and discussions both within literature and through online discussions and conferences with other researchers.

Go explore: be stimulated, be inspired, be challenged, and have fun doing so!

Alex Darracott : 28 May 2015 10:02 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Whatonology? Part B: the terms

Brief introduction to Ontology

Reality is an important consideration for all researchers including Ph.D researchers, and considerations include the way that reality is perceived, in what way they interact with reality, and what way they act and behave within reality. Is there such a thing as an objective reality, where concepts, behaviours, actions and interactions of reality are common across different populations? Or reality could more likely be subjective, where reality is defined as unique for each individual person; where concepts, behaviours, actions and interactions of reality cannot be generalised across different people and populations. Questions that cover the existence, purpose, interactions with and behaviours within reality are a part of Ontology: the study of reality, of the relationship between researcher and reality, and the relationship between researcher and that being researched or, if you want, the relationship between the observer and that which is being observed. Ph.D. researchers usually have an ontological perspective of reality, they just are not usually aware of their position or do not really understand it until they are in a position where they think about it.

There are two main types of ontology: realism and idealism. Researchers who view the world through a realist perspective view reality as fixed and unchanging, and can therefore explore reality using methods that reduce reality into measurable elements such as variables. Researchers who view the world through an idealism perspective view reality as complex and intricate, containing answers that are not easy to search and locate. Realism considers research findings as generalizable whereas idealism view research findings as more contextual and specific.

Brief introduction to Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, of its components, of its sources, and of its origins, and is important for researchers because epistemology is also the study of the way in which knowledge of reality is investigated and understood. The main types of epistemological views of reality are positivism, or postpositivism in Social Sciences, and interpretivism. Interpretivist researchers interpret the actions and events of reality in a way that is usually subjective and unique relative to their personal framework of experiences and perceptions of that event or action. Therefore, interpretivist researchers construct knowledge of reality inside their minds as a result of their subjectivity, and is usually different for each interpretivist researcher. The essential difference with positivitism and related perspectives is that knowledge does not need to be constructed and is therefore readily available to access and be discovered by the researcher. Using a positivist approach, a researcher’s framework of experiences and perspectives of an event does not need to be considered, because knowledge of that event exists regardless of any experience or perspectives.

Brief introduction to Methodology

Ontology and epistemology together explains the way in which a researcher perceives reality, with the former being relative to the relationship between the researcher and reality, and the latter relative to the relationship between a researcher and the way in which they perceive knowledge of reality. Methodology explains the way that knowledge of reality is explored and investigated in order to assist with answering research questions. It is at the methodological level where methods of investigating knowledge is defined, and as can be guessed the selection of methods is influenced by the selected epistemological and ontological perspectives.

There are a couple of general types of methodologies: quantitative and qualitative, each of which contains a large variety of different research methods that explore reality and knowledge of reality in particular ways. Quantitative methodologies involve exploring reality commonly through using experimental and quasi-experimental research designs; qualitative methodologies involve exploring reality and knowledge of reality through very open methods that contain no experimentation or manipulation of reality: case study, phenomenology, interviews, focus groups and observation are examples of qualitative methodologies.

General thoughts

As was said in Part A of this series, although each of these methods are part of a wider umbrella of definitions, all of these methods within each umbrella explore reality and questions of reality slightly differently. As an example, although interviews and focus groups are similar in that they are qualitative investigations of reality, they are different in that they used for different purposes: interviews in terms of obtaining specific views and insights from specific people; focus groups in exploring a particular phenomenon identified among a group of specific individuals.

A key central point to selecting the correct method, therefore, is not only understanding your own ontological and epistemological perspectives of reality, but also fully understanding the research questions that you want to answer in your research project. This shall be covered more in a separate blog posts, at a later time. 

Alex Darracott : 17 May 2015 16:33 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Whatonology? Part A: Reality itself

When you are asked questions along the lines of, “what is reality? What does reality mean to you?” What kind of images of reality comes to you? What is your idea of reality? For some people, reality is getting the children ready for school before a certain time whilst rushing about trying get themselves ready for work, getting the children belted up in the car and rushing them off to school before travelling to the place of work. It must be realised however that all those with children are not in the same reality, so to speak, as others, as there are married couples with children, single parents, parents dealing with an assortment of behavioural, emotional and psychological problems, and their work context might differ: they might work at home, they might not currently have a job, and so on. It can be taken that whilst each of these scenarios have the common feature of people having children, the way that people interact with reality and perceive reality is different, and one of the biggest challenges facing any society is being able to understand that reality is not the same for each person.

Reality therefore is something that we interact with on a daily occurrence. We might have a sense of reality, but do we really think about it to any great lengths or great extents? Reality itself and interactions with reality needs to be considered greatly among Ph.D. researchers and researchers in general, simply because whatever way a researcher perceives reality influences their interactions with and behaviours within reality and therefore can influence greatly the type of research, and the methods used within their research, that is used to understand the reality that they perceive. This can get even more complicated when you abstract from this and start realising that objective reality is perhaps an illusion as each person, each researcher, could perceive reality a little differently and those who share the same perspective of reality could investigate that perspective of reality a little differently.

You then start really asking the questions about what method or methods of investigating reality really brings out the true and correct knowledge about reality, made even more complicated by the fact that knowledge itself can be perceived in many different ways, therefore making it impossible to really decide for sure. But should there be a right or wrong method? Why would a researcher perceive a particular method as a poor method just because they perceive reality and knowledge a little differently from researchers who find that method effective? What is knowledge? What does it consist of? Where does knowledge come from? Is there such a thing as objective knowledge and objective reality? What does it all mean and why is it so important for Ph.D. researchers to consider carefully?

All these questions, and more, must be considered carefully by any researcher. Welcome to Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology!

Alex Darracott : 17 May 2015 16:15 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem