All 7 entries tagged Epistemology

Engagement at the Philosophical level

The Ph.D. is not just about generating new knowledge about a phenomenon: it is also about being engaged at the Methodological and Philosophical levels. Being engaged at the Methodological level means really thinking about the methodologies and methods that have been used to explore and develop new knowledge about the phenomenon of investigation. The uniqueness of a Ph.D. therefore lies not just in thinking about it in terms of developing new knowledge but about the way in which this new knowledge is developed and understood. Being engaged at the Philosophical level means to think about your own perspectives of reality, the way that knowledge of this reality is collected, and understanding a variety of different Philosophical perspectives of reality and their relevance towards the research project along with understanding the way in which your perspectives of reality influences research design. This post shall deal with being involved at the Philosophical level.

Previous Thinking

Previously I thought of myself as a constructivist, an interpretivist, a relativist and a contextualist. I began to reject the notion of an objective reality and therefore had the idea that we create or construct our own reality, that therefore reality is a little different for each of us and that the way we come to understand and attain knowledge within this reality is different for all and our perceptions of the usefulness of related processes also differ.

This view was initially reflected in my own research design through favouring a qualitative methodology and using qualitative based methods to explore the phenomenon of interest. As time progressed however and a more significant understanding of the research problem and research methodologies was attained, I began to grow an appreciation for quantitative methodologies and methods. Philosophical and Methodological battles therefore began to occur as I attempted to understand the way that quantitative data could be included in a qualitative methodology. These battles were a reflection of the fact that what was occurring was going against the way that I perceived the relationship between reality and research exploration with Social Science disciplines: that you cannot define behaviour and generalise behaviour of phenomena through using statistical analysis and relationship between variables. But the more I thought about this (and the more that I continue to think about this) the more that exploring particular aspects of the phenomenon using quantitative analysis made more sense. Using a methodology where quantitative and qualitative approaches complement rather than compete with each other made more sense when an aim is to attain a substantial understanding of the phenomenon.

Current Thinking

There appears to be a group of researchers who subscribe exclusively to quantitative methodologies and methods and therefore perceive reality as absolute; that reality exists independent of our thoughts and behaviour of the mind and therefore can be understood through deconstructing or reducing reality down to a series of variables and exploring relationships between them. There is another group of researchers at the other side of the Philosophical and Methodological Spectrum who are exclusively qualitative; that they perceive reality as being relative and contextual, and that therefore each person develops their own reality within the context they are within. Then there are those in the middle who believe that reality can be understood through the complementation of both perspectives. Remember however that within Mixed Methods there can be no “mixing” or combining of these perspectives, only that they are used to deal with separate but related research questions and problem areas.

So where do I stand with all of this at the moment? I still consider myself as a constructivist: I perceive reality as being subjective, that each of us develop our own realities and that this construction of reality and reality itself is relative only to the context that we are within. But, I do and am beginning to value the quantitative relative to my own research problem and research question therefore I would place my own perspectives and research itself now towards the middle.

General Thoughts

Note that I am not suggesting that all Ph.D. candidates should immediately start considering the middle as the answer to everything. Which side you place your research is influenced by your own stances and understanding of its Philosophy and Methodology, and a sound grasp, understanding, and critical analysis of the relevant, current literature. The research questions, the research problems, the research purposes, the methodology that you select, and methods that you adopt should be led not by your own agendas and Philosophical perspectives, but by the needs identified in the literature.

What are you really investigating? What do you want to investigate? What are the constructs of your research? What are your Philosophical views? What way do you perceive reality? What methodology are you adopting? What methods are you going to use?

All these questions, and more, should be led by that understanding of the literature, and your own biases and assumptions need to be placed aside as much as possible. But this is not always achieved, as even the most objective person has even the smallest amount of bias and favourability towards particular research methodologies and methods. Researcher bias therefore is a big topic of debate within academia and the way in which researcher bias influences the results and therefore questions are asked as to what influences researcher bias to occur in the first place.

It is challenging when you really start questioning your own perspectives because some can go into a complete denial about the complementary aspects of differing methodologies and methods, but this is a challenge that all Ph.D. candidates should tackle. Again, don’t feel that you should subscribe to a particular methodology or method just because it appears fashionable, but go with what is right for your own research questions and problem areas. Once you feel authentic, you begin to produce authentic work, and therefore raise the respect and authenticity levels of research work as a whole.

‘till next time: question yourself and your views of reality, and do what is right for the context you are in!

Alex Darracott : 17 Jan 2016 15:20 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Philosophy Prd |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Grounded Theory: possibly Relativist? Combination of various Philosophical perspectives?

I’ve been thinking further recently about Philosophical considerations of the Grounded Theory methodology and previously I mentioned about the possibility of combining or in some way integrating different Philosophical perspectives. Reality can be considered from a couple of main umbrella perspectives. There are perspectives that define reality as existing independent of the mind and the thoughts of the observer, and there are perspectives that define reality as dependent on the mind and the thoughts of the observer. What this means from a pure Philosophical or Ontological perspective is whether or not there really is an objective reality out there, or whether or not reality is simply something that we imagine and build for ourselves. From a methodological perspective, this has implications upon the choice of methodology and methods that are used to explore reality and to gain knowledge of that reality. Interpretivism, Constructivism and Relativism are Philosophical perspectives that describe reality as being dependent on the mind; of the thoughts that exist within the mind and the way in which these thoughts and other mental processes are used to develop a picture of the reality that the observer finds themselves in.

Grounded Theory enables the researcher to construct a theory or to theorise from the actual data itself and not from the data after it has been put through a level of, say, quantitative analysis. It is therefore apparent that whatever theory or theorisation occurs is dependent on the thoughts and the thinking of the researcher, and therefore it is a methodology that assumes that reality can be constructed, especially Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory, which is the flavour of Grounded Theory picked for my Ph.D. research.

What I have been thinking about is that perhaps Grounded Theory is a methodology that represents a combination of Interpretivism, Constructivism and Relativism. Because Grounded Theory enables each researcher to develop a theory following the development of codes and categories that explain their observations, it is an interpretivist methodology. Because it is an interpretation, each researcher would interpret the data differently and therefore develop different sets of codes and categories. The thoughts and the thinking of the researcher are therefore part of the Grounded Theory process and this is something that Positivist approaches (e.g., experimental designs) would not allow to happen.

Because the researcher is able to develop a theory or to theorise from the data they are therefore constructing a theory that explains their interpretation of that reality, and therefore Grounded Theory can be known as a Constructivist methodology. It is constructivist because reality or an aspect of reality is being constructed by the researcher through the development of that theory, through developing codes and categories as a result of data interpretation.

Relativism is something new that I have thought about. Relativism implies situational context; that the development of a theory therefore is relative only to the context within which the Grounded Theory research takes place. There are many debates about the generalisability (a characteristic that measures if whether or not a theory or findings can be generalised across multiple contexts) of the Grounded Theory methodology, so to suggest that Grounded Theory is a relative methodology might not be so clear cut as it is to suggest that Grounded Theory is both an Interpretivist and a Constructivist methodology. But it is interesting to think about it from the perspective as Grounded Theory enabling the researcher to construct a theory of some aspect of reality (hence Constructivism) through interpreting the data leading to developing codes and categories that explain what they observe in the data (hence Interpretivism) possibly because of the nature of interpretivism that this would be specific to the context of the Grounded Theory research (hence possibly Relativism). As mentioned however there are many debates surrounding the generalisability of Grounded Theory so I will not make any suggestion at this time as to whether or not Grounded Theory could be considered a Relativist methodology. But it will be interesting after the Christmas holiday to think about this more but in the meantime collect a fair amount of literature about this, and other Philosophical debates about Grounded Theory (and heck, more literature about Grounded Theory and everything else in general!)

So, lots of thinking to do next year!

‘till next time folks, remember: if Santa isn’t able to come down the chimney then use the front door!

Alex Darracott : 09 Dec 2015 16:25 |  Tags: Epistemology Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Epistemology of Grounded Theory: brief thoughts on intial readings

During the past week, I shall admit, I have found the prospect of using Grounded Theory to be a little bit daunting. Books and other literature written by Strauss and Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz are the key literature in defining different main flavours of Grounded Theory, and whilst they all share commonality on some aspects of Grounded Theory (e.g., that it leads to some sort of new theory) they differ significantly on others (e.g., placement and role of the literature, what is actually produced, and epistemological positioning). The key understanding that I currently have on Grounded Theory from the literature that I have read so far and continue to read is that the application of Grounded Theory is extremely diverse and can be suited to fit the research agenda. That’s not to say, however, that Grounded Theory can be twisted and distorted completely out of proportion and original conceptions too much, but it is to say that it appears to offer a very flexible implementation and according to some of the Ph.D. theses I have had a read through that uses Grounded Theory, not every feature and instruction of Grounded Theory needs to be implemented. It really depends on the context and direction of the research. Understandably therefore, there is a myriad of literature which argues for and against different flavours of Grounded Theory, present different versions of Grounded Theory, applies and argues for and against different features of Grounded Theory, and tackles an assortment of different characteristics of Grounded Theory such as validity, reliability, rigour and limitations. Another important aspect of Grounded Theory and something that I shall probably need to tackle first in the thesis is the Epistemological orientation of Grounded Theory.

Epistemology, which is a branch of Philosophy that tackles the understanding of what knowledge is, the way we acquire knowledge of reality and the sources used to acquire this knowledge, might appear to be completely irrelevant to a particular research project but it is very important to be able to tackle epistemological problems of Grounded Theory or any other research method that you choose to adopt. This is because Epistemology in research deals with methodological problems and considerations around the way that particular method or methodology collects data and understands the way in which knowledge of reality should be acquired. This is something that is not really tackled in Ph.D. theses according to commentary from some Professors, so this is an area that I am keen to explore to a much greater depth than I had considered during the first year.

Remember that methodology defines the overall umbrella of the research design. A research design can therefore be experimental or quasi-experimental (therefore quantitative) or either of a selection of different qualitative methodologies such as case based or phenomenology. Quantitative data is usually associated with Positivist or Post Positivists perspectives of reality (that reality is fixed and knowledge is already there therefore easily obtainable through deconstructing this reality into a series of statistically calculable variables and their relationships) whilst qualitative data is associated with Interpretivist or Constructivist perspectives of reality (where it is believed that reality is not fixed or constant and therefore people construct different realities or different perspectives of a particular phenomenon). It is quite important for me to understand and further develop my understanding of this because Grounded Theory can work with both, and this is where I have found Grounded Theory to be a little daunting (as well as its actual application but this is another matter for another blog post and the more I read the more I am understanding its application anyway but it all takes time) because for many months I have read textbooks that suggest Grounded Theory is or should be associated only with an Interpretivist or Constructivist perspective. So to read that this is actually incorrect and that the original authors of Grounded Theory, Strauss and Glaser, intended it to be used with both quantitative and qualitative data, was quite interesting indeed and again this is an area that I need to understand further. This is made all the more interesting when Grounded Theory is used as a method of analysing qualitative data within a Mixed Methods methodology. With Mixed Method methodologies, the epistemological position is Pragmatism; therefore, there comes epistemological issues with the fact that an interpretivist or constructivist epistemologically based method is being used within a design that is inherently pragmatic.

Confused yet?!

There is a plethora of literature that argues back and forth, forwards and backwards about the epistemological stance of Grounded Theory. Without a doubt, I shall have to get to grips with this literature further, and through this understanding of the literature develop a particular stance and argue this stance in the thesis. This is important as there appears to be a general consensus for all Ph.D. candidates regardless of research method and methodology to involve themselves and really explore and argue epistemological positions, the compatibility issues, and so on.

A current initial thought of mine is that Grounded Theory could be viewed as a general interpretivist methodology, as it has been suggested in some Ph.D. theses that what is actually developed is an interpretation or perspective of the data, and not actually a strict theory.

This is just the beginning.

‘tii next blog post, remember children: don’t believe everything you read in your textbooks at school, but at the same time don’t challenge your teachers about it because you’ll get detention and be accused of being disruptive and unteachable (just kidden!)

Alex Darracott : 12 Nov 2015 12:59 |  Tags: Epistemology Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Current thoughts about Educational Research

Having just completed the first year of the Ph.D. I have had a fair amount of time to think about what Educational Research is really all about and what Educational research actually means. You can read through a dozen (and more!) textbooks on the subject and you’ll be greeted with an assortment of definitions and goals of Educational Research. Read through the vast empirical literature and you’ll find a vast quantity of different areas of teaching and learning explored using a variety of different methods and methodologies, all led by the intentions, aspirations, desires, and even agendas of the researchers.

To define Educational Research after the first year of the Ph.D. is not quite easy and any attempts on my part will obviously be driven by my own interests and research passions, but in any case currently I view Educational Research as a set of Psychological, Sociological, Anthropological, and Philosophical methods and theories that are used to explore the relationship between Learners, their Psyche, and the applications and approaches that they use for their learning with the aim of better understanding learning processes within a variety of learning environments. At primary and secondary school, and probably also at College level, this can be expanded to include the teacher or tutor and their teaching or tutoring processes.

The more I explore Educational Research the more expansive the field is realised and that it’s a continuously growing field of research and practice; however, I must keep focus of my own research interests and therefore explore Educational Research within the context of my own areas of interests. Even then, I’m only just scratching the surface here as not only are there many methods and approaches to Educational Research, but near enough limitless debates and discussions about using these methods and approaches to explore constructs of a particular research area, and more contributions to these discussions and debates can occur as well as ways in which methods and approaches can be used for different purposes.

In what way should Educational Research be performed? There shall never be a general agreement or consensus as to the most ideal way that Educational Research should be carried out because near enough every researcher carries a set of assumptions regarding the way that knowledge of reality can be or should be obtained, which impacts on their preferred research orientation therefore it really depends on their Ontological and Epistemological assumptions of reality. For me personally, I do not view Educational Research as a Scientific endeavour; I view it as a Social Scientific endeavour, because I believe that to investigate all aspects of Education using a Scientific method would be too restrictive and would give too narrow a focus when analysing data and dealing with the research subjects in general. Quantitative data and methods dominate Scientific research, but I do not believe that it should dominate Educational Research because teaching and learning and the ways to make this more effective cannot be expressed in just quantitative data alone: there is a need for qualitative approaches and data as well. Some people perceive Science and the Scientific Methods as the be all in answering everything and whilst I respect that, I don’t agree with the view that it can answer everything and this is something that I will be expressing more in my thesis.

Like I said, I’m only just scratching the surface here and so far along my Ph.D. journey. I have chosen my methods, general approach, and methodology and shall be developing arguments that support their selection and use within my research. Will my methodology and methods change? Not likely: I’m settled on these now; I always have been, but needed to read more to understand the constructs that needs to be explored and these I am also beginning to settle upon.

With that, and because there are so many definitions and approaches to Educational Research, the best advice I can give any person doing a Ph.D. in Education is to really explore the methodological literature and select the method or methods that best answer the questions that you have formed from the problems that you have identified.

There is no right or wrong answer: just know what you are going to do, what methods you are going to use, and develop arguments that support your selection.

Happy research!

Alex Darracott : 01 Sep 2015 14:17 |  Tags: Education Epistemology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  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