OVERVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, various research methods are investigated with the intention of establishing the best way of dealing with engineering knowledge. The logic base will be structured by way of suitable ontologies and will contain existing engineering knowledge that will contain procedures to create new knowledge. The integration of knowledge structures, existing engineering knowledge and new knowledge are addressed in this chapter.
The establishment or compilation and updating of a logic base in practice will always involve research and interpretation, and is a type of “living” logic base that is always subject to new knowledge that evolves from various sources.

 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions are stated in Chapter 1 of this study. In this chapter, sub-research question (e) is addressed. The question is as follows:
What research methodologies are most applicable for the discovery and application of engineering knowledge?
To answer this question, one has to establish ways in which knowledge in the civil engineering environment is derived and also how it is structured. This information will assist in the development of a suitable ontology. This ontology will provide a basic structure for knowledge, also indicating what knowledge is required by a civil engineer in practice. The best way to research this will have to be determined and is discussed in this chapter.

RESEARCH IN GENERAL

In this section, consideration is firstly given to general aspects of research. After that, a brief overview is given of various research methods. The various research methods are then analysed to identify which research method or methods will best serve the objectives of this study.

DEFINITION OF RESEARCH

First, it is necessary to consider what research is. Research is defined as:
“1. The act of searching carefully for or persuing a specific thing or person; (OED, 2010),2a. Systematic investigation or inquiry aimed at contributing to knowledge of a theory, etc., by careful consideration, observation or study of a subject. In later use also: original critical or scientific investigation carried out under the auspices of an academic or other institution,2b. Investigation undertaken in order to obtain material for a book, article, thesis, etc.2c. The product of systematic investigation, presented in written (esp. published) form.”
Research is defined by Mason and Bramble (1989, p.3) as “the search for answers to questions”.(Mason and Bramble, 1989, p.xiii) also defines research as being “about finding, structuring, and understanding the complexities of knowledge”. (Italics were added for clarity.)
Research is further described by Welman, Kruger and Mitchell (2005, p.2) as “a process that involves obtaining scientific knowledge using various objective methods and procedures. The term objective indicates that these methods do not rely on personal feelings or opinions and that specific methods are used at each stage of the research process.” Mason and Bramble (1989, pp.3-5) put it that, “This knowledge may be used to build theory, to develop policy, to support decision making or to find out something. Research is a knowledge building process with purposes, contexts, values and perspectives, and very definite limitations.” Research may have different purposes. Some research could be aimed at finding answers to commercial market performance and aimed at advising managers for taking action or for making certain decisions.
For the purpose of this study, and considering the above definitions, research is defined as a systematic and objective process involving materials and sources to find, structure and understand the complexities of knowledge and to find answers to questions.

Scientific versus non-scientific research

Research can also be aimed at developing “generalizable knowledge, knowledge that can be used to formulate a theory” (Mason and Bramble, 1989, pp.3-5). The latter is referred to as scientific methods that are used to do a systematic investigation of a question or a problem. The term “systematic” is used as against “haphazard”. Mason and Bramble (1989, p.5) explains that the scientific method of research leads the researcher to develop or test a theory, which is used to explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific knowledge differs from a naïve, or layperson’s knowledge of human behaviour and is not limited to particular fields of study, such as chemistry, physics and medicine. In contrast to scientific, non-scientific research relies on the following (Mason and Bramble, 1989, pp.6-7; Welman, Kruger and Mitchell, 2005, p.4):

• Opinions of peers – instead of calling on the opinions of experts.
• Personal experience – This can be misleading and subjective, based on perceptions and interpretations.
• Statements by persons in authority – as being the so-called experts.
• Traditions – Holding those certain traditional ways of thinking and doing as the only and best ways, whereas some traditional ways are based on incorrect premises and may be illogical.
• Debating – Sometimes illogical arguments ensue and persons can come to illogical conclusions.
• Reasoning – This often comes in the form of general observations argued to hold in specific cases (also called deductive reasoning). Reasoning can also be done from the specific to the general (called inductive reasoning).
• Common sense – This is difficult to define, but is generally non-systematic.
• Accidental observations – Only a single observation of a phenomenon is used to come to conclusions. No systematic and planned observations are used which may cause various persons to come to entirely different conclusions.
• Documentation – The source and the way a document was compiled and became available, must be considered. There are two types of documentation, primary documentation and secondary documentation. Primary documentation may contain reliable records, but if the primary documents were lost and re-constituted, for example, the secondary documentation could be less reliable.

Scientific research is different to the form of research used to gain information and which is not used or usable to develop theory.
Scientific research involves planned and systematic observations in a controlled manner. Scientific research refers to “using scientific methods to expand knowledge in a particular field of study” (Welman, Kruger and Mitchell, 2005, p.3). As Page and Meyer (2000, p.11) put it, “The foundation of the scientific approach is the generation and testing of theories and models that explain and predict reality. The result of a scientific study is the accumulation and organisation of a body of knowledge relevant to a subject area.” The manner in which scientific knowledge is obtained, must be replicable (Welman, Kruger and Mitchell, 2005, pp.5-6). Mouton (2001, p.138) describes scientific research as being when research matter is subject to “systematic and rigorous enquiry”. Mouton (2001, p.138) states that “The search for ‘truth’ or ‘truthful knowledge’ is the overriding goal of science” and also that “the aim of science is to generate truthful (valid and reliable) descriptions, model and theories of the world.” Mouton (2001, p.138) remarks that “Although it is, of course, not possible to produce scientific results that are infallible and “absolutely” true for all time and contexts, we are motivated, as scientists to constantly strive for the most truthful and most valid results.”
For the purpose of this study, the above points of view are supported, whereby planned systematic and rigorous methods are used for the generation and testing of theories and models that explain and predict reality. As seen above, it is important to differentiate between scientific and unscientific research, because, in the context of this study which is qualitative in nature, one has to guard against the use of unscientific research.

RESEARCH METHODS

Two distinctly different methods of research are described in the literature, namely quantitative and qualitative research methods (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.106; Page and Meyer 2000, p.17; Welman, Kruger and Mitchell, 2005, pp.5-10).
A positivist or quantitative approach holds that research “must be limited to what we can observe and measure objectively, that is, that which exists independently of feelings and opinions of individuals” (Welman, Kruger and Mitchell, 2005, p.6). Page and Meyer (2000, p.17) describe that “a quantitative approach places greater value on information that can be numerically manipulated in a meaningful way, and this is the traditional scientific approach to research.” This approach underlies the natural-scientific methods. The qualitative or anti-positivist approach contrasts that of the quantitative approach. A qualitative approach holds that “the natural scientific method is designed for studying molecules or organisms and is therefore not applicable to the phenomenon being studied in human behavioural sciences.” Welman, Kruger and Mitchell (2005, p.6) argue that human experience cannot be separated from the person who is experiencing it. This is one of the important reasons why a qualitative approach is more suitable for research involving experiential or behavioural research. Summarising from Marshall and Rossman (1999, p.2) and Page and Meyer (2000, p.18), the qualitative research approach focuses on words, feelings and the quality of an event or experience and is intrigued by the meanings the participants themselves attribute to social interactions. Qualitative research is pragmatic, interpretive and grounded in experiences of people.
This study focuses on experiential aspects, and qualitative research methods are therefore of specific importance.
Summarising from Marshall and Rossman, (1999); Page and Meyer (2000); Welman, Kruger and Mitchell (2005), Table 3.1 indicates the differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods.
Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.196) purport that historically there was a great emphasis on the qualification of science. “Scientific maturity is commonly believed to emerge as the degree of quantification found in a given field increases […] Finally, there is a widespread conviction that only quantitative data are ultimately valid, or of high quality” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.197). However, Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.107) argue that there are some specific instances that must be considered when evaluating quantitative research. Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.197) mention the following:
Context stripping – precise quantitative methods focus on subsets of variables, leaving out other important aspects.
Exclusion of meaning and purpose. Reference is not made in quantitative research to the meaning and purposes attached to a situation by the human actors.
Disjunction of grand theories with local context: etic/emic (outside/insider respectively) dilemma. Quantitative research usually forms an etic point of view (or the hypotheses being tested); may have little or no bearing within the emic view of studied individuals.
Inapplicability of general data to individual cases. Although in quantitative research, conclusions are made which are based on statistically significant results, individual cases can still be very different. Guba and Lincoln (1994) remark that qualitative research could be used to bridge this gap.
Although considered historically more valid and scientifically correct, quantitative research has limited applications and pertains mainly to cases where theory is to be developed and results are to be interpreted from numbers and statistical manipulation. Qualitative research applies more to behavioural sciences and relates better to the emic or insider’s perspectives. However, both methods have merit, and the applications can be seen in some instances as complimentary. The eventual purpose of the enquiry will determine what method or methods should be employed in the research.
The best methodology for this research study and having regard to the above is to employ the qualitative approach. The reason for this choice is that the knowledge contained in a knowledge base forms the starting point for the abstraction of knowledge and the development of the logic base. This study aims at the design of a logic base where the structuring of knowledge and procedures to create knowledge are of prime importance. Such knowledge is mostly descriptive and not numerical. Each knowledge base contains largely different knowledge elements and therefore does not lend itself to numerical comparative studies as most often found in quantitative studies.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
1.2 PERSPECTIVES IN ENGINEERING
1.2.1 Closing the gap in knowledge and experience
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4.1 The main research question in this study is:
1.5 RELEVANCE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
1.5.1 Basic concepts related to knowledge management
1.5.2 Aspects of gaining knowledge
1.5.3 A systems approach
1.5.4 Applicability of a systems approach to knowledge management
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.7 IMPORTANCE TO ENGINEERING
1.8 ADVANTAGE TOWARDS THE ENHANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE
1.9 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.9.1 General scope
1.9.2 Theoretical scope
1.9.3 Empirical scope
1.9.4 Overview of chapters
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE ANALYSIS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS APPLICABLE THIS CHAPTER
2.3 OVERVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
2.3.1 Definitions of knowledge
2.3.2 Cognitive aspects of knowledge
2.3.3 The knowledge hierarchy
2.3.4 Different types of knowledge
2.3.5 Different types of explicit knowledge
2.3.6 What is knowledge management?
2.3.7 Management of knowledge – the knowledge unit
2.4 KNOWLEDGE CREATION
2.4.1 Definition of knowledge creation
2.4.2 The roles of organisations
2.4.3 Knowledge conversion
2.4.4 Discussions on each conversion process
2.4.5 The use of metaphor
2.4.6 Redundancy of information
2.4.7 Sense-making
2.4.8 Sense-making: The Cynefin Framework
2.4.9 Comments on the Cynefin Model
2.4.10 Comments on the Nonaka and Takeuchi model (SECI Model)
2.5 APPROACHES AND PROCESSES
2.5.1 Organisations – how knowledge is handled
2.5.2 The reuse of knowledge
2.5.3 Knowledge management and problem-solving
2.6 AN OVERVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE-ACQUISITION METHODS
2.6.1 Case-based reasoning
2.6.2 Evidence-based management
2.6.3 Experiential learning
2.6.4 Reflective learning
2.6.5 Critical thinking
2.6.6 Knowledge spill-over
2.6.7 Summary and inferences on knowledge creation
2.7 PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNIQUES
2.7.2 Checklist technique
2.7.3 Morphological analysis
2.7.4 Attribute-seeking technique
2.7.5 Brainstorming technique
2.7.6 Synectics
2.7.7 Analysis and synthesis
2.7.8 Root-Cause Analysis (RCA)
2.7.9 Failure-Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
2.7.10 Functional Analysis Systems Technique (FAST)
2.7.11 The Hierarchy of Objectives Technique (H.O.T.)
2.7.12 TRIZ-technique
2.7.13 The Theory of Constraints (TOC)
2.8 ENGINEERING DESIGN
2.8.1 General remarks
2.8.2 Axiomatic design
2.8.3 Summary and concluding remarks
2.8.4 Synthesis of problem-solving techniques
2.9 THE STRUCTURING AND ARCHITECTURE OF KNOWLEDGE
2.9.1 Taxonomy
2.9.2 Ontology
2.10 KNOWLEDGE-REPRESENTATION TECHNIQUES
2.10.1 Applications of ontologies
2.10.2 Remarks on ontologies and taxonomies
2.10.3 Concluding remarks on ontology and taxonomy
2.11 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
2.12 SYNTHESIS OF METHODS
2.13 THE WAY FORWARD
2.14 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
3.3 RESEARCH IN GENERAL
3.4 DEFINITION OF RESEARCH
3.5 RESEARCH METHODS
3.6 OTHER RESEARCH METHODS
3.7 ACTION RESEARCH
3.8 CASE-STUDY RESEARCH
3.9 THE STRUCTURE OF CASE STUDIES
3.10 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.11 KNOWLEDGE BASES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
3.12 CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 4: THE DESIGN OF A LOGIC BASE 
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 DISCUSSION ON TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
4.3 KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES AND CASE STUDIES
4.4 DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONTOLOGY FOR A LOGIC BASE
4.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE LOGIC BASE
4.6 AN ONTOLOGY FOR THE LOGIC BASE
4.7 CONCEPT MAPS
4.8 RELATIONSHIPS
4.9 THE UPPER-LEVEL ONTOLOGY (ULO)
4.10 THE CASE-SPECIFIC ONTOLOGY (CSO)
4.11 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
4.12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 5: EXPANSION OF CONCEPT MAPS 
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DISCUSSION AND EXPANSION OF CONCEPT MAPS
5.7 TECHNICAL ONTOLOGY
5.8 SUMMARY OF COMPONENTS OF THE LOGIC BASE
5.9 THE OPERATION OF A LOGIC BASE
5.10 SUMMARY
5.11 PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF THE OPERATION OF THE LOGIC BASE
5.12 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
6.3 CONCLUSIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
6.4 CONTRIBUTION OF THIS RESEARCH TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
6.5 SUGGESTED FUTURE RESEARCH
6.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
REFERENCES 
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT