Frameworks of knowledge in technology – Project topics materials

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3 Research design and methodology

Overview of this chapter

This chapter presents the strategy of inquiry as well as the guiding philosophical assumption. The conceptual framework used in this study is presented along with a motivation for using it. In addition, it’s limitations are discussed and insight is provided into the target population and the contextual background. Subsequently the instrument, reliability and validity, as well as the sampling, are explicated. The chapter ends with a description of the data collection and analysis.

Strategy of inquiry

This study engages a combination of quantitative and qualitative research. The rationale for using this design is that the quantitative and qualitative data are needed for different purposes in addressing the research questions. The quantitative data is required to answer the research questions both in terms of the frequencies of knowledge in which students engaged, and the correlation of the knowledge engagement by the students between the two content areas. The qualitative data, on the other hand, is required to inform what knowledge the students used and how they used it to complete the capability tasks. The added advantage of this design is that the qualitative data could also be used to validate the student responses to the questionnaire. Figure 1 illustrates the strategy of inquiry.
Figure 1 shows that the quantitative data (QUAN) took precedence, since it represents a major aspect of the data collection and because most of the research questions of this study could be answered during this phase of the study. The qualitative data (qual), on the other hand, answered certain research questions, but was also used to complement the quantitative data by providing examples from the students’ project portfolios, i.e. context.
The quantitative data collection and analysis in the first sequence was followed by the second sequence, the qualitative data collection and analysis. These studies (QUAN and qual) will be presented separately in two phases: Chapter 4 explores the data and results of the quantitative phase while chapter 5 investigates the data and results of the qualitative phase of this study. The research questions are answered in the final chapter (6) through an interpretation of the entire analysis.

Philosophical assumption

The philosophical assumption that governs this study is that of pragmatism. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:18), the philosophical implications are inter alia that pragmatism:

attempts to find a middle ground between philosophical dogmatism and scepticism, and to find a workable solution (sometimes including outright rejection) to many longstanding philosophical dualisms about which agreement has not been historically forthcoming;
rejects traditional dualisms, e.g. rationalism versus empiricism, realism versus antirealism, facts versus values, subjectivism versus objectivism, and generally prefers more moderate and commonsense versions of philosophical dualism based on how well they work in solving problems;
prefers action to philosophizing (pragmatism is, in a sense, an anti-philosophy);
views knowledge as both constructed and based on the reality of the world we experience and in which we live;
replaces the historically popular epistemic distinction between subject and external object with the naturalistic and process-orientated organism-environment transaction;
endorses practical theory (theory that informs effective practice);
acknowledges fallibility (current beliefs and research conclusions are rarely, if ever, viewed as perfect, certain, or absolute);
endorses eclecticism and pluralism, e.g. different, even conflicting, theories and perspectives can be useful; observation, experience, and experiments are all useful ways to gain an understanding of people and the world; and
offers the “pragmatic method” for solving traditional philosophical dualism and for making methodological choices.

These philosophical implications are in keeping with Creswell’s (2003:12) pragmatic knowledge claims, i.e. pragmatism opens the doors to multiple methods, different worldviews and different assumptions.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework of this study was derived chiefly from Vincenti’s (1990:208) categories of technological knowledge. In keeping with Broens and De Vries’ (2003:463-framework, Vincenti’s (1990:208) categories of technological knowledge will be extended by adding Ropohl’s (1997:70) category of socio-technological understanding and Bayazit’s collaborative design knowledge (1993:123), which both seem to be missing from Vincenti’s (1990:208) framework. This amended conceptual framework will give an indication of what knowledge the students engage during the two capability tasks. To explore how the students acquired such knowledge, Vincenti’s (1990:229) knowledge-generating activities will be added to the framework, as shown in table 5.
The framework shown in table 5 is complex and it should be noted that Vincenti (1990) did not intend his framework to be used for the purpose of this study. Some limitations of this framework therefore need to be addressed.

Motivation for using the conceptual framework

As noted earlier, Vincenti (1990) did not intend his framework to be used for the purpose of this study. The motivation for choosing Vincenti’s (1990) framework is:

it seems to be the most complete one (Broens & De Vries, 2003:461); and
the students who participated in this study had to follow the design process prescribed by the DoE (2002), and all Vincenti’s (1990) categories of knowledge refer to knowledge as related phases in the design process (Broens & De Vries, 2003:469). It therefore seemed appropriate to use Vincenti’s (1990) framework as the conceptual framework for this study.

Limitations of the conceptual framework

Vincenti (1990:208,235) admits that neither the categories nor the activities are mutually exclusive and an item of knowledge can belong to more than one category. It is also possible that more than one activity, e.g. research and invention, can take place to generate an item of knowledge. In addition, Vincenti (1990:208) acknowledges that the categories of knowledge are not entirely exhaustive: “although the major categories are presumably complete, the subspecies within them most likely are not”.
As a result, Broens and De Vries (2003:465) point out that Vincenti’s (1990) framework does not follow the two basic rules of classification, viz. that classification should be mutually exclusive and complete. Both rules are, according to them (Broens & De Vries, 2003:465) more or less broken, but they regard the ‘mutually exclusive’ rule as the weakest link in Vincenti’s (1990) classification scheme. This issue will be revisited in chapter 5 where some items of knowledge will be “duplicated” to serve as examples of different categories of knowledge.

READ Master Narrative and Counter-narrative

The need to extend the meaning of theoretical engineering research as a knowledge-generating activity

Vincenti (1990:7, 207) declares that his historical cases focused on knowledge for normal design, acknowledging that his analyses are correspondingly limited. Normal design is “the design involved in normal technology” (Vincenti, 1990:7). An engineer engaging in normal design knows from the outset how the device in question works and what the customary features are. If a device were to be designed according to these known facts, there is a good likelihood that it would accomplish the desired task. If changes were made, they would be incremental instead of essential; normal design is evolutionary rather than revolutionary (Vincenti, 1990:7-8).

Motivation for using the conceptual framework

As noted earlier, Vincenti (1990) did not intend his framework to be used for the purpose of this study. The motivation for choosing Vincenti’s (1990) framework is:

it seems to be the most complete one (Broens & De Vries, 2003:461); and
the students who participated in this study had to follow the design process prescribed by the DoE (2002), and all Vincenti’s (1990) categories of knowledge refer to knowledge as related phases in the design process (Broens & De Vries, 2003:469). It therefore seemed appropriate to use Vincenti’s (1990) framework as the conceptual framework for this study.

Limitations of the conceptual framework

The need to extend the meaning of theoretical engineering research as a knowledge-generating activity

Abstract
Table of contents
List of tables
List of figures
List of graphs
Chapter 1 Prelude to the enquiry
1.1 Overview of the chapter
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Background, rationale and purpose
1.4 Research questions
1.5 Explanation of key terms
1.6 Context of the study
1.7 Research design and methodology
1.8 Research limitations
1.9 Outline and organisation of the study
Chapter 2 Literature review
2.1 Overview of the chapter
2.2 Knowledge
2.3 Science and technology
2.4 Knowledge and learning
2.5 Frameworks of knowledge in technology
2.6 Summary
Chapter 3 Research design and methodology
3.1 Overview of the chapter
3.2 Strategy of inquiry
3.3 Philosophical assumption
3.4 Conceptual framework
3.5 Target population
3.6 Contextual background
3.7 Sampling
3.8 Instruments, reliability and validity
3.9 Procedures of data collection and analysis
Chapter 4 Data and results of the quantitative phase
4.1 Overview of the chapter
4.2 Categories of technological knowledge
4.3 Knowledge-generating activities
4.4 Conclusion
Chapter 5 Data and results of the qualitative phase
5.1 Overview of the chapter
5.2 Categories of technological knowledge
5.3 Conclusion
Chapter 6 Epilogue
6.1 Overview of the chapter
6.2 Overview of the study
6.3 Revisiting the research questions
6.4 Reflection
6.5 Recommendations
Bibliography
Appendix
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT