SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2038979443> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 78 of 78 with 100 items per page.

W2038979443 endingPage "117" @default.
W2038979443 startingPage "103" @default.
W2038979443 abstract "For most doctoral students, the dissertation represents the most gratifying, and perhaps the most challenging, phase of their academic programs. Until this point, students have focused mostly on the scholarly works of others. Now they have the opportunity through their dissertation to focus exclusively on which topic interests them the most. A review of the many doctoral programs in human resource development and adult education suggests that they vary widely in terms of their expectations for the dissertation. Some doctoral programs explicitly seek to prepare future researchers or academics, leading to the expectation that their students’ dissertations will advance some theoretical model and likely use a sophisticated data-analysis technique as well. Other doctoral programs with a different focus might seek to prepare scholar-practitioners, leading to a different expectation for the purpose of the dissertation. These studies might examine some aspect of professional practice or a topical organizational issue, without a particular emphasis on building theory as an outcome. Regardless of the nature of the program, the one constant for all dissertations, and for all research for that matter, is the need to state the problem of the study based on the scholarly literature. Doctoral programs commonly require that students take a sequence of research courses that usually focus on how to carry-out a study. That is, the design, the methodology, and the data-analysis techniques, whether they be quantitative or qualitative in nature. Unfortunately, what is often omitted from most research sequences is an understanding of what constitutes a research problem in the first place and how to articulate the problem statement in a logical manner. Some might view such information as being of lesser importance, considering all the various tasks that a dissertation requires. In fact, the problem statement serves a critical foundational role for all research. What value is a study that uses the most advanced research methodology, such as structural equation modeling, but the reason for actually doing the analysis remained uncertain? Or what value is a study that assumes the reader understands the problem as well as the author? How to communicate the research problem demands more than good writing skills alone, though this aspect is an essential competency. For many students as emerging scholars, constructing the problem statement often presents an intellectual challenge of a new sort, apart from designing the study and analyzing the data. This article has four purposes. First, the article discusses the role of the problem statement in doing research in human resource development and adult education. Second, it discusses the various bases for deriving problems for doing research. Third, it presents a four-part logical system, or syllogism, for constructing problem statements. Finally, the article discusses the implications for attending to the problem statement. All forms of systematic inquiry – research, evaluation, or development – may be considered as actions in response to problems. Thus, having a well-conceived problem statement is an essential component of all these activities, though this aspect is sometimes ignored or made to seem more of an intuitive process compared to other parts of the process. As stated, the problem statement serves a foundational role in that it communicates what is the formal reason for engaging in the dissertation in the first place. Nearly all research handbooks advise that stating the problem is either the first or among the first steps of the research process. Merriam and Simpson (1995) identify five steps to the research process, with identifying a concern or problem as being the first step. Hershey, Jacobs-Lawson, and Wilson (2006) use the interesting metaphor of a research script to describe a sort of personalized action plan for researchers. The formulation of the problem and research questions actually comes about as part of the third element of the process. Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, and Sorenson (2005) discuss at some length the nature and sources of problems that need to be considered when doing educational research. Swanson and Holton (2005) propose a process of framing research in organizations, including making a problem decision. Problem statements are sometimes associated more with a logical positivistic perspective of inquiry. That is, viewing science as a systematic orderly process – the scientific method – starting with stating hypotheses through building knowledge through empirical means. Alternately, adherents to a grounded theory view inquiry as a means to allow theory to emerge from the data, suggesting a reversal of the steps related to the scientific method (Stebbins, 2001). In following a grounded theory approach, the precise problem may not be known at the outset of the research, though there might be a notion that a problem situation exists. As a result, the problem statement becomes part of the outcomes of the study, after the data have been gathered and the broad groups of concepts, as derived from the results, have been analyzed to generate a theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Based on the theory that was generated, prospective research problems can be proposed as a means to begin testing the theory. The intent of this article is not to invoke a debate about the relative merits of one approach to inquiry or another. Rather, the point here is that regardless of the researcher's perspective, problem statements play a crucial role in communicating the logic of the research, whether these statements are presented a priori or post hoc in the study. Research problems do not exist in nature just waiting to be plucked out by some observant researcher (Guba, 1978). Instead, they are artificial entities that come together only through the intense efforts of the researcher, who has identified a gap in information or understanding within a topic. In general, the information that forms the problem statement must be first induced from the literature, framed around certain theoretical understandings, and articulated in a way that clearly represents the interests of the researcher. Thus, problem statements differ from a topic of interest. That is, a student might express an interest in, say, workplace learning for a dissertation study. However, that information tells us virtually nothing about the research problem to be studied within workplace learning. Problem statements involve more that merely narrowing down a broad topic of interest into something more specific. Problem statements involve an understanding of the discontinuities that exist when more than one phenomenon is examined at the same time. The second function of problem statements is to justify the usefulness of the information that might be gained by investigating the problem. That is, given that a perplexing situation exists, the following question might be asked: Many such perplexing situations exist in professional practice, so why is this one of importance? The basis of this response could be drawn from a range of reasons. For instance, the importance for understanding the above two statements might rest with the need for organizations to make effective use of their resources, and the systems approach is best suited to ensure that this occurs. Thus, based on this justification, understanding how these two statements could be both true helps the researcher build the case for why the opposing statements deserve attention. It should be noted that the perspective of this justification often confuses students about the intent of the activity. Briefly, research might seek to describe and explain why the statements can both be true, often through the introduction of theory. Development might seek to implement a solution to address the problem. Evaluation might seek to determine the extent to which the solutions in fact addressed the problem. Finally, the problem statement presents the purpose of the present study to address the troublesome or perplexing situation. That is, what the researcher has planned in response to the existence of the opposing factors. Given that the researcher can select among options, there is an element of subjectivity in what factors frame the problem and what goals are set for the study, in the context of the scholarly literature. Thus, in the presence of the same information, different researchers may in fact propose the same or different problem and identify the same or different goals for the study. How a research problem is actually identified is a matter of intense interest for many in human resource development and adult education because no one approach seems to fit best for all situations. Most texts on research suggest that researchers should use some combination of sources of information to derive the problem statement (Merriam and Simpson, 1995), though the precise way to actually use each source is seldom discussed. Perhaps the most common recommendation is that potential research problems might be found by conducting a review of the scholarly literature, which should provide an in-depth knowledge of the topic. The review should reveal what research questions have been asked, which research questions have been resolved and which remain in question, and what research questions might still need to be asked. In addition, developing expertise on a topic provides the intellectual basis to induce potential problems when observing actual settings or discussing the observations of others. No other source of information alone contributes in helping to derive research problems to the same extent as doing the literature review. The adage often goes that nothing can replace the value of personal experience. The same is often true from a research perspective as well. In most instances, personal experience represents the insights gained about a topic or situation when engaged in some level of professional practice. Elsewhere, the notion of partnership research was introduced as a means to gain greater tangible insights into phenomena, which might otherwise come only through the literature. In this sense, partnership research is defined as deriving research from practice (Jacobs, 1997a, 1997b). To accomplish this, researchers should consider first gaining some close-up understanding of the topic through practice, since practice is often the best way to achieve any depth of true understanding (van de Ven and Johnson, 2006). Additionally, if the researcher seeks to eventually influence practice through research, then research problems should be grounded in the practice in the first place. Drawing from personal experience does not negate the need to rely on the scholarly literature. In fact, the scholarly literature provides a frame from which the observant practitioner/researcher can tease out what problems might be of some importance. Students often feel frustrated when attempting to derive meaningful research problems on a topic without much grounding in practice. This is an all too common occurrence, which in many cases calls for better preparation and advising. For instance, many students now express an interest in studying web-based training as it is being used in organizations. At first glance, this focus represents an important topic for the human resource development field, but to make such research truly worthwhile, it seems necessary for students to have gained some first-hand experience either in designing or managing this training approach. Unfortunately, many students express a scholarly interest in studying such topics, but are limited in their perspectives since they have limited practical experiences to buttress their scholarly interest. A third perspective on deriving research problems is to reach out to others for their opinions, such as peers students who may be at the same stage of their programs, recent graduates who may have developed a perspective on the study they conducted, scholar-practitioners who may have developed insights about potential research problems from their own experiences, and of course faculty who have perspectives from their own research interests and agendas. Unfortunately, students mistakenly believe that the process of identifying a research problem should be a relatively solitary ordeal. As a result, too many students close down from their usual social contacts as they engage in this stage of the dissertation process. The result can be undue levels of frustration and anxiety. Faculty can do much to help make the dissertation more of a social process for students, enabling students to have access to a wider set of inputs, without necessarily removing the intellectual challenge inherent in the process. In some programs, students move through the courses and dissertation components as a cohort, which may be helpful in this respect. Another approach is for faculty to organize regularly-scheduled meetings in which students can express their ideas to each other in a non-threatening, but still questioning, environment. How to ensure appropriate levels of social interaction between students and others is a continuing challenge in most doctoral programs. Finally, research problems can follow along from established research agendas. In this case, the advisor, the group of faculty, or even a small group of students may have established a line of research from which the student might be able to identify a research problem. Following the research agenda of others has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that new research problems are the logical result of each previous study. In that sense, research both answers questions and surfaces new questions for attention. Thus, the student may have some options within the scope of the agenda and, in addition, might feel a sense of belonging to a larger research effort. From these various sources of information, the following question might be asked: What does the researcher look for to help frame the research problem? The relationships between and among the factors can take at least five interrelated forms, which can guide the identification of the research problems. The provocative exception occurs when a consistent and accepted conclusion is contradicted by the appearance of a new finding. Detecting such exceptions requires close scrutiny of a topic, which might reveal some subtle change in understanding over time. Provocative exceptions seldom stand out as monumental events in the literature which are immediately recognized as such. Rather, researchers need to analyze the literature carefully and seize upon even the most subtle discrepancies to determine whether the exception should be considered the new orthodoxy or should it be considered an exception worth investigating further. An example of provocative exception might be seen in the literature on mentoring. One line of mentoring research has consistently shown that mentors and mentees show higher levels of interpersonal attraction towards each other when they are matched by age, gender, and race, among other personal factors (McManus & Russell, 1997). However, taken from a different perspective, some studies have shown that when individuals are asked to identify the individual has mentored them and has been most influential in their development, there is no apparent pattern in the matching of personal characteristics. Indeed, Cushnie (1999) found in a qualitative study that all seven African-American women supervisors named Caucasian men as being most helpful in their professional development, even when other women were available to mentor them. In this example, the research and common-sense logic both suggest the importance of matching individuals to ensure effective mentoring results. However, some other studies suggest that other factors may be as important, if not more so. Related to the provocative exception is when contradictory evidence can be shown across findings at the same time. In this instance, each set of results are compelling in their own right, but when viewed from a higher level of abstraction, the contradictions begin to appear. That is, the researcher needs to analyze the findings from each stream of research, then begin to synthesize across the related streams to uncover how they may differ. For example, influential studies of the HRD field, such as the annual survey of the workplace learning and performance industry conducted by ASTD (State of the Industry Report: ASTD's Annual Review of Trends in Workplace Learning and Performance, 2008) have related the percentage of training hours and delivery methods. The results have generally shown that instructor-led training remains has the highest percentage of learning hours with technology-driven delivery approaches steadily gaining in use over the years. Respondents of these studies are likely to be human resource development professionals in the participating organizations. At the same time, when employees across occupations have been asked how they learned how to do their jobs, such as salespersons, engineers, and teachers, they consistently report that they learned their jobs in the context of performing their jobs, and seldom if ever mention classroom training or web-based training per se (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985; Connor, 1983). Though these results do not directly contradict each other, they do show that learning in the workplace can be viewed differently depending on which group is selected as the respondents of the study. It is difficult to believe that a knowledge void exists today to any extent on any topic. The volume of research being conducted and reported must certainly be the highest ever. In addition, this does not even consider the unprecedented availability of research from related fields. For instance, a doctoral student sought to study the HRD function in organizations within the context of service quality management. Such an approach had not been done within the HRD literature, but such an approach is quite common within the operations management literature. Thus, a theoretical framework and the literature from this related field were used in the dissertation (Mafi, 2000). Another perspective on the knowledge void is to ask why some result was actually found in a study, when some other result was expected or intended. Clearly, this discrepancy occurs in many studies and provides an especially fertile ground for generating new research problems. For instance, several years ago, Benjamin Bloom published a meta-analysis of studies investigating the effectiveness of mastery learning approaches (Bloom, 1984). He reported a somewhat startling result that mastery learning had improved student outcomes by one standard deviation overall, but had not achieved the two standard-deviation improvement that he felt was necessary to prove the efficacy of mastery learning. Instead, face-to-face tutoring approaches had consistently achieved these more ambitious outcomes. How to explain these discrepancies gave rise to a new generation of research on the topic. The action-knowledge conflict focuses on when individuals’ professional behaviors differ from their espoused behaviors. In this instance, the research problem could seek to identify if such a gap actually exists within a specific situation or topic, the issues that contribute to the gap, and the constraints that prevent individuals from behaving in professional situations as they might wish otherwise. Perhaps the most common example is that many human resource development and adult education practitioners generally agree about the critical importance of thoroughly evaluating their training programs. However, in spite of such espoused beliefs, in practice training evaluation activities are rarely shown to occur to the same extent and with the same level of fervor and commitment. The use of one or another research methodology may also help provide a source for a research problem. Though there are numerous ways that researchers can manage bias or undue influence in their studies, the research methodology itself becomes a source of influence, though it is unlikely the researcher ever thought of it in this way. Such occurrences become opportunities for framing the next problem statement. One could argue that much of what we know about professional practice comes from survey research that asks respondents to complete an instrument of some kind. Indeed, the development of web-based platforms makes this approach all the more efficient to administer and the results to analyze. At the same time, some of the most insightful understandings about the vagaries of professional practice come from the direct questioning of respondents using open ended questions or specifically-formatted questions such as the critical incident technique. Qualitative research does not owe its existence simply to find an alternate approach to quantitative research, as might be suggested by the above example. Each research or paradigm has its own legitimate place in its own right for facilitating our understanding of phenomena. However, when certain topics have been predominantly investigated using one method or another, then that occurrence opens the obvious question about whether the results might differ if another method was used. It is possible that the same phenomenon may be explained through more than one theoretical model, and such a discrepancy might provide an opportunity for studying the explanatory power of one theory over the other. Identifying research problems from this perspective seems more likely through one of the HRD foundational theories, such as psychology. For instance, examining learning theories based on behavioral or cognitive theories have provided many researchers with a clear contrast from which to study and explain specific instructional approaches. Does learner interaction lead to higher learning outcomes because it affords individuals an opportunity to reflect upon the relevance of the content or because of the perceived value of the consequence that follows the response? It is relatively recent that the topics of theory and theory building have become serious discussion points in the human resource development field (Lynham, 2003). Using theoretical conflict as a basis for identifying problem statements would seem a logical next step from this on-going discussion. Problem statements typically have four major components which communicate the basis of the study, or the perplexing or troublesome situation, and the general action that will be taken the situation. Taken together, problem statements represent a system of argument – or a conditional syllogism – that is based on information that is recognized as being true in a particular sense. Truthful information is derived from the scholarly literature of the field, reliable sources from the general or professional literature, or commonly-accepted views of the field from respected individuals. Problem statements are not built from the personal opinions of the researcher or conclusion from spurious sources of information that may have an inherent predisposition or prejudice about a topic. In this sense, research problem statements can be constructed to appear to be logically valid, but they may not actually true in the manner that truth is defined here. In addition, viewing problem statements in this way highlights the need to differentiate the quality of the scholarly sources in a field, including conference proceedings, journals, and professional texts. In general, the most “truthful” scholarly sources are those that have the most rigorous review processes. The four components of problem statements are the following: Historical records suggest that Central Ohio typically has a relatively mild winter weather pattern. As a result, over the years, local newspapers have reported few disruptions on daily life caused by the weather. Such statements are intended to establish a baseline of acceptable fact. Of course, such statements in themselves may be subject to scrutiny and question by the reader. Who conducted the analysis of the historical and newspaper records? How does a mild weather pattern differ from a severe weather pattern? What is a disruption on daily life? Regardless, given that the assertion is supported by public sources of information, there is at least the assumption that the statement has some level of credibility. However, the past five winters in Central Ohio have been especially harsh, with temperatures ranging well below the daily averages. As a result, most schools have been closed more days than their allotted number. The importance of the interacting proposition is to provide a contrast to the principal proposition. Thus, the interacting proposition is especially sensitive to being supported by the scholarly or credible professional literature. One cannot simply report that a contradiction exists to the principal proposition on the basis of the researcher's personal opinion or a source that is less than credible. Indeed, the problem statement depends in large part on whether the interacting proposition is constructed in a way that is sufficiently convincing. And the most convincing support comes from either the scholarly literature or some other respected professional outlet. If Central Ohio has had relatively mild winters in the past based on historical information, and if the recent winter weather pattern suggests a new weather pattern, which may have detrimental affects on daily life, then more must be known about the most current winter weather patterns of Central Ohio. Finally, the problem statement should conclude with a culminating statement that states how the gap will be resolved in the form of the actions that the researcher intends to undertake. Simply put, the explicative statement is the statement of the purpose of the research study. Many researchers mistakenly view the explicative statement as the problem statement itself. As a result, in the section labeled problem statement of the dissertation, research report, or journal article, the author will simply provide to the reader the purpose of the research study. The purpose of this study is to investigate the recent winter weather pattern and its affects on daily life in Central Ohio. Table 1 (Appendix A) presents four example problem statements highlighting each of their four components. Of course, in an actual dissertation, each component would be expanded to a much greater extent within Chapter One. However, at the beginning stages of the dissertation process, the core format as shown in the table serves an important function for both the student and the faculty advisor. The core format helps students focus their writing efforts on the essential task at hand – that is, the articulation of the problem statement without being unnecessarily distracted by other aspects of the study. For the faculty advisor, the core format provides a basis to better understand the student's intent and to provide constructive feedback for improvement. The central point made at the beginning of this article is the research problem is fundamental to good research. Otherwise, the research could not be considered as an intellectual activity governed by system thinking. These oft-stated critical comments about some studies illustrate this point: “A method in search of a problem”, “The researcher knew what he wanted to do, but forgot to tell anyone else”, or “Interesting results, but what does it mean?” These types of comments plague more than a few dissertations. Developing research problems requires a sort of intellectual discipline that differs from other aspects of the research process. It requires that the researcher possess deep knowledge of the scholarly literature of interest, all the while holding onto some sense of what they would like to do. This author's observation is that many students may not be able to readily articulate their research problem, but they are able to recognize it when they finally work out the appropriate logic. At some point, there comes a realization that the problem existed all along, and that it just needed to be “discovered” through successful attempts at analysis and synthesis. The extraneous clutter of understandings have been peeled away to reveal the student's core scholarly interest. Engaging in this process may be as demanding as any academic task they may have undertaken, and certainly the process helps avoid the common criticisms directed at many studies. Attention to the research problem carries with it benefits beyond the immediate study. Figure 1 (Appendix B) shows how the components of the problem statement, the problem components and the explicative statement, can be generalized to guide change projects, development projects, evaluation projects, as well as research studies. Each professional activity may be guided by a different set of requirements, such as those for change projects: improve, innovate, or transform. However, the basis for doing the professional activity should be guided by a logical presentation of the problem beforehand. Finally, attention to the research problem carries with it an indisputable personal development dimension. Perhaps as important is the opportunity to view each individual student's study as part of a larger set of studies having related research problems. A substantial number of dissertations are completed each year, and one major criticism is the lack of cohesiveness of the studies (Shulman, Golde, Conklin-Bueschel, Garabedian, 2006). In keeping with the promise of academic freedom, each study responds to the needs of the individual student, but important questions might be asked about this approach. One might consider the dissertations conducted by students in one academic department or program. What new knowledge has actually been generated from all the dissertation studies? Are any of the studies logically connected such that one builds or complements any of the others? Of what value is it to discuss implications for future research in the concluding chapter, knowing that in reality that the new questions raised will never be actually addressed? Such concerns in part call for a more systematic approach of viewing and carrying out dissertation research and by extension how faculty advisors work with their advisees (Wright, Murray, & Geale, 2007). In truth, new useful knowledge seldom comes from one study alone, regardless of the scale or quality of the study. Instead, knowledge comes from a series of related research studies – metaphorically similar to that of a garden lattice – that occur over a period of time. Meta-analysis suggests how the value of one study becomes a data point in the context of numerous studies. Thus, one study cannot yield the ever by itself the same confidence about any set of questions. This article seeks to guide how to conceptualize and articulate research problem statements. Meeting this challenge often differs from the more common tasks of selecting and using the correct research methods and data-analysis techniques. Students realize that constructing problem statements in fact is an especially intellectually demanding process requiring a range of analytical skills. But such intense efforts upfront are almost always rewarded by greater clarity of the research intent and, by extension, increased meaningfulness of the results. How to ensure the integrity of this aspect of the research process remains a challenge for students and faculty advisors alike." @default.
W2038979443 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W2038979443 creator A5074605358 @default.
W2038979443 date "2013-07-01" @default.
W2038979443 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
W2038979443 title "Developing a dissertation research problem: A guide for doctoral students in human resource development and adult education" @default.
W2038979443 cites W2002217875 @default.
W2038979443 cites W2051066739 @default.
W2038979443 cites W2091055668 @default.
W2038979443 cites W2092981583 @default.
W2038979443 cites W2172010324 @default.
W2038979443 cites W2502221291 @default.
W2038979443 cites W254444275 @default.
W2038979443 cites W4241371093 @default.
W2038979443 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20034" @default.
W2038979443 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
W2038979443 type Work @default.
W2038979443 sameAs 2038979443 @default.
W2038979443 citedByCount "5" @default.
W2038979443 countsByYear W20389794432017 @default.
W2038979443 countsByYear W20389794432018 @default.
W2038979443 countsByYear W20389794432021 @default.
W2038979443 countsByYear W20389794432022 @default.
W2038979443 countsByYear W20389794432023 @default.
W2038979443 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2038979443 hasAuthorship W2038979443A5074605358 @default.
W2038979443 hasBestOaLocation W20389794431 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C107645774 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C206345919 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C31258907 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
W2038979443 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C107645774 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C127413603 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C144024400 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C145420912 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C15744967 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C161191863 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C17744445 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C19417346 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C199539241 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C206345919 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C31258907 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C41008148 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C509550671 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C55587333 @default.
W2038979443 hasConceptScore W2038979443C71924100 @default.
W2038979443 hasIssue "3" @default.
W2038979443 hasLocation W20389794431 @default.
W2038979443 hasOpenAccess W2038979443 @default.
W2038979443 hasPrimaryLocation W20389794431 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W1438283080 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W1964312559 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2011371269 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2050583908 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2365886438 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2371485949 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2789672722 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
W2038979443 hasRelatedWork W2903735003 @default.
W2038979443 hasVolume "25" @default.
W2038979443 isParatext "false" @default.
W2038979443 isRetracted "false" @default.
W2038979443 magId "2038979443" @default.
W2038979443 workType "article" @default.