Desarrollo de una infraestructura con ocultación

All research approaches and methods have their basis in certain philosophical beliefs. This entails the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge (Creswell, 2012). This is a theoretical view of research. In practice, researchers in the social science, design and conduct research studies that are grounded in different ways of interpreting social reality: the objectivist and the subjectivist views. These two in fact present opposite ways of understanding social reality.

The objectivist worldview is an understanding that “the world exists and is knowable as it really is” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2002, p. 9). This implies that the social world is not influenced by human actions, but that “the meaning of a phenomenon is inherent to the phenomenon and can be experienced by interacting with it” (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p. 110). On the contrary the subjectivist worldview proclaims that “the world exists but people construe it in very different ways” (Cohen et al., 2002, p. 9). This is the philosophical foundation of subjectivism. Subjectivists assume that there is no social reality that is independent of human actors and that the world as known is socially and discursively constructed based on a particular place, time and culture. Subjectivists therefore consider that there is no single compelling reality outside of human actions, but that realities are “local”, “specific”, and actively “constructed” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). Reality is socially constructed because it is dependent on other social and cultural artefacts and as such, humans are always actively involved in creating their own reality. This study takes the position that social reality depends on the actor’s frame of reference within the setting (Guba & Lincoln, p. 1994). This position is based on a conceptualisation of student experience as socially organised action occurring in varying communities a notion congruent with the social spaces which orientate this study (see Chapter 2).

61 Within the two broadly divergent views of objectivism and subjectivism are interrelated elements or premises: ontology, epistemology, and methodology (Cohen, et al., 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) which underpins the explicit and implicit assumptions about social reality. The three elements have direct implications for the methodological concerns of researchers. Ontological assumptions inform those of epistemology. Epistemological assumptions inform how human beings are perceived and consequently the methodology. An understanding of some of these elements and their interrelationships guide the decision-making process that undergirds the overall conduct of this study.

Ontology is concerned with human agents’ perceptions of reality or what exists. It is “a philosophical belief system about the nature of social reality (or) existence” (Hessy- Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 4). Thus, philosophically, ontology involves individuals making claims about what is knowledge (Creswell, 2003, p. 6). An objectivist researcher takes the ontological position “that objects have an independent existence and are not dependent for it on the knower” and that this view “treats the social world as if it were a hard, external objective reality” (Cohen, et al., 2002, p.6). Contrary to this stance, a subjectivist researcher takes the ontological position that reality emphasises “the importance of the subjective experience of individuals in the creation of the social world” (Cohen, et al., 2002, p. 7). The researcher holds a subjectivist position as one looks at the subjective nature of undergraduate students as they negotiate and make meaning of the university campus.

Epistemological assumptions relate to the “bases of knowledge its nature and forms, how it can be acquired and how it can be communicated to other human beings” (Cohen et al, 2002, p. 6). A researcher’s epistemological stance is expressed in his/her views about what is known about the world and how that knowledge can be acquired. Epistemology is how individuals know knowledge (Creswell, 2003, p. 6) or the nature of knowledge-building (Hessy-Biber & Leavy, 2011). It involves studying the characteristics of knowledge. My understanding of what constitutes knowing and how

62 knowledge is created influenced and shaped how I went about conducting this research. The main epistemological perspective that influenced my study is the interpretive social science approach.

A snapshot of my personal biography has a bearing on the assumptions I hold about the social world and the research process. Rossman and Rallis (2003, p. 10) assert that, “an inquisitive sensitivity to personal biography” is vital because the researcher values the uniqueness of his/her perspective as a source of understanding the study and there are aspects of the biography that alert readers to the researcher’s dispositions and frames of mind the researcher brings to the research. It is argued that the researcher’s “personal biography is a lens through which he sees the world” (Rossman & Rallis, 2003, p. 10). I am no exception in this instance. I bring twenty years of experience as an educator in this study. In the first part of my career, I operated in the realm of pedagogy where the mandate was ‘to impart knowledge’ whose creation was not my job. Thus, for a decade I found myself oscillating in constructs like: scarcity and choices; supply and demand; production, distribution and consumption; and, satisfaction of wants. It was all about teaching the learner how society manages scarce resources by making decisions of what, how and for whom to produce through studying the social science of human behaviour – Economics and Commerce. As an economist, my concept of knowledge was that it is created out of experience of, interaction with, and interpretation of human behaviour.

The second part of my career life changed after I attained higher academic qualifications through distance learning. I switched to adult education where for another decade I engaged first in teaching adults how to teach and later, training the qualified in how to interpret policy documents that impacted on them and their work. This interactive nature of my career and the mode of learning I was exposed to for my graduate studies, influenced my methodology for this research study; the quest to interact face to face with the undergraduate students and interpret their perceptions about campus experiences. I concur with Hessy-Biber and Leavy (2011, p.17) on valuing “experience and perspective as important sources of knowledge [and], meaning does not exist independent of human interpretive process”. The interpretive stance

63 sounds most appropriate for this study considering my work, academic experience and nature of phenomenon to be researched hence its adoption for the study.

The interpretive social sciences perspective is rooted in the interpretation of interactions and the social meaning that people give to their interactions (Hessy-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Its contention is that social meaning is created during interaction and people’s interpretation of interactions and “the only way to understand social reality is from the perspective enmeshed within it” (Hessy-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p.17). This viewpoint acknowledges human agency and accepts that people are actively occupied in constructing social reality. Due to its subjective nature, this study assumes the interpretive perspective views that reality is nothing other than multiple realities where there is no one real truth and thus, rejecting the notion of objectivity. Thus, the interpretivists acknowledge multiple realities which are constructed socially by individuals (Merriam, 2001). Understanding human experience constitutes knowledge that is to be apprehended from an inductive theory generating mode of investigation rather than a deductive, theory testing means of inquiry (Merriam, 2001). Thus, the interpretive perspective assumes a search for explanations of human actions by understanding the way it is perceived by individuals. This assumption resonates with the aim of this study which sought an account of where students are and what they do or not do when not in the classroom and the interplay with their achievement. The inquirer in interpretivism becomes a member of an interface or communication with the inquiry subject, whereby the findings are the result of that interaction. Reality becomes a social construction. As an interpretivist researcher, I become part of the world that I am studying. This implies that participants can share their views of social reality with me - the researcher and my role in this study is to understand student campus experiences (social world) and interpret it for others.

Within the interpretive practice are variations that include ethno-methodology, constructivism, hermeneutics, qualitative sociology and phenomenology (Merriam, 2001). This study has adopted some elements of the phenomenological methodological variation of the interpretive perspective which are covered in the ensuing sections of this chapter. But at this point I pose to provide an overview of qualitative research

64