El interculturalismo

Achievement Theory D.C. McCelland J.W. Atkinson Behaviour is based on the need for achievement (nArch_measurement of need for achievement). This is the capacity to experience pride in accomplishment. Related –

Need for power (nPow), socialised power (sPow) or personalised power (pPow) and the need for affiliation (nAff)

To understand how an individual academic defines their success Cognitive Evaluation Theory

E.L. Deci Activity that is intrinsically

motivating becomes extrinsically

motivating the more other people link it to external rewards Locus of causality / control can be internal (behaviour self-directed) or external (behaviour affected by environment). Person interprets causes depending on locus To understand how rewards might affect participation in academic engagement

Drive Theory C.L. Hull Seeks to explain why people are driven (motivated) to satisfy

To understand why the academic feels they need to 53

certain needs. Drives are result of person working to achieve balance/ satisfaction Drives can be primary (innate) or secondary (eg. Relationships, status, etc) engage in KTP activity, how their needs change over time, and how their needs are satisfied

Table 5 - Theories of motivation (adapted from Hollyforde & Whiddett, 2002) with editions by McCleary (nee Jackson) (2010)

The other objective of the activity was to synthesise all theories of motivation into a single definition applicable to the context area. Thierry and Koopman-Iwema (1984) argued that a unified theory of motivation does not exist because there are a “…large number of ‘partial theories’ which differ from one another in various aspects” (Thierry & Koopman-Iwema in Hollyforde & Whiddett, 2002, p. 5) but the researcher thought that singular theoretical views did not provide a complete picture of an individual’s motivation because they focus on issues such as goal setting, control, attributions for example, rather than encompassing issues like effect of the context on motivation, that were to the study. The researcher had yet to discover SDT which went some way to counteract her personal criticisms about the use of singular theories, and alleviate her anxiety about providing an original approach to studying individual academic motivation in KTP contexts.

3.4.1.2 Stage 2- Content & process theories of motivation

By the stage of the Internal Evaluation the researcher had developed her own definition of motivation,

“behaviour which an individual consciously or subconsciously engages in, and chooses to maintain, in order to achieve personal, social, and organisational goals”

which accommodated the fact that she believed motivation to be a multi-faceted concept, and in the case of KTP activity, was operating in an environment where the

personal, social and organisational were particularly pertinent to the study. She had tested the definition against interview data in the pilot study, and used themes relevant to the definition including identification of personal, social, and organisational goals, but it was clear that the definition alone did not cover the strength of the motivational drive. When, for example, an individual response suggested that one event / experience was “very” motivational on a “personal” level there was no structure to compares degree by which an individual thought an event / experience was “very” motivational. Also there was no clear structure for analysing if the event / experience were motivating for them because they found it interesting, or because they received a form of external reward as a consequence of the activity in which they engaged. Whilst a single definition accommodated the Researcher’s desire for a unified theory, it also resulted in a number of unresolved issues.

Further research suggested that motivation theory could be catalogued according to a focus on individual needs and a focus on individual differences. Individual need theories, or content theories, assume that every individual has the same set of basic needs which they are driven to meet if they are to survive. Example theories include Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Maslow, 1943) and Need for Achievement Theory (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1976). Process theories concern individual differences, and the assumption is made that individuals will react differently to the same stimulus because no individual is the same. Example process theories include Equity Theory (Adams, 1963) and Goal Setting Theory (Latham & Locke, 1979). Whilst this approach gave the Researcher the structure she craved, still it did not answer questions about the intensity of the drivers for motivation.

The Researcher had worried that concentrating on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was too simplistic an approach for research worth a Doctorate and, consequently had not concentrated on this separation being a means for advancing the discipline. The had to accept that a less complicated approach to understanding motivational theory might be the way for her to be able to ‘infuse’ her writing with a sense of personal identity (Cotterall, 2011, p. 414), because from it she would be able to develop a rigorous approach to data analysis.

With regards being an active meaning maker, the Researcher sought to advance the discipline by identifying what she thought was a gap in theoretical assumptions that

had been made about motivation theory. Being unsure of the discipline made it difficult for the researcher to select what she thought would be an appropriate theoretical lens. Consequently she sought to unify a set of disparate theories because this offered a means by which to advance the discipline. What the research did indicate was that the Researcher needed was a way in which to structure the degree of motivational intention, as well as the degree of personal interest and reward. She had begun to explore intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in more detail than previously. This had been rejected as being “too obvious” by the Researcher as it seemed too simplistic a way of investigating motivation. SDT and the Motivation Continuum (Gagné & Deci, 2005) were then explored to see whether this structure could be adopted for analysing interview data.

3.4.1.3 Stage 3 – Self Determination Theory

SDT not only provided the Motivation Continuum (Gagné & Deci, 2005) which offered a structure by which to understand the strength of motivation, but also the fact that it recognised that the socio-psychological environment was important to understanding motivation made the Researcher more confident that she had found a theory of motivation which could be applied to the context of individual academic engagement and KTPs. Further analysis of SDT will be provided in the sections below and will detail the key points of the theory.

3.5 SELF DETERMINATION THEORY

Self Determination Theory (SDT) emanates from the field of social psychology. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, from the University of Rochester in the United States, developed Self Determination Theory as a reaction to behaviourist approaches to motivation, and this still influences psychology today. It is described as a

“meta-theory for framing motivational studies, a formal theory that defines intrinsic and varied extrinsic sources of motivation”

(Self Determination Theory, n.d.) The focus is on cognitive and social development, and an understanding of how intrinsic motivations and externally driven goals are represented in the psychology of different individuals. Understanding the role of society and culture on motivation, and

if this supports or thwarts an individual’s sense of compulsion to act, is also central to understandings of motivation. The best kind of motivation, it is said, comes from the sense of autonomy, competency and relatedness of the individual. When these conditions are lacking from a scenario, SDT theorists believe it will have a detrimental effect on the individual.

Formally SDT comprises five mini-theories which represent different facets of motivation or personality, as represented in Table 6 overleaf.

CONCEPTS FOCUS