Puesta en funcionamiento de una infraestructura DNS

Blaikie (2000:38) argues, ‘the approach to research has to match the requirements of the

research questions posed’: consequently, the chosen research paradigm, approach and

strategy for this investigation arises from the nature and demands of my focal question,

How do youth work students develop their professional values during qualifying education?

‘Values’, as described in Chapter Two, can be understood as socially constructed and personally adopted concepts, which find meaning and significance through the way people interpret them, commit to them and enact them. Exploring the development of students’ professional values required a strategy and paradigm that recognised and worked with the constructed and interpreted nature of values and students’ individual experience, within the ‘real world’, natural setting of the classroom (Robson, 2002). A qualitative research strategy and methods, employed in a constructionist, interpretive paradigm, were most suited to this investigation.

Qualitative research is an inquiry approach that helps us ‘understand and explain the meaning

of social phenomena with as little disruption of the natural setting as possible’ (Merriam,

1998:5). Merriam’s (1998:6-8) list of characteristics of qualitative research almost entirely mirrors that of Bogdan and Biklen (1982:27-30). The two sets of characteristics have been combined below:

1. Qualitative research uses a natural setting as the direct source of data, usually involving fieldwork, where the researcher goes to observe people’s behaviour and interaction in ‘situ’

2. The researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis 3. Qualitative research is richly descriptive

4. Qualitative researchers are concerned with process rather than simply with outcomes or products

5. Qualitative researchers tend to analyse their data inductively, they build concepts and theories more often than testing existing theory, research is often undertaken because of lack of theory

6. Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world. The key concern is understanding the phenomenon of interest from the participants’ perspective, not the researcher’s, and capturing this accurately.

A qualitative approach was clearly suited to the needs of this investigation, where: • the data would be sourced from a natural setting

• I, as researcher, would be the primary instrument for data collection and analysis • the investigation was concerned with process, how students develop their values

over time

• the data would be treated primarily inductively, to see what themes emerged from the data

• the investigation sought to understand the meanings students attached to values, and their perspective on the process of value development, and in doing so, required rich description to explain and explore their experiences.

An interpretive theoretical perspective recognises that we each experience the world in a subjective way, resulting in the potential for each of us to come to differing understandings and meanings about the same object or phenomena. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011:17) state that ‘the central endeavour in an interpretive paradigm is to understand the subjective

world of human experience’, and Bryman (2008:16) notes that an interpretive paradigm

requires the researcher to ‘grasp the subjective meaning of social action'. An interpretive theoretical perspective offers an appropriate philosophical framework to explore and understand: students’ particular experiences and understandings of articulating, developing and implementing their professional values; the meanings they attach to the values they espouse; and how these values inform their professional actions.

Interpretivism draws on a constructionist/ constructivist epistemology. Constructionism

operates from the premise that we know the world throughconstructingtruth and meaning

as we engage with the world. Crotty (1998:79) suggests that the truth and meanings we construct to make sense of the world are, in the first instance, provided for us by our culture;

that we are taught and learn them in a complex and subtle process of enculturation; and that, unless we learn to critique them, they shape our thinking and behaviour throughout our lives. He distinguished between his constructionist epistemological stance – where the collective generation and transmission of meaning is acknowledged – with a constructivist stance – which focuses exclusively on the meaning-making of the individual mind (ibid:58). Although nuanced, Crotty’s distinction is helpful in locating my epistemological stance within his constructionist paradigm: reflecting my understanding and approach to exploring the personal, yet enculturated, meanings students bring to professional training of their personal and professional values; and the impact these prior meanings have on their developing youth work practice and, in particular, on the development of their professional values. I found this distinction particularly helpful in relation to retaining a focus in my research (as I seek to in my teaching practice) on the critical / emancipatory spirit which is the foundation of much youth work, as embodied in the seminal work of Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (1972). Crotty (1998: 58) writes:

Whatever the terminology, the distinction itself is an important one. Constructivism … suggests that each one’s way of making sense of the world is as valid and worthy of respect as any other, thereby tending to scotch any hint of a critical spirit. On the other hand, social constructionism emphasises the hold our culture has on us: it shapes the way in which we see things (even the way in which we feel things!) and gives us a quite definite view of the world. This shaping of our minds by culture is to be welcomed as what makes us human and endows us with the freedom we enjoy. For all that, there are social constructionists aplenty who recognise that it is limiting as well as liberating and warn that, while welcome, it must also be called into question. On these terms, it can be said that constructivism tends to resist the critical spirit, while constructionism tends to foster it.

Interestingly, the task of professional value development is, in part, a process of enculturation into a ‘professional framework’ and a community of practice (Wenger, 1998); at the same time, it aims to foster a critical stance encouraging practitioners to contribute to the ongoing development of this collective professional framework as part of the community of practice, as they reflect upon and consider its application within changing contexts. The focal question recognises the requirement that these professional values are ‘shaped’ and ‘owned’ by the practitioner as their professional values, which inform their own practice and that of the wider collective community. A constructionist position allows for these tensions to be recognised and explored through the research.