CAPITULO V: CERCANIA AL PAÍS DE ECUADOR-AMALUZA
5.3 VALOR TURÍSTICO DE LA POBLACIÓN ECUATORIANA A LOS
Our worldview and philosophy influences the actions we take and the way we conduct research. The beliefs we have about knowledge, nature and understanding form the foundation for our approach. Ontology asks what is the form and nature of reality and what can we know about it; epistemology asks what is the nature and form of knowledge, how it is acquired or experienced and how is it conveyed to others; methodology asks how can the researcher go about finding out what they believe can be known (Cohen, et al., 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Crotty describes ontology and epistemology as sitting together, underlying the theoretical perspective of „how we know what we know‟ (1998, p. 8); our understanding of what knowledge is. Crotty (1998) also describes three epistemological approaches to social sciences research - objectivist, constructionist, and subjectivist. By looking at the foundations of our thinking we can determine what sort of theoretical perspective we take in the methodological approach we use in research. In an objectivist approach meaning exists without the need for human minds to process it or recognise its existence. Therefore when seeking to understanding another person‟s view, the meaning given to something is seen to be extrinsic, external to the individual, and forms objective truth
(Crotty, 1998). Constructionism is based on the belief that a truth, meaning, or interpretation that we hold is the result of our interactions within the world:
All knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social world (Crotty, 1998, p. 4)
People play an active part in the way in which meaning is constructed or developed. As a result, there are many ways of forming knowledge from the same situation or interaction by individuals or groups, in different ways and at the same time. Individual students‟ backgrounds influence their perception of a learning activity. Set within constructivism, interpretivism sees the meaning we hold or the understanding we make of something, as based on our interactions with the social world (Crotty, 1998). The social values and meaning given are interwoven into our interpretation and understanding. The third approach, subjectivism, is based on the understanding that the meaning that we ascribe to something comes from neither the object nor from our interactions with the object but from elsewhere (Crotty, 1998). This meaning exists externally, internally or unconsciously and makes its way into our thinking.
My epistemological approach for this study is that the discourse of dyslexia, which sees dyslexia as a disability or learning difficulty, is a social construction external to people and imposed on them. The cultures and subcultures surrounding us give us meanings; they are taught and we absorb or learn their meanings as part of our existence, so that they shape our behaviour and thinking (Crotty, 1998). In the USA, UK and Australia dyslexia has been given meaning based on the difficulties a learner with dyslexia has in literacy tasks within educational contexts and is viewed as disadvantageous. In the absence of official recognition of dyslexia in New Zealand until 2007, and the lack of an official or widely recognised definition or understanding; it is expected that individuals may have constructed their own understanding of dyslexia based on their social experiences. The theoretical assumptions I have made are that knowledge of learning with dyslexia in New Zealand education systems and the transition to university are lived experiences and of a personal nature. An interpretivist framework allows me to understand the social reality of learning with dyslexia for a number of individuals.
From an interpretivist perspective if we can let go of our current knowledge and look again at the phenomena we may get a new meaning, clearer understanding, or confirmation of our previous understanding of the phenomena (Crotty, 1998). Even if we can‟t shed our own understanding we can explore others‟ understanding. I chose an interpretive methodology because I wanted to understand what it meant for someone to have dyslexia, and what their experience of education in New Zealand had been. I wanted to see if what they had been told about dyslexia or discovered in their earlier learning had influenced their success in secondary school and their decisions to study at university. I wanted to see what influence others‟ views of their dyslexia had had on their experience of starting university. I believed that situations, pedagogical approaches, social approaches, and others‟ attitudes to these learners had been important in shaping their views of themselves, their dyslexia, their success, and their place in education.
An interpretive approach also allows for an exploration of the cultural and historical interpretations of the participants‟ perceptions of their dyslexia, the influences which lead to their decision-making, and their transition to tertiary study. This approach recognized that meaning is made based on individuals‟ assumptions and perceptions of themselves and situations, and acknowledges that every person‟s worldview is different, meaning that there are multiple realities (Cohen, et al., 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). This study is concerned with understanding the ways in which individuals‟ interpret their world. The questions I asked and the way I analysed these experiences also influenced what is reported. This approach acknowledges that each understanding is unique and particular to the individual and therefore the participant‟s own words are used to help in describing experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). I also recognise that commonalities in the educational world may lead to similar experiences and some themes identified may be common across students‟ stories. The synopsis and themes presented in the findings (Chapter 4) and discussion (Chapter 5) are my interpretation of what the participants said.
Having identified that I wished to take an interpretive approach, the research methodology selected was grounded theory. Grounded theory methodology and methods were used to try to understand the meanings of the students‟ interpretation of their prior learning experiences and transition experiences.