Authenticizing the Research Process

Main Article Content

Nora Elizondo-Schmelkes

Abstract

This study reflects the main concern of students (national and international) who are trying to get a postgraduate degree in a third world (or "in means of development") . The emergent problem found is that students have to finish their thesis or dissertation but they do not really know how to accomplish this goal. They resolve this problem by authenticizing the process as their own. The theory of authenticizing involves compassing their way to solve the problem of advancing in the research process. + Compassing allows the student to authenticize his/her research process, making it a personal and owned process. The main categories of compassing are the intellectual, physical and emotional dimension patterns that the student has, learns and follows in order to finish the project and get a degree. Authenticizing implies to author with authenticity their thesis or dissertation. Compassing allows them to do this in their own way, at their own pace or time and with their own internal resources, strengths and weaknesses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Elizondo-Schmelkes, N. (2011). Authenticizing the Research Process. Grounded Theory Review, 10(02), 1–20. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/86
Section
Articles

References

Adler, M. (1978). Aristotle for everybody. Difficult thought made easy. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. Touchtone 1997

Bloom, B., Krathwohl, D., & Bertram, M. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1º. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Co.

Bloom, B., Krathwohl, D., & Bertram, M. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook 2º. Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company Inc.

Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Inc.

Gayling, W. & Jennings, B. (1996). The perversion of autonomy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Glaser B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (2001). The Grounded Theory Perspective: conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Guardian (2010). The World's Top 100 Universities. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/ datablog

/2010/sep/16/Honey, P. & Mumford A. (1982). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Peter Honey.

Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A.W. Chickering (ed.) The Modern American College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rogers, C. (1974). El proceso de convertirse en persona. [On becoming a person]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.

Schmelkes, C. & Elizondo, N. (2010). Manual para la presentación de anteproyectos e informes de investigación (tesis). Tercera edición. [Handbook for the presentaron of protocols and final research papers (thesis) Third edition]. México: Editorial Oxford.

Silvia, P. (2005). How to Write a Lot. Washington, DC: APA.

University of Notre Dame. (2010). Archives. Latin dictionary and grammar aid. Retrieved from http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm.

Wadsford, B. (1996). Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development. Foundations of constructivism. Fifth edition. MI: Longman.

WB. World Bank. (2007). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/topic/education.

Wisker, G. (2008). The Postgraduate Research Handbook. Second edition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.