This study postulates that there are currently four main dyslexia paradigms. These paradigms are: a) the Positivist-Intrinsic-Dyslexia-Paradigm, which reflects positivist studies on dyslexia that hold the etiological view that dyslexia exists intrinsically to the individual (of constitutional origin), b) the Interpretivist-Intrinsic-Dyslexia-Paradigm, which holds the etiological view that dyslexia exists intrinsically to the individual c) the Positivist-Extrinsic-Dyslexia-Paradigm, which reflects studies on dyslexia that hold the etiological view that dyslexia exists extrinsically to the individual (not of constitutional origin), and, d) the Interpretivist-Extrinsic-Dyslexia-Paradigm, which reflects studies on dyslexia that also hold the etiological view that dyslexia exists extrinsically to the individual. This study moves beyond the four main dyslexia paradigms by combining the I-E-D-Paradigm with elements of Burrell and Morgan's (1979) sociological Radical Humanist Paradigm, thus creating a Radical I-E-D-Paradigm from which to conduct the present study. From the position of a Radical I-E-D-Paradigm this study develops an alternative perspective on dyslexia, i.e., a non-constitutional perspective on dyslexia (N-C-PoD), and, emancipatory intervention aimed at assisting 'dyslexic' students to explore their perceptions of dyslexia. This study explores the influence that the N-C-PoD and emancipatory intervention has on the descriptions of dyslexia, in relation to self-concept, of two 'dyslexic' students studying in tertiary education.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:699194 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Farruggia-Bochnak, Antonio Giuseppe |
| Publisher | University of Birmingham |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/7145/ |
Page generated in 0.0097 seconds