Hermeneutics contains a claim to truth, not verifiable with the means of scientific mythology, based on linguisticity as a way of being in the world, the understanding and the agreement that is aspired to. (Gadamer).
Meaning of hermeneutics
The human being by nature is hermeneutic, because he dedicates himself to interpreting and revealing the meaning of the messages and situations that arise throughout his life, making his understanding possible, avoiding with his explanations the misunderstandings, adequately favoring his normative function.
The Peri hermeneias, written by Aristotle analyzes the discourse, revealing reality and an interpretation of what it is. Hermeneutics is fundamentally considered the art (Techné) of human interpretation.
For this reason, when interpreting science, confusing elements could be revealed because throughout the history of humanity scientists have generated definitions with different perspectives or antinomic visions. When analyzing the concept of science, Connat's thought in 1951 highlights two visions: one static and the other dynamic.
The static perspective refers to an activity that contributes to the world systematized information influential in most researchers; The dynamic perspective refers to a set of facts to explain the observed phenomena, emphasizing the current state of knowledge, the set of laws, theories, hypotheses and principles.
It should be noted that the dynamic perspective also called heuristics of science, is assumed as an activity carried out by scientists, focusing their attention on discovery, theories and basic interconnected conceptual schemes for further research. In the heuristic view of science, the emphasis is on solving problems beyond the facts and the set of information, since these are important for the scientist, because they help him to move towards future theories, discoveries and investigations.
In this sense, researchers must consider in their studies the two perspectives of science analyzed, which, although different, enable discoveries, the acquisition of knowledge made, and advance emerging knowledge in order to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the world.
Other perspectives of science that should be reflected on are two antinomic visions of science issued by Sampson (1999) from the perspective of social psychology: conventional or traditional perspective and the sociohistorical one.
The conventional or traditional vision, perceives science as a mirror of nature without biases or distortions whose objective is to discover with the highest degree of accuracy what the real world is like; your job is to resolve disagreements and distinguish what is true and correct from what is not. Researchers with this vision are considered positivists because they think when science is unable to solve a situation it is because the data or information is insufficient to do it, it is only a matter of time for the truth to be visible.
Meanwhile, the sociohistorical vision conceives science as a story, where scientists act as narrators and reality can be discovered through the narratives of them by their protagonists. Here, there is no neutral referee because each story is related to the orientation given by its narrator, therefore, there is no single story.
This vision of science is currently called phenomenological, naturalistic, postpositive or qualitative research in the human sciences, whose work of interpretation has been entrusted to a complex discipline called hermeneutics, its function being to translate the messages of the informant subjects, to in order to offer an understanding so that they become intelligible to those who receive it.
However, researchers with a positivist or post-positivist vision must base the analysis of numerical data, verbal, scriptural or visual information on hermeneutics as it is the discipline of interpretation that facilitates understanding, locating them in the respective situational contexts for understand them.
It can be said that hermeneutics is a position that emerged as a reaction to positivism, towards the end of the 19th century as a rejection of a single research methodology that was adapted to the exact natural science method as the only standard for the rational understanding of reality.
Key concepts for research
When we go to investigate, a reflection is required on some of the key concepts that revolve around science that have become a complex task because there are risks of assuming schematic formulas and stereotypes, which are far from explaining the true meaning. of research: scientific knowledge, method, technique, science, scientific research.
Scientific Knowledge
The main problem currently facing research in the human sciences in general and in the social sciences in particular is related to the methodology to be used. Who expresses himself in this way is Martínez-Miguélez (2006: 1) who considers the obstacle is essentially epistemological, since it revolves around the concept of "knowledge", "science" and the scientific respectability of its products: knowledge of the truth and of the laws of nature.
Hence, the appearance, especially in the second part of the 20th century, of postmodernist, post-structuralist currents, constructionism, deconstructionism, critical theory, discourse analysis, discourse demetaphorization and, in general, the approaches that formulates the theory of knowledge.
According to Martínez-Miguélez (2004), the union of these two investigative processes, the search for the general-universal and the particular-ordinary, has required the displacement of their location, in the Science-Art continuum, from the position of a inadequate rigidity for the human sciences, towards one closer to Art; has demanded a new space through qualitative and quantitative methodologies (each in its own field and in its own way), which, especially in this period, have been characterized by their effort to possess these two indispensable qualities: being sensitive to the complexity of current human life, on the one hand, and, at the same time, on the other, applying rigorous, systematic and critical processes to achieve defensible knowledge epistemologically and methodologically before the international scientific community.
Consequently, knowledge is linked to the practical life of man, immediate, direct, intuitive and epistemic and everything he sees is actively reflected in the brain, generating knowledge, it begins with the primary sensations and perceptions, later as notions., concepts and universal laws.
However, researchers are not satisfied with superficially knowing this reality, they want to overcome the immediacy of the sensorial certainty of everyday knowledge, deeper, qualitative and differentiating, with claims of validity and reliability for which, it uses a set of operations, rules and systematic procedures that facilitate the process of knowing.
This investigative process is clarified with the postulates of Bunge (1982) when he pointed out that there are two types of scientific knowledge: one is daily, systematic, general, legal, predictive and factual and the other is superficial, unsystematic, uncritical and practical. By relating these two types of knowledge, human thought is reproduced because this is the way to achieve objective truth since the content of knowledge does not depend on the will or the wishes of the subject.
Presumably scientific with its methods today, has become for researchers a formula to solve all kinds of problems, it ceased to be a means, an empirical, conceptual instrument to know the truth, becoming the only instrument available to people to build your future.
The Method in research
Etymologically, the method comes from the Greek metha (beyond) and odos (way), literally means way or way to go further; it refers to the means to an end.
In its original meaning this word indicates that the path leads to a place. In research, it consists of the procedure to know a situation, event or phenomenon. Like it or not, most of the sciences and the disciplines that study them continue to have as their basic concern the formulation of a method of a universal nature that can replace the personal ability to investigate.
According to the aforementioned, the method in investigative practice constitutes the ordered and systematic way to know a situation, event or phenomenon. The order refers to how the elements that are part of an investigative process are located, placing it in its rightful place, forms the epistemological dimension because it focuses its attention on the organization of knowledge.
The systematic, includes that set of rules and procedures that contribute to achieving the determined objectives, it is inferred that reference is being made to the epistemological paradigm of research, since the techniques allow the inquiring subject to answer their questions.
In the specific field of natural and social sciences in general, the variety of methods that exist to investigate is endless, establishing itself, in the proper paths that are adopted in each of the disciplines and areas of knowledge. Historically, scientific activity has been dominated by three basic research methods that emerged in remote times, but nevertheless, they have not lost their validity since in this first decade of the 21st century they are used by researchers, they are: the Baconian, Galilean and Cartesian..
The Baconian Method
The Baconian method, by Francis Bacon (1561 -1626), arises in the seventeenth century during the second stage of the Middle Ages, the problem of science and philosophy are solved through two methods: that of argument or reasoning and the experiment, both conceived as means through which knowledge is acquired. Regarding reasoning or argumentative method, it draws conclusions that can be accepted by a scientific community, however, it is not guarantor of the truth or eliminates doubts, because the human mind does not rest until the truth is discovered by the method of experimentation and concludes by saying that only the intellect receives certainty and rests in the possession of the truth after it has been experienced.
It is worth reflecting on Bacon's thinking, when he insisted, that scientific knowledge not only leads to wisdom but also to power, and the best science is that which is institutionalized carried out by groups of researchers, in contrast to that which remains private. and it is the result of the work of isolated individuals. The Baconian method postulates the development of the inductive empiricism of science, for which it is stated that Bacon's position regarding science is qualitative.
The Galilean Method
The Galilean method has contributed to what is now called the scientific method and also one of the founders of classical physics. Using experimental observations, idealizations, and logical deductions, he managed to advance Aristotelian physics and change concepts that had been firmly ingrained for almost 2,000 years.
It is worth to mean that the thought of Galileo Galilei (1564 -1642) establishes a reciprocal link between observation and demonstration, called by him, the experiences achieved through the senses and the logical-mathematical demonstrations of their need. According to the cited scientist, an observation cannot be scientifically valid without the relative demonstration of its necessity, nor could the logical and mathematical demonstration achieve its "absolute objective certainty" equal to that of nature, without relying on experience at its starting point and confirm with her when reaching her conclusion.
To achieve truly scientific knowledge (Galileo thought), one must achieve an understanding of the intrinsic necessity of the phenomena of nature, which can be generated by mathematical calculation in astronomy, the experimental method in physics.
Both logical-deductive processes are constituted, one by abstract symbols, the other by concrete symbols, which lead from the accumulation of observations and experiences to a certain understanding of their need. By his experimental method, he sought to discover in the observed fact an intrinsic need for its connection with the cause that produces it, his objective was to express natural phenomena mathematically, therefore, it is necessary that the scientific method be based on:
- Rigorous observation of phenomena. Repeated experiences and separating the essential from the accidental. Formulating hypotheses and corroborating them with the facts.
With the reciprocity of linkage, Galileo differs at the same time from Bacon because Bacon represents inductive empiricism, while Descartes deductive rationalism, surpassing both by his experimental method, which links observation with demonstration, experience with necessity. It concludes by stating that the Galilean research method is quantitative, since Galileo as the creator of the scientific method, focuses his obsession on the quantification of reality, his eagerness to express any phenomenon of reality (even if it was clearly qualitative) what He did it through a mathematical formula, this allowed him to develop novel and daring theories for the time he had to live.
The Cartesian Method
The Cartesian method of René Descartes (1596 -1650), developed from doubt, the examination of problems through the systematic use of analysis and synthesis, he sought fixed rules to discover truths, not to defend thesis or expose theories by That, the mathematical procedure is the one that, from the beginning, powerfully caught your attention. The aforementioned scientist also explains what analysis is in a passage from Geometry: «… If you want to solve a problem, you must first consider it as already solved and give names to all the lines that seem necessary to build it, both those known like strangers. Then, without making any difference between the known and the unknown, we will go through the difficulty, in the order that shows, more naturally, the mutual dependence of one and the other.
Analysis is, therefore, the first moment of the method. Given a difficulty, posed a problem, it is necessary first of all to consider it as a block and divide it into as many parts as possible, it develops from doubt, the examination of problems through the systematic use of analysis and synthesis. The Cartesian method represents deductive rationalism, therefore it is also quantitative.
The three basic methods for approaching scientific activity are implicit or explicit in most of the methodological variants that have been adopted by the various philosophical schools, failing that, the scientific disciplines or areas of knowledge, since in this field there are innumerable methods that have been adopted in each case. Nowadays, concepts such as scientific method and methodology have become the true myths of scientificity and modern technology, since around them many schools, trends, philosophical and epistemological paradigms have been built, which have contributed to feed numerous concerns about the true meaning of these.
Knowledge and scientific method
Scientific knowledge is, by definition of Mario Bunge (1982), the result of research carried out with the method and objective of science. While the method, in the sciences, is used, firstly, as the path or process that the researcher must follow to achieve an objective. (Scientific knowledge and knowledge today presents authors with other perspectives, compare)
Regarding the scientific method in relation to knowledge, Martínez-Mígueles (2006) points out that science is knowledge of general laws observed in particular cases and is usually located in a certain genre.. This feature would differentiate scientific knowledge from local and ordinary knowledge related to a particular case, entity, fact or individual. Scholastic philosophers used to repeat that scientia non est individuorum (science is not about individuals or particular cases.
When we talk about science according to Ander-Egg (2004: 58), we are referring to a set of conjectural types of knowledge that may be true or false that are obtained in a methodical way and verified in their validity by empirical testing. ”Evidence in the three perspectives coincides when considering science as a set of knowledge, since the rational basis of the scientific method is constituted by the set of ideas says Martínez-Miguélez (2006), the objective of science is to obtain the scientific knowledge according to Bunge (1982) and according to Ander-Egg (2004) when talking about science, we refer to a set of knowledge
It is a specific and determined method that receives the name of scientist, because its origin, application and development is based on the sciences considered typical, physical and natural. There are different types of research methods under the scientific modality, insofar as they suppose forms of action that guide and expand our knowledge of the reality that surrounds us. Furthermore, due to the perfection and efficiency that they have achieved, they undoubtedly constitute the research method par excellence.
For this reason, it must be called the scientific research method, in which its content or method itself can be distinguished, fundamentally formed by the series of successive stages to follow to achieve the intended result and its rational basis, consisting of the set of ideas that serve as a foundation and orientation to the method itself, for example: the existence of reality and the possibility of its knowledge, which is referred to when dealing with research work techniques.
These specific techniques of each science can be very diverse, because each research object claims its own techniques. It is important to highlight that the scientific research method is specified in a set of procedures, phases or stages. Therefore, it seems that the best way to express it is to describe the actions it includes.
It can be said that the scientific method consists of asking questions about the reality of the world, of men, based on observation, on existing theories, anticipating solutions to these questions and contrasting with the same reality these previous solutions or hypotheses, through observation of the facts, their classification and analysis.
Thus, according to Mario Bunge (1982), the following ordered series of operations is distinguished in the scientific research method:
- Formulate the questions correctly. Arbitrate educated and controllable conjectures with experience to answer questions. Derive logical consequences from guesswork. Arbitrate techniques to test the conjectures. Confront these techniques to check their relevance and the faith they deserve. Analysis and interpretation of the results. Estimate the truth of the conjectures and the fidelity of the techniques. Determine the domains in which the conjectures and techniques are valid, and formulate the new problems originated by the investigation.
On the other hand, scientific research demands, in the search for the solution to the chosen research problem, instead of proceeding to the adventure, work orderly and intelligently, imagining the most probable solutions to the problem or hypotheses, in order to proceed first to its verification, guiding and guiding it in all its phases.
After formulating the hypotheses and the consequences that specify it, it is necessary to proceed to your test with the facts. However, always orderly and intelligent action presupposes the scientific method, requiring the prior planning of said test. To this end, the research design is oriented, determining the specific way to carry out the verification in a specific case.
After establishing the guideline to follow in the collection and treatment of data, determining what is necessary, the procedure for obtaining it, the form of treatment or subsequent analysis, as well as the appropriate techniques for data collection, which must Being the object of testing to check its validity and security, I can affirm then that the scientific method is a set of procedures generated to obtain knowledge with a certain guarantee of security and certainty, is by its very nature, the field in which older people, Deeper and faster changes should occur.
Techniques in research
While the techniques have a practical and operational nature, according to Ander - Egg (2004), the methods differ from them by their global coordination of operations. These are included within a method, conversely, a method involves the use of different techniques. However, in the practice of certain social technologies, it is not always easy to clearly delimit the boundaries that separate methods from techniques. The confusion often derives from considering the method as a set of general techniques, but in itself, it is a set of instruments governed by norms and rules.
Consequently, the method is more than a set of techniques, because it implies epistemological and philosophical foundations that guide, direct and structure the entire set of operations, rules and procedures established in advance by the researcher. On the other hand, with the empiricist model, the method and techniques can be confused, therefore, it is necessary to remember that this model poses scientific activity as a reduction of the record of the facts collected through the deployment of a technical instrument, observation, interviews, questionnaires which are applied to an existing reality, perceived daily by the researcher where the theory has no significance.
This empiricist factism can operate on the facts, in this way it would save the work of analyzing the concepts that are used regardless of any theoretical construction. It is not about ignoring the theory, but replacing it with the method. The philosophical dimension that guides the scientific method is what allows us to differentiate the method from the technique. The lack of definition of these two concepts has become confusions between the procedure and the way to reach a certain end, with the means and instruments that make them possible.
Science and scientific research
Scientific research, comes from the Latin in-vestigium which means in pursuit of the footprint, the sole of the foot and by extension the footprint that remains; I can interpret this in the following way: to achieve knowledge I must follow a path in a systemic way in which I leave a mark, which could mean the generation, creation and proposition of new theories of knowledge.
Seen in this way, despite the fact that there is no agreement among scientists to define scientific research, the thoughts of authors from different periods are adopted in these reflections to consider that scientific research is the set of systematic, critical and reflective activities Epistemologically based on methodological processes that human beings use to resolve situations and discover knowledge.
Within this framework of thought, Martínez-Miguélez (2006) points out that the human being, as a living being, is not an aggregate of juxtaposed elements; because it is an integrated whole that constitutes a dynamic suprasystem, made up of many perfectly coordinated subsystems: the physical, chemical, biological, psychological, social, cultural, ethical-moral and spiritual subsystems, which constitute the personality, and its lack of integration or coordination triggers pathological processes of different kinds: organic, psychological, social, or various meetings. For this reason, the complexity and uniqueness of the person also requires a different interpretation of the concept of science, with its philosophical foundation and rigorous methodology.
Reflecting on science, it can be inferred in the strict sense of the word, that it is a systematic set of knowledge about observable reality obtained by applying the scientific method for its verification and discovery. Breaking down this definition into parts, it can be synthesized, which is made up of the following: its content, scope, procedure and verification.
From the interrelation of these elements, new theories are constructed, which allows us to consider that science is a body of theoretical knowledge that is the product of scientific research. Due precisely to that need for order and security, with which researchers like to guarantee the progress of their inquiries, the history of science shows that the production of knowledge has not necessarily always followed the established canons. Whether through traditional procedures or not; Whether it is quantitative or qualitative methods, the regulatory nature of the scientific method and its action is a condition of security and legitimacy since its perfectible, vulnerable nature and the necessary consideration of its transience, generates confidence in investigative processes.
Hence the credibility of the thinking of Mario Bunge (1982), who establishes that science expands knowledge about scientific research, because it focuses on some postulates related to the method because, through reflection, human beings are trained In order to apprehend the world that surrounds it, obtaining, the ideas and conceptual representations of the living space, in coexistence with other human beings, generate real ideas, based on behavior.
In this perspective, knowledge, which was formed through the set of ideas obtained, can contribute information so that it can act, discern between scientific knowledge and science in the field of observable reality. This science has the privilege of being more precise, exact, elaborate and quantified. To understand any complex human activity, according to Kerlinger and Lee (2002), it is necessary to understand the language and the approach of those who carry it out. This is the case with science, since it is necessary to know and understand, at least in part, the scientific language and its approach to problem solving since, “one of the aspects that tends to confuse students is the particular way in which scientists use ordinary and made-up words ”(p. 3). For the authors,science is a misinterpreted word because it seems that there are threepopular stereotypes that hinder the understanding of scientific activity:
- One is that of a white coat-stethoscope-laboratory, which perceives scientists as individuals working with laboratory events; They use complicated equipment, do many experiments, and pile up events for the ultimate purpose of perfecting humanity. Thus, even if they are unimaginative explorers looking for facts, they are redeemed for their noble motives. They can be believed when, for example, they say that this or that toothpaste is good for you, or that you should not smoke cigarettes. The second stereotype of scientists is that they are brilliant individuals who think, elaborate complex theories, and spend time in ivory towers far from the world and its problems. They are impractical theorists, even though their thinking and theories occasionally have results of practical significance, such as atomic energy.The third stereotype erroneously equates science with engineering and technology: the construction of bridges, the improvement of automobiles and missiles, the automation of industry, the invention of machines to teach. The scientist's work, according to this stereotype, is dedicated to optimizing inventions and artifacts. The scientist is conceived as a highly specialized class of engineer who works to make life more comfortable and efficient.The scientist is conceived as a highly specialized class of engineer who works to make life more comfortable and efficient.The scientist is conceived as a highly specialized class of engineer who works to make life more comfortable and efficient.
These stereotypes limit novice researchers to understanding the science, activities and thinking of the scientist, and scientific research in general. For this reason, the following provides a space for the reader to interpret other definitions and use the one he considers most appropriate.
In the words of Ander-Egg (2004), when referring to science, he tries not to fall into the superficiality of the term due to its complexity and because it is something that is still being done, together with the diversification of the tasks of the different disciplines scientific, and cautiously presents a notion of science.
In his first approach from the etymology of the word; the term science derives from the Latin word scientia, which means to know, to know. This notion agrees with its root scio, which derives from the Greek isemi, a verb that is also equivalent to knowing in all the extension of this term, in the sense of having news, being informed, knowing. In its general sense, taking into account its etymology, the word science refers to all kinds of knowledge. However, in the modern sense of the term, science is a way of knowing (p. 57).
In this broad spectrum, Ander-Egg (2004) suggests that science is understood as a process because it designates a set of activities in university academic fields, the essence of which is to investigate problems. They frame the epistemological paradigms of research. But at the same time, it refers to the product or result of those activities, methods and procedures that lead to the emergence of knowledge production and source of procedural applications.
In this referential framework, it is highlighted that the training of professionals with research competencies is one of the fundamental functions of the university which must be consolidated with doctoral studies always oriented by science, which according to Sierra Bravo (2005) is defined, strictly speaking, as a systematic set of knowledge about observable reality, obtained through the scientific research method with three elements that shape its nature: a content, a field of action and a procedure or way of acting namely:
- As for its content, science is exclusively made up of a set of knowledge about reality, in the form of concepts and statements that are interrelated or systematized and form what is called theory. The proper and unique field of action of science is the observable reality of this world in which people live. Considering that the non-empirical or the transcendent falls outside the field of science in the strict sense. While, the scientific research method is typified as a procedure or form of action in the formation of knowledge that integrates it.
Science, as a body of theoretical knowledge, is nothing but the result of scientific research carried out in accordance with the scientific research method.
Sierra Bravo (2005) affirms that the fundamental objectives of science, in relation to its field of action (the reality of this world), are four: to analyze, explain, foresee or predict and act. The first objective of science is to know what reality is like, what elements form it and what are its features. After knowing what reality is like, her second objective is to explain it, to establish how its different parts are related and why it is what reality is like.
These are the main basic objectives of science. Its achievement enables it to achieve the other two indicated objectives, which are therefore derived or applied: prediction and action. On the one hand, if science manages to know what a sector of reality is like and the factors that explain it, then it will be in a position to foresee the events that will take place in that sector of reality. On the other hand, the same knowledge of the how and why of a sector of reality, also empowers to act, gives power to transform that reality and influence it to a greater or lesser degree.
Science, in fact, in our days, has granted an immense power to man. This power is dangerous, since it can be used for good or for evil.
The researcher's position regarding science and technology
I am strongly struck by the fact that among the researchers who have traveled the history of humanity, they oblige us to reflect on the positions that we must assume before science and technology, given that both are the human activities that are undergoing the most important changes in all of them. their paradigms. For example, in Physics, it has contributed to the relativization of the great dogmas of mechanical or Newtonian physics, which in turn rests on Cartesian philosophy, a way of perceiving reality through a rationality based on analytical thought.
It should be mentioned that Newtonian physics is not valid to explain the very small or the very large. Among the corresponding contributions, the verification that atoms are not solid and fixed elements, but practically empty in continuous vibration, in which their particles are both waves, stands out. Moreover, Einstein, in his theory of relativity, discovered that mass (matter) is nothing but a form of compressed energy, that time and space are mutually dependent. According to this principle, depending on our position and speed, our measurements will give different results, which is a new setback against Cartesian objectivity.
Contrary to Physics, Biology has continued to cling to the old paradigm. It has been tried to contemplate the topicality of the biological debate as a tendency for Nature to stop looking like a machine and come back to life, that is, an evolution from machinism towards a kind of neovitalism based on the theory of nature.
I must emphasize that currently, the organicist conception of the planet, known by Lovelock (1989), as a Gaia hypothesis, for whom the Earth behaves like a living organism (Gaia), in which the different beings that compose it collaborate in maintaining global balance, just as our organs and cells contribute to maintaining our vital signs.
This conception contradicts the vision of current scientific studies, but it has the virtue of raising awareness of the need to change the old metaphors about how Nature works, to allow, with this new metaphor, the creation of the bases of an empirical practice. of planetary medicine, especially for purely global problems, such as those currently afflicting the Earth (depletion of the ozone layer, global warming).
As for the technological advance, it is considered that it has been one of the most palpable triumphs of the old paradigm, especially in the present century. However, this advance has brought about important modifications in the human perception of the world, becoming a dangerous element of loss of cultural identity and control of our lives.
In this sense, Mcluhan in the nineties (1990), stated that human consciousness is projected onto the world through electronics, pushing humanity towards a future based on robotics; that is to say, that the nature of man is rapidly being translated into information systems, which will produce enormous global sensitivity and will suppress all secrets.
Given the progressive gap between culture and technological development, it is very important to become aware of the need for democratic control of technological development, which according to Diéguez (1993), would mean abandoning deterministic theses (positive or negative) on the power of technology, and the adoption of a responsibility for its control by everyone.
Technology is the science-based technique whose development serves as a support for new scientific theories. Today it represents a great hope for humanity and at the same time it is a great threat. On the one hand, it relies on it to solve the great problems currently afflicting the planet, but, on the other hand, it confirms the failure to fulfill many of the promises associated with it.
To prevent these failures, Martínez-Migueles (2006: 6) reflects on; Carl Rogers' "Person Centered Approach" (ECP) takes the New Science, theoretically, and brings it to a high practical level of excellence, first in therapy, then in education, and later, in every interpersonal and social relationship ”which is born and develops assuming an approach of the nature of knowledge and science that had already been established in the most advanced areas of physics, linguistics, biology and much of same philosophy of science.
For greater clarity and simplification of the person-centered Rogerian approach, Martínez-Migueles (2006) uses the concept of advisor to refer indiscriminately to the person who exercises a guiding function such as the therapist, the psychological, the teacher or teacher, the employer manager, the social worker, the union leader, social leader or political leader; and equally, it assigns the term advised to refer to the person attended by any of these professionals, be it a client, a patient, student or thesis student, a humble person subject to social assistance, a group of workers, a social group or a group political.
A radical transformation of the concept of knowledge and the concept of science has been evident throughout the 20th century. We are coming to the adoption of a new concept of scientific rationality, of a new epistemological paradigm.
We can affirm, the historical moment that young people live allows them to acquire more knowledge than teachers due to the skills developed through information and communication technologies. Hence, researchers and teachers cannot compete with the amount of youth that stay connected in the different sites that the INTERNET offers them, and not precisely by seeking academic knowledge.
By way of reflection
The challenge that teachers have today, at different levels and educational modalities around the world, is at odds with the creativity and speed that new generations have to use technologies, among which ubiquitous computing stands out and blogs promote new proposals. that could cause a chaos of knowledge in our academics.
For this reason, we must take advantage of the opportunities in a world in which technology marks new values, ways of teaching, learning, researching, participating and doing politics. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the curiosity of young people and help them understand their choices and the consequences they have. In this sense, it is worth asking how would a teacher guide young people about the ethics of research if they cannot face the challenges that the Internet represents in the classroom? What will the civic participation of experienced researchers on scientific methods be like alongside young researchers in the computerized society?
It would be necessary to ask, then, did the teaching researchers, tutors, advisors and the research methodology of today remain in the past? And young people ¿They belong to the 21st century or beyond, since children and young people live in a world where images, violence in video games and teaching-learning methods have not been updated. And to top it all, the educational reforms when they are published are already obsolete because there is a total absence of young people commenting on the education they need and would like to have.
However, more and more children and young people show enthusiasm with research projects on problems of daily life. But, functions that teachers perform do not have a solid knowledge base, therefore, they cannot develop critical thinking in new researchers.
Bibliographic references
Ander-Egg, E. (2004) Methods and Techniques of Social Research. Science, Method and Expression of scientific knowledge. Buenos Aires. Argentina. LUMUSA Publishing House. Volume II.
Bunge, M (1982) Scientific research. Editorial Ariel. Barcelona. Habits of Highly Effective People. Editorial Piados Buenos Aires. Argentina.
Diéguez, A. (1993) Technology and responsibility. Malaga. Spain. Philosophy Magazine.
Gadamer, HG (1998). Truth and method. Foundations of a philosophical hermeneutics. Salamanca, Spain. Editorial Follow me.
Kerlinger, F. and Lee, H. (2002) Behavioral research. Research methods in social sciences. Mexico. Mc Graw Hill. Fourth edition.
Lovelock, J. et al. (1989) Gaia. Implications of the new biology. Barcelona. Spain. Kairos.
Martínez, M. (2004). Science and art in the qualitative methodology. Mexico. Editorial Trillas. 1st edition.
Martínez-Miguélez, M. (2006). General Scientific Knowledge and Ordinary Knowledge. Chile. Faculty of Social Sciences University of Chile. Journal of Epistemology of Social Sciences.
Martínez-Miguélez, M (2006) Epistemological Foundation of the Person-Centered Approach. On-Line Magazine of the Bolivarian University Volume 5 Number 15 2006
Mcluhan, m. (1990) War and Peace in the Global Village. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Planeta Agostini
Sampson, J. et al. (1999), "A cognitive information processing approach to employment problem solving and decision making", The Career development, 48 (1), 3-18.
Sierra Bravo, R. (2005) Doctoral Theses and Scientific Research Works. Spain. Thomson Editores Spain Paraninfo SA Fifth Edition, fourth reprint.
