- HTML Translated Version -

 

Styles of Thought and Epistemological Approaches

 

Autora: Maryianela del Carmen Maita Guédez

Universidad de Los Andes Núcleo Universitario “Dr. Pedro Rincón Gutiérrez”, ULA

mmaita@ula.ve; maryianelamaita@gmail.com

Táchira, Venezuela

 

Abstract

This paper begins with a historical reference whose purpose is to distinguish the various philosophical positions given throughout the construction of science. The path is divided into two periods, before and after the seventeenth century, on the one hand, focuses on the Greek thought constituted by the Aristotelian and Galilean traditions; On the other hand are presented the great epistemological traditions: Rationalism and Empiricism. It continues in the XIX with Augusto Comte who introduces the positivist approach to science till the figure of Thomas Kuhn with the concept of paradigm. Then, it is about the styles of thought and epistemological approaches due to each human being has a particular way of approaching reality, learning, solving problems, inferring, developing in their environment or following certain patterns that resemble or differentiate them from others. Then the relationship between them is established, proving that they are the support of any scientific revolution exhibited in the course of history. Finally, it is concluded that all research work acquires a value in the context of the belief system where it has been raised, rather than within impositions of paradigms that establish supposedly indisputable and universal schemes.

 

Keywords: epistemology; rationalism; empiricism; reasoning.

 

 

 

 

Estilos de Pensamiento y Enfoques Epistemológicos

 

Resumen

Este ensayo inicia con un referente histórico cuyo propósito es distinguir las diversas posturas filosóficas dadas a lo largo de la construcción de la ciencia. El recorrido se divide en dos épocas, antes y después del siglo XVII, por una parte, se enfoca en el pensamiento griego constituido por las tradiciones Aristotélicas y Galileanas; por la otra se presentan las grandes tradiciones epistemológicas: el Racionalismo y el Empirismo. Se continúa en el siglo XIX con Augusto Comte quien introduce el enfoque positivista de la ciencia hasta llegar a la figura de Thomas Kuhn con el concepto de paradigma. Seguidamente, se tratan los estilos de pensamiento y enfoques epistemológicos pues cada ser humano tiene una forma particular de abordar la realidad, aprender, resolver problemas, inferir, desenvolverse en su entorno o seguir ciertos patrones que lo asemeja o diferencia de los otros. Luego se establece la relación entre ambos, demostrándose que son el sustento de cualquier revolución científica exhibida en el transcurso de la historia. Finalmente se concluye que todo trabajo de investigación adquiere un valor en el contexto del sistema de creencias donde ha sido planteado, más que dentro de imposiciones de los paradigmas que establecen esquemas supuestamente indiscutibles y universales.

 

Palabras clave: epistemología; racionalismo; empirismo; razonamiento.

 

 

 

1.    Introduction

Knowledge has been, throughout the history of science, one of the great debates among philosophers, in which three beliefs are disputed: the ontological ones that revolve around the nature of the phenomena, the epistemological ones referred to the doubts how you can acquire, know, communicate knowledge and methodological beliefs that focus on the interest in the way in which the individual creates, modifies and interprets the world in which he or she is. In other words, depending on how the subject who knows (researcher) relates to the object of study, the very operation of knowing and the information gathered about the object, the result can vary from a common knowledge to a scientific knowledge.

 

For Martínez (2010a), knowledge is "the result of a highly elaborated process of interaction between a sensory stimulus (visual, auditory, olfactory, etc. or a content of our memory) and our entire internal world of values, interests, beliefs, feelings, fears, etc." (p.176). Therefore, the subject that investigates detects, raises and seeks solutions to problematic situations that arise in the reality where it develops, permanently maintaining a critical, reflective, sensitive action; as indicated by Morales (2014), "under the attitude of amazement and admiration" (p.29), before the object studied and the results obtained.

 

According to Arraga and Añez (2003a), the common individual is the same as the researcher, who uses his cognitive processes: learning styles (ways of organizing, storing information), thought styles (ways they perceive, interpret, construct reality), as well as epistemological approaches (position adopted to produce scientific knowledge) that predominates when investigating.

 

In this essay the styles of thoughts, epistemological approaches and the relation between both are treated to demonstrate that they are the sustenance of any scientific revolution that takes place in the course of history. In this sense begins with the conceptualization of the term epistemology to then make a tour of the thinking of some relevant authors of science, in order to distinguish the variations that have been presented in the way of conceiving and doing science, opening the possibility to produce new positions for scientific explanation that are not based exclusively on the causal, teleological or hermeneutic.

 

2.    The philosophy of science: in the search for a meeting point

The epistemology, or philosophy of science, for Bunge (2002), "is the branch of philosophy that studies scientific research and its product, knowledge" (p.21), taking into account the methods, nature and structure for get it, validate it and socialize it. Jaramillo (2003), relates it to the genesis of scientific knowledge, which through the objectivity of them determine the ideological knowledge of the time, producing an impact and cultural transformation in the institutions of a society. For his part, Vargas (2015), believes that "supports the scientific reflection of any discipline" (p.208).

 

From the above definitions, it can be asserted that epistemology is the philosophy of science, is based on the critical reflection of the foundations, principles and other aspects that support scientific knowledge (reliable, verifiable, validated, socialized, reliable, universal) generated in a discipline to give it the status of science, where postulates, theories and laws that allow the development of humanity are formulated.

 

In this sense, science throughout its construction has gone through different moments as if by different philosophical positions. Its definition has been surrounded by controversies and variants, depending on interests and perspectives; this is demonstrated by Mardones (1991a), in his writing. In this regard, reviewing the history of the conception of science, prior to the seventeenth century, you will find a predominance of the idea of ​​science inherited from Greek thought represented by the Aristotelian and Galilean traditions.

 

For Aristotle (as quoted in Salgado, 2012), science is:

Knowledge of the universal and of the necessary things, and there are some principles of the demonstrable and of all science (since science is rational), the principle of the scientific can not be neither science nor art nor prudence; because the scientific is demonstrable (p.3).

 

This implies full confidence in the power of reason, in other words, we come to the scientific explanation of a phenomenon or fact, supported by the observation of the real world and the abstraction of the human mind that is ordered and safely the demonstrations, therefore, are totally opposed to the simple opinion. As argued by (Mardones, 1991b), Aristotle demanded that the cause of a phenomenon should cover four aspects: the formal cause, the material cause, the efficient cause and the final cause, emphasizing the final cause, revealing teleological explanations.

 

Sandín (2003a), documents that the Galilean tradition poses a new "scientific world" in which Aristotle's teleological worldview is rejected and a mainly pragmatic and mechanistic vision of the world appears, in which experience as a source of knowledge will have an emphasis higher. The precursors of this position are Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who picks up the propensity of concrete facts with an attempt to dominate nature. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), according to (Mardones, 1991c), represents "the new mentality that changes the qualitative physical explanations of Aristotle by the mathematical formulations of Archimedes" (p.25). Consequently, mathematics will be the fundamental instrument for the scientific explanation of a phenomenon and whose explanations will take the forms of causal hypotheses that are determined by experimental analysis.

 

Likewise, (Sandín, 2003b), indicates that from the XVII century the term idealism arose to designate the Platonic theory in which the possibility was exposed that man could only know "ideas", subjective and private objects of the human mind. From this century until the figure of Kant (1724-1804), with its philosophical attitude called Criticism, European philosophers are circumscribed in two major epistemological traditions: Rationalism in which continental thinkers such as Descartes (1596-1650), Leibniz ( 1646-1716) and Spinoza (1632-1677) and Empiricism represented by English authors such as Locke (1632-1704), Hume (1711-1776) and Berkeley (1685-1753).

 

In the rationalist conception of knowledge, knowledge is constituted by reason, being this the only principle and foundation of true knowledge, because only this produces clear, universal and undoubtedly certain ideas. This is what Descartes (2010) affirms in his Discourse on Method: "awake or asleep, we should never allow ourselves to be persuaded except by the evidence of reason" (p.65). Use mathematics as a model and intellectual intuition as a source of knowledge.

 

In the empiricist tradition, true knowledge comes from experience, in other words, it defends as a form of knowledge the detailed verification of facts through observation, the senses, perceptions and sensations are the means through which the ideas in the mind.

 

The greatest exponent of this position Locke (2005a), in the original document of 1689, ensures that "all ideas come from sensation or reflection. Suppose, then, that the mind is, as they say, a blank paper, clean of all inscription, without any idea "(page 36). This means that human reason is empty before receiving experience. For (Locke, 2005b), there are three elementary forms of knowledge correlated with the known object; Padrón (2014a), expresses them as "intuition (experience, introspection, understanding), demonstration (reasoning, argumentation, explanation) and sensation (sensory capture, observation, instrumentation)" (p.1).

 

Going back to the 19th century, we find that Auguste Comte (1798-1857), introduces the positivist approach of science to designate scientific knowledge in which social, historical, and economic science is intended, among others. Comte (2004), in his Positive Philosophy Course published from 1830 to 1842, states that the first great result of positive philosophy is "the manifestation by the experience of the laws that accompany in their execution our intellectual functions and, therefore, the rigorous knowledge of the general rules suitable to proceed with security in the search for the truth" (p.52).

 

In Comte's approach, true scientific knowledge, which allows us to discover the reality of what is being studied, is that obtained through empirical observation, experimentation and induction, leaving aside theological and metaphysical conceptions for not showing facts such as they are perceived by the senses. In this approach, verifiability is the criterion for distinguishing empirical sciences from other types of knowledge, based on the Galilean tradition of science, following the ideal typification of mathematical physics and trying to frame all knowledge with scientific pretensions under the same method.

 

Additionally, the author in reference establishes as the aim of the positivist philosophy "to summarize in a body of homogeneous doctrine the totality of the acquired knowledge, related to the different orders of natural phenomena" (p.62).

 

The Circle of Vienna, in the first decades of the twentieth century, composed of the followers of Hume's Empiricism, are the creators of Logical Positivism, also called Neopositivism or Logical Empiricism. They set their interest in introducing, to the study of philosophy, methods and mathematical precision, basing the bases that linked truth and meaning, in order to distinguish between what is science and what is not. They excluded the metaphysics, theory and ethics of genuine human knowledge.

 

Positivism, which prevailed for more than three centuries, soon had its detractors, and an anti-positivist tendency called Hermeneutics was forged in the German sphere, in which the pretensions of the positivism of methodological monism, of predictive and causalist zeal, were rejected. the reduction of reason to instrumental reason and the imposition of mathematical physics as the mechanism of all scientific explanation.

 

For their part, the philosophers of the Frankfurt school created in 1923, began to question Positivism, establishing what was later called Critical Theory, characterized by its critical consciousness, worth the redundancy, which points out that the experiences lived may be distorted by a false ideology or conscience. Likewise, according to (Martínez, 2010b), physicists, psychologists of Gestalt, linguists, biologists and philosophers of science, of the new scientific rationality, showed their dissatisfaction with linear rationality and the need to replace the model axiomatic of thinking, reasoning and demonstrating, where a logical-mathematical ideal prevails, by "a logic that accommodates the authentic and more empirical reality of the world in which we live and with which we interact, of a world where there are real inconsistencies, inconsistencies logical and even conceptual contradictions" (p.175).

 

Likewise, Popper (1902-1994), begins to pay attention to the problem of social sciences, this is highlighted in his paper entitled the logic of social sciences. Popper (1978), states that the method of these lies in testing the possible solutions to problems, because scientific knowledge is hypothetical and conjectural, in which the product of knowledge is more an act of invention than discovery; Arbitrary sketches are made of the theories that require a verification and in the cases that a scientific hypothesis can not be verified, the verification is not used but falsifiability, which should lead the scientist to reject them. Induction does not constitute a sufficiently secure basis to explain the validity of scientific theories, but relies on the deduction.

 

The figure of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), comes to take a historicist turn in the philosophy of science and continued by Imre Lakatos (1922-1974), for whom the process of falsifiability does not seem as simple and logical as it gives to understand Popper, for which the Popperian design of conjectures and refutations has to be abandoned, maintaining rational criteria for the substitution or elimination of research programs. Kuhn showed the ineffectiveness of the Popperian criterion of falsifiability. It taught how science really works, considering it an organized activity, possessing certain models to control results, which depend not only on logical or intellectual factors but also on historical and social factors, paying attention to the process by which scientific knowledge is obtained .

 

Finally, it should be noted that the paradigm concept was generalized after 1962 in Kuhn's work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". For Kuhn (1962), a paradigm "are universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide models of problems and solutions to a scientific community" (p.13); In other words, it refers to the way scientists conceive their area of ​​interest, the problems to be studied, the methods to be used, among others; within your disciplinary area.

 

3.    Thinking styles

Each human being has a particular way of approaching reality, learning, solving problems, inferring, developing in their environment or following certain patterns that resemble or differentiate them from others. This is primarily due to thought styles, which are formed before birth and gradually consolidates as the individual interacts with their environment.

 

In conceptualizing the styles of thought, Valadez (2009) reveals as distinctive aspects the way in which people focus their tasks. Depending on the situations that are faced, a specific style will be manifested, therefore, there are differences in the intensity of the style that go according to the identification of the person with this one. They are variable styles, in fact they can be modified throughout life. In short, for the author, the style of thinking refers to a capacity or aptitude and not a skill.

 

On the other hand, López and Martín (2010), express: "Thinking styles are the ways in which people prefer to use the intellectual capacities available to them" (p.255), that is, it is related to how intelligence is used more than at the level you have of it.

 

In this essay we follow the approaches of (Padrón, 2014b), for whom thinking styles represent the cognitive personality, are responsible for the way we see things, know them and control them. They are oriented towards three factors: senses (controlled observation), brain (reasoning) and heart (experiences and introspections).

 

Without a doubt, the senses, brain and heart coexist in the individual, they are inseparable, but in each circumstance that is presented, information management or problem solving, one of them tends to be the one that identifies us. In this respect, thinking styles are:

·       Inductive - Concrete: the individuals with predominance in this style of thought are pragmatic, they are guided mainly by the senses and the detailed observation of the world that surrounds them, this is the premise to verify the facts, which is why they require direct contact with the object of study.

 

·       Deductive - Abstract: in this case, the individuals start from general knowledge by means of the derivation to construct new concepts, the main source to achieve it is the reasoning, the argumentation, the deduction. They are theoretical and idealistic, prefer the information implicit directly in the object of study.

 

·       Intuitive - Experiential: they are based on thought, introspection, sensitivity for the search for solutions, where internal experiences have a great value.

 

4.    Epistemological approaches

The aforementioned author documents the epistemological approaches as scientific knowledge and the way to produce it, which are conviction systems of the highest level of cognitive depth, universal, that have a presence in the creation of scientific knowledge as follows:

·       Empiricism: called medical approach, is based on induction (controlled experience, explanation). Trust sensory perception. Look for patterns of repetition that are expressed statistically.

 

·       Rationalism: the rationalist approach uses deduction as a method of finding (logical modeling, explanation). Its main postulate is the trust in pure reasoning. It pursues broad basic universal structures.

 

·       Experientialism: also called experientialist approach, is based on intuition (lived experience, understanding). It fixes the attention on the sociocultural symbolisms, aided by a verbalized instrument of open options.

 

Although epistemological approaches are associated with the production of scientific knowledge, these come from the styles of thought, both occur in the privileged holistic center of the human being. On this, (Arraga and Añez, 2003b), they affirm that "they are of a cognitive nature; that is, they are mental processes that take place in the brain" (p.36), who is responsible for processing information, managing it and solving problems.

 

The relationship between thought styles and epistemological approaches is given by several aspects, for example, the focus of attention, the ways of approaching reality, the channel that is used for contact with reality, the predominant language, the object of study, among others.

 

Table 1 shows the basic relationships between the thinking styles and the epistemological approaches considered in this essay.

Table 1. Relations between thought styles and epistemological approaches.

SEE IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION

Source: Adaptation Based on Arraga y Añez (2003) and Padrón (2014).

 

As indicated in the first section, the philosophers of science have subscribed, according to the source of knowledge of a research, to two epistemological traditions: Rationalism and Empiricism. In the same way, two ontological distinctions are presented, oriented to the form and nature of reality, taking into account the role played by the subject that investigates the object under investigation or the reality studied. These are Idealism and Realism.

 

In idealism, reality is an idea, it is based on the understanding and interpretation of the object of study as the result of thinking; Experience and interaction prevail. Realism, as a position antagonistic to idealism, conditions thinking, therefore, reality is independent of our consciousness, what we perceive through the senses predominates. It is based on the explanation; Through experience you come to knowledge.

 

Based on these criteria of the subject-object relationship and the source of knowledge (Padrón, 2014c), consider 4 well-differentiated epistemological approaches can be refined, with the consolidation of conceptual pairs Empiricism / Rationalism and Realism / Idealism. Table 2 shows how ontological and epistemological distinctions intersect: Empiricism - Idealism, Empiricism - Realism, Rationalism - Idealism, Rationalism - Realism, to form other approaches.

 

Table 2. Epistemological approaches.

SEE IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION

Source: Padrón (2014)

 

4.1. Experientialist-experientialist approach: the subject, through field work, has a leading role in obtaining information about what you want to know. In this way, researcher and object of study are interactively related and can inevitably be influenced, consequently, the results will be mediated by the values ​​of the researcher. Habermas (1986), in his work Science and Technique as Ideology, original document of 1968, demonstrates the impossibility of science being an activity free of frequently confronted values ​​and interests.

 

          At the intersection, from table 2, Empiricism / Idealism; the methodology is dialogical and dialectical, since the transactional nature of the research requires a dialogue between the subject and the object studied, which must have a dialectical essence to transform the unknown and the erroneous into knowledge, understanding the actions necessary to effect the change before the problem that it tries to solve. This approach would include ethnographic work, participatory action research, ethnomethodological, coexistence designs, among others.

 

4.2. Empiricist-Inductivist approach: the researcher relies on sensory perception and pursues patterns of regularity, through field work, seeks to measure, explain, control, predict. It supposes the existence of an apprehensible reality driven by unalterable natural laws and mechanisms. Subject and object of study are independent entities, consequently, they should not be influenced by one another; some influence, in either direction, threatens the validity of the investigation. Additionally, its methodology is experimental and manipulative in the sense that the hypotheses or questions posed are presented as propositions subject to an empirical test for verification. The historical example that dominated science for a long time was Positivism.

 

4.3. Vivencialist-Interpretative approach: in this approach based on rationality, as a source of knowledge, meaning is not discovered, but is constructed; it emerges from the interaction with reality and is based on specific experiences, ideas or varied and intangible mental representations, which depend on the individuals or groups that interact. It is contrasted with interpretativism in a way that seeks to understand and question at the same time. In the same way that the Empiricism-Idealism approach, the researcher and the researched are interactively linked in such a way that the findings are influenced, therefore, the intersubjective consensus and active validation of those who produce knowledge through an exchange come into play. dialectical. A critical example is the critical theory.

 

4.4. Rationalist-Deductivist Approach: is based on pure reason, access to knowledge, its production and validation are linked to the construction of abstractions that reveal the behavior of the facts (material and human), the field works are not discarded, but it relies primarily on interpretation and on systems of reasoning that go from the general to the particular (deduction) with logical-mathematical modeling. Falsationism is one of the historical examples of this approach.

 

5.    Final reflections

In solving problems of daily life and information management, thinking styles are the main protagonist, since they are an inherent part of the human being. Although there are different classifications of the styles of thought, here the one suggested by José Padrón was followed, in which the brain, senses and heart converge; that depending on the circumstances one of the three styles may prevail: Inductive - Concrete, Deductive - Abstract, Intuitive - Experiential.

 

Now, in the field of research and science, we speak of epistemological approaches which have a correlation with the styles of thought, therefore, they have always existed: since man is man and science is science, they are the sustenance of any scientific revolution that has occurred in the course of history.

 

From a certain point of view, there are at least three broad and universal epistemological approaches, namely, the medicinal approach, the experientialist approach and the rationalist approach, which have been disputed throughout history to control what is or is not The science. However, making a cross between ontological distinctions and epistemological distinctions, four approaches are refined: Vivencialist - Experientialist, Empiricist - Inductivist, Vivencialist - Interpretativist, Rationalist - Deductivist.

 

The brief tour of the thought of some relevant authors of the history of science, presented in this essay, leads us to point out that, thanks to thought styles and epistemological approaches, there is not a single theory that meets all the necessary requirements to do science, on the contrary, there are multiple ways of approaching and solving problems, as well as positions, perspectives or methodologies.

 

Each position has its followers and detractors, but this gives the possibility of producing new alternatives for scientific explanation that are not based exclusively on the causal, teleological or hermeneutic but on the contrary open paths for complementarity for the benefit of obtaining knowledge scientific through justified methodological concretions that respond to the requirements of credibility, reliability and questioning of the results.

 

Finally, in view of the controversies elucidated, around the epistemological debate, about which are the best ways and perspectives to do science, it is convenient that in a research work the convictions are identified where a certain search is located. Defining this epistemological framework is a key element to analyze and evaluate both the research process and the documented representation of the results to facilitate the estimation of research quality, since all research acquires a value in the context of the system of beliefs in which it has been proposed, rather than within the impositions of scientific revolutions (Paradigms) that establish supposedly indisputable and universal schemes.

 

6.    References

Árraga, M. & Añez, A. (2003a,b). Aprendizaje, enfoques epistemológicos y estilos de pensamiento. Encuentro Educacional. Vol. 10. N° 1, págs. 23-37. Recuperado de: http://www.produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/encuentro/article/viewFile/907/909

 

Bunge, M. (2002). Epistemología. Curso de actualización. México D.F, México: Siglo XXI Editores.

 

Comte, A. (2004). Curso de filosofía positiva. Lecciones 1 y 2. Discurso sobre el espíritu positivo. Recuperado de: https://es.scribd.com/doc/81133541/Curso-de-Filosofia-Positiva-Comte

 

Descartes, R. (2010). Discurso del Método. Recuperado de:

http://www.posgrado.unam.mx/musica/lecturas/LecturaIntroduccionInvestigacionMusical/epistemologia/Descartes-Discurso-Del-Metodo.pdf

 

Habermas, J. (1986). Ciencia y técnica como ideología. Recuperado de:

http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ciencias/ricardo/PDF/Jurgen_Habermas_Ciencia_y_Tecnica_como_ideologia.pdf

 

Jaramillo, L. (2003). ¿Qué es Epistemología? Mi mirar epistemológico y el progreso de la ciencia. Cinta Moebio 18, págs. 174-178.

Recuperado de: http://www.revistas.uchile.cl/index.php/CDM/article/viewFile/26135/27433

 

Kuhn, T. (1962). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Breviarios. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

 

Locke, J. (2005). Filosofía de John Locke. Ensayo sobre el entendimiento humano. Recuperado de: https://getafe.es/wp-content/uploads/Locke_John-Ensayo_sobre_el_entendimiento_humano.pdf

 

López, O. & Martín, R. (2010). Estilos de pensamiento y creatividad. Anales de Psicología, vol. 26, núm. 2, págs. 254-258. Universidad de Murcia, España. Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/167/16713079008.pdf

 

Mardones, J. (1991a,b,c). Filosofía de las ciencias humanas y sociales. Nota histórica de una polémica incesante. Universidad Nacional Abierta. Barcelona: Anthropos Promat. Recuperado de: http://dip.una.edu.ve/mead/filosofia/paginas/mardones1.pdf

 

Martínez, M. (2010a,b). Bases de la Epistemología a Comienzos del Siglo XXI. Foundations of Epistemology in Early XXI Century. Revista IIPSI, Facultad de Psicología UNMSM. vol. 13 núm. 1. Recuperado de: http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bvrevistas/investigacion_psicologia/v13_n1/pdf/a11.pdf

 

Morales, J. (2014). Propuesta de una filosofía de las ciencias administrativas y gerenciales desde la praxis y cotidianidad del gerente venezolano en su contexto. (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Carabobo, Valencia, Venezuela). Recuperado de http://mriuc.bc.uc.edu.ve/bitstream/handle/123456789/579/jmorales.pdf?sequence=4

 

Padrón, J. (2014a,b,c). Notas sobre enfoques epistemológicos, estilos de pensamiento y paradigmas. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22714.08642

 

Popper, K. (1978). La Lógica de las Ciencias Sociales. Recuperado de: http://epistemologiadelascienciassociales.sociales.uba.ar/files/2013/04/La_l%C3%B3gica_de_las_ciencias_sociales_Popper_E_A_FFyL.pdf

 

Salgado, S. (2012). La filosofía de Aristóteles. Cuadernos Duererías, Serie Historia de la Filosofía núm. 12, ISSN: 1989-7774. Recuperado de: http://guindo.pntic.mec.es/~ssag0007/filosofica/aristoteles-duererias.pdf

 

Sandín, M. (2003a,b). Investigación Cualitativa en Educación. Fundamentos y Tradiciones. Madrid, España: McGraw-Hill.

 

Valadez, M. (2009). Estilos de aprendizaje y estilos de pensamiento: precisiones conceptuales. Revista de Educación y Desarrollo, núm. 11, págs. 19-30. octubre-diciembre. Recuperado de: http://www.cucs.udg.mx/revistas/edu_desarrollo/anteriores/11/011_Huizar.pdf

 

Vargas, J. (2015). Enfoque dialógico a la epistemología de las Ciencias Administrativas. Revista Debates, Porto Alegre. vol. 9. núm. 1, págs. 205-222. Recuperado de: http://www.seer.ufrgs.br/debates/article/viewFile/50173/33508

 

 

Maryianela del Carmen Maita Guédez

e-mail: mmaita@ula.ve; maryianelamaita@gmail.com

 

Born in the state of Barinas, Venezuela. Bachelor of Education in Computer Science and Mathematics graduated from the Universidad Católica del Táchira (1996). He has a Master's Degree in Mathematics, Mathematics Education from the Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira (2005). PhD in Management Sciences from UNEFA Táchira. She works as a professor in the Associate Category of the Universidad de Los Andes Núcleo Universitario “Dr. Pedro Rincón Gutiérrez” Táchira, in the Computer and Information department. He has published his teaching and research experience in various refereed journals. Currently accredited in the Innovation and Research Stimulus Program (PEII).

 

The content of this manuscript is disseminated under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

 

- Original Version in Spanish -

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29394/Scientific.issn.2542-2987.2018.3.7.19.374-393