Abstract:
The following theoretical analysis aimed to highlight perceived, conceptual differences between constructivist and realist ontologies as meta-theories for approaching students’ well-being in institutions of higher learning; specifically, in relation to how first-year students attempt to master academic literacy practices. This theoretical investigation aimed to determine if the two ontologies are theoretically compatible in research endeavours which are geared towards understanding the wellness of first-year students as they attempt to demonstrate mastery of academic literacy practices. The central method applied in this conceptual probe was an interpretive and textual focus on key, local and international perspectives towards student well-being in higher education. The outcome of the analysis revealed that while the two ontologies presented theoretical and conceptual divergences in their framing of first-year, students’ well-being as they attempt to master academic literacy practices; mainly, a view of being or reality as mind-emergent or mind-independent, both constructivist and realist ontologies are applicable for comprehending this very phenomenon. This analytical probing concluded by asserting that while constructivism and realism are distinct meta-theories towards understanding the lived experiences and well-being of first-year students who engage in academic literacy practices, they need not be perceived as theoretical foes. Both ontologies are appropriate meta-frameworks for illustrating how, at individual and interactive levels with significant others, the well-being of students may be approached as they attempt to demonstrate competence in conventions associated with academic literacy.
