Learning Disabilities

Free Online Articles Directory

Why Submit Articles?
Top Authors
Top Articles
FAQ
AB Answers

Publish Article

0 && $.browser.msie ) {
var ie_version = parseInt($.browser.version);
if(ie_version Hello Guest
Login

Login via

Register
Hello
My Home
Sign Out

Email

Password


Remember me?
Lost Password?

Home Page > Education > Learning Disabilities > Learning Disabilities

Learning Disabilities

Edit Article |

Posted: Jun 15, 2010 |Comments: 0

|

Share

]]>

Ask a question

Ask our experts your Learning Disabilities related questions here…200 Characters left

Related Questions

What is the cpt-4 code for children with a Math learning disability learning disorder for tutoring
What are signs of a learning disability ?
I have been diagnosed with a multiple learning disability back in 1997 within a pshycological report can i qualify for odsp?
Is there a test or a place he can go to see if he does have a learning disability?

Syndicate this Article

Copy to clipboard

Learning Disabilities

By: Michelle Taño

About the Author

(ArticlesBase SC #2637447)

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ – Learning Disabilities

“Learning disability” is a general term that describes specific kinds of learning problems. A learning disability can cause a person to have trouble learning and using certain skills.. The skills most often affected are the following: There reading, writing, listening, speaking, reasoning, and doing math.
Learning disabilities or LD vary from person to person. One person with learning disabilities may not have the same kind of learning problems as another person with learning disabilities.

One person may have trouble with reading and writing. Another person with learning disabilities may have problems with understanding math. Still another person may have trouble in each of these areas, as well as with understanding what people are saying.

Researchers think that learning disabilities are caused by differences in how a person’s brain works and how it processes information. Children with learning disabilities are not “dumb” or “lazy.” In fact, they usually have average or above average intelligence. Their brains just process information differently.

The definition of “learning disability” just below comes from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA is the federal law that guides how schools provide special education and related services to children with disabilities.

There is no “cure” for learning disabilities. They are life-long. However, children with learning disabilities can be high achievers and can be taught ways to get around the learning disability. With the right help, children with learning disabilities can and do learn successfully.

How common are learning disabilities?

Very common! As many as 1 out of every 5 people in the United States has a learning disability. Almost 3 million children (ages 6 through 21) have some form of a learning disability and receive special education in school. In fact, over half of all children who receive special education have a learning disability (Twenty-fourth Annual Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

What are the signs of a learning disability?

There is no one sign that shows a person has a learning disability. Experts look for a noticeable difference between how well a child does in school and how well he or she could do, given his or her intelligence or ability. There are also certain clues that may mean a child has a learning disability. We’ve listed a few below. Most relate to elementary school tasks, because learning disabilities tend to be identified in elementary school. A child probably won’t show all of these signs, or even most of them. However, if a child shows a number of these problems, then parents and the teacher should consider the possibility that the child has a learning disability.

When a child has a learning disability, he/she:

may have trouble learning the alphabet, rhyming words, or connecting letters to their sounds;
may make many mistakes when reading aloud, and repeat and pause often;
may not understand what he or she reads;
may have real trouble with spelling;
may have very messy handwriting or hold a pencil awkwardly;
may struggle to express ideas in writing;
may learn language late and have a limited vocabulary;
may have trouble remembering the sounds that letters make or hearing slight differences between words;
may have trouble understanding jokes, comic strips, and sarcasm;
may have trouble following directions;
may mispronounce words or use a wrong word that sounds similar;
may have

 Introduction

Policy makers recognize that the employment challenges encountered by disabled people are due to a complex matrix of attitudes, hostile environments and disabling barriers (Barnes, 1992: Burchardt, 2005). Hence, established explanations for the challenges disabled people seem to experience in the labour market are no longer viewed as fitting by the same people and their organizations.    

Overview

This paper considers two issues; negotiated change for fitness to practice in the workplace and formation of professional identities for disabled people. This consideration will outline an historical background how disability became a policy issue of central concern to both employers and to the disability movement. This exposure is fundamental in order to clearly understand the present situation regarding the challenges disabled persons face, vis-à-vis these issues. Illustrations of situations from developed and developing countries will be cited. A general overview will be made of policy and practice regarding fitness to practice and professional identity formation of disabled people. It is argued that disabled people face considerable challenges in accessing work and that those already in employments also face considerable challenges in defining and asserting their professional identity due to a combination of factors such as discriminatory employment policies and other disabling factors in their socio cultural contexts.

 Terms explained: Impairment, Disability and Handicap

In this section, the terms, disability, impairment and handicap, as encountered in the general area of disability studies will be examined. The term identity in general will be defined but professional identity, in particular will be considered. Other terms such as, social identity and personal identity etcetera may be gleaned upon contextually. 

Although the use of the terms disability, impairment and handicap tends to unite the medical and social models of disability and is of practical value (Jones, 2001), the terminology can often be ambiguous and confusing. Hence, the need to separate and define their meanings (Harris, 1971).The understanding of the terms impairment, disability or handicap, wherever used in this paper is derived from the original World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Function rather than the update version of it, because, although the recent version claims to unite the models of disability, it seems not sufficient enough in differentiating subtle issues, for example, poor attitudes or poor air quality affecting breathing (Jones.2001); issues which are of particular concern to the daily lives of disabled people. 

 Although the terms impairment, disability and handicap are often used interchangeably, they are in fact, not synonymous.  Impairment is an abnormality of a structure or function; for example an abnormality of the ear. Disability on the other hand is the functional consequence of impairment (for example, the inability to hear certain sounds). Handicap is the social impact of impairment on an individual; for instance, the loss of a job or making a career change as a result of communication difficulties (Who, 1980: Jones, 2001: Metts, 2004). 

 Unfortunately, disability scholars seem not to adequately separate meanings either, and tend to treat these terms as if they are the same, leading to ambiguity and confusion. But the International Classification of Function (ICF) matrix illuminates these notions in a different perspective and acknowledges that all individuals experience a decrement in health and thereby experience some degree of disability, impairment and handicap ranging in severity from mild, to moderate, severe and profound. The ICF ‘mainstreams’ disability as an experience and recognizes it as a universal human phenomenon (WHO, 1980). It defines ‘disability’ as a restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner within the range considered normal for a human being (WHO, 1980).

 This definition of disability however, is problematic and consequently, has not received universal acceptance and therefore, remains criticized (Oliver, 1990: French, 1994). It remains criticized because it tends to be medically dominant and seems to embrace the notion of impairment as an abnormality in function, disability as an inability to engage in an activity considered normal for a human being and handicap as the inability to carry out a normal social role. Yet, progressive thinking has since departed from these notions. Also, the reification of the concept of normality appears very problematic too (Jones, 2001). The notion of normality is complex and has a flipside to it (Tremain, 2005. And ‘normal’ is a relative because something considered normal to one community may not be normal to another (Davis, 1995). Its converse, ‘abnormal’ can be associated with ‘deviation’, which will always be produced so long as people with or without disabilities strive for normality and for an existence in society (Tremain, 2005:192).

 Therefore, by focusing on the human aspect of impairment and disability and shifting from viewing these  as a ‘medical’,  ‘biological’  or ‘social’ condition, the ICF matrix overrides the issue of normality and places all disability and health conditions on an equal pedestal, allowing both health and disability to exist contiguously and to be compared using a common matrix. The basic tenets of this matrix are sound and have since been adopted by many United Nations member states and translated into respective country legislative frameworks. For instance, the United Kingdom, USA and Zimbabwe, to name a few, enacted –respectively- the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (Office of Public Sector Information, 1995), the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) (United States Government, 1990) and the Disabled Persons Act (Government Printers, 1996).

 However, in spite of the existence and the adoption of the common ICF matrix, the question of disability terminology and definitions still remains a subject of much debate amongst disabled people, their organizations and disability studies. Additionally, disability as an area of study is both under studied and under theorized (Davis, 1995). There is also inconsistency in the use of other attendant terms. For instance, some writers refer to individuals with impairments as ‘disabled persons’ (Oliver, 1990), while others prefer to say ‘persons with a disability (International Labour Organization, (ILO) 2008). However, the use of the term ‘disabled’ as a human descriptor ‘sounds’ (metaphorically) rather mechanical, because reference is often made to inanimate items as being ‘disabled’, for instance, a disabled lock, a disabled machine, a disabled computer application, andetcetera. The understanding portrayed being that, when something is ‘disabled’, it has been deliberately made to temporarily malfunction but, can be ‘enabled at any other time, at the user’s discretion. Therefore, the connotation given in reference to people would be that a ‘disabled person’ can, at a later point be rehabilitated, or to be made non-disabled. This is misleading when one considers labels like ‘disabled toilet’ or ‘disabled car parking’ Perhaps, the use of the term ‘disabled people’ can appropriately be applied to people undergoing, rehabilitative therapy done to enable a person to regain lost functionality of either an ambulatory, sensorial or cognitive nature  (Mpofu & Hartley; 2002). Only then, perhaps, can a person be referred to as ‘disabled’.

However, proponents of the term “disabled people” , point out that its use is in line with the social model which purports that people are disabled by society and restrictive environmental factors and disabling barriers (Union for the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS), 1981; Oliver, 1990; Barnes,1992). But in the social model context the connotation of ‘disabled’ and ‘disability’, represent a diverse system of social constraints imposed on disabled people by a highly discriminatory society (Barnes, 1992). Viewed through the social model, to be disabled or to have a disability can mean, 

 The disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities. (UPIAS, 1976, pp. 3-4).

 In the human rights model, the term “person with a disability” is generally more acceptable and seems to becoming increasingly a global catch phrase (ILO, 1988). Epistemologically however, to this writer, all the terms, i.e. ‘handicapped person’, ‘disabled person and ‘person with a disability’ still do not seem to make sense. As an addendum to the critique of the descriptor ‘disabled’ presented above, ‘disability’ is construed to mean a personal experience that arises from the interaction between a disabled person and to a large extent, the context in which they live (Schneider, Hurst, Miller & Ustin (2003). Experience is interactive with the environment and is thus, a product of the interrelationship of both intrapersonal (identity) factors and external (environmental) factors; if the environment changes, then the experience of disability will also change.  It is transient. Therefore, to say a ‘person with a disability’ is synonymous to a ‘person with an experience’ does not appear to identify a person correctly, least what the language intends to say. The problem with the issue of disability is that the environment’s definitive influence in creating disability has now been firmly established and is seen as integral to the definition of disability (Schneider, 2006).

INTRODUCTION

Human communities worldwide have tended to move gradually to develop closer associations over a long time. However, lately the speed of the movement appears to have considerably accelerated. For instance, the invention of the jet planes, the computer chip, and availability of electronic mail (email), cheap telecommunication services, huge but fast sea vessels, instantaneous financial transactions across national borders, all seem to contribute to the movement to make the globe even more mutually dependent than ever. The production and provision of branded goods and services by transnational corporations (TNCs) such as Coca- Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Dulux Paints, Barclays Bank Gestetner, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chickens, Nandos, Dunlop, and Ford to name a few, marketed throughout the world, all seem to contribute to make the globe a more symbiotic place. The exchange of information and communication technological knowledge along with products and finances, ideas and cultures now seem to circulate more liberally. And this seems to be the current and future trend.

Globalization undoubtedly, appears to be one of the most prominent aspects of the present century. Consequently, laws, economies, and social engagements seem to now form at the global level. Professionals, politicians, intellectuals and journalists seem to treat the global trends as both predictable and generally welcome. And for some of the world’s population, globalization has increasingly become a catchphrase or buzzword and may mean getting rid of the old ways of life and hostile livelihoods and cultures (Guinness, 2003).

However, signs of globalization of the past few decades are recent compared to at least four other major phases that appear to have shrunk the world throughout history. Historically, globalization can be viewed as having been signaled by;

The cross-oceanic European voyages of discovery from 1492 to about 1565 (Guinness, 2003).
The forced migration and translocation of Africans and Indians into slavery and indentured labour to the plantations in the West Indies.
The massive human migration of the 1930 from Europe and Asia to the Americas (Ingstad and Whyte, 1995).
The economic depression of the 1930s (Stiglitz, 2002).

 While each of these earlier episodes of globalization saw rapid growth in world economy, Guinness (2003), contends that they tended to exert a heavy human toll especially on the less economically developed nation states. In addressing the challenges and opportunities of globalization, there currently appears to be increasing global concerns with both the positive and negative impacts of this phenomenon on the local, national and international levels of developments in all spheres be they social, political, or economic (Priestley, 2001). Of concern in this essay, is the area of disability and how globalization has impacted on the challenges or opportunities for disabled people.

lthough Lauder, Brown, Dillabough and Halsey (2006) note that most researchers on globalization have tended to focus on particular aspects, globalization, however, appears to be multi-dimensional (Waters, 1995; Cheng, 2004). Hence, perceptions on the phenomenon tend to be varied and accordingly, the definitions of the term so far postulated, appear “fuzzy”. And indeed Lauder et al (2006) observe that there is no agreed definition as yet because it appears globalization represents a process that is never ending and cannot be thought of as either cyclic or evolutionarily progressing from simple to complex.

 Indeed, with a new crop of writers such as Brown and Lauder (1996), Schirato and Webb (2003), Stiglitz (2002), Burbules and Torres (2000) and Bottery (2004), to mention a few, it appears a plethora of concepts which include, technological globalization, economic globalization and learning globalization, environmental globalization, demographic globalization, American globalization, (Nye, 2002) cultural globalization political globalization (Bottery, 2004) emerged, advancing new insights into the meaning of globalization. The list of the kinds of “globalization” appears endless and is on-going, as debate on the phenomenon continues to forge ahead. But according to Bottery (2004), some kinds of globalization are more pressing in their immediate effects than others. This paper examines and defines globalization from a general perspective and also explores how the globalization process has “pressed” on the creation of challenges and, or opportunities for disabled people worldwide. Other terms such as “disability” that are embedded within the globalization context will be defined as the discussion unfolds.

 What is globalization?

While the terms “globe” and  “global” appear to have been in English usage for over four centuries, the noun form “globalization” did not seem to be in common use until about 1960 (Guinness, 2003). According to Weekley (1967), in “An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English”, the term “globalization” was first recognized in 1959 but remained dormant until the mid-1980s when its usage increased dramatically in academic language (Guinness, 2003). To some authors, the term seems to refer to the emergence of transnational organizations whose decisions tend to shape and constrain the policy options any particular nation state may wish to take (Burbules and Torres, 2000). To yet others, globalization may mean the “transition from national ‘walled’ and regional economies towards global ‘free’ trade and markets” (Lauder,et. al. 2006; 30). It may also, to yet others mean the impact of global economic processes that include production of standardized goods and services, consumption patterns and financial interdependence and “footloose” capital flows (Brown and Lauder, 1996). To still others, globalization means the appearance of new global cultural forms, media, information and communication technologies, which seem unrestricted by national borders (Held, 1991). It is perhaps, to political skeptics, where globalization can be viewed as a mental construct utilized by the state polity to garner support for or to squash opposition to reform resulting from mightier forces such as global trade competitions instigated by the World Trade Organization (WTO): or responses to structural adjustment programme (SAPs) demands of the Bretton Woods Institutes-the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) (Brown, 1999): or to obligations to fulfill agreements of intergovernmental organizations or regional economic blocs (Held, 1991) such as the European Union, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Economic Commission of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Committee (SADC), or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), that leave the nation state with no option but to play along an imposed set of global rules (Burbules and Torres, 2000).Guinness (2003; 3) posits that the nature of certain jobs tends to influence views when thinking of globalization. For instance, to Kofi Annan (the former United Nations Secretary General) globalization may mean “world inclusivity”; to depots and other like minded dictators, globalization may be perceived as meaning a threat to the national sovereignty of their nation states. While to Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation, globalization may mean connecting the world virtually in cyberspace, by a world wide web. Thus, myriad views on globalization surfaced as the concept ignited across a wide range of intellectual interests with some views on the one end vilifying the concept and on the other, praising it (Stiglitz, 2002).

 The use and popularity of the term “globalization” may be partly due to its vagueness and ability to assume different dimensions depending on the user and context. Held and Koenig–Archibugi (2003) and Schirato and Webb (2000; 1) concur and describe globalization as a word that is often used to designate the global power relations, practices and technologies that characterize, and help to bring into being the contemporary world. Robertson (1992) defines globalization as a concept that refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. Waters (2001), in coining his definition argues that the most appropriate way of defining globalization would be to predict what a totally globalized world would appear to be like in the future. Waters (2001) therefore, visualizes globalization as being characterized by a single global society with a single culture, where there are no territorial boundaries which, in that status quo, seem to exist in principle for organizing social and cultural life and where there could be high regard for tolerance, diversity and individual choice. Waters (2001) also views the flow of trade as well as migration of people and ideas across national and political boundaries, as being interlinked and thus, forcing previously homogenous cultures to rationalize each other. Thus, globalization can be perceived s a process that simultaneously differentiates and homogenizes and consequently “pluralizing the world by recognizing the value of cultural niches” (Guinness, 2003; 2). From this vantage therefore, Waters (2001) defines globalization as;

A process in which the constraints of  geography on economic, social and cultural arrangements recede, in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding and in which people act accordingly.

 To an extent, Waters’ definition of globalization seems to concur with Stiglitz’s (2002; 9) description when he says globalization is fundamentally,

The closer integration of countries and peoples of the world which has been brought about the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flow of goods, services, capital , knowledge

INTRODUCTION

Human communities worldwide have tended to move gradually to develop closer associations over a long time. However, lately the speed of the movement appears to have considerably accelerated. For instance, the invention of the jet planes, the computer chip, and availability of electronic mail (email), cheap telecommunication services, huge but fast sea vessels, instantaneous financial transactions across national borders, all seem to contribute to the movement to make the globe even more mutually dependent than ever. The production and provision of branded goods and services by transnational corporations (TNCs) such as Coca- Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Dulux Paints, Barclays Bank Gestetner, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chickens, Nandos, Dunlop, and Ford to name a few, marketed throughout the world, all seem to contribute to make the globe a more symbiotic place. The exchange of information and communication technological knowledge along with products and finances, ideas and cultures now seem to circulate more liberally. And this seems to be the current and future trend.

Globalization undoubtedly, appears to be one of the most prominent aspects of the present century. Consequently, laws, economies, and social engagements seem to now form at the global level. Professionals, politicians, intellectuals and journalists seem to treat the global trends as both predictable and generally welcome. And for some of the world’s population, globalization has increasingly become a catchphrase or buzzword and may mean getting rid of the old ways of life and hostile livelihoods and cultures (Guinness, 2003).

However, signs of globalization of the past few decades are recent compared to at least four other major phases that appear to have shrunk the world throughout history. Historically, globalization can be viewed as having been signaled by;

The cross-oceanic European voyages of discovery from 1492 to about 1565 (Guinness, 2003).
The forced migration and translocation of Africans and Indians into slavery and indentured labour to the plantations in the West Indies.
The massive human migration of the 1930 from Europe and Asia to the Americas (Ingstad and Whyte, 1995).
The economic depression of the 1930s (Stiglitz, 2002).

 While each of these earlier episodes of globalization saw rapid growth in world economy, Guinness (2003), contends that they tended to exert a heavy human toll especially on the less economically developed nation states. In addressing the challenges and opportunities of globalization, there currently appears to be increasing global concerns with both the positive and negative impacts of this phenomenon on the local, national and international levels of developments in all spheres be they social, political, or economic (Priestley, 2001). Of concern in this essay, is the area of disability and how globalization has impacted on the challenges or opportunities for disabled people.

Although Lauder, Brown, Dillabough and Halsey (2006) note that most researchers on globalization have tended to focus on particular aspects, globalization, however, appears to be multi-dimensional (Waters, 1995; Cheng, 2004). Hence, perceptions on the phenomenon tend to be varied and accordingly, the definitions of the term so far postulated, appear “fuzzy”. And indeed Lauder et al (2006) observe that there is no agreed definition as yet because it appears globalization represents a process that is never ending and cannot be thought of as either cyclic or evolutionarily progressing from simple to complex.

Indeed, with a new crop of writers such as Brown and Lauder (1996), Schirato and Webb (2003), Stiglitz (2002), Burbules and Torres (2000) and Bottery (2004), to mention a few, it appears a plethora of concepts which include, technological globalization, economic globalization and learning globalization, environmental globalization, demographic globalization, American globalization, (Nye, 2002) cultural globalization political globalization (Bottery, 2004) emerged, advancing new insights into the meaning of globalization. The list of the kinds of “globalization” appears endless and is on-going, as debate on the phenomenon continues to forge ahead. But according to Bottery (2004), some kinds of globalization are more pressing in their immediate effects than others. This paper examines and defines globalization from a general perspective and also explores how the globalization process has “pressed” on the creation of challenges and, or opportunities for disabled people worldwide. Other terms such as “disability” that are embedded within the globalization context will be defined as the discussion unfolds.

What is globalization?

While the terms “globe” and  “global” appear to have been in English usage for over four centuries, the noun form “globalization” did not seem to be in common use until about 1960 (Guinness, 2003). According to Weekley (1967), in “An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English”, the term “globalization” was first recognized in 1959 but remained dormant until the mid-1980s when its usage increased dramatically in academic language (Guinness, 2003). To some authors, the term seems to refer to the emergence of transnational organizations whose decisions tend to shape and constrain the policy options any particular nation state may wish to take (Burbules and Torres, 2000). To yet others, globalization may mean the “transition from national ‘walled’ and regional economies towards global ‘free’ trade and markets” (Lauder,et. al. 2006; 30). It may also, to yet others mean the impact of global economic processes that include production of standardized goods and services, consumption patterns and financial interdependence and “footloose” capital flows (Brown and Lauder, 1996). To still others, globalization means the appearance of new global cultural forms, media, information and communication technologies, which seem unrestricted by national borders (Held, 1991). It is perhaps, to political skeptics, where globalization can be viewed as a mental construct utilized by the state polity to garner support for or to squash opposition to reform resulting from mightier forces such as global trade competitions instigated by the World Trade Organization (WTO): or responses to structural adjustment programme (SAPs) demands of the Bretton Woods Institutes-the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) (Brown, 1999): or to obligations to fulfill agreements of intergovernmental organizations or regional economic blocs (Held, 1991) such as the European Union, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Economic Commission of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Committee (SADC), or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), that leave the nation state with no option but to play along an imposed set of global rules (Burbules and Torres, 2000).Guinness (2003; 3) posits that the nature of certain jobs tends to influence views when thinking of globalization. For instance, to Kofi Annan (the former United Nations Secretary General) globalization may mean “world inclusivity”; to depots and other like minded dictators, globalization may be perceived as meaning a threat to the national sovereignty of their nation states. While to Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation, globalization may mean connecting the world virtually in cyberspace, by a world wide web. Thus, myriad views on globalization surfaced as the concept ignited across a wide range of intellectual interests with some views on the one end vilifying the concept and on the other, praising it (Stiglitz, 2002).

The use and popularity of the term “globalization” may be partly due to its vagueness and ability to assume different dimensions depending on the user and context. Held and Koenig–Archibugi (2003) and Schirato and Webb (2000; 1) concur and describe globalization as a word that is often used to designate the global power relations, practices and technologies that characterize, and help to bring into being the contemporary world. Robertson (1992) defines globalization as a concept that refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. Waters (2001), in coining his definition argues that the most appropriate way of defining globalization would be to predict what a totally globalized world would appear to be like in the future. Waters (2001) therefore, visualizes globalization as being characterized by a single global society with a single culture, where there are no territorial boundaries which, in that status quo, seem to exist in principle for organizing social and cultural life and where there could be high regard for tolerance, diversity and individual choice. Waters (2001) also views the flow of trade as well as migration of people and ideas across national and political boundaries, as being interlinked and thus, forcing previously homogenous cultures to rationalize each other. Thus, globalization can be perceived s a process that simultaneously differentiates and homogenizes and consequently “pluralizing the world by recognizing the value of cultural niches” (Guinness, 2003; 2). From this vantage therefore, Waters (2001) defines globalization as;

A process in which the constraints of  geography on economic, social and cultural arrangements recede, in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding and in which people act accordingly.

 To an extent, Waters’ definition of globalization seems to concur with Stiglitz’s (2002; 9) description when he says globalization is fundamentally,

the closer integration of countries and peoples of the world which has been brought about the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flow of