storage.googleapis.comstorage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-22594638/doc… · web viewthe field of...

ANTHONY ARCIERO, EDUC 800, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

A Brief Review of Social Constructionism

Anthony R. Arciero

George Mason University

Author Note

This paper is presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for EDUC 800, Spring

Semester, 2015. The author can be reached at [email protected].

1

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

Social Constructionism is a way of knowing that considers the individual subjectivity with which

we each perceive the world in collaboration with the subjectivity of others. This interactive

subjectivity is called intersubjectivity, and it allows a group to create a shared reality and

negotiate meaning. The history and assumptions of social constructionism are presented, along

with recent areas of research focus and implications for knowing, learning and teaching.

Additionally, the personal reflections of the author’s learning experience in the context of a

social constructionist perspective are discussed.

2


History of Social Constructionism

What does it mean to know? When we ponder that question, as we have over the past

several months, we are confronted with the difficult challenge of describing what we know, how

certain we are of that knowledge and how we came to believe the truths we carry with us.

Perhaps it is so difficult because knowing, learning and beliefs combine to help us to form our

own realities. Like the proverbial fish trying to describe water. Before knowing something, we

believed the world operated a certain way, and we trusted that belief. It helps us keep a day-to-

day continuity in our lives. But when that belief is challenged, or even overturned as a result of

new knowledge, we question that knowledge deeply because it calls into question our sense of

the world. If we accept that the knower is an active agent in the construction of her knowledge,

then Bruner’s (1991) concern with “how narrative as text operates as an instrument of mind in

the construction of reality” (p.6), can be seen as a question of social constructionism, since

narrative is an inherently social activity.

The field of social constructionism traces its roots to Berger and Luckman’s “The Social

Construction of Reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, though those authors

acknowledged an intellectual lineage back to Marx, Weber, and others (Berger and Luckman,

1966). Since that seminal work, the field has expanded and been defined and redefined numerous

times (Cunlifee, 2008; Hruby, 2001). It is now somewhat confusing for a beginner to fully grasp

the fundamental beliefs of the field as highly-contrasting perspectives have adopted modified

interpretations of social constructionism as their own (Andrews, 2012 is an example).

Additionally, social constructionism has been applied to a variety of specific fields, including:

educational attainment (Prior, 2012), knowledge and learning (Cunliffe, 2008), research in

literacy (Hruby, 2001), and psychotherapy practice (Jankowski, et al., 2000), among others.

3


Many influences impact our knowledge, shape what we know, how we know and even

what types of knowledge we seek (Bruner 1996; Kuhn 1970). Cognitive explorations into

knowing usually seek to understand the knowledge resident in an individual’s mind; how it came

to be, what methods are most effective for facilitating that absorption of knowledge (Mooney,

2013). This is a natural inclination, since as educators and students of the learning process we

imagine applying this knowledge in a learning setting. More specifically, it is natural to evaluate

this a way of knowing from a perspective of its applicability to facilitating a single learner to

gain knowledge. Despite this focus on knowledge at the individual level, we do acknowledge

that culture and society heavily influence how we look at the world and how prepared we are to

learn. Social constructionism invites a deeper look into the social aspect of the learning process.

It explores how a person learns in a group, whether it is just the individual who learns, or the

entire group. Also, the dynamics in the group that both affect the individual learner and the

group’s capabilities as a whole are considered.

Social constructionism seeks to understand how a person learns within the context of a

group; and, how the group and the individual learn together. In constructing this group

knowledge, Berger and Luckmann (1966) assert that the sociology of knowledge is “concerned

with the analysis of the social construction of reality” itself (p.15). It is interesting to note the

language used here, as others (Bruner 1996; Gaddis 2002; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger &

Tarule, 1997) also equate knowing and learning to ways of constructing one’s reality.

Social Constructionism as a Way of Knowing

Berger and Luckmann (1966) contend that reality for one person or for one group may be

very different than for another group. They also state that knowledge (and reality) can be

considered to possess a quality of “social relativity” (p.15). It is concerned with “human thought

4


and the social context within which it arises” (Berger and Luckmann, p.16). A recurring theme

that we have encountered throughout our exploration of knowing is thought, reality and knowing

are closely linked.

Berger and Luckmann (1966) developed the concept of knowledge as a distributed

concept by contending that “the object of thought becomes progressively clearer with the

accumulation of different perspectives on it” (p.22). If thinking can be improved by combining

multiple perspectives, then perhaps the clearest thought is not in one individual, but in the group

as a whole. Bruner (1995) described a similar concept called distributed intelligence by the

warning that “it is a grave error to locate intelligence in a single head” (p. 154). If knowledge

shapes our realities and it is also a socially constructed artifact, then we can conclude that reality

itself is socially constructed—and perhaps re-constructed as individuals move among their

normal groups (school, home, friends, etc.).

Key Terms and Assumptions

Key terms

Knowledge is situated and co-produced: “Situations might be said to co-produce

knowledge through activity.” (Brown, et al., 1989, p 32). Knowledge is intersubjectively

constructed, meaning we exchange our own subjective ideas with others, and through that

process we develop and refine knowledge. Bruffee (1984) agrees saying, “knowledge is the

product of human beings in a state of continual negotiation or conversation.” (pp. 646-647).

Knowledge is not fixed: “A concept, for example, will continually evolve with each new

occasion of use, because new situations, negotiations, and activities inevitably recast it in a new,

more densely textured form. So a concept, like the meaning of a word, is always under

construction.” (Brown, et al., 1989, p32). Thought is influenced by interaction in the social

5


context. “Since what we experience as reflective thought is related causally to social

conversation (we learn one from the other), the two are also related functionally.” (Bruffee,

1984, p 639). “To think well as individuals we must learn to think well collectively-that is, we

must learn to converse well.” (Bruffee, p 640). Bruner (1996) made a similar case for a narrative

construal of reality.

Assumptions

The fundamental assumptions of social constructionism include: (1) Knowledge is not

fixed, but rather it is being continually re-negotiated and interpreted; (2) Knowledge is a social

artifact, a product of negotiated meaning among a group; (3) Knowledge is closely tied to

narrative. Telling the story of how we view a concept is part of deepening our understanding of

it; and (4) Acting is a way of knowing—similar to the narrative, action is a way of developing a

physical connection to knowledge.

Implications of the Assumptions of Social Constructionism on Recent Research

A great body of work, across a range of fields of study, has been amassed exploring the

applications of social constructionism. These include educational attainment (Pryor, 2012);

management (Cunliffe, 2008); qualitative research in literacy (Hruby, 2001); and psychotherapy

practice (Jankowski, et al., 2000), and many others. It was interesting to note some similarities in

all these specific applications. These authors appeared to understand the increased complexities

that arise when a social constructionist perspective is brought to bear on their fields. They also

seemed to find in that complexity support for a new approach to their research and the possibility

of advancing their fields with a sensitivity for nuance and increased effectiveness.

Education-related research questions

6


The most interesting research area to me regarding social constructionism is classroom

learning. I came into this doctoral program deeply interested in developing an understanding of

why there seems to be a cultural divide in the way different groups view the value of education.

My interest is evolving to include the effects of those cultural views on motivation to learn and,

through this research, on the implications for teaching practice. If a culture, in large part, views

education as a negative experience because education’s goals and ideals seem to reflect the

values of a different culture, the effects on that culture can be devastating within the context of a

different, dominant culture. A cultural bias against education also holds real challenges for the

educational system. How do we educate people who come from a culture that does not value

education, or its perceived ends?

There is an interesting implication here for how knowledge may be refined and advanced.

Kuhn (1970) describes an antagonistic, destructive process of negotiating knowledge as one new

paradigm destroys and re-writes the history of those before it. Yet Belenky et al. (1997) suggest

women are more inclined to share knowledge, try to enter the thoughts of their fellow knowers

and understand a variety of points of view without engaging in right vs. wrong or evaluative

judgement. They then seek to integrate the various perspectives, with a respect for the value of

everyone’s viewpoint. Perhaps Kuhn was describing a world of knowledge created and managed

according to the rules of how men learn. Bruffee (1984) talks about the process of socially

justifying belief and argues that it is based on a collaborative approach.

We explain to others why one way of understanding how the world hangs together seems

to us preferable to other ways of understanding it. We establish knowledge or justify

belief collaboratively by challenging each other's biases and presuppositions; by

7


negotiating collectively toward new paradigms of perception, thought, feeling, and

expression (p. 646).

This perspective seems to be consistent with Belenky et al. (1997).

Cozzolino (2013) makes a compelling case that human brains are hard-wired to learn

through social interaction. Our sense of novelty, our ability to imitate and our in-born joy of play

all reinforce social connections and simultaneously stimulate our brain development (Cozzolino,

2013). There seems to be some biological support for the concept of social constructionism.

Implications of Social Constructionism for Ways of Knowing

I believe the concept of knowledge as a socially-constructed artifact helps provide a

conceptual underpinning for narrative and action as the mechanisms for socially-constructing

knowledge. We share our subjective understandings of reality with others in our workspace or in

educational setting and as we seek to understand new concepts, our understanding evolves. Our

own subjective view changes and the iterative refinement cycle continues. Bruner’s (1996)

concept of the spiral curriculum fits well with a cyclical, evolutionary model of shared

understanding. Additionally, the concept of fixed knowledge suddenly disappears. A simple fact

is, all of a sudden, not so simple. Knowledge, and facts, can change as our shared meaning

changes. There appears to be a great deal of debate on this issue within the community of those

who study social constructionism (Andrews, 2012). If relativist knowledge is accurate, the

implications for all professional disciplines are enormous. It drives to the question of what do we

know and how certain can we be? It also challenges the permanence of any knowledge. Kuhn

(1970) highlighted this potential throughout his work. Gaddis (2002) also hints at the

negotiability of knowledge by his discussion of the historian’s choice and perspective. Descartes

(1637/2003) earnestly searched for permanent, foundational structures upon which to base all

8


knowledge, yet his primary contributions to the world of thought are actually methods of inquiry,

not permanent facts. Those methods are amenable to changing knowledge, though he likely did

not intend that effect. I wonder how many educators are comfortable acknowledging a student’s

unrefined or incomplete understanding of a subject as valid, in the context of continuing

evolution of that understanding.

Does this mean that Descartes and Newton and Aristotle were not valuable, because so

much of their knowledge was not permanent and absolute? I say absolutely not—we needed

Ptolemy to have a Copernicus. Copernicus and Bacon and Descartes were prerequisites of

Newton, and Newton begat Einstein. Though Kuhn (1970) does not support the cumulative

interpretation of scientific development, I believe the struggles and paradigm creation and

destruction processes he described actually did build stronger and more refined approximations

of truth. The creation of truths, common to all the authors we’ve studied, were essentially social

processes (Kuhn, 1970; Bruner, 1996; Gaddis, 2002). Even Descartes, despite his efforts to

create foundational knowledge, not prejudiced by the influences of society, made the effort to

share his work and seek feedback from his peers—a legacy that endures and is an essential part

of scholarly work. Each improved approximation of improved knowledge was created within the

society and times of its authors. They now serve to allow the next Einstein to begin on the

shoulders of the giants who came before. It is a social collaboration across the span of human

history.

A social constructionist view of the role of teachers might be to continue that

collaboration with each new generation of learners. Social constructionism is a way of knowing

that can guide that effort. It is a way of looking at learning and knowing that informs a critical,

yet participatory approach to knowledge. If students understand that they are part of the

9


knowledge-creation process, they can view learning from the stance of an equally-

knowledgeable participant within a social group that is responsible for learning together. With

the appropriate guidance and environment, social constructionism can enable each child, in

collaboration with fellow students and teachers, to construct knowledge for herself and for her

fellow learners.

Social constructionism vs. constructivism

Social constructionism differs from Piaget’s concept of constructivism primarily in its

focus on the role of social and cultural influences on the learner’s development process

(Mooney, 2013). Each acknowledges the active role of the learner, but instead of a teacher

guiding the development of individual learners, social constructionism in a classroom setting

would place the teacher in the role of helping to create a safe and open environment where

students can explore and construct knowledge together. The group’s understanding and

development would grow through a process of dialogue, activity and negotiation of meaning.

This way of knowing also takes advantage of the different ways individuals feel most

comfortable in learning. As Belenky et al. (1986) described, it is possible that students will bring

fundamentally different ways of knowing to the classroom. In a traditional teacher-to-individual

student approach, this could be overwhelming to an instructor.

Within the traditional paradigm, it might seem impossible to accommodate multiple

individual learners, each with their own preferred method of knowing. In a social constructionist

setting, it would be a distinct benefit to the group to have as many different learning styles as

there are students. Each can make a unique contribution to the learning process and help create a

novel, challenging and stimulating learning environment for everyone involved. The view that

knowledge is socially constructed would place great demands on teachers. It reduces their

10


complete control of the learning process; it invites challenges and difficult questions; and has

implications for classroom management. The research efforts associated with social

constructionism could have significant impacts on the way teachers approach their lessons.

Personal Reflections on Social Constructionism as a New Way of Knowing

Through the undergraduate level, I always felt that I was in a one-on-one learning

relationship with my instructors. At times it almost felt like a private conversation. It wasn’t until

graduate school, that for the first time, I realized the class was filled with people who knew a

great deal about the subjects we were studying. They were working professionals who brought

important insights to the theory and fellow graduate students with assistantships in which they

applied the theories and conducted research to carry them forward. It was an exciting

environment to participate in because it suddenly felt like fifteen people were in a valuable

conversation at once. Looking back, this was my first real exposure to socially-constructed

learning.

The curriculum and the professors encouraged this diversity and we were encouraged to

value everyone’s insights. It was also the first time that I was encouraged to study multiple

perspectives on the same topic or concept. The fact that highly experienced and learned scholars

could disagree on the finer details of a subject was new and it challenged my notions of exact,

fixed, and permanent knowledge.

At work I experienced a similar growth. As I developed professionally, increasingly more

of what appeared to be absolute knowledge gave way to interpretation and negotiability. As my

development continued, these insights served me well as a leader by encouraging me to see that

the world looked very different to each of us.

11


My latest experience in this intellectual development process took place in my current

work environment. We have a group of very experienced people working closely in a field that is

young and still developing. Each of brought a unique set of experiences and knowledge, and we

have created a working environment where we can jointly interpret strategic guidance and mold

that into policy. It is absolutely a socially-negotiated, collaborative learning environment.

One of our functions is to capture bits of knowledge as we develop them and document

them to improve practice. It is a messy and somewhat inefficient process, not amenable to the

traditional strict timetables and schedules of learning that are found in most classrooms. If the

environment and leadership supports that approach, it can yield insights and benefits greater than

the potential contributions of any one individual.

The greatest advancements I’ve made in my learning journey occurred through

collaboration and negotiated learning in an environment that supported and encouraged

discussion, debate and shared development of meaning. The realization of the flexibility of

knowledge was a life-changing experience. That is probably why Bruner and Kuhn resonated

with me so deeply. As I reflect on my work experience, the leaders I admired most modeled this

approach. They sought ideas and inputs from others, and listened intently to subordinates and

engaged in a healthy give-and-take on issues. They were comfortable enough with themselves

not to have to prove their absolute knowledge of every aspect of the job. In my current job, I

have the opportunity to interact with very senior military officers and civilian leaders. Their

leadership styles all reflect an understanding of the value of listening and collaboration. I doubt

any of them would consider themselves social constructionists, but in their daily routines, they

incorporate many of the key principles of this way of knowing.

My Expanded Repertoire of Knowing as a Result of Social Constructionism

12


Two key concepts related to social constructionism are narrative knowing (Bruner, 1986)

and the concept of evolving, unfinished thoughts, refined through respectful debate (Belenky et

al., 1997). At first the concept of narrative knowing seemed counterintuitive. Narrative suggests

transmitting, while knowing implies receiving. Until we realize that with narrative we are also

speaking to ourselves, in a manner of speaking, and allowing ourselves to better form our own

thoughts by putting them to words. It is also a way of constructing our own knowledge by taking

an active role in developing our thoughts and building our understanding of a concept. Evolving

unrefined thoughts through respectful debate is a refinement of narrative knowing in a social

context. It is in this process where we benefit from the community around us. We learn from our

own words and by having those thoughts refined, challenged and reflected back to us to continue

the refinement. In a work environment filled with motivated, experienced and educated people,

this is relatively easy. In a classroom, this would be a challenging environment for a teacher to

create. Yet it could be such a powerful learning device, and it holds such promise for deep

learning and critical thinking, that despite the obvious challenges, it seems any teacher would be

well served to at least try.

Conclusion

Our knowledge, beliefs and culture combine to help us form a subjective understanding

of the world—our own reality. Through the process of narrative and the activities of work, play

and physical learning, we then compare this understanding of reality with those around us with

whom we interact to refine that view and harmonize it within our social structure—

intersubjectivity.

Constructivism is meant in the sense of the student taking an active role in the learning

process and the teacher creating the environment for the student’s active participation. Social

13


constructionism takes that a step further and asks the teacher to encourage a shared, active role

among all students. In this case, the classroom environment must support multiple learners and

teachers simultaneously as students learn from and teach to each other.

If we interpret meaning in a shared venue, then the resulting facts will be constructed as a

group and owned by the group as real. Bruner (1991) lamented that “We know altogether too

little about how we go about constructing and representing the rich and messy domain of human

interaction” (p.4), but concluded that it must be connected to narrative because, “cultural

products, like language and other symbolic systems, mediate thought and place their stamp on

our representations of reality” (p.3).

Since knowledge can be created and refined by the work of a group, then knowledge can

change. What was true for Rene Descartes in 1637 is certainly not true today. Time, culture,

beliefs and experiences modify knowledge. The same is true of social interaction. We bring our

subjectively-formed perception of knowledge to interact with other, similarly-constructed views

and the resulting interactions can modify each belief system and result in a novel, constructed,

and shared view of the world

Teachers face great challenges in the classroom. Caring for students and inspiring

discovery are difficult tasks. So I hesitate to offer an additional challenge. However, social

constructionism could hold the promise of inspiring and exciting young learners to take

ownership of the learning process and develop a socially-constructed understanding of the world

that brings the satisfaction of the approval of their peers, since their knowledge is co-constructed

through a negotiated process of growth and development.

14


References

1. Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, June

2012, 11 (1). Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-

social-constructionism/

2. Astington, J. W & Olson, D.R. (1995). The cognitive revolution in children’s

understanding of mind. Human Development, 38, 179-189.

3. Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1997). Women’s ways of

knowing, (10th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

4. Berger, P.L. & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. London, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

5. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of

learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

6. Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College

English, 46(7), 635-652.

7. Bruner, J.S. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.

8. Bruner, J.S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

9. Cozolino, L. (2013). The social neuroscience of education. New York, NY: W.W. Norton

and Co.

10. Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally responsive social

constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning,

39(2), 123-139.

11. Descartes, R. (2003). Discourse on methods and related writings. (D.M. Clarke, Trans.).

London, England: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1637).

15

http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/

http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/


12. Hruby, G.G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and new realism perspectives in social

constructionism: Implications for literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1),

48-62.

13. Jankowski, P.J., Clark, W.M., & Ivey, D.C. (2000). Fusing horizons: Exploring qualitative

research and psychotherapeutic applications of social constructionism. Contemporary

Family Therapy, 22(2), 241-250.

14. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The

University of Chicago Press.

15. Mooney, C.G. (2013). An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erickson, Piaget and

Vygotsky, (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

16. Pryor, E. (2012). Social Constructionism applied to working class educational attainment.

London Progressive Journal. Retrieved from:

http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1333/social-constructionism-applied-to-

working-class-educational-attainment

16

http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1333/social-constructionism-applied-to-working-class-educational-attainment

http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1333/social-constructionism-applied-to-working-class-educational-attainment

storage.googleapis.comstorage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-22594638/doc… · web viewthe field of...

Documents