La comunicación como Campo en Colombia; la Teoría de los Campos de Bourdieu

The core tenets of social constructionism are underpinned by epistemology and ontology. Traditionally they are treated separately. However, Crotty (1998) proposed that epistemology and ontology are unable to exist alone and instead

are positioned side-by-side informing theory. To say that something is what it is regardless of our understanding or labelling is objectivist epistemology and is rejected by constructionists, including myself.

Epistemology and ontology are abstract principles that guide theoretical positions. Epistemology provides a philosophical position for which decisions related to forms of knowledge are possible, ensuring that knowledge is both adequate and legitimate to inform what it means to know (Crotty, 1998). Epistemology seeks the relationship between the inquirer and the known (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), studying the nature of knowledge and how we come to know the world (Burr, 2015). Ontology is the study of being, concerned with what it is, and inquiring about the nature of its existence, and the nature and structure of reality (Crotty, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). In other words, ontology is a discursive account of ‘what it is’.

Epistemologically, social constructionism rejects the stance that the truth is ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. Instead, the truth is taken as a co-construction arising between the differing realities of individuals. In engaging with the world, understanding of an individual’s reality finds meaning. Meaning is not discovered, but rather, meaning is constructed. This epistemological ‘knowing’ accepts that different people will construct different experiences for the same phenomena (Crotty, 1998).

Holstein and Gubrium (2008) cautions of great harm when we assume, believe or accept that research can or should identify the objective universal truth. Attempts to identify universal truths encourage thought toward the “fatalistic status quo” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008, p. 15), naturalising aspects of existence that are inevitable and ought to be challenged and changed. Contributing to the evolution of knowledge and remaining abreast of social influence, social constructionism provides a lens to challenge the presenting circumstances, exploring what is and how it came to be. This acceptance of more than one truth adds to the credibility of social constructionism and its acceptance as a valuable theoretical position used in research (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008).

Through social interactions, relationships and experiences we create our own version of reality. Ontologically, reality is contextual and socially relative and therefore many realities can exist simultaneously (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Our perceptions and experiences of real phenomena are brought to existence and then shaped as a product of the language we then share with others (Burr, 2015). In constructing our reality, we also construct our knowledge and meanings derived from social interactions. These are held in the mind. Thus, ontologically and epistemologically, social constructionism establishes that reality and meanings are not unique in nature. Instead, they are constantly negotiated realities with different meanings (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Spencer, Pyryce, & Walsh, 2014). As we think or talk about the world we begin to represent what it is to us. Thus, through discourse and interaction with others, we create and construct our accounts of the world (Burr, 2003, 2015).

A social constructionist embraces that knowledge and as a result the meaning of reality is contingent on human practices. Through interactions with others and the world we co-construct knowledge and meaning that is transmitted and developed within an essentially social context (Gergen, 2015; Hosking, 2008). During the construction of meaning the objective and subjective elements become interwoven and difficult to separate, existing together and central to meaning. It is this construction of meaning that is explored in constructionism (Fish, 1990). As individuals we are all different. As a result, we have the capacity to construct different understandings, critiques, analysis and co-constructions to form a perspective that contributes to a common shared standard. For social constructionism, reality cannot be constructed from meaning and ‘truth’ without the mind. Therefore, meaning is not discovered but constructed (Gergen, 2015). This constructed meaning by individuals can differ even when referencing the same phenomena. This explains the different ways people interpret and construct meaning from the world in which they engage. A key influencing element of constructed meaning is culture. Nursing culture includes but is not limited to learned behaviours, specific language (medical/nursing terminology) and patterns of thoughts and perceptions (Scott & Marshall, 2009). Social

constructionism fosters a critical spirit to examine the impact of culture on how the world is seen and perceived by the individuals who live within it (Crotty, 1998). Social constructionism is acceptance of multiple realities and holds that all accounts are legitimate. This position is underpinned by the understanding that an individual’s perception and view of reality is influenced by their experience and position within society. When an individual shares their perceptions and reality with others, they contribute to the social construction of events of those involved in the social interaction. There is no ultimate truth and reality to find and share. Instead, there are many different versions of reality and it is these versions we seek to find.

Those that claim that social constructionism is contradictory perhaps have not understood the relationship between realism and relativism, as viewed by social constructionists. A meaning that is socially constructed, therefore relative, doesn’t imply that it is not real. Crotty (1998) suggests that instead of comparing ‘realism’ against ‘constructionism’ it ought to be contrasted to ‘idealism’. Idealism is the philosophical view that real is confined to our minds, consisting simply of ideas, which is more aligned with a social constructivism perspective. Burr (2015) proposes that “through social interactions and relations with others, each of us develops a system of dimensions of meaning, or ‘constructs’” (p.22). As members of society, culture and social groups much of our understanding is shared with others. Relativism is an important concept of social constructionism; therefore, it is discussed in greater detail in section 3.2.4.