ENTRENAMIENTO DE LAS HABILIDADES SOCIALES

The following presentation of epistemology, theoretical perspectives, research methodology and methods is informed by the four elements (discussed later) of Michael Crotty’s “scaffolded learning”4 _{and also seeks to provide an underpinning discussion that informs a}

backdrop for the postmodern dimensions of Narrative therapy.

This research is based on subjective ontology. “Subjective” is understood here as “relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind” and ontology as “a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence.”5 _{For this}

researcher the project was a “conscious experiencing of the self as both inquirer and

4 _{Michael Crotty, The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process (Crows}

Nest: Allen & Unwin, 1998), 1-17.

5 _{Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, accessed November 14, 2013, http://www.merriam-} webster.com/dictionary/ontology?show=0&t=1384397966 and http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/subjective.

respondent, as teacher and learner, as the one coming to know the self within the processes of research itself.”6

2.4.1 Social constructionism

The epistemological background of this research is located in social constructionism. Within this stance researchers “retain the idea of self as a social creation” able to develop meanings but these “meanings are necessarily conveyed through structures (logical, syntactical) that are social in nature.”7 _{A semantic definition suggests}

a concept or perception of something based on the collective views developed and maintained within a society or social group; a social phenomenon or convention originating within and cultivated by society or a particular social group, as opposed to existing inherently or naturally.8

Kenneth Gergen offers another simple description of the “drama called social construction” adding that “what we take to be the world importantly depends on how we approach it, and how we approach it depends on the social relationships of which we are part.”9 _{The basic idea}

of social construction therefore appears “simple and straightforward” yet still “asks us to rethink virtually everything we have been taught about the world and ourselves … with this rethinking we are invited into new and challenging forms of ourselves.”10 _{I find this a fitting,}

pivotal basis for understanding the approaches of narrative therapy. Gergen also asks us to consider the consequences of this worldview, suggesting that “if everything we consider real is socially constructed, then nothing is real unless people agree that it is.”11

We can imagine the influence of this on therapy practice. In relation to therapy as social construction Gergen raises questions about the medical model (discussed below in the

6 _{Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba, “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Influences,”}

in eds. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, 2nd _{ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2003), 283.}

7 _{Annie G. Rogers, “The Unsayable, Lacanian Psychoanalysis, and the Art of Narrative Interviewing” in ed. D.}

Jean Clandinin, Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2007), 102.

8 _{“Social Construct,” Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press, modified 2016, accessed April 04, 2016,} http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/social-construct.

9 _{Kenneth J. Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 2}nd _{ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2011), 2.}

Italics by Gergen.

10 _{Gergen, An Invitation, 3.} 11 _{Gergen, An Invitation, 4.}

literature review) that informs most traditional forms of therapy and counselling and asks if there are “useful alternatives” to therapeutic constructions of the client as “having an illness.” Gergen recalls Michel Foucault's belief that “madness exists only within a society”12 _{and notes}

that the mental health industry has over 400 terms for mental illness. Additionally, many large-scale research projects focus on locating

the causes of these ‘diseases’ of the mind, and enormous hours are devoted to testing the efficacy of various therapies in treating the mentally ill. Increasingly the mental health profession will turn to pharmaceuticals as a means for cure. For the social constructionist these mammoth ‘scientizing’ efforts are not only misguided, but the results are often damaging. … ‘illness’ is only one of many possible constructions…. If he was not defined as ill, practices other than ‘curing’ might be set in motion.13

Gergen extracts four characteristics of constructionist-based therapies that I will trace through the analysis and discussion: focusing on meaning; viewing therapy as co-construction; focusing on relationship; and value sensitivity, because “there is no value neutrality in the therapeutic relationship.”14 _{To develop this more carefully we must engage Crotty’s belief that}

in the

constructionist view … meaning is not discovered but constructed. Meaning does not inhere in the object, merely waiting for someone to come upon it. … actual meaning emerges only when consciousness engages with them. … meanings are constructed by human beings as they engage with the world they are interpreting.15

Accordingly, meanings found in this research are constructed or co-constructed and not created.

Tom Andrews highlights how social constructionism served in the remodelling of grounded theory. He argues for its compatibility with grounded theory and yet critiques the relativism of constructivist grounded theory which is a choice for this research and will be described in further text.

Society is viewed as existing both as a subjective and objective reality. Meaning is shared, thereby constituting a taken-for-granted reality. Grounded theorists understand knowledge as beliefs in which people can have reasonable confidence; a common sense understanding and consensual notion as to what

12 _{Gergen, An Invitation, 47.} 13 _{Gergen, An Invitation, 136.} 14 _{Gergen, An Invitation, 137-138.} 15 _{Crotty, The Foundations, 42-43.}

constitutes knowledge. If it is accepted that social constructionism is not based on a relativist perspective, then it is compatible with Grounded Theory methodology.16

Andrews notes that both realism and relativism as polarised perspectives are problematic for qualitative research yet “this is to confuse epistemology with claims about ontology and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy that underpins social constructionism.”17

Social constructionism, argues Andrews, accepts the existence of objective reality, because it has “an epistemological not an ontological perspective” and its criticism and misunderstandings arise from misinterpretation of that fact. Andrews agrees with Kirk and Miller that the search for final and absolute truth should be left to philosophers and theologians. He suggests that social constructionism places a high value on “everyday interactions between people and how they use language to construct their reality. It regards the social practices people engage in as the focus of enquiry.”18 _{Apart from the focus on}

language this description of social constructionism not only reflects Grounded Theory, I believe it resonates with ideas of narrative practices as understood in this research. However, Andrews distinguishes between grounded theories, suggesting that social constructionism that considers society

as existing both as objective and subjective reality is fully compatible with classical grounded theory, unlike constructionist grounded theory which takes a relativist position. Relativism is not compatible with classical grounded theory. … Therefore choosing constructionist grounded theory based on the ontological assumptions of the researcher seems incompatible with the idea of social constructionism.19

This research is not focused on ontological ‘truth’ about its topic but rather about the phenomena. Nevertheless some claims with an ontological flavour will still be made. Discussion on epistemology’s interest in how we know what we know and how ontology is interested in how things are or what it means to know20 _{would exceed the scope of this}

research. However, this researcher philosophically disagrees with Andrews, and thinks that

16 _{Tom Andrews, “What is Social Constructionism?” Grounded Theory Review: An international journal, Issue 1,}

(June, 2012): 1, accessed April 08, 2016, http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social- constructionism/.

17 _{Andrews, What is, 1.} 18 _{Andrews, What is, 1.} 19 _{Andrews, What is, 1.}

relativistic claims within their own dimensions may serve as just another ontological ‘truth’ and that both philosophy and theology as historically developed products of social groups, can also be researched ontologically from a relativistic constructivist point of view and also with constructivist grounded theory.

Crotty suggests that ontological and epistemological issues “tend to emerge together” and that “to talk about the construction of meaning is to talk about the construction of meaningful reality,” thus embracing both.21 _{He concludes that “[r]ealism in ontology and constructionism}

in epistemology turn out to be quite compatible,”22 _{a view that this researcher confirms.}