REPERTORIO, MATERIALES Y RECURSOS DIDÁCTICOS

The research philosophy underpinning this interpretivist study is social

119

given meaning within society (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). The terms constructionism and social constructivism tend to be used interchangeably. Young and Colin (2004) offer clarity here proposing constructivism as referring to how each individual mentally constructs the world of experience through cognitive processes while seeing social constructionism as having a societal rather than an individual focus. Burr (1995) acknowledges the major influence of Berger and Luckmann (1991) in the development of social constructionism. In turn, they acknowledge the influence of Mead, Marx, Schutz and Durkheim on their thinking. Berger and Luckmann (1966) are concerned with the nature and construction of knowledge, how it emerges and how it comes to have the significance for society. They view knowledge as created by the interactions of individuals within society, which is central to constructionism (Schwandt, 2003).

Social constructionism was popularised in The Social Construction of Reality (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Berger and Luckmann (1966) make no ontological claims, limiting themselves to the social construction of

knowledge, therefore confining itself to making epistemological claims only. Social constructionism is the epistemological view that “all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context” (Crotty, 1998, p42). Gergen (1985, p265) defines social constructionism through the belief that “a great deal of human life exists as it does due to social and interpersonal influences”. In social constructionism, the world is interpreted through language and culture, and it is “waiting to be discovered”

120

or “pregnant with meaning”. That is, the world and the things in it are seen to be not only social constructions, but also “crucial participants” in the meaning making process (Crotty, 1998).

By contrast, Huff (2009) sees social constructionism as having both an ontological and epistemological stance - ontologically saying “individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived reality” (Huff, 2009, p 108) and epistemologically referencing Berger and Luckmann - “all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted, commonsense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions” (Huff, 2009, p113).

The key principles of Social constructionism are

1. It is anti-essentialist - “To be a self is not to be a certain kind of being, but to be in possession of a certain kind of theory”. (Burr, 2015, p 86) Social constructionism rejects the idea that people possess an ‘essence’ which predetermines psychological traits, personalities and identities. Rather social constructionism argues that people, as products of the social world, are a product of social processes, and therefore cannot be of

predetermined nature (Burr, 2015).

2. It is anti- naturalist – accepting the proposition that it is culture and not biology that forms the human mind and gives meaning to human action (Bruner, 1990).

3. Relativism – Social constructionism is seen by Hammersley (1992) as essentially an anti-realist, relativist stance. Social constructionists consider

121

the underlying nature of reality inaccessible (Robson, 2011) rejecting the idea of ‘universal truths’ about the world. Social constructionism only considers interpretation of the world.

4. Meaning- meaning is given to objects and events through communication with others and the prevailing social culture. Language does not transmit thoughts and feelings but rather makes thought possible by constructing concepts. In this sense, by describing experience through language, language structures experience.

Rather than offering definition of Social Constructionism, Burr (2015) offers that social constructionism is an approach that accepts one or more of the following key assumptions:

1. A critical stance toward taken for granted knowledge. Social constructionism challenges the realist stance that knowledge is revealed through ‘objective, unbiased observation’. Constructionism emphasises the existence of no single true or valid interpretation (Crotty, 1998).

2. Historical and cultural specificity. Social constructionism argues that the ways in which we commonly understand the world, the categories and concepts we use, are historically and culturally specific and are product of the prevailing social and economic arrangements in that culture at that time. Social constructionism sees meaning as rooted in culture and institutional origins with culture providing the lens through which we make sense of phenomena in the world. It is culture which

122

highlights certain phenomena and gives them meaning while allowing us to ascribe less importance to other phenomena (Collins, 2010). 3. Knowledge is sustained by social processes. The true nature of the

lived experience of the world is understood through the social

constructs created (constructed) by the social interactions of people. Truth can be thought of as how a society currently understands the world.

4. Knowledge and social action go together –Social interactions can result in a variety of social constructions of events. Each social construct brings, or invites, a different kind of action from human beings.

Berger and Luckmann (1966) see a subjective reality which is constructed through conversation. This subjective reality holds and assumes meanings and understandings which can be shared

unproblematically and without need for constant redefinition (Andrews, 2012). Burr (1995) also comments that within social constructionism, there is language that makes thoughts and concepts possible and not the other way around. It is language that provides the platform upon which concepts are based to explain how we experience the world.