What is Social Constructionism?
Main Article Content
Abstract
Social Constructionism has been instrumental in remodeling grounded theory. In attempting to m ake sense of the social world, social constructionists view knowledge as constructed as opposed to created. This paper discusses how social constructionists construct knowledge and argues that social constructionism is concerned with the nature of knowledge and how it is created and as such, it is unconcerned with ontological issues. Society is viewed as existing both as a subjective and an 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 constitutes knowledge. If it is accepted that social constructionism is not based on a relativist perspective, then it is compatible with Grounded Theory methodology.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Berger, P. & Luckm ann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin Books.
Burningham , K. & Cooper, G. (1999). Being Constructive: Social constructionism and the environment. Sociology 33(2), 297-316.
Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.
Bury, M. (1986). Social constructionism and the development of medical sociology. Sociology of Health and I llness 8(2), 137-169.
Charm az, K. (2000). Grounded theory obj ectivist and constructivist method. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitat ive Research (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Charmaz, K (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Craib, I . (1997). Social Constructionism as a Social Psychosis. Sociology 31(1), 1-15.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005). I ntroduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. I n Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Hamilton, D. (2002). Traditions, preferences, and postures in applied qualitative research. I n Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 60-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What's Wrong wit h Ethnography? Routledge, London.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principals in practice (3rd Ed.). London: Routledge.
Kirk, J. & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability in Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Murphy, E., Dingwall, R., Greatbatch, & Parker, P. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment 2(16).
Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistem ological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretativism, herm eneutics and social constructionism. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and issues. (pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sismondo, S. (1993) Some social constructions. Social Studies of Science 23, 515-553.
Steedman, P. (2000). On the relations between seeing, interpreting and knowing. In Steier, F. (Ed.), Research and Reflexivity, (pp. 53-62). London: Sage.
Young, R & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 64(3), 373-388.