There are many ‘takes’ on what the terms constructionism/ constructivism mean and many points of philosophical reference. However, these terms are generally used to offer a view that we are meaning makers: the world is one in which we are required to seek out meaning rather than enter a world of behavioural associations (see behaviourism ). Hence, constructionism and constructivism can be contrasted with realism, which sees the world as having objective properties.

Constructionism / constructivism can, with more diffculty, be contrasted with subjectivism, which suggests we can view the world in an entirely personal or subjective fashion, for constructionism / constructivism see constraints on our consciousness of the world. Meanings are not so much discovered as constructed: we have ‘something to be working with’ (Crotty, 2009), that is, the world has a material substance and we have a historical legacy in the language we use to explain the world.

 

At times, the terms constructivism and constructionism appear to be used interchangeably but constructionism is more often used in the context of the ‘social negotiation of meaning’. A classic point of reference here continues to be Berger and Luckmann (1967) for whom social constructionism considers the expectations of others: the individual is not so much asking ‘How should I act in this situation?’, rather ‘How do others expect me to act based on my social identity as male/female, young/old, black/white and so on?’. This introduces a level of reflexivity and brings in theory of mind. For example the questions might not be so much how should I act but ‘What do I think that others are thinking about how I should act?’. Over time, we become used to playing out our allotted roles and Berger and Luckmann (1967) use the term ‘reification’ to describe how we apprehend institutional arrangements as though they were timeless, even God given, rather than recognise them as the products of agreements between human beings.

Berger and Luckmann (1967), like many other social researchers of their time, tended to stress the taken-for-grantedness of the world and their views have been criticised to some extent as missing the capacity for change at an individual and group level. They are also criticised, in another line of argument, for missing the material rather than symbolic basis of some human activity. However, the great legacy of their work has been to ask us to look beyond appearances and seek to ‘deconstruct’ how and why social arrangements have come about and in whose interests they exist.

Many researchers working today would describe themselves as influenced by social constructionism, suggesting that a phenomenon can never be captured ‘objectively’; instead, we need to construct shared understandings of social activity. A key challenge here is to maintain consistency. Many dissertations and theses, for example, begin with a view that social reality is constructed then treat the constructs in the research as unproblematic. Social constructionists need to adopt critical and reflexive practices based on recognition that the methodology they are following is itself a social construct.

Constructivism as an epistemology can be contrasted with constructivism as a theory of learning. The two are obviously interrelated, with researchers working in the latter tradition focused on how the learner makes sense of new information. Here Piaget’s discussion of accommodation and assimilation of knowledge remains influential in helping to understand the types of teaching environments which best assist children in the process of constructing knowledge. Social constructivism has, further, acquired a particular meaning in the context of education theory to suggest an interest in the ‘tools’ used by the learner to cross a ‘zone of proximal development’: the difference between what is known and what, with the help of a knowledgeable other, can be learned (Wood, 1988).

Vygotsky (republished 1978) put a particular emphasis on language as a tool for learning, and social constructivism as a pedagogical theory has been used to justify a range of practices from interactive instructional strategies to unstructured communities of practice.

 

References

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Crotty, M. (2009) The Foundation of Social Research, London: Sage.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wood, D. (1988) How Children Think and Learn: The Social Context of Cognitive Development, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

An example, in this case a practical and accessible text, taking, in some cases, a social constructionist viewpoint on death is this edited volume:

Charmaz, K., Howarth, G., & Kellehear, A. (Eds.). (2016). The unknown country: Death in Australia, Britain and the USA. Springer.