Constructionism/Constructivism

Gergen (1999:60) differentiates between two closely intertwined metatheories: social constructionism and constructivism. The former (with roots in Piaget [1977] and Kelly [1955]) defines when an individual constructs reality but within a systematic relationship to the external world while the latter (with roots in Wittgenstein, [McGinn, 1997], Foucault, [1980, 1982] and Garfinkel, [1967]) focuses on discourse as the route through which the interpretation is articulated. Critiques of the use of the Constructivist approach refer to the reality being rooted in the cognitive processes, lying often within an individual rather than between different individuals (Hjorland, 1992). Within my study, the adoption of the apparently less subjective and more demonstrated and articulated Social Constructionist approach was to reflect the interactive focus while, once again, sharing a more comfortable congruence with my personal ontological beliefs.

Theories of the social construction of reality propose that individuals understand particular systems in the environment in different ways – by attaching meanings to them according to their own bias. Influencing factors on this process include

genetic and environmental background (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 1999) with specific factors outlined as power, perception, emotive force, legitimacy and status (Huxham and Beech; 2003). Routines and language assist each person in understanding their environment and are channels through which they can convey mixed messages remembering what they can of an experience in relation to what fitted best with their original thoughts. Language, the particularly powerful tool by which individuals position themselves, both in relation to, and by, others (McConnell-Ginet, 2000), thus facilitates the development of identity of both individuals, and organisations (Humphreys & Brown, 2002b).

Given congruent circumstances, these meanings can be shared with others of a like mind, to the point where accepted social systems become “shared realities” and dominant beliefs are reinforced (Gergen, 1999; Johnson et al, 2000; Weick, 1979). However, alternatively, an interpretation which may seem sensible when considered in isolation, once intertwined with others’ constructions can create disharmony and confusion. On occasions, it may not be possible to mediate between the understandings. If no compromise is found, taking the example of the management setting, one possible outcome can be the “fatalism” of managers (Beech and Cairns, 2001) as a form of defeatism sets in and it appears that, whatever is said to people, they will take out of it what they want and not shift their opinion.

The Social Constructionist framework which defines this approach has developed theoretically over the past 50 years (McLeod and Chaffee, 1972; Jones and Day, 1977), has been referred to in work on organisational change and development (Huxham and Beech, 2003 [Tensions]; Cairns and Beech, 1999 [Use of expert consultants]; Luscher et al, 2006 [Paradoxes]), has been related to accounts of learning (Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978), the development of Identity through social interactions (Olsson and Walker, 2004) and to the educational setting (Best, 1990; McDonough, 1994; Dudley-Marling, 2004; Waller, 2005).

In contrast to the essentialist school, I identified the framework as a tool for examination of how the participants in my study built, adjusted, highlighted, prioritised and discarded many features of their environment, and ranked events or circumstances in terms of personal importance, until they came up with their own interpretation of how to “be”. This is a process that Soden and Maclellan (2005) noted and is included in the term “critical thinking” described by Kuhn (1991). By separating beliefs from evidence and, using selective aspects of the evidence, an individual can reconstruct the new belief with conviction and then act or behave accordingly. Within my professional training I have been encouraged to develop skills of perceiving events wherever possible through the eyes of others, in relation to, and influenced by, their background context, history and belief. It is exampled in my professional daily interaction with students, where I never cease to be amazed at the “multiple realities” (Cairns and Beech, 1999) derived by different people from the same event, how they express that, and amazingly, how their interpretation can change after they have spoken to someone else about it.

With interpretation come different levels of empowerment, hence elements of structure and agency (Chapter 2) are critical to understanding an individual’s resultant actions or inactions. The definition of social structures has been seen as central in influencing the actions of the actors (Bourdieu, 1989); arenas within which actors struggle to enhance their “symbolic capital”, a term which encompasses

“social, cultural and economic capital” (Bourdieu, 1993). My study followed the

balance between the structure surrounding the Mature student role and the agency of the person filling that role. Potential constraints on agency were seen to include the structurally-related factors such as organisational and governmental policies and procedural infrastructure targeted towards the traditional student conflicting with the personal responsibilities often carried by Mature students. (Garfinkel, 1967; Giddens, 1976; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998).

The Social Constructionist approach offered the overall possibility of understanding and explaining the phenomena I was researching, not just describing it. Assuming a

constructionist ontological background, the Mature student experience has a number of realities depending upon: what particular environment they are submerged in; what their personal background experiences are; what private pressures they cope with; how they related to other students in their course, and how new or how familiar the role is to them now. Investigation of this area kept mindful of the hidden values and unspoken biases of other individual actors within the arena. The Researcher is not exempted from this.