Situating Myself within this Work: 27

A Reflection on Epistemological Underpinnings

Originally, beginning my doctoral course work I identified myself as working within the constructivist paradigm, whose aim of inquiry is the understanding and reconstruction of the constructions held by both the researcher and the researched (Guba & Lincoln, 2004). Ontologically, I recognize that there are multiple meanings and subjective realties (Finlay, 2006). Constructivists take a “transactional and subjectivist stance that maintains that reality is socially constructed”, and therefore the dynamic interaction between researcher and participant is central to capturing and describing participants’ experiences” (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 131). It follows that through the interaction of the researcher and the participant, deeper meanings can be uncovered. Findings are then constructed between researcher and participant through dialogue and interpretation (Ponterotto, 2005).

As I progressed through the program, I began to notice a shift in my thinking. With exposure to different theories, perspectives, literature, and generative dialogue with professors and peers, I began to explore notions of social constructionism. Stanley Fish (as cited in Crotty, 2007, p.52) once said “all objects are made not found” however “the means by which they are made are social and conventional”. Social constructionism seeks to illuminate how people see and understand the world in which they live (Gergen, 2003). Social constructionists do so under certain assumptions unique to their beliefs. Within this view, it is assumed that knowledge is constructed through relationships between individuals and the world around them. This knowledge is also culturally and historically situated, both of which influence perceptions of reality beyond what is often

at a conscious level (Gergen, 2003; Mallon, 2007). Social constructions can be seen as ways to exert control over individuals within a society, “it is in its power over life and death that it manifests its ultimate control over the individual” (Berger & Luckman, 1966, p. 181). Berger and Luckman (1966) suggest that “the social channeling of activity is the essence of institutionalization, which is the foundation for the social construction of reality” (p. 182).

Although aligning myself in the social constructionist tradition felt more fitting, in that I believe that the power of discourse and relationships shape knowledge and

meanings often beyond consciousness, I could not resign myself to the idea that human agency was a myth within the socially constructed world. Here, is where I found distinguishing between constructivism and social constructionism to be helpful. Crotty (2007) contends that constructivism “points up the unique experience of each of us. It suggests that each one’s way of making sense of the world is as valid and worthy of respect as any other, thereby tending to scotch any hint of a critical spirit” (p. 58). On the other hand, Crotty points out that social constructionism “emphasizes the hold our culture has on us: it shapes the way in which we see things (even the way in which we feel things!) and gives us a quite definite view of the world” (p. 58). Crotty goes on to recognize “that it is limiting as well as liberating and warns that, while welcome, it must also be called into question. On these terms, it can be said that constructivism tends to resist the critical spirit, while constructionism tends to foster it” (p. 58). In distinguishing between both epistemologies, I see them as part of a continuum, where constructivism appears to be on the far left, focusing “exclusively on the meaning-making activity of the individual mind” (Crotty, 2007, p. 58), and social constuctionism on the far right,

focusing on the collective creation of meaning through language and social processes. While I situate myself closer to the far right on the continuum, I can not leave my tendencies to recognize the role the individual might potentially play in a dialectic relationship with the social dimensions and discourses available. I also recognize my desire to think critically and put everyday knowledge up for question, which aligns well with this perspective.

Finally, as I progressed even further in my doctoral work, discovering critical disability studies and feminist literature, I opened a door from which I cannot return. Critical perspectives have the potential to create new ways of seeing everyday

phenomena, allowing one to gain awareness of power relationships within society and recognize the forces of hegemony and injustice (Crotty, 2007; Simon, 1992). To be critical is to begin to question ideology, common values and assumptions, and to challenge conventional social structures in attempts to initiate social action and change (Crotty, 2007). When I stumbled upon and began to read about critical and feminist perspectives on disability, I felt as if I could finally name some of the tensions I felt as an occupational therapist in practice (further discussed in chapter three). I must recognize and be up front with this perspective, because this lens will now be forever with me— through design, data collection, data analysis, and dissemination.

As difficult as it is to articulate my standpoint as a researcher, or choose a paradigm that I feel best describes who I am and where I have come from, I take this stand acknowledging that I see my position as dynamic, changing day-to-day with every new experience, and in the process of growth and development. As a constructionist- constructivist developing a critical perspective, I believe that identity is shaped through a

dialectic between personal and social narratives. The social world has an impact on how children negotiate their identities and also on the opportunities afforded to children to participate in meaningful occupations. Meanings attributed to experiences have an impact on identity construction and re-construction. As a result, I believe occupation and identity (or occupational identity) to be dynamic and plural, however I suspect that some common threads may exist throughout transitions and transformations over the life span. Like Burr (2003) I see identity as socially constructed, but I also believe that human agency is possible even if only to choose or resist available discourses situated in time, history, place, and culture.