关于社会学的英文介绍
Sociology (from Latin: socius, "companion"; and the suffix -ology, "the study of", from Greek λόγος, lógos, "knowledge" [1]) is the scientific study of society, including patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture[2]. Areas studied in sociology can range from the analysis of brief contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social interaction. Numerous fields within the discipline concentrate on how and why people are organized in society, either as individuals or as members of associations, groups, and institutions. As an academic discipline, sociology is usually considered a branch of social science.Sociological research provides educators, planners, lawmakers, administrators, developers, business leaders, and people interested in resolving social problems and formulating public policy with rationales for the actions that they take.HistoryMain article: History of sociology Auguste ComteSociology, including economic, political, and cultural systems, has origins in the common stock of human knowledge and philosophy. Social analysis has been carried out by scholars and philosophers at least as early as the time of Plato.There is evidence of early Greek (e.g. Xenophanes[3], Xenophon[4] , Polybios[5]) and Muslim sociological contributions, especially by Ibn Khaldun,[6] whose Muqaddimah is viewed as the earliest work dedicated to sociology as a social science.[7][8] Several other forerunners of sociology, from Giambattista Vico up to Karl Marx, are nowadays considered classical sociologists.Sociology later emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 19th century as an academic response to the challenges of modernity and modernization, such as industrialization and urbanization. Sociologists hope not only to understand what holds social groups together, but also to develop responses to social disintegration and exploitation.The term "sociologie" was first used by the French essayist Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès ().[9] ). It was popularized by the French thinker Auguste Comte [10] in 1838. Comte hoped to unify all studies of humankind - including history, psychology and economics. His own sociological scheme was typical of the 19 he believed all human life had passed through the same distinct historical stages (theology, metaphysics, positive science) and that, if one could grasp this progress, one could prescribe the remedies for social ills. Sociology was to be the 'queen of positive sciences'.[11] Thus, Comte has come to be viewed as the "Father of Sociology".[11]"Classical" theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Ferdinand T&nnies, &Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Georg Simmel and Max Weber. Like Comte, these figures did not consider themselves only "sociologists". Their works addressed religion, education, economics, law, psychology, ethics, philosophy and theology, and their theories have been applied in a variety of academic disciplines. Their influence on sociology was foundational.Institutionalizing sociologyThe discipline was taught by its own name for the first time at the University of Kansas, Lawrence in 1890 by Frank Blackmar, under the course title Elements of Sociology. It remains the oldest continuing sociology course in America. The Department of History and Sociology at the University of Kansas was established in 1891 [12] [13], and the first full-fledged independent university. The department of sociology was established in 1892 at the University of Chicago by Albion W. Small, who in 1895 founded the American Journal of Sociology.[14]The first European department of sociology was founded in 1895 at the University of Bordeaux by &Emile Durkheim, founder of L'Année Sociologique (1896). The first sociology department to be established in the United Kingdom was at the London School of Economics and Political Science (home of the British Journal of Sociology) [15] in 1904. In 1919 a sociology department was established in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich by Max Weber, and in 1920 in Poland by Florian Znaniecki.International cooperation in sociology began in 1893 when René Worms founded the Institut International de Sociologie, which was later eclipsed by the much larger International Sociological Association (ISA), founded in 1949.[16] In 1905, the American Sociological Association, the world's largest association of professional sociologists, was founded, and in 1909 the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (German Society for Sociology) was founded by Ferdinand T&nnies and Max Weber, among others.Positivism and anti-positivismArticles: Positivism, Sociological positivism, and Antipositivism.
Max Weber.Early theorists' approach to sociology, led by Comte, was to treat it in much the same manner as natural science, applying the same methods and methodology used in the natural sciences to study social phenomena. The emphasis on empiricism and the scientific method sought to provide an incontestable foundation for any sociological claims or findings, and to distinguish sociology from less empirical fields such as philosophy. This methodological approach, called positivism assumes that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.One push away from positivism was philosophical and political, such as in the dialectical materialism based on Marx' theories. A second push away from scientific positivism was cultural, becoming sociological. As early as the 19th century, positivist and naturalist approaches to studying social life were questioned by scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert, who argued that the natural world differs from the social world because of unique aspects of human society such as meanings, symbols, rules, norms, and values. These elements of society inform human cultures. This view was further developed by Max Weber, who introduced antipositivism (humanistic sociology). According to this view, which is closely related to antinaturalism, sociological research must concentrate on humans' cultural values (see also: French Pragmatism).Twentieth century developmentsIn the early 20th century, sociology expanded in the United States, including developments in both macrosociology interested in evolution of societies and microsociology. Based on the pragmatic social psychology of George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer and others (later Chicago school) inspired sociologists developed symbolic interactionism.In Europe, in the Interwar period, sociology generally was both attacked by increasingly totalitarian governments and rejected by conservative universities. At the same time, originally in Austria and later in the U.S., Alfred Schütz developed social phenomenology (which would later inform social constructionism). Also, members of the Frankfurt school (most of whom moved to the U.S. to escape Nazi persecution) developed critical theory, integrating critical, idealistic and historical materialistic elements of the dialectical philosophies of Hegel and Marx with the insights of Freud, Max Weber (in theory, if not always in name) and others. In the 1930s in the U.S., Talcott Parsons developed structural-functional theory which integrated the study of social order and "objective" aspects of macro and micro structural factors.Since World War II, sociology has been revived in Europe, although during the Stalin and Mao eras it was suppressed in the communist countries. In the mid-20th century, there was a general (but not universal) trend for US-American sociology to be more scientific in nature, due partly to the prominent influence at that time of structural functionalism. Sociologists developed new types of quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the second half of the 20th century, sociological research has been increasingly employed as a tool by governments and businesses. Parallel with the rise of various social movements in the 1960s, theories emphasizing social struggle, including conflict theory (which sought to counter structural functionalism) and neomarxist theories, began to receive more attention.In the late 20th century, some sociologists embraced postmodern and poststructuralist philosophies. Increasingly, many sociologists have used qualitative and ethnographic methods and become critical of the positivism in some social scientific approaches.[citation needed] Much like cultural studies, some contemporary sociological studies have been influenced by the cultural changes of the 1960s, 20th century Continental philosophy, literary studies, and interpretivism. Others have maintained more objective empirical perspectives, such as by articulating neofunctionalism, social psychology, and rational choice theory. Others began to debate the nature of globalization and the changing nature of social institutions. These developments have led some to reconceptualize basic sociological categories and theories. For instance, inspired by the thought of Michel Foucault, power may be studied as dispersed throughout society in a wide variety of disciplinary cultural practices. In political sociology, the power of the nation state may be seen as transforming due to the globalization of trade (and cultural exchanges) and the expanding influence of international organizations (Nash ).However, the positivist tradition is still alive and influential in sociology. In the U.S., the most commonly cited journals, including the American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review, primarily publish research in the postivist tradition. There is also a minor revival for a more independent, empirical sociology in the spirit of C Wright Mills, and his studies of the Power Elite in the USA, according to Stanley Aronowitz.Social network analysis is an example of a new paradigm in this tradition which can go beyond the traditional micro vs. macro or agency vs. structure debates. The influence of social network analysis is pervasive in many sociological subfields such as economic sociology (see the work of J. Clyde Mitchell, Harrison White, or Mark Granovetter for example), organizational behavior, historical sociology, political sociology, or the sociology of education.Throughout the development of sociology, controversies have raged about how to emphasize or integrate concerns with subjectivity, objectivity, intersubjectivity and practicality in theory and research. The extent to which sociology may be characterized as a 'science' has remained an area of considerable debate, which has addressed basic ontological and epistemological philosophical questions. One outcome of such disputes has been the ongoing formation of multidimensional theories of society, such as the continuing development of various types of critical theory. Another outcome has been the formation of public sociology, which emphasizes the usefulness of sociological analysis to various social groups.Scope and topics of sociologySelected general topics: Discrimination, Deviance and social control, Migration, Power Elite , Social action, Social change, Social class, Social justice/injustice, Social order, Social status, Social stratification, Socialization, Society, Sociological imagination, Structure and agency, Subfields of sociology
Social interactions and their pros and cons are studied in sociology.Sociologists study society and social action by examining the groups and social institutions people form, as well as various social, religious, political, and business organizations. They also study the social interactions of people and groups, trace the origin and growth of social processes, and analyze the influence of group activities on individual members and vice versa. The results of sociological research aid educators, lawmakers, administrators, and others interested in resolving social problems, working for social justice and formulating public policy.Sociologists research macro-structures and processes that organize or affect society, such as race or ethnicity, gender, globalization, and social class stratification. They study institutions such as the family and social processes that represent deviation from, or the breakdown of, social structures, including crime and divorce. And, they research micro-processes such as interpersonal interactions and the socialization of individuals. Sociologists are also concerned with the effect of social traits such as sex, age, or race on a person’s daily life.Most sociologists work in one or more specialties, such as social stratification, social organization, ethni urban, rural, political, and c sex rol and sociological practice. In short, sociologists study the many dimensions of society.Although sociology was informed by Comte's conviction that sociology would sit at the apex of all the sciences, sociology today is identified as one of many social sciences (such as anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.). At times, sociology does integrate the insights of various disciplines, as do other social sciences. Initially, the discipline was concerned particularly with the organization of complex industrial societies. In the past, anthropology had methods that would have helped to study cultural issues in a "more acute" way than sociologists.[17] Recent sociologists, taking cues from anthropologists, have noted the "Western emphasis" of the field. In response, sociology departments around the world are encouraging the study of many cultures and multi-national studies.Sociological researchMain article: social researchThe basic goal of sociological research is to understand the social world in its many forms. Quantitative methods and qualitative methods are two main types of sociological research methods. Sociologists often use quantitative methods -- such as social statistics or network analysis - to investigate the structure of a social process or describe patterns in social relationships. Sociologists also often use qualitative methods - such as focused interviews, group discussions and ethnographic methods - to investigate social processes. Sociologists also use applied research methods such as evaluation research and assessment.Methods of sociological inquirySociologists use many types of social research methods, including:Archival research - Facts or factual evidences from a variety of records are compiled. Content Analysis - The contents of books and mass media are analyzed to study how people communicate and the messages people talk or write about. Historical Method - This involves a continuous and systematic search for the information and knowledge about past events related to the life of a person, a group, society, or the world. Experimental Research - The researcher isolates a single social process or social phenonena and uses the data to either confirm or construct social theory. The experiment is the best method for testing theory due to its extremely high internal validity. Participants, or subjects, are randomly assigned to various conditions or 'treatments', and then analyses are made between groups. Randomization allows the researcher to be sure that the treatment is having the effect on group differences and not some other extraneous factor. Survey Research - The researcher obtains data from interviews, questionnaires, or similar feedback from a set of persons chosen (including random selection) to represent a particular population of interest. Survey items may be open-ended or closed-ended. Life History - This is the study of the personal life trajectories. Through a series of interviews, the researcher can probe into the decisive moments in their life or the various influences on their life. Longitudinal study - This is an extensive examination of a specific group over a long period of time. Observation - Using data from the senses, one records information about social phenomenon or behavior. Qualitative research relies heavily on observation, although it is in a highly disciplined form. Participant Observation - As the name implies, the researcher goes to the field (usually a community), lives with the people for some time, and participates in their activities in order to know and feel their culture. The choice of a method in part often depends on the researcher's epistemological approach to research. For example, those researchers who are concerned with statistical generalizability to a population will most likely administer structured interviews with a survey questionnaire to a carefully selected probability sample. By contrast, those sociologists, especially ethnographers, who are more interested in having a full contextual understanding of group members lives will choose participant observation, observation, and open-ended interviews. Many studies combine several of these methodologies.The relative merits of these research methodologies is a topic of much professional debate among practicing sociologists.Combining research methodsIn practice, some sociologists combine different research methods and approaches, since different methods produce different types of findings that correspond to different aspects of societies. For example, the quantitative methods may help describe social patterns, while qualitative approaches could help to understand how individuals understand those patterns.An example of using multiple types of research methods is in the study of the Internet. The Internet is of interest for sociologists in various ways: as a tool for research, for example, in using online questionnaires instead of paper ones, as a discussion platform, and as a research topic. Sociology of the Internet in the last sense includes analysis of online communities (e.g. as found in newsgroups), virtual communities and virtual worlds, organizational change catalyzed through new media like the Internet, and social change at-large in the transformation from industrial to informational society (or to information society). Online communities can be studied statistically through network analysis and at the same time interpreted qualitatively, such as though virtual ethnography. Social change can be studied through statistical demographics or through the interpretation of changing messages and symbols in online media studies.
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
扫描下载二维码What&is&Social&Constructionism?
What is Social Constructionism?
Tom Andrews
University College Cork
Social Constructionism has been instrumental in remodeling
grounded theory. In attempting to make 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
r 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.
Introduction
Social constructionism originated as an attempt to come to terms
with the nature of reality. It emerged some thirty years ago and
has its origins in sociology and has been associated with the
post-modern era in qualitative research. This is linked to the
hyperbolic doubt posed by Bacon, the idea about how observations
are an accurate reflection of the world that is being observed
(Murphy et al., 1998). Social constructionism is essentially an
anti-realist, relativist stance (Hammersley, 1992). The influence
of social constructionism is a current issue within grounded theory
(Charmaz, 2000) and as such an understanding of its core concepts
is important in evaluating its impact on the methodology. It is
imperative for those considering grounded theory as a methodology
for their research to appreciate the differences between grounded
theory as originated by Glaser and Strauss (1997) and subsequently
remodelled using a constructionist perspective.
Given its current and profound influence on grounded theory,
constructionism needs to be understood so that they can better
evaluate the nature and validity of the arguments surrounding its
use. The terms constructivism and social constructionism tend to be
used interchangeably and subsumed under the generic term
‘constructivism’ particularly by Charmaz ().
Constructivism proposes that each individual mentally constructs
the world of experience through cognitive processes while social
constructionism has a social rather than an individual focus (Young
& Colin, 2004). It is less interested if at all in the
cognitive processes that accompany knowledge. The aim of this
article is to familiarise readers with the idea of social
constructionism. Its impact on grounded theory is the subject of a
subsequent article.
Burr (1995) acknowledges the major influence of Berger and
Luckmann (1991) in its development. In turn they acknowledge the
influence of Mead, Marx, Schutz and Durkheim on their thinking.
Their writing therefore constitutes a synthesis of these
influences. The origins of social constructionism can be traced in
part to an interpretivist approach to thinking. Mead, one of the
originators of symbolic interactionism, is the common link.
However, my understanding is that while they may share common
philosophical roots, social constructionism is distinct from
interpretivism.
In common with constructionists, interpretivists in general
focus on the process by which meanings are created, negotiated,
sustained and modified (Schwandt, 2003). Proponents share the goal
of understanding the world of lived experience from the perspective
of those who live in it. Both arose as a challenge to scientism and
have been influenced by the post-modernist movement. Interpretivism
differentiates between the social and natural sciences and has as
its goal the understanding of the meaning of social phenomena.
While interpretivists value the human subjective experience, they
seek to develop an objective science to study and describe it.
There is then a tension evident between objective interpretation of
subjective experiences. In other words, they attempt to apply a
logical empiricist methodology to human inquiry. Schwandt (2003)
views symbolic interactionism as an interpretative science.
Nature and Construction of Knowledge
Constructionists view knowledge and truth as created not
discovered by the mind (Schwandt 2003) and supports the view that
being a realist is not inconsistent with being a constructionist.
One can believe that concepts are constructed rather than
discovered yet maintain that they correspond to something real in
the world. This is consistent with the idea of Berger and Luckmann
(1991) and the subtle realism of Hammersley (1992) in that reality
is socially defined but this reality refers to the subjective
experience of every day life, how the world is understood rather
than to the objective reality of the natural world. As Steedman
(2000) notes, most of what is known and most of the knowing that is
done is concerned with trying to make sense of what it is to be
human, as opposed to scientific knowledge. Individuals or groups of
individuals define this reality. This branch of constructionism is
unconcerned with ontological questions or questions of causation.
It is worth emphasising this, since a lot of the criticisms of
constructionism arise from ascribing claims to it made beyond this
social understanding of the world.
Berger and Luckmann (1991) are concerned with the nature and
construction of knowledge: how it emerges and how it comes to have
the significance for society. They views knowledge as created by
the interactions of individuals within society which is central to
constructionism (Schwandt, 2003). For Berger and Luckmann (1991),
the division of labour, the emergence of more complex forms of
knowledge and what they term economic surplus gives rise to expert
knowledge, developed by people devoting themselves full-time to
their subject. In turn, these experts lay claim to novel status and
claim ultimate jurisdiction over that knowledge. For example,
Hunter (1991) makes this claim for medicine, in that it has in time
assumed much more control over defining illness and as a result has
assumed control in situations well beyond its original mandate and
so, enjoys a privileged position in society.
Berger and Luckmann (1991) view society as existing both as
objective and subjective reality. The former is brought about
through the interaction of people with the social world, with this
social world in turn influencing people resulting in routinisation
and habitualization. That is, any frequently repeated action
becomes cast into a pattern, which can be reproduced without much
effort. This frees people to engage in innovation rather than
starting everything anew. In time, the meaning of the
habitualization becomes embedded as routines, forming a general
store of knowledge. This is institutionalised by society to the
extent that future generations experience this type of knowledge as
objective. Additionally this objectivity is continuously reaffirmed
in the individual’s interaction with others.
The experience of society as subjective reality is achieved
through primary, and to a lesser extent, secondary socialisation.
The former involves being given an identity and a place in society.
Indeed, Burr (1995) suggests that our identity originates not from
inside the person but from the social realm. Socialisation takes
place through significant others who mediate the objective reality
of society, render it meaningful and in this way it is internalised
by individuals (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). This is done through
the medium of language. Burr (1995) comments that within social
constructionism language is not an unproblematic means of
transmitting thoughts and feelings, but in fact makes thought
possible by constructing concepts. In other words, it is language
that makes thoughts and concepts possible and not the other way
around. Language predates concepts and provides a means of
structuring the way the world is experienced.
Berger and Luckmann (1991) maintain that conversation is the
most important means of maintaining, modifying and reconstructing
subjective reality. Subjective reality is comprised of concepts
that can be shared unproblematically with others. In other words,
there is shared meaning and understanding, so much so that concepts
do not need to be redefined each time they are used in everyday
conversation and come to assume a reality which is by and large
taken for granted. They use the example ’have a good day at the
office’ as an example of this. The words imply a whole world within
which these propositions make sense.
Schwandt (2003) differentiates between radical and social
constructionism, the latter has been outlined above, while the
former is concerned with the idea that knowledge cannot represent
or correspond to the world. In essence, that the world can only be
known in relation to peoples’ experience of it and not
independently of that experience. Burningham and Cooper (1999)
discuss constructionism in terms of being either contextual or
strict. Contextual constructionism recognises objective reality and
its influence, while the latter maintains a relativist position,
that is the belief that there are multiple realities and all are
meaningful. As will be discussed next, this relativist position is
the source of most of the criticisms levelled at
constructionism.
Realism and Relativism
The main criticisms levelled against social constructionism can
be summarised by its perceived conceptualisation of realism and
relativism. It is accused of being anti-realist, in denying that
knowledge is a direct perception of reality (Craib 1997). Bury
(1986) maintains that social constructionism challenges biomedical
reality and questions apparently self-evident and stable realities,
but he offers little evidence to support this contention. As an
example, Bury (1986) claims that it views the discovery of diseases
as themselves social events rather than having an objective
reality. This criticism of social constructionism not recognising
an objective reality is both widespread and common (Bury 1986; Burr
1995; Craib 1997; Schwandt, 2003; Sismondo 1993), that nothing
exists beyond language (Bury 1986).
If it is accepted that researchers themselves construct a social
world rather than merely representing some independent reality,
then this is the source of tension between realism and relativism
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). There is an increasing tendency
within qualitative research to adopt the relativist position which
leads Hammersley (1992) to question the usefulness of the findings
generated from studies using this method, given that the
multiplicity of accounts produced can each claim legitimacy. If all
are legitimate and given the logical conclusion of relativism, then
there is no reason to prefer one account to another. That is, the
conclusions of research themselves constitute just another account
and as such cannot claim to have precedence over any other account.
The relevancy of such research can be questioned. In other words,
if research is not contributing to knowledge in any meaningful way,
then its usefulness may be questioned, particularly in relation to
health care research (Murphy et al., 1998).
Realism and relativism represent two polarised perspectives on a
continuum between objective reality at one end and multiple
realities on the other. Both positions are problematic for
qualitative research. Adopting a realist position ignores the way
the researcher constructs interpretations of the findings and
assumes that what is reported is a true and faithful interpretation
of a knowable and independent reality. Relativism leads to the
conclusion that nothing can ever be known for definite, that there
are multiple realities, none having precedence over the other in
terms of claims to represent the truth about social phenomena.
However, this is to confuse epistemology with claims about
ontology and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy
that underpins social constructionism. As outlined, social
constructionism as discussed by Berger and Luckman (1991) makes no
ontological claims, confining itself to the social construction of
knowledge, therefore confining itself to making epistemological
claims only. The idea that disease can and does exist as an
independent reality is compatible with the social constructionist
view. The naming of disease and indeed what constitutes disease is
arguably a different matter and has the potential to be socially
constructed. This is not the same as claiming that it has no
independent existence beyond language. One can imagine the
situation where a skin disorder such as psoriasis might be thought
of as a contagious disease, but with continued empirical
investigation, as knowledge increases about the condition, then
attitudes to it and how it is constructed change. It is in this
sense that disease is socially constructed but importantly makes no
claims about its ontological status.
For Hammersley (1992) the solution is to adopt neither position
but one midway between the two, one that he terms subtle realism.
This acknowledges the existence of an independent reality, a world
that has an existence independent of our perception of it, but
denies that there can be direct access to that reality, emphasising
instead representation not reproduction of social phenomena.
Representation implies that it will be from the perspective of the
researcher, thereby implicitly acknowledging reflexivity, which is
acknowledgement that researchers influence the research
Consistent with this middle course, Hammersley (1992) accepts
the usefulness of what he terms common-sense knowledge, while at
the same time rejecting the notion that all such knowledge is valid
in its own terms. Central to this is a rejection of the view that
knowledge is independent of the researcher, whose reality can be
known with certainty. Both realism and relativism share this view
of knowledge in that both define it in this way as the starting
point of their stances. In turn this results in the current
dichotomy in qualitative research. The contention is that by
avoiding such a definition, the negative implications for research
associated with both philosophical perspectives can be avoided.
Hamilton (2002) offers an alternative definition of knowledge as
beliefs in which one can have reasonable confidence in their
validity or truth. This is appeals to what Hammersley (1992)
considers a common sense understanding and consensual notion of
what constitutes social knowledge, particularly in judging the
validity or truth of such knowledge generated through research
findings. This is a pragmatic view of knowledge based on how
society resolves such matters in everyday life by judging its truth
in relation to what is already known, not by appeal to philosophy.
In a sense, this is an example of what Burr (1995) refers to as the
self-referent system, where concepts can only be defined in terms
of other concepts existing in the same language system.
In appealing for the adoption of a subtle realist approach,
Hammersley (1992) is trying to resolve the seemingly intractable
issue of realism versus relativism. In support of this, Murphy et
al. (1998) conclude that qualitative research resists the tendency
to fix meanings but instead draw inferences about meaning. However
the current trend within qualitative research is not to draw such a
sharp distinction between the realism and relativism (Danermark et
al., 2002; Denzin & Lincon, 2005)
In response to the realist critique, Sismondo (1993)
differentiates between strict, radical or extreme constructionism
and mild or contextual constructionism. He maintains that criticism
is levelled at the former, which is said to deny physical reality.
Burningham and Cooper (1999) note that in the critique of
constructionism very few empirical studies adopting this approach
are ever discussed. In other words, critics fail to evaluate the
evidence as to how the theory is applied in practice in order to
support their critique. In a review of studies using social
constructionism, Sismondo (1993) claims that the vast majority of
studies adopt the mild or contextual form of analysis, where a
distinction is maintained between what participants believe or
claim about the social world and what is in fact already known. In
practice social constructionists recognise reality and Sismondo
(1993) concludes that the realist critique is misguided in that it
does not fit what is actually going on in empirical studies.
Burningham and Cooper (1999) have summarised the strict
constructionist position as a scepticism about ontological claims
and not as an ontological claim about the non-existence of reality,
that is, while they do not deny the existence of reality, they
maintain that the meaning of reality is socially constructed.
In terms of social constructionism, the arguments in relation to
relativism are similar to those outlined earlier. Relativism
maintains that because there are multiple realities, there are
multiple interpretations of those realities. This leads in the
opinion of Bury (1986) to a circular argument, in that there is no
way of judging one account of reality as better than another. Craib
(1997) in particular ridicules social constructionism for its
alleged position on the realist-relativist argument and views it as
a comforting collective belief rather than a theoretical position.
He engages in what Hammersley (1992) terms a nihilist argument,
namely the contention that because social constructionism is itself
a social construct, then it has no more claim to be advanced as an
explanation than any other theory. This results in there being no
notion of what constitutes truth (Burr 1995). Hammersley (1992)
refers to this as the self-refuting character of relativism and
attempts to counter it by proposing the adoption of subtle realism,
as outlined previously. Radical social constructionism is a trivial
position (Murphy et al., 1998).
This gives rise to the further criticism that research using
social constructionist framework lacks any ability to change things
because there is nothing against which to judge the findings of
research (Bury, 1986). In this sense it becomes a methodological
issue. This results in political inertia because of the reluctance
of social constructionist research to make any recommendations
(Bury, 1986). Burningham and Cooper (1999) maintain that this
arises because of a misreading of the process in that researchers
adopting this approach do not ground their arguments in, or
discredit opposing arguments by comparing them unfavourably with
objective reality, that is, in presenting their findings, social
constructionists do not present them in objectivist terms, but rely
instead on the plausibility of their findings. In other words, they
set out to have their findings accepted by presenting a convincing
argument rather than arguing that their results are definitive.
This is consistent with the idea in constructionism that the
findings of research are one of many discourses. The suggestion
here is that far from being neutral, social constructionism can
generate real debate and lead to change.
There is another sense in which change becomes problematic and
this is related to what social constructionism has to say about
human agency, that is, human activity, which according to Burr
(1995) has not been fully addressed within social constructionism.
Berger and Luckmann (1991) maintain that change is brought about by
human activity. They note that while reality is always socially
defined, it is individuals and groups of individuals who define it.
People always try to present themselves and their version of events
in such a way that it will prevail over other versions (Burr 1995).
For Burr (1995) this is linked to power, in that it tends to be the
more powerful who are the most successful at having their version
of events predominate. This suggests that social constructionism
supports the idea that people can indeed be agents of change but
nonetheless, Burr (1995) argues that this is one of the least
developed areas of constructionism.
Craib (1997), a sociologist and psychotherapist, suggests that
like interactionism, social constructionism is no more than a
coping mechanism for deali that social
constructionists embrace change in order to avoid having to defend
or justify their position on anything. This enables them to claim
that their position, or any other, is just another social
construct, no position having precedence over any other. He views
social constructionism as a form of interactionism. As outlined,
interactionism is different from constructionism. Craib (1997)
seems to have confused some shared philosophical roots with being
one and the same theory. It suggests that Craib (1997) has a
selective understanding of social constructionism and that his
criticisms arise from this partial understanding. Additionally, his
arguments assume that all social constructionists hold a relativist
position. As outlined earlier, this is not so.
Conclusion
Social constructionism accepts that there is an objective
reality. It is concerned with how knowledge is constructed and
understood. It has therefore an epistemological not an ontological
perspective. Criticisms and misunderstanding arise when this
central fact is misinterpreted. This is most evident in debates and
criticisms surrounding realism and relativism. The words of Kirk
and Miller (1986) are relevant when they suggest that the search
for a final, absolute truth be left to philosophers and
theologians. Social constructionism places great emphasis on
everyday interactions between people and how they use language to
construct their reality. It regards the social practices people
engage in as the focus of enquiry. This is very similar to the
focus of grounded theory but without the emphasis on language.
Social constructionism that views society as existing both as
objective and subjective reality is fully compatible with classical
grounded theory, unlike constructionist grounded theory which takes
a relativist position. Relativism is not compatible with classical
grounded theory. Social constructionism as influence by Berger and
Luckman makes no ontological claims. Therefore choosing
constructionist grounded theory based on the ontological
assumptions of the researcher seems incompatible with the idea of
social constructionism. How this stance has influenced and
remodelled grounded theory into socalled constructionist grounded
theory will be the subject of another article.
References
Berger, P. & Luckmann, 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),
Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed). London:
Routledge.
Bury, M. (1986). Social constructionism and the development of
medical sociology. Sociology of Health and Illness 8(2),
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory objectivist and constructivist
method. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative 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). Introduction: the discipline
and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.
(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks,
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the
methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De
Hamilton, D. (2002). Traditions, preferences, and postures in
applied qualitative research. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 60-69). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Routledge,
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 epistemological stances for
qualitative inquiry: Interpretativism, hermeneutics 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.
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。