What I understand is social constructivism is distinctive from interpretivism. it's slightly more radical and it emphasizes on meanings which are socially constructed. It emphasizes that cultural and institutional origins of meaning. And the world is interpreted through language and culture. but it still falls under the larger umbrella of interpretivism. Should we differentiate them or should we explain that they are the same and I believe in both of them?
also interpretivism is the paradigm that i favour and social constructivism is the theory that i use to explain my participants behaviour. i feel there should not be any differentiation here as both are the same, with interpretivism being the umbrella and social constructivism/constructivist approach being the theory favoured.
I think people often use the two interchangeably, so there probably is no consistent distinction in common practice. As a source, you might look at Schwandt (1994) "Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry," in the first edition of the Denzin & Lincoln handbook.
You are right and as indicated by David L Morgan qualitative researchers are generally regarded as interpretivist. However, social constructivist is an approach under the bigger umbrella of interpretivism.
It is very confusing for beginners to differentiate between Interpretivism and Constructivism. As mentioned by David L Morgan, these two have not been consistently differentiated in literature. However, I particularly liked the extract from Gorski (2013), appended below when I too faced the same confusion. Hope this helps:
" The dominant philosophy is positivism.Its oldest rival is interpretivism. The young upstart is social constructivism. The three approaches are premised on very different social ontologies (i.e., theories of social reality).
Positivists draw no ontological distinction between natural and social entities; both are just ‘‘phenomena’’ or ‘‘objects of experience’’ (Hempel 1965; Popper 1959).
Interpretivists draw a sharp line between the two domains; they argue that social reality is linguistically constructed (Geertz 1973; Winch 1958). The constructivists go further still. They see the natural sciences as linguistically constituted as well (Feyerabend 1975; Rorty 1979). For them, the natural sciences are just another realm of social life"
Regards
thanks David, Arif and Alhassan. i understand ths minor distinctions between the larger umbrella of interpretivism and the new kid on the block social constructivism. while doing my thesis and defending my final thesis i had expained my paradigm to be interpretivist and that social constructivism was what my work was. one of my examiners asked me to distinguish both and situate myself in one of them. this caused me a lot of distress so i had to divulge deeper to get into base of the issue. have addressed the same now in my minor changes. thanks gentlemen. warm regards Mayukh Dewan
I think the major distinction lies in their general philosophy. Social constructivism comes really close to positivism given that it alludes to group influence as well as tangible artifacts on the development of individuals. On the other hand, interpretivism clearly relies on the subjectivity of individuals within a group. Interpretivism is highly value laden. Thus while constructivis can be linked to positivism, interpretivism can be linked to idealism. Good luck Dewan!
Given that constructivism denies there is any such thing as either reality or truth, it is hard for me to see how it can be "really close to positivism."
Dear Arif, I distinguish interpretivism and social constructivism by their tendency to understand or change the social world. interpretivism wants to understand the world (Gadamer), Constructivism is really near to critical theory (Habermas), wants to change the world. So, between interpretivism and constructivism, the latter is more focused on political power.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation