Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edley, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Unravelling Social Constructionism

Nigel Edley

Nottingham Trent University, nigel.edley{at}ntu.ac.uk

Social constructionist research is an area of rapidly expanding influence that has brought together theorists from a range of different disciplines. At the same time, however, it has fuelled the development of a new set of divisions. There would appear to be an increasing uneasiness about the implications of a thoroughgoing constructionism, with some regarding it as both theoretically parasitic and politically paralysing. In this paper I review these debates and clarify some of the issues involved. My main argument is that social constructionism is not best understood as a unitary paradigm and that one very important difference is between what Edwards (1997) calls its ontological and epistemic forms. I argue that an appreciation of this distinction not only exhausts many of the disputes that currently divide the constructionist community, but also takes away from the apparent radicalism of much of this work.

Key Words: constructionism • epistemic • materiality • ontological • reality

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3, 433-441 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354301113008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Philosophy of the Social SciencesHome page
N. Edley
Irony and Origami
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, March 1, 2007; 37(1): 100 - 104.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
B. S. Held
What Follows?: Mind Dependence, Fallibility and Transcendence According to (Strong) Constructionism's Realist and Quasi-Realist Critics
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2002; 12(5): 651 - 669.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
M. W. Katzko
The Construction of `Social Constructionism': A Case Study in the Rhetoric of Debate
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2002; 12(5): 671 - 683.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
D. J. Nightingale and J. Cromby
Social Constructionism as Ontology: Exposition and Example
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2002; 12(5): 701 - 713.
[Abstract] [PDF]