Constructivist Epistemology: An analysis
Penelope Barillaro
Jessie-Lane Metz
Richard Perran
Warren Stokes
Abstract
Constructivist epistemology is a social science research methodology that examines the
theory of knowledge and focuses on how we acquire knowledge. Constructivists believe that
knowledge is built, or constructed through experiences as opposed to discovered. This research
methodology is a departure from traditional research methods in that it proposes a new way of
thinking about issues, problems and hypotheses as the researcher or learner is an active
participant, not a passive observer.
The purpose of this paper is to define constructivist epistemology for the reader, identify
key components of this method, discuss its development over the years and discuss the future of
this methodology. An examination of issues and controversies allows us to deepen our
understanding of the topic by analysing the beliefs help by opponents of this method. An
exemplar has been provided to allow the reader to understand the use and application of
constructivist epistemology.
Introduction
Upon first examination, the topic seems esoteric, mainly because of its philosophical
roots. As constructivist epistemology looks at the theory of knowledge, it is a challenge for the
average individual to understand it and then to step back and understand how we acquire
knowledge. We just know that we grow and development and our knowledge increases as our
experiences broaden. In order to understand how individuals acquire knowledge, a researcher
using this methodology looks at the experiences, opinions and context of research subjects to
form an opinion. This methodology has many real life applications, especially in the areas of
conflict resolution, policy development and participative decision making.
The following are outlined in the paper: methodology, strengths, history, key issues,
problems and controversies, conclusions, sources for further reading and references. The
methodology section outlines how the research was conducted and the various approaches of the
team. The key issues section further defines constructivist epistemology with a focus on
knowledge being based on theory and the separation of researcher and subject is not possible.
This section also exams the role of subjectivity and ethics as the researcher has a heightened
sense of their own biases and thus holds themselves to a higher ethical standard. The problems
and controversies section analyses constructivist epistemology from an ontological (how things
are), epistemological (how we know) and methodological (how we form knowledge)
perspectives. Some of the controversies addressed are: constructivists deny reality (ontological);
the role of the researcher as an active participant (epistemological), and the ability to customize a
research approach based on research subjects (methodological).
Methodology
The team used Google Scholar as its main research tool to review academic literature;
other resources were used and cited as well. Keyword searches were conducted using terms such
as: constructive epistemology; constructivist paradigm; feminism and constructivism, and
constructivist research. The main authorities in the field are Guba and Lincoln (2004) and von
Glaserfeld (2001). Guba and Lincoln (1994) was referenced over 1800 times in reference using
“constructivist paradigm” as a search reference and von Glaserfeld (2001) has over 1800 search
results by name in Google scholar, and his books are referenced in many thousands of books and
scholarly articles.
Team members divided up work in sections as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Abstract, introduction, methodology – Penelope Barillaro
Key issues – Jessie-Lynn Metz
Problems and controversies – Richard Perran
Conclusions, assessments and sources – Warren Stokes
Key Issues
Constructivist Epistemology:
Constructivist epistemology, a theory of what knowledge is, was created as a response to
the criticisms that emerged regarding positivist approaches to science and learning. Rejecting the
idea that there is one knowable truth, constructivist theorists believe that “knowledge is a process
of actively interpreting and constructing individual knowledge representations” (Jonassen, 1991,
p. 5). Constructivists challenge the idea that knowledge exists freely in the world and can be
obtained through objective measures believing all information is subject to interpretation by the
researcher or learner. Richardson (2003), found it useful to divide constructivism into two
distinct, yet interrelated categories, social constructivism and psychological constructivism, the
former focusing of disciplines of knowledge, while the latter examines personal learning. The
balance of this paper will examine the former definition of constructivism.
The Development of Constructivist Epistemology:
Debates about the nature of knowledge have existed for centuries, and can be traced back
to Aristotle and many Greek philosophers. In modern times, Durkheim and Weber developed the
theory as it related to socially constructed norms, beliefs and values (Ruggie, 1998). In the
1960’s, Jean Piaget’s work, which he called Genetic Epistemology demonstrated how children
developed the knowledge they use in adulthood (von Glasersfeld 2001). Thomas Kuhn’s work
identified that research is shaped by the researchers in the process of learning (Mir & Watson,
2000). In more recent times, despite various incarnations and practices related to constructivist
methodology, the fundamental beliefs shared by all constructivists remain the same: that
knowledge is based on theory; separation of researcher and subject is not possible; separation
between theory and practice is equally unattainable, and objectivity is an impossibility (Mir &
Watson, 2000).
Strengths of Constructivist Epistemology:
In the traditional fields of research, it is assumed that the choice of research topic, the
methodology selected, the observations made and the evidence produced, are all objective, or
value-neutral. This belief has contributed historically to research that has been conducted
through lenses of discrimination based on race, disability, sexual orientation, gender and social
or economic class, as well as an environmental disregard that has impacted both people and
ecosystems around the world (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). In the context of quantitative and
qualitative research, using an alternative approach, such as constructivism, allows for researchers
to create different considerations in their work. An awareness of differing experiences and
opinions that shape the reality of citizens can be useful in many stages of policy creation and
public administration. Fischer (2003) states that a governing body or elected official is more
likely to successfully govern and to meet the needs of the electorate when a constructivist
epistemology is utilized through processes of direct democracy and citizen participation.
In a more general sense, a researcher in the constructivist tradition, practicing either
qualitative or quantitative methods, may find it pertinent to name their bias, They may be more
likely to consider different frames for research, rather than basing research on previously held
ideas about a population or situation. Because a researcher is aware of the subjectivity of their
work, they are bound to a different, if not more rigorous set of ethics. Soobrayan (2003) found
that a constructivist researcher “is constantly and consistently called upon to consciously and
deliberately engage with the ethical, truth and political implications of his research and writing”
(p.107).
Exemplar of Constructivist Research Methods:
Because it is a commonly held belief that constructivism is a research methodology in and of
itself (Mir & Watson, 2000), various research methods, from both the qualitative and quantitative
practices can be utilized within this framework. The exemplar of constructivist epistemology in
this paper is drawn from the case of the Berger Commission in Canada. In the 1970’s a proposed
pipeline, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, was designed to run through the traditional territories of
First Nations, Inuit and Métis People (Gamble, 1978). Justice Berger, who was assigned to
determine whether or not the project should proceed, used consultative methods, including
inviting Indigenous community members, members of the government, politicians, and people
connected to the industry to participate in deliberative forums on the issue. While Justice Berger
eventually evaluated the best outcome through more positivist measures, the process of gaining
information was approached through a participatory model of constructivism, seeking “to bring a
wider range of contextually sensitive evidence and arguments to bear on the problem or position
under investigation” (Fischer, 2003, p. 134). Through a process of determining the individual
truths of each vested party, the project was cancelled, stalling what was seen as a major
environmental disaster waiting to happen (Fischer, 2003). The constructivist approach allowed
each party to represent their own knowledge in a context that greatly impacted their lives and
livelihoods and provided a constructivist foundation of various knowledge interpretations to
inform the final decision.
Problems and Controversies
Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Central to all qualitative and quantitative research are assumptions related to ontology,
epistemology and methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Drawing from the field of philosophy,
ontology refers to the nature or structure of being, and epistemology relates the nature and limits
of human knowledge (Halverson, 1981). Competing paradigms in research result from different
philosophical beliefs about the nature of reality and the nature of human knowledge.
Qualitative Research
In the broad category of qualitative research, constructivists make assumptions about the
generation of knowledge and meaning as a social construction (Guba & Lincoln, 2001). The
relationship between the subject of the research and the researcher is a central focus of the
methodology.
Constructivism and the Ontological Question
The relationship between anything known and the mind of the knower are intertwined.
This is central to the ontological question according to Guba and Lincoln (1994). The response
from von Glaserfeld (2001) would be that constructivism does not deny reality; rather, it denies
that we can rationally know reality outside of our personal perspectives.
One of the most valuable contributions of constructivism in the realm of research is that it
embraces a plurality of perspectives about regarding any particular research contexts. Even
constructivists recognize the dilemma, as Guba and Lincoln noted (1994), in that the value of
looking at the social construction of what is real is weighted against the constraints of relativism
and multiple realities.
Constructivism and the Epistemological Question
There is a relationship between the construction of meaning and the power relationship
that gives certain “meaning constructions” privilege over others (Clark, 2004). Guba and
Lincoln (1994) look to this as the epistemological question. If the scientific studies of the pure
sciences looked to remove the impact of the particular researcher, the constructivists see the
inter-subject experience as central to the research process
Campbell and Wasco (2000) discuss epistemology from the perspective of feminist
research methodologies and identify a number of possible shortcomings in the constructivist
paradigm. They contend that if reality is socially constructed, social factors such as gender, race,
culture and economics are not necessarily “lenses” through which we see the world, but rather
are agents shaping how individuals understand their world.
Constructivism and the Question of Methodology
Many of the early methodologies of research in the social sciences attempted to replicate
the techniques of the “hard sciences” including, for example, mathematics and chemistry.
Moving into the realm of qualitative research the range of research options grow
considerably. Constructivist, research and evaluation are informed by the ontological
epistemological assumptions of the paradigm.
Constructivists look to discussion and interaction based methodologies and focus on the
following types of activities (Guba & Lincoln, 1994):
o Interaction based constructions between investigator and respondent
o Hermeneutical techniques compared and contrasted in dialectic exchange
o Consensus and distillation to build on previous knowledge
Methodology itself is limited by the very nature of these philosophical assumptions, and
as a relativist philosophy, research of this type will not disclose causal relationships in a typically
understood way. Similarly it may not provide traditional insight into ideological and political
issues similar to critical theory.
.
Assessment and conclusions
We have seen, through both the work of Fisher (2003) and the Berger Commission that
constructivist epistemology can be a way of over-coming systemic or cultural bias embedded in
the empirical research methods. By using this methodology to inform, the researcher can gain
confidence that the ideas that inform the research are not limited by traditional perspectives. The
empathetic dialogue that occurs in this methodology has also appeared effective in international
relations. However, constructivist epistemology remains challenged by its ability to demonstrate
its quality (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Contemporary literature continues to draw parallels with
that of the positivist realm. This could be both a strength and a weakness of the epistemology of
constructivism. By presenting definitions and measures that are repeatable and consistent, the
research ideal becomes recognizable to the (post-) positivist establishment. Unfortunately, this
may also mean that constructivists risk being “trapped” by rigid definitions that prevent the
research from evolving as the researcher engages with the participants and new ways of knowing
are exposed.
Lincoln (1991) notes that the constructivist researcher’s voice is that of the “passionate
participant”. This would be immediately dismissed by those subscribing to the realist paradigm
as the researcher is a vested lobbyist connected and biased by the participants. The value of the
constructivist methodology however, may be its power to inform the post-positivist researcher.
Further Readings
The chapter, Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, (Guba and Lincoln, 1994)
contrasted the differences between positivist, post-positivist, critical theory, and constructivist
research. This would be a key article for further study of constructivist epistemology.
Hess (1997) brings another perspective as he looks at “conservative constructivist” and
“moderate constructivist” theories.
Mir and Watson (2000) bring a further perspective of this theory by providing a practical
analysis of the approach in the context of strategic management.
References:
Clark, L. (2004). The journey from post-positivist to constructivist methods. In S. Hoover, L.
Clark, D. Alters, J. Champ, & L. Hood, Media, Home, and Family (pp. 19-34). New
York: Routledge.
Dougiamas, M. (1998, November). A journey into constructivism. Retrieved January 24, 2009,
from Dougiamas Web site: http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gamble, D. J. (1978). The Berger Inquiry: An impact assessment process. Science, 199(4332),
946-952.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2001, November). Guidelines and checklist for constructivist
(a.k.a. fourth generation) evaluation. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from The Evaluation
Center Western Michigan University Web site:
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/constructivisteval.htm
Halverson, W. (1981). A Concise Introduction to Philosophy (4th ed.). New York: Random
House.
Hess, D. J. (1997). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: NYU Press.
Hughes, D. M. (1995). Significant differences: The construction of knowledge, objectivity and
dominance. Women's Studies International Forum, 18(4), 396-406.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Kirby, S. L., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2006). Experience research social change: Methods
beyond the mainstream. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Kwan, K. M. K., & Tsang, E. W. (2001). Realism and constructivism in strategy research: A
critical realist response to Mir and Watson. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 11631168.
Locher, B., & Prügl, E. (2001). Feminism and constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the
middle ground? International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), Retrieved January 19, 2009, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Mir, R., & Watson, A. (2000). Strategic management and the philosophy of science: The case for
a constructivist methodology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 941-953.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Collins Block, C., &Anders, P. L..
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(3), 252-288.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social
constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855-885.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 5-465.
Soobrayan, V. (2003). Ethics, truth and politics in constructivist qualitative research.
Westminster Studies in Education , 26 (2), 107-123.
Totland, T. (1997, August 29). Ontological and epistemological foundations. Retrieved January
30, 2009, from Enterprise Modeling as a Means to Support Human Sense-making and
Communication in Organizations:
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/html/totland/ch032.htm
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New
York: Zed Books.
Van Belt, H. (2003). How to engage with experimental practices? Moderate versus radical
constructivism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 201-219.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). An expedition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. Retrieved
January 14, 2009, from Scientific Reasoning Research Institute, University of
Massachusetts Web site: http://www.oikos.org/constructivism.htm
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science,
6(1-3), 31-43. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.