theory. As constructionist scholars have directed their attention increasingly to consequential action, often working side-by-side with societal change makers, new theorizing has been inspired. For example, in just this way one may justifiably understand developments in the theory of coordinated management of meaning (Pearce and Cronen, 1980; Wasserman and Fisher-Yoshida, 2017), dialogical self theory (Hermans and Kempen, 1993), positioning theory (Harré, and Moghaddam, 2003), relational theory (Gergen, 2009), performance and arts-based research theory (Gergen and Gergen, 2012; Leavy, 2019), actor-network theory (Latour, 2005), practice theory of leading (Raelin, 2016), process theory of organizations (Lawrence and Phillips, 2019), embodiment theory (Shotter, 2010) and feminist constructionist theory (M. Gergen, 2001). The same may be said for a plethora of powerful new concepts, such as the discursive mind, radical presence, generative moments, relational responsibility, withness as opposed to aboutness, poetic activism, and phonetic capacity. Increasingly, however, this cross-fertilization between scholar and practitioner groups becomes an ever-blurring line. The term scholar practitioner does not specify the location of one's occupation.
The Return of Optimism
As outlined, the optimism that sparked the early development of the social sciences can be traced in part to the promise that scientific research could solve social problems. We have glimpsed some of the reasons that the sciences could not realize these promises. However, the logics of positivist science also came to inform the attempts of practicing professionals to bring about change. One of the central logics has proved deeply problematic for practitioners, namely the logic of causality. As most educated professionals could agree, an individual's actions are neither random nor the result of voluntary whims but are determined by conditions – either environmental or hereditary. As proposed, our social institutions such as education, government, and business are similarly governed by causal conditions. Thus, as the logic goes, in order to bring about change, one must devise means of controlling or manipulating the causal conditions. Among the most visible illustrations of this orientation are Fordism in the world of work, the behaviorist movement in therapy, curriculum-centered education, the use of punishment to reduce crime, and the new public management practices of today.
Yet, while the logic is compelling, the results have been largely disappointing. In large measure, the problem with a causal approach has stemmed from the resistance and/or cleverness of those whose actions are being ‘improved’ or ‘corrected’. In the attempt to change others, a distance is often placed between the change agent and the ‘object’ of change. The former may be seen as coercive, manipulative, calloused, and dehumanizing. Feelings of resentment, suspicion, and distrust may be set in motion, triggering the development of counter-strategies – resisting or punishing those in power, or attempting to profit from the situation. Work slow-down, resistance groups, whistleblowing, cheating on tests, selling one's prescriptions, or colluding with the powerful to game the system, are all common.
From a constructionist perspective, the concept of causality is a cultural construction, one form of explanation among others. Whether a change-making practice is based on such a logic is a matter of deliberation – both pragmatic and ideological. Informed by this view, many practitioners have shifted their logic from causality to the co-construction of meaning (McNamee and Hosking, 2012). If together we co-construct and sustain our ways of life, it is reasoned, then this same process may be key to transformation. As many constructionists put it, if we change the conversation, we may change the future. This is indeed an optimistic vision, and has played a major role in the creation of dialogic practices for change – in organizations, therapy, peace building, education, medicine, and elsewhere. It is at the heart of movements such as the New OD (Marshak and Bushe, 2015), brief therapy (de Shazer, 1994), Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2005), and creativity by design (Lipmanowicz and McCandless, 2013).
Challenges to Full Flowering
We find ourselves, then, in a condition of considerable consequence. With an exhilarated sharing of ideas and practices across a wide range of professions and nations, a burst of innovative activity has followed. Can we anticipate a continuing cascade of contributions to human well-being? By bringing potential impediments into focus, we may be prepared to subvert their functioning. Let us briefly consider four forms of obstruction.
The Stranglehold of Modernism
Cultural traditions commonly resist change. And while this is not a critique of traditions themselves, it is often difficult for those within a tradition to reflect on its shortcomings. This is especially so when assumptions and values have been transformed into organizations, and the organizations are located in concrete structures, linked interdependently to other institutions, given a place in the economic process, and defended by law. Those sharing the tradition of positivist science occupy exactly this space. The tradition is linked to institutions of education, commerce, government, law, and more. As commonly put, positivist science is a central constituent of modernist culture. For many modernists, constructionist theory and practices are the harbingers of a relativistic chaos. Should we not anticipate that cultural modernism will soon enough snuff out the constructionist flames?
This is not the context for discussing the erosion of cultural modernism, but it is useful to focus on one matter of more local consequence. The relationship between positivist (foundationalist, realist) and constructionist communities has traditionally been contentious. Critique and counter-critique have been accompanied by mutual dismissal, ridicule, and demonizing. In these exchanges, constructionists have often succumbed to this tradition of mutual annihilation, though it is not congenial with constructionism itself. There is nothing about a constructionist orientation in general that would eliminate positivist theory or practice. At play is simply the reality of another community of meaning-making, one that offers logics, values, and practices of rich potential in confronting the future. Thus, rather than caving to the romance of vanquishing the enemy, far better to make clear the benefits of expanding potentials. Mixed methods researchers already partake of these benefits. Theirs is a message worth sharing across the divide.
The Foibles of Fixity
Innovations in professional practice are typically embraced because they represent improvements; they solve a pressing problem, are more effective, expand potential, and so on. And so it is with most of the practices explored within the present volume. However, when a new and desirable practice is found worthy, there is an accompanying tendency to lock it in place. This may be realized through extensive accounts in books and journals, and through operating principles, codifications, procedural rules, graphic summaries, and so on. One may see this tendency as only natural: ‘if a practice works, let's make sure we can repeat it’. The modernist worldview just discussed adds further weight: ‘If we can standardize it, we can install it in multiple locations, with a correspondingly high yield.’
Yet, this same penchant for a fixed procedure presents a danger to continuing innovation. On the most obvious level, and spurred by the neoliberal emphasis on economic gain, there are pervasive moves to monetize the practice. ‘How can we use the practice to make money?’ For practitioners, steps in this direction often include trademarking, developing training programs, and certification. There are several unfortunate results. The use of the practice becomes limited to only those who can afford the certified training. And, because they in turn will charge those who wish to make use of their services, the practice will ultimately be limited to the economically advantaged. In the service of expanding profits and/or control, the practice ceases to be transformative.
There is a more subtle problem at play in systematizing a successful practice, one that may be termed repetition regression. In general, any action – verbal or otherwise – shifts in significance as it is repeated. In the same way, any practice that is brimming with success when it is first employed, faces the problem of waning efficacy over time. The reasons are several.
