M. (2001). Feminist reconstructions in psychology: Narrative, gender, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gergen, M., and Gergen, K. J. (2012). Playing with purpose: Adventures in performative social science. New York: Routledge.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harré, R., and Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts. New York: Praeger.
Hermans, H. J. M., and Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The dialogical self. New York: Academic Press.
Hjelm, T. (2014). Social constructionisms: Approaches to the study of the human world. London: Palgrave.
Holzman, L. (2014). Practicing method: Social therapy as practical-critical psychology. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 12(3).
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
Lawrence, T. B., and Phillips, N. (2019). Constructing organizational life: How social-symbolic work shapes selves, organizations, and institutions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Leavy, P. (Ed.) (2019). Handbook of arts-based research. New York: Guilford.
Lipmanowicz, H., and McCandless, K. (2013). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Seattle: Liberating Structures Press.
Lock, A., and Strong, T. (Eds.) (2010). Social constructionism: Sources and stirrings in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marshak, R. J., and Bushe, G. R. (2015). Dialogic organizational development: The theory and practice of transformational change. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
McNamee, S., and Gergen, K. J. (Eds.) (1992). Therapy as social construction. London: Sage.
McNamee, S., and Gergen, K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McNamee, S., and Hosking, D. M. (2012). Research and social change: A relational constructionist approach. New York: Routledge.
Monk, G., and Winslade, J. (2013). When stories clash: Addressing conflict with narrative mediation. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.
Pearce, B., and Cronen, V. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning: The creation of social realities. New York: Praeger.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. London: Sage.
Raelin, J. A. (Ed.) (2016). Leadership as practice: Theory and application. New York: Routledge.
Rasera, E. (2015). Social constructionist perspective on group work. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.
Shapin, S. (1995). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wasserman, I., and Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2017). Communicating possibilities: A brief introduction to the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM). Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Press.
Weinberg, D. (2014). Contemporary social constructionism: Key themes. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
White, M., and Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.
2 Practices of Inquiry: Invitation to Innovation
Mary M. Gergen
With the emergence of the social sciences in the early twentieth century, debates on the nature of research were active and ubiquitous. However, somewhere toward the mid-twentieth century, such controversy was largely replaced by convergence. More specifically, for many social scientists there was much to be gained by embracing what appeared to be philosophic foundations for a unified science. By identifying themselves with the assumptions of logical positivist philosophy, the social sciences would be placed on an equal footing with such widely respected sciences as physics, chemistry, and biology. At the same time, in the process of embracing a positivist conception of research, there was a radical reduction in what counted as an acceptable research practice. As the disciplines of science took shape, so did the disciplining of research methods. Then, with the emergence of social constructionist dialogues in the late twentieth century, a sea-change took place. These dialogues offered a major alternative to positivist foundationalism. In many respects, constructionist ideas proposed a dramatic liberation from methodological dogma. The strangulating grip of what had become a ‘methodolatry’ was released. Given this liberation, what may now be said about the nature of research practice? To what have the constructionist dialogues given birth? The contributions to the present section begin to answer this question.
To appreciate the issues at stake, it will be useful first to briefly scan the historical background for the present undertakings. We may then consider some general outcomes, along with more specific implications for constructionist researchers themselves. Finally, we turn to the particular features of the contributions to this section.
Beyond the Positivist Paradigm
As outlined in the opening chapter of this volume, the constructionist dialogues have undermined the positivist conception of scientific knowledge on which this view of research practice is based. For constructionists, scientific descriptions are not mirrors or maps of the world as it is. Rather, the act of research has its roots in a social process in which ontological assumptions, logics, and values are negotiated. Research places these assumptions into practice. Thus, differing groups of scientists may develop different paradigms of understanding and practice that guide their research and what may plausibly be said about the world. Groups of scientists working within different paradigms may pursue different ends, with different values, different research practices, facing different worlds of understanding.
Positivist researchers in the social sciences often criticize all research that is not positivist for its failing to follow their notion of what the standards of proper science are. ‘Not everything goes’, as it is said. To be sure, not everything can go within the limits of a given paradigm. However, we must not forget the paradigmatic limits of the positivist construction of science itself. For constructionists, when we expand our orientations to research, we also enrich the potentials for action in the world.
Practices of Research: Creativity and Convergence
Constructionist ideas of scientific research have moved across the sciences, releasing a vast source of creative energy. Excitement abounds, as the boundaries of what is possible continue to expand. New conceptions of research are invited, open to a wide spectrum of aims and values. The margins between the disciplines are blurred. Most important for present purposes, there is no principled end to what may
