a practice of research. Perhaps the most visible result of this dawning of consciousness is represented in the appearance of new journals and handbooks of research methods and practices. In the case of journals, we wish to mention the Berlin-based FQS – Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, as well as Qualitative Psychology, Qualitative Inquiry, International Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, The Qualitative Report, Qualitative Research in Psychology, and the International Journal of Social Research Methodology, among others. As for handbooks, many have been recently published, including the Handbook of Arts-Based Research, Handbook of Feminist Research, Handbook of Discourse Analysis, The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods, and the Handbook of Constructionist Research. However, the signal accomplishment is no doubt the Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2011) and now in its fifth edition (2018).
Turning to the present Handbook, the contributors to this section have been especially engaged in constructionist dialogues. However, they are but a small sampling of a vast number of such researchers. They represent innovations in six different countries: Brazil, England, Norway, Mexico, Canada, and the United States. And, while each chapter was written in isolation from the others, one can begin to realize the emergence of certain commonalities. The fourteen authors who developed these practices diverge in the way they describe, illustrate and write up their research topics, but their specific background in social constructionist theory seems to favor a certain range of ideals in research practice.
The most powerful shift from a positivist to a constructionist perspective is represented in the way these researchers challenge the trope that research must be unbiased, value neutral, and independent of the interests of the researcher. Also of significance, these researchers often place the interests and outcomes of the research participants in a place of importance for doing the research. The rationale for doing research thus shifts away from a hypotheses-testing model that builds toward establishing a general theory to one that is more specifically related to the special circumstances and motives of the research participants. Accumulating empirical facts, substantiated by statistical analysis, is replaced with a concern for the interests of the participants and others who may be affected by the research. Issues of social justice, social change, power dynamics, and well-being are pervasive. As advocated by Bodiford and Camargo-Borgas (2014), research from a social constructionist position should be relationally sensitive, useful and generative, organic and dynamic, and engaging in complexity and multiplicity.
In much the same vein, the researchers often see the relationship of the researcher to the participants as one of collaboration. Participants are often regarded as co-researchers. Research is done with, not about, or on others. The emphasis on ‘withness’, as John Shotter (2010) called it, sets this orientation to constructionist research practices apart from usual empirical research. Helen Kara's (2015) book, Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide provides further examples of similarly oriented research. To summarize the significant characteristics of research practice favored by social constructionist researchers in this Handbook:
1 The research practice is value-invested. Researchers are not only conscious of the values implied or favored by a given practice of inquiry but engage in research for the very purpose of fulfilling a vision of a better world. This means, for example, that they are conscious of how a research practice constructs the research participants, themselves, and the world. As well, they may be sensitive to indigenous viewpoints, which may diverge from their own, differential power relations among diverse groups, and ethical concerns that are absent from those accepted in Western scientific communities (Romm, 2018). In all cases, the hope is that the research practice will contribute to enhanced ways of relating among various groups.
2 The research is dedicated to social change. Consistent with the last point, the research practices are designed to affect change. The point of research is not to collect, archive, add to or challenge existing theoretical views so much as to improve on existing social conditions. Constructionist informed research may be useful in formulating new modes of relating among social groups. In this sense, the practice is ‘future-forming’ (Gergen, 2015). Through the research itself, new potentials for future practices are demonstrated.
3 The practice is collaborative. Coherent with the two preceding features, researchers frequently develop practices in which relevant members of society collaborate. The major drivers of a research project may be participants who desire some major change in their life circumstances or the culture at large. Participatory action research is a classic example, but the more general attempt is to work with others who are relevant to the research topic, as opposed to observing and reporting on them.
4 The orientation is pragmatic. The contributors do not select a fixed or given method to guide their research. Rather, their primary concern is with achieving a value-based end, and the particular research practice is chosen or created as a means to this end. Existing practices may be combined in various fashions, or entirely new practices may be created. Most fascinating here are movements toward performative or arts-based inquiry, in which researchers may draw from theatrical, literary, artistic, and musical traditions to enrich research practices, from conception to presentation. Consistent with the previous points, if research is dedicated to social change, it is important that its significance is communicated with sophistication and power to the public at large (Leavy, 2019).
As is clear, the emergence of such an orientation to research radically expands the scope and relevance of social science research, with important implications for practices of education, medicine, organization development, governance, and law among them.
The Present Contributions
In the context of these broad convergences, it is useful to consider the specific contributions to this section:
Research as Innovation: An Invitation to Creative and Imaginative Inquiry Processes
In this chapter by Celiane Camargo-Borges and Sheila McNamee, the metaphor of research as innovation is explored. The authors examine the role of creativity and imagination in the process of inquiry. Researchers move away from the logic of either/or and navigate toward a spectrum of opportunities, not thinking in oppositions or polarities, but embracing ambiguity, uncertainty, possibility, and multiplicity. As a consequence of acknowledging research as a process of social transformation, the results of research move the researcher and participants toward an unfolding and newly constructed future. The authors offer illustrations of research approaches/practices that invite innovation by embracing relationality and participation. They focus on practices that have gained broad acceptance over the past few decades: Imagineering, Arts-Based research, and Appreciative Inquiry.
Collaborative Action Research: Co-Constructing Social Change for the Common Good
In this chapter, by Ottar Ness and Dina von Heimburg, the concept of Collaborative Action Research (CAR) is explored as an approach for addressing complex societal problems. The return to the interest of ‘the common good’ can be understood as a rebuttal to the individualist, neoliberalist approaches dominating contemporary societal research. Ness and von Heimburg argue that forms of collaborative research must be created in order to make participation in societal change processes easy, intuitive, and natural for ordinary citizens. Collaborative action research places meaning-making processes at the center of attention. When working with social change and social justice, one also needs to co-construct knowledge about how co-researchers live their everyday lives. What resources are available in the everyday life of the community such that, with the co-researchers, they can meet their social change goals in a sustainable way?
Action Research and Social Constructionism: Community of Inquiry/Practice
