Constructivism in psychology : personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism
American Communication Journal, 5 (3):
17 (2002)Abstract
The constructivist psychologies theorize about and investigate how human beings create systems for meaningfully understanding their worlds and experiences. I refer to these “constructivisms” using the plural because there are many varieties of constructivism (Neimeyer & Raskin, 2001) and they have been described in various constellations (Botella, 1995; Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996a, 1996b; Lyddon, 1995; Mahoney, 1988, 1991, 1995; Rosen, 1996; Sexton, 1997). Depending upon how one chooses to carve out categories of constructivism, one finds differing areas of commonality and divergence. Regardless, the constructivist psychologies have grown immensely in quantity and influence over the past fifty years, originating in a variety of theoretical and research venues that have slowly developed greater contact with each other and with psychology at large. In fact, as the 21st Century begins, constructivist psychologists find themselves standing at the crossroads, ready to make their mark on the broader discipline of psychology. However, despite their steadily growing influence, constructivist psychologies have not evolved into a single, coherent, theoretically consistent orientation. Given numerous theoretical differences, there is not even agreement among constructivist psychologists that arriving at a singularly recognizable orientation is desirable. Nevertheless, some constructivist psychologists’ efforts to form a loosely confederated constructivist theoretical orientation have made inroads into mainstream psychology, as evidenced by the publication of several constructivist-themed volumes by the American Psychological Association (Neimeyer, 2001; Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995; Neimeyer & Raskin, 2000). Even so, constructivist psychologists—perhaps due to their different historical and theoretical ancestries—have yet to make the same impact on psychology as earlier movements, such as psychoanalysis, radical behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and humanistic psychology. It seems that many American psychologists and students are still unfamiliar with constructivism, as evidenced by its exclusion from most psychology textbooks. This exclusion can at least in part be attributed to confusion about what constitutes constructivism. One comes across so many varieties of constructivist psychology that even the experts seem befuddled. Terms like “constructivism,” “constructionism,” and “constructive” are employed so idiosyncratically and inconsistently that at times they seem to defy definition. If the precise differences between the constructivist psychologies escape those who identify themselves as being “in the fold,” one can only imagine how bewildered non-constructivist psychologists must be. This is unfortunate because it undermines the possibility that constructivist ideas will attract a larger audience.
In light of these concerns, this paper attempts to clarify similarities and differences among three key constructivist psychologies. I describe “personal construct psychology,” “radical constructivism,” and “social constructionism.” I suggest—as has Lyddon (1995)—that the commonalities among these approaches outweigh the points of divergence. Highlighting this common ground should be useful to both psychologists and non-psychologists. I contend that all three approaches center on human meaning making as psychology’s primary focus of inquiry. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I try to overcome some of the convoluted jargon that has inhibited communication about the larger meaning of the constructivist movement.