Reading for shit - constructivism Flashcards
origins constructivism + constructivism
end cold war -> questions about cultural bases of conflict, alternative conceptions of national identity, ethics of intervention etc.
constructivist view = individuals and groups are not only shaped by the world but also change it
people can set into motion new normative, cultural, economic, social, or political practices that alter conventional wisdoms and standard operating procedures
interpretations produce social reality
structure and agency are mutually constituted =
- structural continuities and processes of change are based on agency
- agency is influenced by social, spatial, and historical context
!constructivist label has many diff voices, not one single “-ism” + boundaries between diff analyses are fluid (e.g. feminism, crticial social theory)
+ constructivism can overlap with other perspectives (e.g. realist constructivism, liberal constructivism)
bridge-building is important
constructivism tries to understand how certain meanings get taken for granted or dominate while others remain unspoken or marginalized
ontology: how do researchers conceptualize what they study?
- ontology
- 3 main components
“mutual constitution” of structure and agents: interaction between what people do and how societies shape their actions
- People consciously and unintentionally replicate
and challenge institutionalized routines and prevailing assumptions
constructivist ontology relies on three components:
- intersubjectivity
- context
- power
intersubjectivity
intersubjective understandings comprise structures and agents: social phenomena (norms, rules, meanings, languages, cultures, ideologies) create identities and guide actions
!intersubjective understandings are mroe than aggregated beliefs of individuals
- money requires shared acceptance
- corporations wouldn’t exist without the concept of profit, defined in terms of money
particular meanings become stable over time -> create social orders: structures/institutions
rules/norms set expectations of how the world works, what behavior is legitimate, what interests and identities are possible
meanings can also be contested + can evolve
context
intersubjective understandings vary across regions, over time, and within hierarchies
to understand how shifts in meaning affect people in specific contexts, researchers need to avoid static notions of culture that preclude the possibility of change
- e.g. capitalism as ideology that includes a concept of money (rather than gold)
accepted desires and behaviors in one period or society may be derided at other times (e.g. GATT morphed into WTO, which was too radical 50y earlier)
+ agents may alter practices/institutions in some places but not in others
- wage labor prevails around the globe, but not all forms of slavery have been eliminated
suc6 vs failure agency takes into account whether people altered their thinking about their on place in the world, as well as the legitimate role of other actors
!researcher is also based in a context -> research informed by normative views of the researcher
power
+ practices and discourse
multiple meanings coexist -> constructivists ask how and why certain practices prevail in particular contexts
exercise of power = ability to reconstruct discourses and shape practices
- practices = habitual actions that emanate from interpretations
- discourses = languages and techniques employed to maintain interpretations
all people have some degree of power: their practices either reinforce or undermine meanings
powerful intersubjective understandings = constitute people’s identities and interests
- e.g. dominant intersubjective understanding: American and Soviet as enemies rather than allies during the Cold War
epistemology: how do researchers know what they know?
more overlap in epistemological positions than debates lead us to expect: spectrum from positivist-leaning to post-postivist positions
constructivists:
- ontological starting point = mutual constitution
- all talk about interpretation (but use language in innumerable ways), some also about causality
interpretation
structure and agency are mutually constituted through intersubjective understandings (ontology) -> rejection existence objective facts distinct from the concepts that give them meaning
disagreement about how far interpretation must go
positivist end of epistemological spectrum = study reality in terms of stable meanings (e.g. human rights norms) and believe that neither prevalent ideologies nor researcher’s own judgements have a significant impact on the reliability of the resulting analysis
- theoretical frameworks guide conclusions about the empirical evidence
- attribute essential properties to social facts (e.g. codified norms of what is a human rights violation)
post-positivist side of the spectrum
- dominant actors can agree on the meaning of a concept, but the meanings are contested and unstable (they can change)
- no “concepts” but “representations”
- knowledge (truth claims) become intertwined with power -> “regimes of truth”
middle:
particular meanings can sometimes be treated as stable social facts, but this assumption can be problematic at other times
causality
constructivists at the positivist end of the spectrum = explain social phenomena in general terms, reject “laws” of behavior BUT do want applicability across a wide empirical range
post-positivists = complexity + context-specific claims + seek a comprehensive understanding of one or a few cases (may draw lessons from them) = greater stress on uniqueness of experience = search for understanding
main dividing line constructivists = distinction constitutive (how possible) and causal (why) claims
! in practice they often overlap
-> constructivists should not preclude the possibility of causal answers to constitutive answers and vice versa
language, meaning, symbols, culture, discourse (intersubjective phenomena) remain vital components of “why” analysis because constructivists presume human intentionality
methodology: how do researchers select their tools?
common research concerns get articulated through different theoretical vocabularies
conceptualization as core element of methodology: e.g. research into security, diff concepts of culture, identity and norms as fluid or stable -> different methods (if you see it as something stable, scholars use texts to demosntrate general patterns)
concepts rather than tools for collecting evidence, lead to alternative interpretations
- discourse analysis: researchers shouldn’t overlook nonlinguistic dimensions of discourse as practices
- diverse forms of evidence
- as long as words and activities are put into context, researchers can categorize, code, or count their use through diff qualitative and quantitative techniques
- methodological choices are influenced by researcher’s own comitments
validity: how do researchers evaluate their interpretations?
not every interpretation is equally supportable, some are more reasonable/plausible than others
constructivists agree: empirical inconsistencies undermine persuasiveness of interpretations
-> triangulation: researchers get a variety of sources to check one against another
constructivists remain skeptical of strong generalizations
- theory and evidence inform each other: interpretation requires concepts
- more credible claim combines the insights of studies that rely on generalization with others that stress detail
judgements don’t depend on nr of cases, depends on RQ and analytical goal
comparisons enable scholars to probe the coherence of alternative interpretations
“better scholarship” = combi logic + consistency in the use of evidence
standards: based on comparison of many studies
! sometimes contrasting explanations lead to recognizing important differences between what, how or why questions
