The Sage Handbook of Social Constructionist Practice. Группа авторов
(Witkin, 1999, p. 7).
For social constructionists, claims of universalism and transcendent Truth are suspect as they necessarily stem from particular historical, cultural, and social positions (Gergen, 1994). Therefore, such claims must be dislodged and alternative discourses legitimized. These alternative discourses are often associated with groups whose voices have been silenced, ‘marginal to existing practice and dismissed by the hegemonic system of meanings and practices as irrelevant or bad’ (Weedon, 1997, p. 35).
Contextual Understanding
The inseparability of persons from their environments has long been a hallmark of social work (e.g., Gitterman and Germain, 2008). A course in ‘Human Behavior and the Social Environment’ is a staple in virtually all US social work programs. Environment in social work texts typically refers both to aspects of the physical environment (e.g., substandard housing) and social environments (e.g., racism). A relatively recent trend has been to extend ‘environment’ to encompass the natural environment, in particular the dangers engendered by issues such as pollution and climate change (e.g., Alston, 2015; Crews and Besthorn, 2016; Gray and Coates, 2012). This trend has led to the terms eco-social work and green social work (e.g., Dominelli, 2012). Similarly, social construction focuses on the historical, cultural, and social contexts of beliefs. For social constructionists, persons are not only affected by environments, but generate them. Additionally, for social constructionists what we might call relational and linguistic environments are emphasized. Relationships are the bases of understanding and beliefs and language bring them into ‘the real’ (Gergen, 2015). The notion of natural environment tends to be more complex as what we take to be natural is also considered to be a social construction. This does not mean that social constructionists are not aware of or concerned about environmental issues; however, there is not an explicit value position that claims this as an issue that must be addressed.
Values and the Promotion of a More Humane and Just Social Order
Social work was borne from a value stance regarding the poor classes and those who were socially marginalized and excluded. This value-based foundation provides the rationale and justification for social work practice. It also provides the mandate for social workers to work toward a more humane and equitable social order. The most common expression of this position is the promotion of human rights and social justice.
Social constructionists, although taking values as an unavoidable part of any practice, generally have a less definitive position regarding a specific, explicit value stance. That is, although social constructionists would favor the explication of value positions inherent in various practices, they are more circumspect regarding specific values. This seems to be a result of social construction's concern about elevating any particular position to Truth. Social constructionists walk a fine line here since values are inevitable. In this case, the issue is how explicitly one's value position is articulated and whether that position is treated as a social construction. Finally, while social work and social construction prioritize the promotion of a more humane and just social order, social construction is less explicit, thereby leaving room for multiple perspectives on what these concepts might mean.
Adopting a Critical Stance
Social work encourages criticality primarily from its value and political positions. Its criticality does not often extend to epistemological issues. For instance, it is more common to find publications that critique social policies for their consequences for marginalized groups, than to question the epistemological bases for various beliefs. This does not negate the importance of social work's critical stance; however, it does limit its ability to respond to issues in innovative and potentially transformative ways (Witkin, 2017).
In contrast, social construction's criticality is primarily epistemological and less overtly value-based and political. For social constructionists, following Foucault, questioning what is assumed or taken-for-granted has the potential to reveal operative discourses and how they generate what is taken to be real or mask power relations, making it difficult to generate alternatives. Social construction's problematizing stance can make visible what is assumed and seemingly natural thereby making it available for examination.
The Meaning of ‘Social’ and its Expression in Practice
Although the social figures prominently in both social work and social construction, its meaning and expression are somewhat different. The origins of the social in social work stem from volunteer efforts in the late 19th century to address poverty in the context of the Industrial Revolution (Stuart, 2019). This social environment remains central for social work. Its meaning has expanded over the past 50 years to include environments produced by oppressive ideologies such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. Social environment also reflects practices such as community organizing and social development.
The social in social construction reflects more of a philosophical position, one that takes relationships rather than individuals to be primary. Within social construction, the concept of persons, minds, and knowledge are generated by social processes (Gergen, 2015). ‘For example, for social constructionists, persons are social not only because they are socially interactive, but because they are socially constituted’ (Witkin, 2012, p. 32). Whereas in social work the individual (within a social context) is often taken to be the unit of analysis, for social constructionists the relationship is primary. Also, social construction uses ‘social’ to index how beliefs and perspectives are expressions of factors such as historical contingencies and community norms and practices.
Science and Research
Differences between social work and social construction are most pronounced in their respective positions on research. For social work, conventional research (e.g., experiments, surveys, statistical analyses) is seen as most authoritative. Critiques of such research are largely internal, focused on methodology, methods, and analysis as opposed to the assumptions or claims of the research itself. Social work's historical legacy has shaped its relatively conservative position concerning research, for instance, regarding research findings as establishing truth or in the case of practice, effectiveness.
In contrast to the above, social construction takes issue with the authoritative claims of conventional research and encourages equal status for alternative forms of inquiry. Additionally, social constructionists are more likely to focus on how what we take as truth functions in terms of its implications for social life. Research generated truths receive their authority through social processes rather than their veridicality about reality (McNamee and Hosking, 2012).
Social Constructionist Influences on Social Work
Although social construction remains somewhat marginal within social work, it has had some influence on important social work issues and practices. In this section we provide some examples of how a social constructionist orientation has been used to reconceptualize social work issues and how it has influenced practice. Although practice is most often used synonymously with micro-level practices (e.g., clinical work), it is important to note that social work practice also occurs at mezzo (e.g., organizations) and macro levels (e.g., policy). These are rarely independent. Thus, when we discuss social constructionist contributions to social work positions on evidence-based practice and cultural competence, two current and influential approaches to practice, these changes have implications for practices at all levels.
Evidence-based Practice
The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement spans multiple professions, such as medicine, psychology, and social work. It has also spawned ‘cottage industries’, most notably organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration that summarize the available evidence on different practices and provide recommendations to practitioners regarding the degree to which a practice is evidence-based.
Within social work, EBP has gained wide acceptance both in the academy and in practice. In academic circles the argument for EBP centers around the superiority of research-based knowledge and the ethical obligation