1. Interactive research in a constructionist perspective
Dian Marie Hosking
geocities.com/dian_marie_hosking

2. science science = one way of knowing narratives in/of science
what is “normal” (science) or ‘orthodox’, abnormal or heretical… changes
narratives in/of science
Naïve realism
Constructivism
Social Constructionism …
eg eastern/western, science & magic, secular & spiritual…
Physics: Copernicus(Heliocentric); what about flat earthers...!
Einstein – Newton…
‘Normal’ science - Kuhn - revolutions

3. Naive realism reality & relations sense data language
singular, universal, ‘object out there’ &
available to be known by separate subject
sense data
provide knowledge of the world (sense taking)
language
re-presents this knowledge (the world)
research interest
knowing ‘the world as it really is’
1 language = a tool for talking about relations between P & Context
2 Common western tfg of science:
mind & reality each have a separate existence
The scientist is the active, knowing Subject in a world of knowable Objects…
Breaking with earlier ‘participative” world view (eg as in alchemy)… Descartes legacy mind-body dualism

4. constructivism sense data are the basis for reality
‘perception’ …constructive sense making
knower combines what it is ‘in the head’ with what is ‘in the world’
reality
singular, universal, ‘object out there’ &
available to be known by separate subject
language: re-presents sense-making
research interest:
knowing ‘the world as it really is’
Wider context: science & scientific rationalism - central interest: what is real, is true - as transcendental facts about ‘the world’.
Mainstream sc interpretation stayed within the confines of its initial presuppositions/tfg’s & these set limits on possible interpretations e.g., tfg’s about whats real define whats ‘magic’
e.g., the senses can be ‘fooled’
Whose interest? – scientific interest…
other interests?

5. Continuing taken-for-granteds
reality
singular
language
representative function
separate ontologies
individual agent, ‘internal’ & ‘external’ worlds
interest:
one voice (Science) defines…
other interests?

6. relational constructionism
reality:
multiple
(re)constructed in inter-action
co-constructed
neither subjective nor objective but
relational ontology
language:
is action, is performative
a local-cultural practice or ‘form of life’
scientific interests:
what & how of reality construction processes
Assume multiple co-existing realities (& not 1) e.g.: rabbit/duck ‘what is this?… truth is no longer ‘the name of the game’ & questions change
Shift from language as representation to actions THEN our world is no longer thought of as a world of separate things but of relationships we co-author (participative world view)
No longer reproducing Plato’s dualistic distinction between ontology & epistemology…but a dialectic

7. research as a reality construction process
the Received View of Science (RVS)
constructs separate ontologies -
relations between knower & known i.e.,
Subject-Object relations
this is just one way of constructing relations
self & other & relationship
can be viewed as ongoing (re)constructions
in S-O relations or..?
What/content focus
being realism
received view of science (RVS) & so
scientist apart from Other in subject-object (S-O) relation

8. Focusing on construction processes
de- centers persons & relations between persons
centers processes of relating texts:
words, pictures, actions, symbols...
to other words, pictures, actions, symbols...
constructions/relational realities are:
multiple &
partial/local
relating = person & world making
‘becoming realism’
cave paintings
magritte’s pipe

9. Interactive inquiry All inquiry is inter-action
a relational constructionist thought style offers ways of self & world making through inter-actions that:
are open to multiple local realities
are provocative (of possibilities)
create ‘power to’ go on in different but equal relations
are reflexive
eg mono-cultural dominance? …eg what kinds of stories do we tell about leadership?
Could there be many narratives of leadership? How would we generate them?
Inquiry:
in the Story of Science - ‘finds out’ about reality ‘out there’…
but now we see it as constructing a relatively closed narrative about ‘what really is the case’ –
How to make inquiry open, reflexive, & useful (in relation to multiple realities of what is & should be)
Open to multiple realities,(link to power)
provocative of change (not as a replacement of existing approaches but as another legitimate possibility)

10. Reflexivity as an epistemological issue
in RVS: to minimise bias in knowledge claims
revision: making bias visible
post modern:
S cannot speak for O
telling ourselves a story about ourselves (Chia)
opening up to multiple constructions &
multiple self-other relations that are in ongoing re-construction
Reflexivity as an epistemological issue
Individual act

11. Reflexivity & relational constructionism
an aspect of ‘becoming’, of ontology & so:
a feature of the processes of relating
part of ongoing research process
concerns how are we ‘going on’ together
the local realities are we constructing
‘…a case for the end of knowing & the rediscovery of development’ (Newman & Holtzman)
Becoming realism (emergent, processual, implicate)

12. Inquiry as development
methodology as ‘tool & result’
how we do things – the ‘tool’, the becoming process - matters because we are (re)producing particular forms of life
no theory of truth
no theory of knowledge distinct from opinion
Inquiry is now radically reconstituted
Ie not about building knowledge about a pre-existing reality

13. Inquiry as inter-action
inquiry may be constructed as ‘development’
constructing ‘solidarities’ (Rorty) & not objectivity
local rationalities as praxis, norms, justifications…, having
‘only an ethical base, not an epistemological or metaphysical one’ (Rorty, p24)
Cf Bauman ‘ being with the other rather than for the other

14. Constructing ‘power to’
open and appreciative of multiplicity
performative
not ‘just talk’
focuses on how we participate including
multiloging
who gets to participate and how?
how is multiplicity appreciated?
Not ‘power over’ i.e., appreciative & not right/wrong - Multiplicity & not dominance (cf eg Sheila)
All action is viewed as metaphorical
Talk- cf dialogical approaches (eg Chris & Murray)
How? eg narrative & re-storying, dialogical approaches (eg John Goedee, interlogics)