Relational and Social Constructionist Consortium of Ecuador (IRYSE)
Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D. y Maritza Crespo Balderrama, M.A.
“What kind of relational realities do you want to participate in? Do you want to highlight and elevate the practices, values, and interests of positive science, for example, or do you prefer to give more space to other (non-scientific) communities and their ways of doing things? What do the local communities involved in the research process want?”.
Sheila McNamee (2012, p. 64)
We base ourselves for this series, on this thesis, from which we extract -adapting them- the proposals and invitations to a different relational position for the construction of the process of transformative therapeutic dialogue.
How are social constructionism and collaborative and dialogic practices useful for the relational co-construction of space for therapeutic training and supervision? Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the United States.
The following scheme compares theoretical research of a modernist scientific nature with postmodern social-constructionist research.
| MODERNIST SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH | POSTMODERN SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST RESEARCH |
| Hypothesis Formulation | Questions from curiosity and respect Alternatives |
| Data | Continuous process |
| Results | Processes |
| Control | Minimum structures and deployment |
| Positioning the researcher as an expert A priori | Positioning of the locally located researcher |
| External and objective researcher | Participating co-investigators |
| Design | Dialogue and non-hierarchical structures |
| Method | Forms of practice/performance in context |
| Certainty Truth Essence | Uncertainty Odds Diversity |
| Only the discourse of the researcher | Multiple voices of co-investigators |
| Guidance in determining what is good and right | Orientation to value difference, multiplicity, and diversity |
| Diagnosis | Curiosity |
| Documentation or diagnosis of reality | Construction of reality |
| Reliability | Generativity |
| Validity | Usefulness for local communities |
| Protocols Measuring instruments | Emergence and reflexivity Relational dialogue |
| Focused on science and the scientific | Focused on continuous processes |
| Objective neutrality | Complexity |
| Universality and generalization | Social, cultural, and historical contextualization |
| Must be universal | Relational ethics |
Table based on: McNamee, S. and Hosking, D.M. (2012). Research and Social Change: A Relational Constructionist Approach. New York: Routledge. (p.85)
As can be seen from the preceding table, the epistemological choice of the place from which the research is developed has consequences for the whole process and the relationships involved in what you want to investigate. The modernist vision (with its qualities and resources) means a perspective -legitimate- and socio-constructionism means another perspective -legitimate-, the latter with a clear emphasis on the relational, dialogic, and social.
It is an invitation for research to always be oriented towards the future, even when the past is investigated, it is a trainer of the future.
Estas realidades organizan los mundos sociales y contribuyen a hacerlos funcionar; de hecho, son organizadas social y culturalmente. Son las descripciones, relatos, narraciones y cuentos los que construyen realidad. According to Kenneth Gergen (2016):
With everything we say and do we manifest relationship conditions. With everything we think, remember, create, and feel – and that is important to us – we participate in a relationship. The word “I” does not indicate an origin of action but a relational achievement. (p. 218)
The investigative process is about deconstructing the official versions and assumptions about the truth: the scientific, the technical, and the rational. We orient ourselves -as co-researchers- towards the creation of spaces of possibilities promoting the connection with the senses of life. Choosing words that allow us to work with many possible worlds.
In collaborative dialogues, spaces are co-built for the expression of the multiple participating voices, there is confidence in their ability to build joint meanings and to develop novel practices that generate a cultural transformation.
The focus and emphasis are placed on the contextual, social, and historical aspects, as well as their cultural significance.
Kenneth Gergen, quoted by Celiane Camargo-Borges, (online-2017) on the idea that it is an invitation for research to always be oriented towards the future, even when investigating the past, it is a trainer of the future. When choosing to use methodologies and methods, they need to be context-related and with the co-investigators.
What matters, methodologically is to focus attention on the “ways of saying things”, in which operators, technicians, and professional teams often do not distinguish social and cultural constructions that, being hierarchical, block dialogues; it is important because co-researchers will question themselves assertively, reflecting on social constructions and engaging responsibly to promote other views and perspectives, to generate different reflections. It is also important to consciously engage in producing practical, creative, and innovative experiences and in expanding relational possibilities in those contexts.
Relational research seeks new ways of being relationally in the world and creating different possibilities; the methodological criterion that has guided the process is to know if it was useful to see the difference and, if so, in what its usefulness was; why would it be useful to maintain the differences between these new ways of doing research?
For research with operators and technical teams, a method is chosen that signifies being relationally responsible while being in sync with the relationship itself. The intention is not to tell people what they should think or do, much less to solve their conflicts, but to contribute to creating a space where they discover the pleasure of reflecting on their forms and ways of participation and the movements of transformation of this relational process; approaching relationships with openness, curiosity, respect, and authenticity to understand possible connections.
A method that allows you to open the conversation to build together
The method means the search for the local history built with the people who participate in those relationships, from asking about the stories that were not talked about, that were marginal and alternative, and looking for their potential to build desirable futures.
A method that questioned -wondering- how to open in relations, discourses of possibilities that generate differences and alternatives, instead of oppressive discourses. Permanently opening the possibility of discursive relationships in which participants make their voices heard, saying what happens to them and what they would need, promoting and inviting them to recognize, share and mobilize relational resources for action.
A method that allowed to open the conversation to build together, what responds to their specific training and supervision needs in the collaborative learning space; recognizing their local knowledge, and their cultural knowledge, as well as deploying the resources available, being relationally reflective, and, at the same time, being self-reflective, which means, questioning our certainties inviting us to look differently at what is being done together.
Constructionism opts for pluralism: of voices, methods, and values (…) with the accent on the constructionist perspective, to broaden the understanding of the different social realities and help to produce changes within the communities that form them. (Gergen and Gergen, 2011, p. 102).
The research method, as a constructionist practice, seeks that people can understand each other and build their well-being communally, through dialogues that gather questions on the lifestyles we want.
Therefore, it is an investigation oriented to the understanding of what will be useful for this specific community, so that it can be put into practice -what they are creating in interrelationships of trust with a sense of belonging- from an authentic curiosity and a genuine human interest.
In the context of the field in which this research has been worked, the interests that have been shared, and the proposed theme, these words of Kenneth and Mary Gergen (2011, p. 100) have become their own: “Concretely, what they hope is that their research can help free people from oppressive political and economic conditions, and to generate new opportunities for people.”
As this is relational research, it emphasizes the dialogic, because it focuses on the processes of interaction that means coordination with others, of the actions we are going to carry out, developing possibilities of construction for new ways of being in the world. Research guided by these positions explained by Sheila McNamee (2013, p. 106):
Research has to be conceived as a constructive process that suggests that we construct and deconstruct descriptions of social life while remaining actively engaged in the research process (…) the political nature of research is highlighted, accentuating the need to listen to the multiplicity of voices. Social constructionism is proposed as a perspective and a critical movement, questioning the idea of an “essence” of the world that can supposedly be achieved through observation and empirical methods. Modernist perspectives seek to find “the truth,” while constructionists co-create coordinations for practical social action. Recognizing and valuing what exists, you choose to collaborate in the decision to understand it and understand what its meaning is.
From the academic perspective, the contribution of this research is, precisely, its approach.
Starting from recognizing that you do not want to carry out a traditional investigation because doing so would mean repeating what the operators and technicians do; people who are comfortably accustomed to maintaining in their professional practice: hierarchy, imposition, rigidity, lack of listening, knowing a priori what others need or should be, their expert position, dogmatism. Instead, we seek to invite research in a horizontal, deeply participatory, and democratic way, to put aside the preconceptions (or prejudices) involved in assuming, verifying, or imposing techniques and tools that, as often happens in Ecuadorian contexts, are disconnected or do not relate to what happens in local communities.
From the training perspective, the process that we propose with the operators and technicians seeks to be based on the needs of the participants, in the valuation of the knowledge they have from their work experience and also in their training. It is not based as is the common practice in training processes for professionals working in development or services for the most vulnerable families, from organizational needs, which include fulfilling a number of sessions or some participants, a curriculum, or a type of specific content.
As indicated by the way of doing social constructionist research, what begins as an invitation to engage in dialogue and learn from each participant, is developed, in the time that the research lasts, in processes of individual and joint reflection, which generates transformations both in the lives of the co-researchers and in their professional practices.
Transformations mean looking for new meanings for what they previously did as a technical routine and assuming a position of curiosity and humility to learn with colleagues, families, and communities with which they work.
Something important can be built, little by little; going from seeing these meetings as spaces to compete, demonstrate their expertise or confirm traditional academic knowledge, to perceiving them as a place in which to share successful experiences, mobilize strengths and discover new possibilities.
Therefore, the construction of knowledge is part of this collaborative learning, as well as the articulation of a constructionist practice as a result of these reflective dialogues, the new expectations and needs that these meetings made possible, and the creativity that is put into play.
An innovative contribution in the Ecuadorian context that this process has had is that, following the social-constructionist premise, psychological and social work knowledge and practices arising from modernist paradigms are not invalidated or disqualified, but their qualities and potentialities are rescued in open reflective conversations; the connections and similarities they could have with constructionist perspectives while offering the latter as another possibility to integrate and enrich the social and professional practices of the participants.
Promote an authentic and genuine ethical position in relationships.
According to Dora Fried Schnitman (1998): “This perspective allows us to ask about the concepts of “truth”, “objectivity”, “reality”. It underlines an ethical position founded and rooted in responsibility for our constructions of the world and the actions that accompany them. ” (p, 27).
The meetings for this research make it possible to question the conceptions established by the prevailing ideology, from the postmodernist position, opening critical conversations about the modernist dogmas of faith that, in addition to social control, seek to impose conformism, submission, and social servility. The possibility that is generated to understand our responsibilities in the constructions of social worlds and how consistent we are in our practices founds and promotes an authentic and genuine ethical position in relationships.
The principles and values that guide people are related to actions, as long as they respond to the cultural and social needs of those who participate in a specific conversational context because they are invitations to form new types of relationships.
Social constructionism fulfills, from the outset, a great liberating function. It strips of its rhetorical power all those who proclaim a truth, all groups that proclaim universal wisdom and ethics, useful to all. All voices make their useful contribution to the important dialogues about our future. (Gergen, 2011, p.50).
At each meeting, operators and technicians are encouraged to move, circulate and tell each other the different perspectives so that they can begin to participate in a dialogue starting from complexity, by promoting that the conversations are coordinated to appreciate the differences.
Each culture carries out social coordination to decide what is considered reality; we construct a meaning that we think is congruent with our social values, culture, traditions, and forms of language. Every community tends to believe that these social constructs are the only possible way to live.
We recognize, therefore, that all knowledge is local, and provisional and responds to specific cultural and historical conditions, therefore, can be questioned and criticized reflexively. From these constructionist perspectives, the criteria to understand them has to do with their usefulness –that is, who this knowledge serves– and, also, with their generativity, how will this knowledge contribute to the community, so that it continues to co-construct possibilities and future sets? -. We come from many different local experiences that have been socially constructed and we will put them to interact to develop new possibilities of meaning and discover other ways of being in this world.
Constructionism invites us to adopt an attitude of infinite curiosity, to remain constantly open to what each tradition brings of wealth and unthinkable combinations. The realities depend on the agreements we reach today, and enormous possibilities open up before us. We are not destined to repeat the past; innovation through collaboration opens up new perspectives. (Gergen. 2011, p.50).
It is with our relational commitment that we contribute to building a society that means well-being, equity, social justice, and respect for the dignity of people based on democratization and participation of all voices present in all dialogues, which enhance and expand the possibilities of creating new realities and new practices, for a transformation of Ecuadorian society.
The research seeks to open possibilities for a conversational relationship in which participants dialogue and reflect on what happens to them and need from the approach of reflective questions, about what to do to enable the space of training and supervision to be a space different from the traditional; a conversational space where the important issues of human relations are the main ones, for example, relational ethics as an expression of human and social understanding, the political culture existing in our work and family contexts in terms of hierarchies, power, and dominant voices.
SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, H. (1999). Conversation, language and possibilities. A postmodern approach to therapy. Buenos Aires, Argentina Editorial Amorrortu.
Fried Schnitman, D. (1998). New paradigms, culture and subjectivity. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K (1996). Realities and relationships. Approaches to social construction. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K. (26 March 2009). Interview at the School of Psychology of the Adolfo Ibáñez University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUirLCs9LIw
Gergen, J. (2011). Build reality. The future of psychotherapy. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K. & Gergen, M. (2011). Reflections on social construction. Barcelona Spain:Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K (2014). From Mirroring to World-Making: Research as Future Forming, Recuperado de: https://taoslearning.ning.com/groups2/global-relational-research-network/virtual-symposium-2018
Gergen, K (2016). The Relational Self. Beyond the Self and the Community. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclée de Brouwer, S.A.
IRYSE (2018) Blog of the Relational and Socioconstructionist Institute of Ecuador (IRYSE): https://iryse.org/
McNamee, S. (2012). Conversation at the University of Manizales, Colombia. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-HG1cvd9Rg
McNamee, S. and Hosking, D.M. (2012). Research and Social Change: A Relational Constructionist Approach. New York: Routledge.
McNamee, S. (2013). The social poetry of research committed to relationship. Research as conversation. In Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue: the social poetry of therapeutic conversation (pp. 102-109). Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication.
Tapia, D. (2007). Postmodern psychotherapies in the systemic field. Theoretical, practical and clinical materials from social constructionism. Quito, Ecuador: Editorial. Cif
Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the USA.
English translation of Bruno Tapia Naranjo.
