Читать книгу The Sage Handbook of Social Constructionist Practice - Группа авторов - Страница 21

Cultural traditions commonly resist change. And while this is not a critique of traditions themselves, it is often difficult for those within a tradition to reflect on its shortcomings. This is especially so when assumptions and values have been transformed into organizations, and the organizations are located in concrete structures, linked interdependently to other institutions, given a place in the economic process, and defended by law. Those sharing the tradition of positivist science occupy exactly this space. The tradition is linked to institutions of education, commerce, government, law, and more. As commonly put, positivist science is a central constituent of modernist culture. For many modernists, constructionist theory and practices are the harbingers of a relativistic chaos. Should we not anticipate that cultural modernism will soon enough snuff out the constructionist flames?

This is not the context for discussing the erosion of cultural modernism, but it is useful to focus on one matter of more local consequence. The relationship between positivist (foundationalist, realist) and constructionist communities has traditionally been contentious. Critique and counter-critique have been accompanied by mutual dismissal, ridicule, and demonizing. In these exchanges, constructionists have often succumbed to this tradition of mutual annihilation, though it is not congenial with constructionism itself. There is nothing about a constructionist orientation in general that would eliminate positivist theory or practice. At play is simply the reality of another community of meaning-making, one that offers logics, values, and practices of rich potential in confronting the future. Thus, rather than caving to the romance of vanquishing the enemy, far better to make clear the benefits of expanding potentials. Mixed methods researchers already partake of these benefits. Theirs is a message worth sharing across the divide.