Social Constructionism. Theories of identity described thus far have arisen from the psychological disciplines and have assumed that there is a generally accepted view of nursing from which the individual shapes their own sense of identity (Clouder 2001). Social constructionist theories, however, have their ontological foundation in the notion of a subjective and contingent reality; of which implicit assumptions and ‘taken for granted’ views of a profession are the product of ideology and power (Benwell and Xxxxxx 2006, Xxxxxxxxxx 2010). Social constructionists view identity as an element of a subjective reality that is held in a dialectical relationship with society (Xxxx 2015). Therefore, identity is formed through (and by) social processes, and once this identity has been crystallised it can be maintained and modified through social relations (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1967). As with social identity theory, the individual and society are intertwined, but the key difference between these two theoretical approaches is in the nature of the relationship between society and the individual. The Social constructionist view is that identity is a social phenomenon and is unintelligible unless it is located within a more generalised interpretation of social reality (Xxxxxxx 2012, Xxxx 2015, Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1967); and this interpretation is both subjective and contingent. The social constructionist view is that the professional person is an analogue of practices that perform ideological work in the service of society (Xxxxxxx 2012). As a result, the structure of the professional socialisation process is externally defined by others, and related to tacit social practices that shape the emerging professional identity (Clouder 2001). Given the discussion about nursing’s evolving epistemology as an analogue of its social function (Section 2.1), Social Constructionism offers a compelling approach to the exploration of professional identity development; it allows the analyst to consider macrosocial influences that come to bear on the nursing profession, and on the students making the transition from lay person to professional.
Social Constructionism. The social constructionist view of professional identity formation suggest that the values and behaviours of the nursing profession are defined by broader social influences. There are a broad range of perspectives on how Social Constructionist research seeks insight into the social world and how it shapes the behaviours of those within it (Xxxxxx 1997). The studies using this theoretical perspective (Xxxxxxx et al. 2017, Xxxxxxxxxxxx 2011, Xxxxx et al. 2017) all take the position that the terms of reference of professional identity are defined from outside of the profession. They contend that the students entering the profession have low levels of individual agency in how they will develop their professional identity. Xxxxx et al (2017) described how professional identity can be reinforced by developing a deeper knowledge of nursing’s past. The history of nursing influences the way in which the public view nurses, and Xxxxx et al argue that students can be shaped by engaging with this knowledge of nursing’s past. They conclude that the role of the educator is to act as a facilitator in the shaping of student nurse behaviour and to help students to develop a strong professional identity. This implies that the origin of this normative template of the ‘good nurse’ is a product of the education process rather than from wider social influence; which is somewhat contrary to the theoretical stance of social constructionism. Nurse educators are therefore positioned as the point of origin of nursing’s professional identity, rather than as intermediaries in the construction of professional identity. Patient’s narratives have been implicated in the development of student’s professional identity. In one study, student’s reflected on stories that were posted onto a website by patients following an episode of nursing care (Xxxxxxxxxxxx 2011). The author suggested that, by viewing the nursing profession from a user’s (or outsider’s) perspective, that students could gain a sense of how the profession is perceived, and the expectations that patients had about nursing. This suggests a primacy of establishing a sense of professional identity from a broad social origin, and not from within the profession. However, the purposive selection of patient narratives for this process was made by nurse educators. This suggests an assumption that there is a consensus between the nurse educators and the public view on the nature of professional nursing. Nurse educators exposed students ...
Social Constructionism. The literature presents different ideas on what social constructionism is. Some call it a movement, others a position, a theory, a theoretical orientation, an approach. In general, psychologists remain unsure of its position. The review on different literature visualises that the social constructionist positions are grounded on different targets and movements. The publication of Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx’x study in 1966 describes social construction as a label that symbolises a sequence of activities. These have been influenced, changed, and developed by other movements such as philosophy, psychology, social studies of science, ethnomethodology, feminism, post structuralism, etc. (see Xxxx, 1995). Conversational practices XxXxxxx (2004) presents social construction within a variety of social and institutional contexts including psychotherapy, organisations, etc. The author’s work focuses on appreciative dialogic transformation. According to XxXxxxx (2006) social construction is a way to engage with and make sense of the world that includes others into dialogue. Social constructionists aim to be open to conversations and invite themselves in discourses. By doing so, they aim to be open to different views on practice and construct meaning together in a relationship established through conversation, cooperation and coordinated activities (XxXxxxx, 2009 and Xxxxxxx and XxXxxxx, 2006). Xxxxx (1987), another social construction theorist, explains social construction as a product that is created in the coordination of linguistic activities among people. The author argues that realities and relations are constructed by language and conversation. XxXxxxx (2004) notes in regard that when people are open to the relational coherence, the reality around is or should not be one way. Similar to Xxxxx’s (1987) argumentation, Xxxxxxx and XxXxxxx (2006) argue that the behaviour of interactions between people is constructed by language and in conversations. Realities, which are socially constructed by relational practices, are hence products of dialogues. The focus on dialogue and conversation can embrace cooperation rather than rivalry. According to Xxxxx (1987) an on-going conversation can create multiple possibilities and eliminate conflicts in relationships. Cooperation is an integral aspect in the social construction literature. In addition, XxXxxxx (2004) argues that people make use of cooperation in order to construct reality and only more individuals can control cooperatio...
Social Constructionism. For Social Constructionists, as first described by (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 1966) reality is socially constructed within the minds of groups of individuals (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 1998; Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2005; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2014; Xxxx, 2015) and as such, reality is subjective rather than objective (Xxxxxx, 2018). This means that there are possibly as many interpretations of reality as there are groups of people (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2014; Xxxx, 2015), with each person’s reality being actively constructed and associated around known knowledge (Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2000; Xxxxxx and Xxx, 2015), but also through shared language (Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxx et al., 2015; Xxxx and Xxxx, 2017). Due to this subjective internal reality which aids individuals in understanding their own experiences (Xxxxxx and Asl, 2015) it means that concepts such as truth and accuracy are rejected when discussing knowledge (Galbin, 2014; Xxxx, 2015). For example, if all reality is subjective and varies upon the individual viewpoint, there will be multiple perspectives of the same thing (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2014). Additionally, if all individual realities are given the same weight and none are more authentic than others (Fopp, 2008) then how can there be truth and accuracy within knowledge, as one would prescribe from an ‘Objective’ reality? Moreover, this view of knowledge and the subsequent use of language is also situated historically, temporally, geographically, and contextually (Xxxxxx. 1973 as cited in Xxxx, 2015; Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxx, 2015; Xxxxxx, 2018) which means that as time progresses and society changes, so will individuals’ realities, and as such social facts are not permanent (Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2000; Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2005). Overall, it can be summarised that Social Constructionists believe in a subjective ontology and a relativist epistemology. This is with the understanding that reality is socially constructed within groups of individuals, and that knowledge is the outcome of individuals' active interpretation of the world which results in multiple perspectives where each is presenting a different ‘truth’. Furthermore, it is with the understanding that our views of reality and understanding around knowledge will change with time, location, and the context in which it was created.
