Received: from acs4.bu.edu (ACS4.BU.EDU [128.197.154.40]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id NAA15603 for ; Mon, 26 May 1997 13:42:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from conroyt@localhost) by acs4.bu.edu (8.8.4/) id PAA51929; Mon, 26 May 1997 15:40:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:40:45 -0400 (EDT) From: thomas conroy Subject: Re: Need Reference (s) To: Dale Albers cc: Sociology Graduate Students -- International In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Have a look at a book called CONSTRUCTING THE SOCIAL, 1994, Sage, edited by T. Sarbin and J. Kitsuse. In the introductory chapter, the editors provide an overview of constructionism's history in sociology and psychology. My own gloss on the constructionism - constructivism distinction is that, even though they are often used interchangably, the former tends to come out of sociological discussions (e.g., Berger and Luckmann, Spector and Kitsuse's CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL PROBLEMS, etc.), whereas the latter term tends to be associated more with psychology and more purely cognitivist accounts. Of course, I'm sure that there are lots of exceptions, since the term "construction," like "social structure," has can mean just about anything its user wants it to mean (not that I necessarily approve of this slide toward conceptual anarchy). Tom Conroy Boston University On Mon, 26 May 1997, Dale Albers wrote: > > Good Morning. > > I am trying to get my hands on an article(s) or book that puts forth a > pretty clear exposition on social constructionism and socal > constructivism. My sense is that some people use them as though they are > the same; I doubt this is so. Something that does point to any > similarieites as well as differences that would be suitable for upper > level undergraduates or beginning graduate students would be most appreciaed. > > With thanks. > > Dale Albers >