Social work theory · Volume G: Knowledge, Ethics & Professional Practice

Social constructionism and discourse

Social constructionism is a perspective holding that much of what people treat as natural or self-evident reality is produced through social processes, especially language and shared practices.

1. What it is

Social constructionism is a perspective holding that much of what people treat as natural or self-evident reality is produced through social processes, especially language and shared practices. Categories such as “childhood”, “mental illness”, “disability” or “the deserving poor” are made, sustained and changed through interaction, institutions and history (Burr, 2015). Social constructionism is an epistemological and sociological perspective more than a substantive theory of behaviour. It asks how knowledge, identities and social problems come to take the form they do. For social work it raises a reflexive question: how does the profession itself help produce the categories it uses to describe clients (Parton & O’Byrne, 2000)? The perspective also appears in E7, where its use in strengths and narrative work is discussed.

Core assumptions. Burr (2015) identifies four shared assumptions. Constructionists take a critical stance towards taken-for-granted knowledge. They regard ways of understanding as historically and culturally specific. They hold that knowledge is sustained by social processes, especially language. They argue that knowledge and social action go together, since each construction makes some forms of action seem natural and others unthinkable. Gergen (1985) described constructionism in psychology as a movement that treats knowledge as a product of communal interchange.

Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. In The Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckmann (1966) built on Schutz’s phenomenology (see Interpretive and meaning-making traditions) to explain how everyday reality becomes objective. Their account has three moments. In externalisation, people produce patterns of activity. Through objectivation, these patterns harden into institutions that appear to exist independently. Through internalisation, new generations learn these institutions as reality. Habits become roles, and roles become institutions legitimated by shared explanations.

Social problems as constructions. Spector and Kitsuse (1977) applied constructionism to social problems. They argued that conditions become social problems through claims-making, the activities of groups who define a condition as harmful and demand action. The history of child abuse as a recognised social problem is a frequently cited example.

Labelling and identity. Constructionist analysis shows how identities are shaped by the categories applied to people. Hacking (1999) described a “looping effect”: once people are classified, for example as having a particular disorder, they may change their behaviour and self-understanding in response, which in turn alters the category. Labelling theory, discussed in D5, makes a related argument about deviance.

Discourse and discourse analysis. A discourse is a set of meanings, statements, images and practices that together produce a particular version of events or people (Burr, 2015). Discourse analysis examines how talk and text construct reality. Potter and Wetherell (1987) studied the interpretive repertoires people use to justify and account for themselves in conversation. Critical discourse analysis connects texts with wider relations of power and social change (Fairclough, 1992). Social work studies have used these methods to show how case files, assessments and meetings construct “clienthood” (Hall et al., 2003).

Michel Foucault. Foucault examined how knowledge and power are linked. In his view, discourses are practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak (Foucault, 1969/1972). Professional knowledges in medicine, psychiatry and criminology produce categories of normal and abnormal people and techniques for observing and correcting them (Foucault, 1975/1977). Power operates through this knowledge, as “power/knowledge” (Foucault, 1980). Foucault’s theory of power and governmentality is discussed in D5.

Nigel Parton and constructive social work. Parton and O’Byrne (2000) developed constructive social work, which applies constructionist ideas to direct practice. They argue that social work is centrally concerned with talk, meaning and narrative. Practice involves helping people to construct new, more helpful accounts of their situations, drawing on narrative and solution-focused methods. Parton’s wider work also traced how child protection itself was constructed through inquiries and policy.

2. Historical development

Social constructionism grew from several sources: the phenomenological sociology of Schutz, symbolic interactionism, the sociology of knowledge and later French poststructuralism. It became a distinct perspective when Berger and Luckmann offered a general account of how social reality is produced. Its influence expanded through the “linguistic turn” of the 1980s, which placed language at the centre of social inquiry (Burr, 2015).

Social work took up constructionism in the 1990s, partly in response to managerialism and the dominance of risk-focused, procedural practice (Healy, 2014). Constructionist ideas supported narrative and solution-focused approaches and encouraged critical questioning of professional categories. Australian writers, including Healy (2014) and Fook (2016), connected constructionism and postmodernism with critical social work.

3. Practical guidance

Constructionist ideas help workers question categories and open up new possibilities.

• Treat categories as working tools. Diagnoses, risk ratings and eligibility categories are useful but socially produced. Consider what each label highlights and what it hides (Burr, 2015).
• Read records critically. Notice how case notes construct clients through word choice, such as “refused”, “resistant” or “chaotic”. Write records that describe behaviour and context accurately.
• Listen for competing discourses. A parent, school and child protection worker may each draw on different discourses of good parenting. Identifying these helps explain conflict.
• Support alternative accounts. Following Parton and O’Byrne (2000), help clients develop accounts that recognise their capacities and preferred futures.
• Examine professional power. Foucault’s work invites workers to ask how assessments and surveillance shape the people they assess (Foucault, 1975/1977).
• Recognise colonial constructions. Categories applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families have historically been shaped by colonial discourse, as the removal of children demonstrates. Workers should question inherited assumptions about family and care.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Social constructionism makes visible the processes through which categories and problems are produced. It encourages humility about professional knowledge and supports practice that values clients’ own accounts. Discourse analysis has given social work precise tools for studying its own language, records and decision-making (Hall et al., 2003).

Limitations. Critics argue that strong constructionism can slide into relativism, making it difficult to say that some accounts are more accurate or that harm is real (Hacking, 1999). Houston (2001) argued that critical realism offers a stronger basis for social work because it recognises real structures and mechanisms. Some critics also suggest that a focus on language can neglect bodies, material deprivation and the practical urgency of risk.

Overall importance. Social constructionism has changed how social work understands its knowledge and categories. It underpins narrative and solution-focused practice, critical reflection (G5) and anti-oppressive analysis. Its most useful lesson is that the categories used in practice have consequences, and that workers share responsibility for them.

5. References

• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.
• Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
• Fook, J. (2016). Social work: A critical approach to practice (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Tavistock. (Original work published 1969)
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon. (Original work published 1975)
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon.
• Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266
• Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
• Hall, C., Juhila, K., Parton, N., & Pösö, T. (Eds.). (2003). Constructing clienthood in social work and human services: Interaction, identities and practices. Jessica Kingsley.
• Healy, K. (2014). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: Critical realism and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 845–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/31.6.845
• Parton, N., & O’Byrne, P. (2000). Constructive social work: Towards a new practice. Macmillan.
• Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage.
• Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems. Cummings.