Social Constructivism In Social Work Practice

What constitutes reality or how one operates within his or her environment? These two questions can be answered with many variations, yet one theory can provide a start. Social Constructivism, or the idea that “Social reality is created when clients, [or people,] in social interaction, develop a common understanding of their world. Clients [and people] are influenced by social pressures that are grounded in customs, as well as cultural and historical contexts” (Apgar, 2018, p. 48). Therefore, with this social work definition, clinicians can begin to see how Social Constructivism plays a role in understanding clients’ perspectives and what can be done to meet them where they are, which can help facilitate the growth process.

To begin with, Social Constructivism posits that reality is created through common understandings of what is and what is not “real.” Therefore, “…knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is subjective. It is the product of the context within which it was constructed. Humans do not experience the world in its natural state” (O’Brien, 2017, p.19). Hence, the world we come to understand and inhabit has been constructed by our predecessors. This allows some leeway in understanding the clients’ behaviors and/or perspectives as being embedded within them through the sociohistorical context of their development. An example of such would be an individual born in the early 20thcentury with a nationalist perspective, that is fearful of globalism and the rise of immigration; this viewpoint can be seen as socially constructed through the propaganda of the time, which labeled developing countries as inferior, or “savage.” This example shows how an individual’s belief system can be socially constructed by the context of his or her time.

Another factor important to Social Constructivism is learning and the behaviors that come from one’s understanding of his or her social-historical-cultural context. As in the previous example, the individual’s nationalist standpoint was learned through the historical context within which they were raised. This notion falls under Social Constructivism with Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory, which asserts that behaviors are learned through interactions with others or simply by viewing what others do in situations and then modeling that behavior. “Our universal biological foundation is shaped by our experiences…greatly influenced by the cultural worlds into which we are socialized…[which] influences how they perceive and understand themselves and their worlds” (Heine, 2016, pp. 161-162). Hence, Social Constructivism is an overarching theory that identifies social, historical, and cultural ideologies that are involved in creating the client’s or individual’s way of perceiving and interacting within his or her world.

With this understanding, social work practitioners need to understand their clients’ worldview and how this influences the way they operate in different contexts. An important Social Constructivist’s argument is present by Cushman (1991):

Humans cannot be studied outside of their lived context. Any attempt to do that and develop a set of universal laws of human nature is bound to fail. It is not possible to develop universal, trans-historical laws because humans are not separable from their culture and history: they are fundamentally and inextricably intertwined.

Cushman (1991) summarizes the Social Constructivist’s salient point, which is that an individual “cannot be studied outside of their lived context.” Therefore, the role of the social worker utilizing Social Constructivism needs to be in identifying and integrating all the complexities that constitute the client’s identity, world perspective, and ways of operating in his or her milieu. These complexities include factors of, but are not limited to; familial, social, historical, legal/governmental, and cultural—the notion of a biological, psychological, sociological, cultural, and historical influence on what constructs the individual and his or her reality.

Assessment and beginning intervention

Social Constructivism as a conceptual framework can be utilized in social work practice to guide assessment and intervention. In the assessment phase, clients would be asked to tell their stories and their perspectives of themselves. What is the fable that surrounds this client? Maybe the client will tell the story that she is a failure and cannot do anything right, that she is a bad mother who cannot take care of her kids, and that there is no one in the world to help her. Maybe there is a story of a teenager who constantly gets in trouble, who is hated by his peers, and who is convinced there is no hope for him in this life. What essentially is being assessed is the clients’ frame of reference (constructions), which is relevant to the issues that brought the client to the social worker. In this collaboration, the client is teaching the practitioner about his or her world and how this world is constructed. Carpenter (1996) writes:

A constructivist-based approach to developing ideas about the nature of problems stresses the need for the expert role of the practitioner to be redefined from the usual meaning. The practitioner's expertise is in assuming a learning stance with the client by approaching each case assuming he or she knows nothing about the client.

Carpenter also mentions that “diagnosis” in its usual medical sense is not supported by constructivist theory.

The Social Constructivism framework can be also helpful during the intervention phase. According to Furman, Jackson, Downey, and Shears (2003), the social worker's goal is to help clients understand the connection between their beliefs about self and the world around them, as well as the consequences of these beliefs. It is important to help clients deconstruct internalized belief systems that are maladaptive. This deconstruction process can be achieved through the demonstration that those beliefs are not entirely true. For example, if the client is a mother who believes she cannot do anything right, it would be helpful to show her that there are things she does right, and that would mean that the story she tells herself is simply not true, and it is nothing but a construct. Another part of the intervention is helping clients to reconstruct their sense of selves and their lives. After the mother was able to see that she is not as bad as she thought, she might be able to adopt a new belief system about herself. For example, reconstruction could be that she is a survivor who does her best every day to help her children, that she might make mistakes, but she can get up and keep going, and that her life might not be where she would like it to be now, but there is always hope that things will change because she is not giving up. In this approach clients, together with a practitioner, can give new meaning to their experiences.

Social work values and ethics

Social Constructivism supports social work values and ethics. Probably the most important ethical standard supported by the theory is Self-determination (NASW, 2017). Carpenter (1996) writes, 'Constructivism views self-determination, not only as a treatment mandate to be followed but also as a natural state of the person based on the individual's structure-determined, autopoietic nature.' As was mentioned earlier, the practitioner's role is in assuming a learning stance, and the client's reality is co-created without the practitioner's assumption of what this reality is supposed to be like. Another similar concept is Dignity and Worth of the Person (NASW, 2017), which implies that each individual ought to be treated with the utmost respect, no matter what the circumstances are. The way practitioners view clients is socially constructed as well as the clients' view of themselves. Practitioners should use this knowledge in their work and keep their constructs in check. Furthermore, the value of Importance of Human Relationships (NASW, 2017) is supported by Social Constructivism. A relationship is a vehicle for change, and the change can be positive or negative. Each client's set of beliefs is merely a variety of various social and personal messages, which come from other individuals especially from people who are important to the client; that means the client’s reality is constructed and reconstructed through his or her relationships, specifically through the relationship with the social worker.

Respect and Working with Diverse Populations

Social Constructivism plays a key role in cultural humility, a value emphasized in NASW's Standards and Indicators for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice (2015). Cultural humility involves the clinician's use of the 'self-reflection and lifelong learner model' (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998, p.). Clinicians must recognize that they have constructed their realities differently from their clients and be 'diligent in keeping their own family-of-origin... from interfering with the clinical work as much as possible' (Greene, Jensen, Jones, 1996, p.). According to Constructivism, therapists accept that there is 'no one truth but many possible explanations--multiple realities-- for the phenomena under discussion' (Greene, Jensen, Jones, 1996, p.). Therapists must continue to learn these realities to be able to interact with a broad range of clients.

Additionally, Tervalon and Murray-Garcia (1998) highlighted 'patient-focused interviewing and care' as a cornerstone of cultural humility. A Constructivist Approach to therapy 'de-emphasizes therapeutic hierarchical power and control and emphasizes therapy as collaborative and empowering' (Greene, Jensen, Jones, 1996, p.); the focus shifts away from the clinician's questions and instead to the client's narrative, which includes the effects of culture. The clinician accepts the client's reality, and through dialogue, the client can construct a new reality that resolves the problem or thought pattern creating the issue (Greene, Jensen, Jones, 1996). Therefore, patients are at the core of therapy in the Constructivist model, allowing for cultural humility on the part of the practitioner.

Adaptive & Maladaptive Life Development

Social Constructivism only partially explains the development of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. Previous thought attributed psychopathology to the reality created by the client. Ronen (1996), believed that the development of PTSD from trauma was due to 'the way an individual child attributes meaning to the event, processes it, and reconstructs it.' However, modern research has moved beyond a psychosocial explanation for behavior. Cicchetti (2002) includes biological factors when discussing the origin of psychopathology; Cachette describes the three phases of brain development as 'gene-driven, experience-expectant, and experience-dependent (p). For instance, a child with gene-driven disordered brain development in comparison to a child without the predisposition will process the same events differently. The experience-expectant stage refers to temporally-dependant pruning of synapses that may affect later development (Cicchetti, 2002). Experience-dependant development regards the newly formed neural connections due to one's experiences (Cicchetti, 2002). New neural connections can form due to psychological treatment, pharmaceutical treatment, interventions, and more (Cicchetti, 2002). Though social constructivism would be correct in the ability of therapy to help maladaptive behaviors, the biological component is necessary to fully understand the mechanism behind the development of behavior.

Trauma, Risk, & Protective Factors

Social Constructivism highlights the clinician’s initial interaction and understanding of the client’s decision-making process. The aftermath of an individual’s behavior creates a reality filled with trauma, risk, and protective factors. Moreover, societal norms and standards allow biases and privileges to reduce the experiences of the base of society, but Social Constructivism does not. Social Constructivism as a social welfare practice and theory expands the limitations of the cultural ideology of “right and wrong”. Brownlee and Carpenter asserted “Based on its epistemology, which blurs subject-object distinctions and questions notions of objectivity and reality, constructivism shifts us to a “many worlds” frame of reference and away from normative views of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, functional and dysfunctional” (pg.19). Social constructivism exercises empathy for individuals who experience trauma, risk, and protective factors when other theories offer covert compassion or criminalize the behavior of the individuals.

Social Constructivism explores the individual’s trauma, risk, and protective factors and how the three extremes impact the subject’s decision-making process no matter the behavior. For example, socially constructed circumstances and conditions manufactured by perverse public policies establish socio-economical communities that suffer from unemployment and undiagnosed mental health crises. Brownlee and Carpenter argued, “The central importance of constructivist epistemology for practice is that people behave and lead their lives based on what they believe to be true and real, and this is where the practitioner must initially “meet” his or her clients if effective help is to be given” (pg.15). Society proceeds and rationalizes marginalize people as criminals and not individuals in need of mental health resources. The reality is people are faced with poverty-stricken neighborhoods and labeled dysfunctional even though the perverse policies influence mental health stereotypes and stigmas. Social Constructivism takes into account the individual's experience with trauma, risk, and protective factors without being punitive.