Radical Constructivism Has an Answer – But This Answer Is not an Easy One
Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):22-30 (2010)
| Abstract | Context: In spite of its advantages and its ability to make valid responses to objections, radical constructivism is not mainstream. Problem: Extolling the virtues of radical constructivism and responding logically to the objections does not work. We know this from the evidence of many attempts. Our theoretical stance, radical constructivism, also suggests this approach is not likely to have much influence on realists. We cannot transmit understanding in the signals with which we attempt to communicate. How can we in radical constructivism enable those outside of RC to understand our explanation of human knowing? Method: Examine our understanding of radical constructivism itself, because it is an explanation of how, why and under what circumstances people change their understandings of their experiential worlds. Results: We must find ways to direct the attention of others to situations that they cannot explain with their existing understanding of the world. Then we must create conditions conducive to their revising and testing new understandings for fit with the evidence of their experience. Implications: Since radical constructivism is a theory of human knowing, it tells us how humans develop knowledge, hence it is an answer to the questions central to this special issue. This answer is not one to be used to win in debates with realists. Radical constructivism gives us an answer to the problem of engaging realists in understanding our position, but strategies consistent with radical constructivism are not easily carried out. Developing and executing such strategies is the work at hand | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesA. Scholl (2010). Radical Constructivism in Communication Science. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):51-57.
A. Riegler & A. Quale (2010). Editorial: Can Radical Constructivism Become a Mainstream Endeavor? Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):1-5.
K. H. Müller (2010). The Radical Constructivist Movement and Its Network Formations. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):31-39.
A. Scholl (forthcoming). Between Realism and Constructivism? Luhmann's Ambivalent Epistemological Standpoint. Constructivist Foundations 8 (1):5-12.
D. K. Johnson (2010). Footprints in the Sand: Radical Constructivism and the Mystery of the Other. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):90-99.
H. Gash (2010). Realities in Radical Constructivism. Commentary on Johnson's “Footprints in the Sand”. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):100-101.
P. Cariani (2010). Onwards and Upwards, Radical Constructivism. A Guest Commentary. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):127-132.
Mark Olssen (1996). Radical Constructivism and Its Failings: Anti-Realism and Individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (3):275 - 295.
P. Slezak (2010). Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):102-111.
Hans Jürgen Wendel (1992). Radikaler Konstruktivismus Und Konstruktionismus. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (2):323 - 352.
A. Quale (2010). Objections to Radical Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):12-18.
M. A. Boden (2010). Against Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):84-89.
H. Gash (2011). Moving Forward From Radical or Social Constructivism to a Higher Level Synthesis. Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):20-21.
Glasersfeld E. von (2010). Why People Dislike Radical Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):19-21.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-11-20Total downloads10 ( #106,150 of 548,976 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,976 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
