Hello all,

I was wondering if I could pick your lovely brains about my methodology as I'm having an epistemological crisis (I'm not even sure that's a word but this is how frazzled I am!). I'm having some issues with objectivity and subjectivity. I'm working within what I thought was a constructionist paradigm, and arguing that meaning is constructed socially by way of culture and the particular society/institution one belongs to.

However! All this subjective "stuff" is fine in my head but what's hurting my noodle is the objective "stuff". For example, I believe that there is an objective world out there that exists independently of social interaction i.e. the tree still makes a noise when it falls in the forest even if there's no-one there to hear it, the noise is interpreted based on your cultural leanings etc.

Is this ok? Or am I breaking a paradigmatic rule? I've cited Giddens and Bourdieu's theories of society, and Bhaskar's critical realism which states that there is still room for naturalistic science. Is this going to be ok or am I heading down an alley that I will get heavily criticised for?

I wish this stuff didn't hurt my noodle so much! Feel free to ask me more questions as now I've written the above and re-read it I'm not so sure it makes sense.... :$

Social constructionism does accept "objective" stuff. It does accpet that there are some things around us that follow a "naturalistic" law (is there a word like that???? Sorry English is not my first language...)

Burr, in her book "Social Constructionism" has a reallhy good, basic description of what SC is.... I think it is explained much easier than Giddens and it is certainly much much easier to understand than Bourdieu....

Thank you Emmaki, I'm approaching burn out with this chapter so I think it's time to set it free to the wolves! I got myself into a tizz yesterday worrying that I hadn't understood constructionism (and worrying about what examiners might ask me) but I feel better now! Thank you!