Social Constructionism in Housing Research

Jim Kemeny, Keith Jacobs

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138274327
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351899628
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

By stressing the importance of subjectivity and interpretation, social constructionism offers a different conception of reality from the traditional approach to housing policy analysis. This book provides an up-to-date review of the social constructionist perspective and considers its philosophical basis. It discusses how social problems are constructed and, in turn, how this informs policy-making. It is divided into two parts. The first section is theoretical and discusses the variety of conceptual approaches utilised within the constructionist paradigm. The second part provides a number of empirically based case studies from the UK and Australia to illustrate the different methodologies that form the social constructionist corpus. The book also evaluates both the criticisms that have been made against the social constructionist perspective and the strengths and weaknesses of constructionist methods. It therefore contributes to the development of a future research agenda for social constructionist research in housing and urban policy.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Keith Jacobs, Jim Kemeny and Tony Manzi

The Return to Theory

One of the most encouraging features of contemporary housing research has been a willingness to draw upon explicit theory from the different social science disciplines. The best housing scholarship has always embraced social theory: for example, political economy (Merritt, 1979; Ball, 1983; Maclennan, 1982; Muellbauer, 1990), political science (Dunleavy, 1981), social geography (Harvey, 1973; Smith, 1989; Massey, 1994) and sociology (Rex and Moore, 1967; Castells, 1977; Saunders, 1990). However, as housing courses began to be offered in the university sector in the 1980s and early 1990s, their growth was not accompanied by significant explicit theoretical innovation. Instead the development of the field of ‘housing studies’ was dominated by a strong presumption that the primary task of research was to aid policy prescription. Such an outcome can best be explained by the lack of enthusiasm from funding bodies for theoretical innovation in favour of evidence-based policy analysis.

Though the commitment to prescriptive policy-based research continues, it is no longer the case that theoretically explicit research is viewed as suspicious or portrayed as superfluous. In fact, judging by the articles now appearing in academic journals such as Housing Studies, Housing Theory and Society and Urban Studies, there is an abundance of housing research embracing a range of theoretical perspectives.

The rationale for this edited collection is to bring together in one volume a detailed discussion of one theoretical perspective on housing, namely social constructionism. We feel that such a volume is long overdue now that social constructionism has emerged as an influential perspective and its application extends to a number of different areas of housing research. This introductory chapter discusses some general themes, all of which will be developed further in subsequent chapters. It sets out the different influences that have so far informed social constructionist perspectives in the field of housing research; namely discourse theories, the sociology of social problems, symbolic interactionism and the sociology of power. While to some degree these themes overlap, it is expedient, nonetheless, to set out how each of these have informed contemporary housing research.

Before this, it is helpful to set out some of the reasons why housing academics have become more receptive to theory. Firstly, there is a now a widespread understanding that explicit theorising produces better quality research outcomes. In particular, it provides the basis for a clear framework that enables the reader to scrutinise research on its own terms and avoid ambiguity. Secondly, there is an appreciation that housing research cannot be undertaken successfully in isolation from wider debates taking place in other social science disciplines. Thirdly, the context of housing has altered significantly; in particular the residualisation of the British and Australian social rental housing stock and transformation of the nation state accentuated by globalisation processes have encouraged researchers to seek appropriate theories and concepts to make sense of these changes.

As mentioned above, there are also practical constraints upon theoretically-informed housing research, the most compelling of which relates to its funding and commissioning. For some years there has been disquiet that the specific demands of contract research and the pressure to generate income from consultancies has stifled opportunities to conduct critically orientated sociology. With some exceptions, the consultancies engaged in by housing academics focus on improving housing practice but limit the scope for explicit theory.

While the reasons above are applicable to all housing research which draws explicitly from social theory, there are specific factors that relate to social constructionism. Social constructionism is viewed by its adherents as providing a richer and more sociologically informed analysis of the policy process than traditional explanations. The impetus for much of the constructionist literature is an attempt by academics to develop a research agenda that is independent from the demands of policy makers. Arguably, a feature of constructionist research that distinguishes it from more traditional modes of analysis is the commitment to setting out an explicitly reflexive research methodology that makes clear the epistemological basis for investigation.

From the outset it is important to stress that social constructionism is just one of the social theories that has been utilised successfully by housing researchers to broaden the scope of housing research to cover issues that are not normally viewed as being of practical concern to policy makers. Nevertheless, constructionism functions as a counterweight to the dominance of the atheoretical empiricism of much traditional housing research. Additionally, it develops from the prior existence and more recent emergence of more explicit theories derived from positivist traditions.

What is Social Constructionism?

Since critics of social constructionism have claimed that it denies the existence of an objective material world, it is important from the outset to make clear that there is no attempt in this edited collection to advance such arguments. Instead, the claim advanced is that our access to the material world is mediated through language and discourse. In the words of Collin (1997: 2–3) ‘our perception of the material world is affected by the way we think or talk about it, by our consensus about its nature, by the way we explain it to each other, and by the concepts we use to grasp it’. Of course the claims made by social constructionism raise a set of further issues. For example: what is meant by the idea that reality is mediated through language? In what sense can there be deliberate construction of social facts? Are there circumstances when groups of individuals can consciously impose their definition of social reality? What implications does this have for our ability to formulate issues, debate policies and to criticise or support government actions in the field of housing policy? These questions and others are discussed in the chapters that follow.

Since constructionism questions or problematises the notion of objective truth as such and instead emphasises the contingent basis of social reality, it is correctly portrayed as an antithesis of positivism. Rather than assuming that facts are given and discoverable through scientific investigation, constructionism questions the status of given assumptions and interrogates the process of ‘claims-making’ in social policy. Social facts are therefore understood as contingent, contested and subject to considerable diversity of interpretation. For housing academics writing from a constructionist perspective, research can never be simply a question of discovering facts and presenting them in a format amenable to policy makers. Nor can the cumulative weight of material evidence ever be sufficient to persuade the reader of the cogency of the analysis. The strength of constructionism is its focus on broader social processes and its emphasis on the importance of social, political and economic context.

Yet the constructionist perspective should not be construed as being simply a counterbalance to positivism or realism, for it also seeks to challenge the claims made in some of the more explicit theories that are derivative from positivism; for example, economic rationalism and behaviourism. Whilst these theories can enrich housing research by providing rigorous and enlightening perspectives, they can sometimes operate as a constraining influence; for example, effectively limiting the parameters of the subject matter to a discussion of the market or state’s efficacy in addressing housing need. Social constructionism provides a means by which the subject matter of housing research can be extended beyond the confines of a ‘state’ versus ‘market’ narrative to cover areas generally perceived to be within the domain of cultural geography, ethnography and social anthropology.

It is necessary to provide a few words of explanation about the use of the term ‘social’. Recently academics drawing from actor-network theories (e.g., Callon, 1998; Latour, 1999) have dropped the word ‘social’ altogether to indicate that our knowledge of the world is not just derivative of human interactions but of other interactions as well (e.g., technology, animals and the environment). However in this collection, readers will note that the terms ‘constructionism’ and ‘social constructionism’ are, on some occasions, used interchangeably. This is because the word ‘social’ is deployed in its widest sense; to denote that our understanding of reality is mediated through interaction – whether interpersonal, intrapersonal, person-technology, person-environment or any other kind.

The Manifold Strands of Social Constructionist Research

At this juncture it is helpful to set out the different strands of social constructionism that have been most influential in housing research.

Discourse Analysis

There is a common perception – at least in the housing variant – that constructionism is synonymous with discourse analysis. To date most of the constructionist studies in housing research have been derived from discourse perspectives that have their social science genesis in the work of Foucault (1980) and this has – up to now – been the most prevalent influence (e.g., Hastings, 1998; Gurney, 1999; Haworth and Manzi, 1999; Jacobs and Manzi, 1996; Jacobs, 1999; Kemeny, 2002b). Discourse analysis has been utilised because it provides a way of undertaking an evaluation of both text and the spoken word that can overcome some of the objections often made against non-positivist epistemologies.

In particular, the work of Fairclough (1995) has provided housing researchers with a framework for conducting policy-orientated research. Hastings’ (2000: 133) explanation for the emergence of discourse analysis is that it provides a way of opening up ‘new empirical terrain’ or material previously ignored by researchers. Its utilisation by housing researchers can also be explained by the linguistic turn that influenced social sciences in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Fischer and Forrester, 1993). Although constructionist research in housing has been fuelled by an interest in language and its mediating effects, the disproportionate attention to discourse analysis in housing research represents a particular and late variant of constructionism with the result that other and earlier perspectives have been marginalised.

Social Problems and Policy Narratives

Work on the construction of social problems that has been particularly influential for housing academics includes Spector and Kitsuse (1977) and Schneider (1985). Rather than viewing a social problem as a given and objective condition, it is perceived as part of an interpretative process determining what should be seen as oppressive, immoral or intolerable. Thus issues such as poverty, crime or homelessness (Spector and Kitsuse, 1977) do not possess intrinsic qualities, but are seen as ‘definitions of and orientations to putative conditions that are argued to be inherently immoral or unjust’ (Holstein and Miller, 1993: 6, emphasis in original). This process of definition is both implicitly and intentionally rhetorical. Constructionism resists the ‘essentialist’ assumption that these problems have objective and identifiable foundations. Social problems are constructed on shifting sands of public rhetoric, coalition building, interest group lobbying and political expediency.

Social constructionist literature – for example Schattschneider (1960), Bachrach and Baratz (1962), Blumer (1971) and Spector and Kitsuse (1977) – maintains that agenda setting, advocacy coalitions, lobbying and media campaigns are all significant influences on shaping the policy process. As mentioned above, the rejection of ‘taken for granted’ perspectives, which view problems as simply reflections of underlying realities, allows instead explicit attention to be given to the factors that have to be in place before a housing problem becomes accepted and acted upon. These factors include the construction of narrative to tell a plausible story about a problem, the development of coalitions of support and the deployment of institutional resources to ensure a response.

The absence of constructionist housing problems in contemporary housing research is curious, as so much of the approach has been problem-oriented. Whilst discourse analysis became the entry point from which the majority of housing researchers began to take an interest in constructionism, as stated above, other variants have begun to attract the interest of housing academics. For example, Sahlin (1995; 1996), Allen (1997), Jacobs et al. (1999; 2003) and Kemeny (2002a and b) draw upon a stran...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• List of Contributors
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Philosophical Assumptions of Constructionism
• 3 Relativism, Subjectivity and the Self: A Critique of Social Constructionism
• 4 Extending Constructionist Social Problems to the Study of Housing Problems
• 5 Constructing the Meaning of Social Exclusion as a Policy Metaphor
• 6 Housing Pathways – A Social Constructionist Research Framework
• 7 Necessary Welfare Measure or Policy Failure: Media Reports of Public Housing in Sydney in the 1990s
• 8 Organisational Research: Conflict and Power within UK and Australian Social Housing Organisations
• 9 Social Constructionism and International Comparative Housing Research
• Index