Analysis of Social Constructionism

Social Constructionism is a sociological theory that explains and investigates how people acquire understanding and knowledge of the world. It states that what we are brought up to believe and how we are trained impacts how we portray ourselves, view others, and perceive ourselves. In summary, our views and experiences impact our views of reality.

Our reality is likewise a difficult bargain. What is true is determined by what is acceptable in society. The majority of social encounters include some approval of what is going on. For example, What causes a tree to turn green? Is it a green color? Is it merely the interplay of sunlight with the retina of the eye? What defines truth regarding the color of a tree? Which is more accurate, a black-and-white or a color photograph? Is green a natural color or a sociological construct? So far, the case has been made that whether a photo conveys the truth about its subject is a question of societal consensus (Kenneth J. Gergen, 2015).

free essay typer



It is not insignificant how one responds to these questions, and this is the first scene of the scenario known as a social construction. The underlying proposition is direct: what we believe to be true about the universe is heavily influenced by the social connections in which we find ourselves. However, as one joins the logic of social creation, their reality will begin to shift. Relationships underpin existence, and constructionists question reality, rationality, reason, and knowledge of concepts. Social creation develops from ongoing discourse rather than philosophy or theory. People perceive the world differently, and this understanding is founded on our social bonds. The world becomes what it is for us due to our connections. For example, a man is a mammal to a biologist, a figure to a bureaucrat, and an employee to a firm.

Generally, we may argue that we build the society we exist in through communicating with one another. Social constructionism is based on understanding these concepts. The truth is, selecting a connection is choosing a society and how one exist in it (Kenneth J. Gergen, 2015). As we organize our speech and behaviors in many circumstances, we build a correct method of doing things.

This new cultural context directly influences the company landscape, requiring new methods of arranging the workplace culture, activities, and the individuals engaged. The influence of this more educated, linked, and engaged society on corporate structure fosters new knowledge of the value generation process. This transition is influencing the whole management structure. As a result, there is a need to adopt a much more comprehensive way by considering people’s voiced wants and desires, therefore co-creating worth with them (Kenneth J. Gergen, 2015).  For example, when an organization utilizes the metaphor of “a family” to describe itself, the organization’s narrative or tale should match this usage of the socially constructed term ‘family.’ These companies that adopt such narratives will go to significant attempts to expand a compelling description about themselves for a particular goal.


In the scope of professional standards inside institutions, social construction draws in ideas such as conversation, creativeness, co-creation, and creating meaning, generating a combination toolset for use by supervisors, specialists, and leaders as a resource base for social integration. Even though the fullness of these materials is located in their connections and reciprocal effect, an evaluation of every one of them may provide a sense of how valuable they may be, as well as spark professionals’ inventiveness in developing new methods of working with their clients. Concepts become liberated when the imagination is emancipated, and unique insight can emerge. Having many people express their opinions on an issue increases the likelihood of generating valuable experiences.

            Another way that social constructionism has been an open the door to new thinking leading to substantive organizational change is through investigations. Interventions and inquiries are inextricably linked as a continuous and cyclical cycle of action and contemplation. Simultaneously, every intervention is already an environment for creating new knowledge (Kenneth J. Gergen, 2015). For instance, when an investigator joins a company and poses research questions, they induce reflective processes by encouraging employees in that institution to examine the issue under investigation. As a result, inquiries are never impartial or separated from the dialogue. Furthermore, the questions would always create an atmosphere for what is to be uncovered.

Another way is through research. Research is regarded as a social practice in social construction. This premise holds the truth in any setting of creating knowledge, although it has significant impacts on organizational research. It is an option to the field’s idealist and objectivist traditions, suggesting a new strategy to study, one which is more linked to and attentive to the dynamics of daily institutional life (Kenneth J. Gergen, 2015). Under this method, the organization conducting a study may use specific assessment and evaluation techniques to develop successful briefing mechanisms, including composing a story on the organizational change or creating a frequently updated website explaining various stages of the involvement or its outcomes. These modes of knowledge enable us to observe, encourage, and inspire others.


Kenneth J. Gergen. (2015). An Invitation to Social Construction, 3rd ed. Kenneth J. Gergen ISBN – 978-1-4462-9647-9 Sage, 2015: Vol. 3rd ed.