Behavior Analytic Grounding of Sociological Social Constructionism (Report‪)‬

Despite the fact that many sociologists see their work as being decidedly empirical, those who conduct social constructionist analyses of social organization and social order are often criticized for not adhering to more stringent empirical protocols. Failure to do so has also resulted in many behavioral scientists, including behavior analysts, rejecting social constructionism outright. Social constructionism offers a valuable insight into human social behavior, however, and should not be disregarded. What needs to occur is a more precise accounting of how social constructions are created and maintained and how they manage to exert influence over human beings despite their lack of materiality; behavior analysis can provide this additional accounting. Ironically, as behavioral scientific enterprises, both behavior analysis and social constructionism share a basic understanding: human society in general and social order in particular, are created and maintained through the ongoing interaction between and among individuals. The differences between the two approaches lie in the specifics of precisely how human society and social order are created and maintained. Despite the fact that some have concluded that the differences are insurmountable, a closer inspection reveals that the differences are paradigmatically significant, but practically, minimal.