Sociopragmatic Constructivism

At the latest with Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" (Phänomenologie des Geistes) (Hegel, 1979), the role of community or institutions as constitutive elements of cognition have become the subject of philosophical investigations. This thought resumed with cultural philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century (Cassirer, 1953; Rickert, 1910), phenomenology (Husserl, 1986) and hermeneutics (Dilthey, 1946; Heidegger, 1962), as well as the philosophy of living (Lebensphilosophie) (Bergson, 1896). On the sociological side symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) and the sociology of knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) can be found. Following materialistic ideologies, a reconsideration of approaches like philosophy of language and action theory (Davidson, 1980; Dewey, 1929; Quine, 1960) took place. Despite the ongoing discussion of the role of community in the approaches mentioned above, the relation between individual and community, as well as the interaction processes in between are still not sufficiently clarified. Since we regard the processes of cognition as constituted by communities, it is our conviction a paradigm of inquiry must be supplied, which takes this fundamental prerequisite into consideration.

Sociopragmatic constructivism (SPC) is - in a positive sense - an eclectic approach towards a paradigm of inquiry. In its development we draw on several sources and are confronted with some common problems. As Albert (1985) expresses in his "Münchhausen Trilemma," any attempt to articulate foundations for paradigms of inquiry leads "to a situation with three alternatives, all of which appear unacceptable" (p. 18). The trilemma forces one to choose between:

• An infinite regress, because the propositions that serve as a foundation need to be founded themselves.

• A logical circle that results from the fact that in the process of giving reasons, one has to resort to statements that have already shown themselves to be in need of justification.

• Breaking off the attempt at a particular point, by dogmatically installing a foundation.

At the same time the problem arises, in developing such a metaphysical paradigm of inquiry, one always already has to refer to a paradigm of inquiry. Therefore, the development of SPC is self-referential; while developing the elements of SPC, we have to understand these elements in terms of SPC and vice versa - a phenomenon well known as "hermeneutic circle." As Heidegger (1962, p. 195) explains: "What is decisive is not to get out of the circle but to come into it in the right way". For the understanding of any paradigm of inquiry, this assertion leads to the conclusion that one has to participate in the hermeneutic circle.

Following the same conceptualization of paradigms of inquiry developed above, we describe our concept of SPC in the following paragraphs. As will become clear in the outline of this paradigm of inquiry, the arbitrary chosen categories are at odd with holistic approaches. The categories draw distinctions between issues which, from the perspective of SPC, should not be separated. In spite of this drawback, we deem the systematicity of the conceptual framework to be helpful in the understanding of paradigms of inquiry.

Ontology

Sociopragmatic-constructivist ontology is relativistic, since:

"…facts are not given, but constructed by the questions we ask of events. All researchers are constructing their object of inquiry out of the materials their culture and their research paradigm provides; additionally, values play a central role in this linguistically, ideologically, and historically embedded project that we call science" (Lather, 1990, p. 317).

Hence, the ontology of SPC is epistemically bound. The idea behind sociopragmatic-constructivist ontology is also influenced by Heidegger's (1962) "epistemological analysis of existence" (Daseinsanalytik) and "throws" the individual into a common context always already given. This "context of significance" is characterized by an understanding of being (Sein) developed in the course of the mankind and a specific worldliness (Weltbezug). This is in line with Cassirer's (1967) observation that man is not able to perceive the world directly, but only mediated through his symbolic system. Reality and cognition of reality therefore have to be regarded as a result of symbolic interaction between socially contextualized humans and their environment. We do not assume an isolated subject perceiving or constructing objects, but a common, socially and culturally mediated construction of world, containing both objects and subjects. Collaborative action takes place on the basis of symbolically constituted worlds of meaning which, being rooted in practical needs of human life, are constructed not always with the individual's consciousness. Interactive communication by symbolization modifies both individual and common worlds of meaning, thus modifies reality.

Epistemology

Sociopragmatic constructivism rejects the classical epistemological subject-object dichotomy and describes cognition as a phenomenon of common practices within a community. A phenomenon is thereby not something given by sensual experience (positivism), and also not a solipsistic construct ex nihilo (radical constructivism). It is an experience, which is influenced by cultural-historical experiences of the relevant community that are manifested in its specific symbolism. Sociopragmatic-constructivist epistemology has its roots in radical constructivism (Glasersfeld, 1996; Watzlawick, 1984), cultural symbolism (Blumer, 1969; Cassirer, 1953), and social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Radical constructivism serves as explanation for the physiological basis of cognitive processes, but it does not account for their social and cultural prerequisites, which only make processes like knowledge creation and knowledge 'exchange' possible. Therefore, we draw also on cultural symbolism and social constructivism, which provide a sound basis for the explanation of the symbolic nature and social dimension of knowledge. The very idea of social construction within SPC must be understood in the sense of a socially, pragmatically oriented description of intersubjective processes, within which humans create, stabilize, share, and modify their knowledge. The construction of knowledge is thus only to be explained on the basis of cultural history. The criteria for the truth of knowledge is based on the concept of "viability" and on the consensus theory of truth, which we deem to be in a reciprocal relationship. Knowledge can only be true within a community if there is a consensus about it, but a consensus will only be reached if the knowledge is viable, and vice versa.

Anthropology

The anthropology of SPC does not regard human nature as something given. Human nature is constantly evolving by shared common practice and influenced by its cultural history. There are no constant human features; there are always synchronous as well as diachronous differences. The dialectics of general and specific knowledge, theory and practice, individual and society have to be explored, with their mutual dynamic relations in mind. Human nature, the very essence of our existence, can only be understood if we try to understand dynamic cultural systems. The descriptions of human beings and of the prerequisites of becoming human have to be developed on the basis of a theory of social interaction. We, therefore, draw on cultural symbolism, viewing the human being as an "animal symbolicum" (Cassirer, 1967). Knowledge, any 'exchange' of knowledge, and any intellectual interaction between humans are bound to the use of symbols. But we also draw on social constructivism:

"There is only human nature in the sense of anthropological constants (for example, world-openness and plasticity of instinctual structure) that delimit and permit man's socio-cultural formations. But the specific shape into which this humanness is molded is determined by those socio-cultural formations and is relative to their numerous variations. While it is possible to say that man has a nature, it is more significant to say that man constructs his own nature, or more simply, that man produces himself" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 67).

Any effort to gain an appropriate understanding of human nature therefore must consider culture and society as primary sources of human nature.

Methodology

Sociopragmatic constructivism is committed to the phenomenological method (Heidegger, 1962; Husserl, 1986), with the consequence that no longer the condition - the "what" - of circumstances is the issue, but the "how" - how these circumstances appear in the existence of humans. The phenomenological question is about the understanding of existence and being, and all derivable connections, statuses, processes, and structures. For SPC, ontology and phenomenology are therefore not two different disciplines (beside other philosophical ones), but determine both subject-matter (Gegenstand) and method (Heidegger, 1962). Sociopragmatic-constructivist methodology is therefore ideographic. We do not try to discover universal laws, but to make sense of phenomena with respect to the socio-cultural context in which they appear. The inquirer is thus always part of the research situation, her/his values, experiences, and his/her enculturation have a substantial impact on research findings. In turn, these cannot simply be transferred from person to person, but are themselves subject to the process of 'exchange' by shared common practices.

In Figure 3, we have summarized our outline of sociopragmatic constructivism according to our framework for the conceptualization of paradigms of inquiry.

Ontology	Relativist; realities are developed by shared language and common practice, embedded in their cultural history; reality is a result of interaction between the social contextualized humans and their environment
Epistemology	Constitution of knowledge -- what humans want to know and why -- is to be explained on the basis of their cultural history; consensus theory of truth; viability
Anthropology	Human nature is a result of human practice, embedded in their cultural history
Methodology	Transdisciplinary analysis of culture in the sense of an analysis of human practice; ideographic

Figure 3: Paradigm of Sociopragmatic Constructivism

Examining this description of SPC makes it clear the categories of our framework are based on somewhat arbitrary distinctions, because the four categories are obviously dependent on one another; understanding human nature is not possible without an understanding of man's cognitive capabilities. On the other hand, the understanding of these capabilities requires an understanding of human nature. The same is true for the relationship between ontology, epistemology, and methodology. An essential feature of SPC is all categories of the framework are intertwined. We can only understand one category with respect to all the others, and vice versa - a hermeneutic circle.

Sociopragmatic Constructivism and Information Systems (Research)

The notion of "model" in SPC differs in various aspects from the notions of "model" in other paradigms of inquiry, and consequently the developed understanding of information systems will be different.

The major difference between the sociopragmatic-constructivist notion of "model" and the notions of "model" in radical constructivism or positivism consists in the introduction of a social context representing "the world." The assumption of an "external world" is rejected. "World" is rather embedded in a social context with social practices. Experience of the world is therefore a social phenomenon. Social practices not only determine forms of representation, but also what is to be represented, since the "what" is neither an objective fact, in the positivist sense nor something created ex nihilo in radical constructivist sense.

With respect to sociopragmatic-constructivist ontology, the model source is not something given. Due to the fact that models are models of something, that is representations, the questions are raised: what does a community regard as worthy of representation and what is actually represented? This means one has to practically provide analytical results that clarify what is 'really' represented, or one has to enter an interactive process and find common models via participation in a common language.

A similar idea is true for the understanding of "abstraction" in the process of modeling. Models do not map all properties of the original they represent, but only those properties that seem to be relevant for the designers and/or the users of a given model. From a sociopragmatic-constructivist point of view, one has to trace the appropriate "horizons of meaning" and the appropriate contexts in order to explicate the preferences of the internalized "customary given" interpretation modes, of both the users and the designers of a model. Moreover, it is important to explicate (via common practical action and explicatory interaction) what needs to be neglected in the given case, in order to integrate the various model interpretations in the process of modeling.

Models do not stay in a one-to-one relation to their origins, rather they have a substitution function for certain subjects that is bound to certain situations in a given temporal space and with regard to given imagined or real operations. At this point, it is possible to intervene only by means of communicative interaction and participation in a practice. These are forms of the mutual acknowledgment of the "horizons of meaning" of both the designers and the users of models.

Consequently, applying the paradigm of SPC to the development of an understanding of information systems, the function of information systems within the process of human inquiry has to be analyzed from the perspective of shared human practice. This idea can also be found in the concept of "action research." "In action research, the emphasis is more on what practitioners do than on what they say they do" (Avison, Lau, Myers & Nielsen, 1999, p. 96). Thus, phenomenologically framed action research seems to be a reasonable starting point for developing an appropriate method of information systems research. Transdisciplinary analysis of culture, being the most general concept of "method" in SPC, allows us to overcome the shortcomings of reductive approaches.