Practical Implications of Social Construction: Turning Constructivism to Constructionism

Nothing is more important and confusing than this meta theory in the study of sociomateriality. As we have seen in epilogue, “Queen” Orlikowski’s structurational model focused on actors’ ability to interpret the unintended consequences of using technology. “King” Leonardi insists that technology overlaps with society as an imbrication and is seen as a prerequisite to enable various actions. At the root of this controversy lies the difference between the epistemological positions of constructivismConstructivism and constructionismConstructionism, which are at odds within the social constructionist camp as a meta theory. To anticipate the conclusion, constructivismConstructivism pays attention to the subjectiveSubjective composition of society, whereas constructionism pays attention to the composition of reality by a transcendent society. In this chapter, we focus on Leonardi’s transcendentalTranscendental constructionismConstructionism to sort out the confusion of social constructionSocial construction. We will seek implications for constructionism and analyze the consumption fuel fraud cases as organizational wrongdoingOrganizational wrongdoing in Japan. Theoretically, there are two approaches, one based on the linguistic turnLinguistic turn of social constructionSocial construction by Berger and Luckmann (The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday, New York, 1966 [2]) and the other on intervention methodologyMethodology for social practice based on Gergen (Am Psychol 40(3):266–275, 1985 [10]).