Running Head: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Theoretical Framework:

Module 1

Ryan Bradshaw

George Mason University

EDRS 822

Dr. Baily
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Theoretical Framework
This study will be developed using the epistemological stance of constructivism.
Constructivism is the same theoretical framework that Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009) used in
their initial study on donor constraints of former student-athletes, which this study will replicate
using a different group, former club sport student-athletes.
Our epistemology affects “how we know what we know” and can take the form of
objectivism, positivism, post-positivism, or constructivism (Crotty, 2015) among others.
Constructionism differs from objectivism in that constructionists believe that truth is developed
through our engagement with our world, while objectivists believe that there is one objective
truth out there waiting to be discovered (Crotty, 2015). Crotty (2015) uses the example of a tree,
an object that humans have named and construed as being a tree. The tree would still be a tree,
whether or not humans had developed the name ‘tree’. However, individuals from different
locations, be it a logging town or a treeless slum, would have constructed their own connotation
of a tree based on their own personal experiences. Crotty (2015) then defines constructionism as:
The view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent
upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings
and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context (p.??).
Constructionism differs from constructivism in that constructionism is societies’
understanding or meaning of an event, while constructivism is an individual person’s
understanding or meaning of an event (S. Baily, personal communication, February 21, 2017).
Constructivist knowledge is constructed by the individual as they make sense of one of their
experiences. This means that it is their best construction of the experience, not necessarily a true
2
Commented [SB1]: Odd to start the paper with “This” study –
just a thought in terms of how the reader sees it.
Commented [SB2]: Again awkward – the study leads you to
think about your stance towards the research – so you might have
to actually say that you are using a constructist perspective in
approaching your study.. or something to that effect.
Commented [SB3]: Always leave room open for “others”
Commented [SB4]: Are you using this as constructionism – or
as constructivism? Both are different as we talked and if you are
focusing on VISM – then not sure why you are starting with
TIONISM
Commented [SB5]: The critical theorist in my is not sure you
want to label a slum as treeless – but you might 
Commented [SB6]: Definition? Rather than connotation?
Commented [SB7]: APA
Commented [SB8]: Doesn’t need indent – not over 40 words. –
APA
Commented [SB9]:  - and I think that you are trying to
distinguish between one and the other – but you are confusing the
reader a little bit – same reason as comment 4 – I don’t think you
have to justify the difference in the first few pages – you are setting
the stage for VISM – not TIONISM.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

reflection of reality (Hu, Scheuch, Schwartz, Gayles, & Li, 2008). An example of this would be Commented [SB10]: Be careful of these program citations –
there is an error in the citation style that cannot be changed – an
extra comma.
analyzing society’s understanding of the relevance of the Super Bowl is constructionism, while

analyzing a player in the Super Bowl’s understanding of the relevance of the game would be

constructivism.

This study will use a constructivist approach to examine the experiences of individual

former club sports student-athletes and how these experiences affect their motivations to donate

financially to their alma mater. Commented [SB11]: APA – single sentence para – not allowed.

History of Constructivism

Kant Commented [SB12]: APA – Heading order and no heading and

subheading without text separating them

Kant’s Copernican revolution led to the constructivist ideal of how knowledge is created Commented [SB13]: Awkward transition.

(YEAR) . Kant believed that we do not find or reveal knowledge, we construct it based on our

previous knowledge. The object of knowledge is therefore dependent on the knower (Rockmore,

2005). Wittgenstein developed upon this ideal with the notion that “the subject is not a human
being and not in the world, but the limit of the world” (Rockmore, 2005). Kant’s Copernican
philosophical revolution, as it is known, left two relevant claims: “since we cannot show we
Commented [SB14]: So – here is a concern – you are not using
Kant as an original source and you are citing Rockmore who is
interpreting Kant – so you have to be more clear about this – you
can’t take someone else’s ideas and make them appear to the
reader like you are making that interpretation from the original –
which then you would have to then cite Kant…Does that make
sense? Something to work through as you move forward.

know a mind-independent external object, metaphysical realism fails; and the minimal condition

of knowledge is that the subject in some way ‘constructs’ what it knows” (Rockmore, 2005). The

mind is unable to know about an object if the object is mind-independent, but knowledge of the

object can be constructed by the knower. “If intuition has to conform to the constitution of the

objects, then I do not see how we can know anything of them a prior; but if the object conforms

to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, then I can very well represent this possibility to

myself” (Kant, 1998)insert page number…

3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Kant’s work on constructivism was further developed by Fichte, Hegel, and Marx with Commented [SB15]: I know these are three authors – but here
it reads like one citation.

focuses on “idealism”, the notion that Michael Williams described as where “thought and reality

are really one of the same” (Rockmore, 2005). Hegel’s contribution to the discussion on Commented [SB16]: Page number

constructivism included the view that the mind makes up the world (Rockmore, 2005), an idea

that the Marxist Hegel saw as the mind creating the world around itself. The term “idealism” is

attributed to Leibniz, who suggested that idealism and materialism are different. Fichte added to

the discussion by at times agreeing with Leibniz, but then also stating that idealism and

materialism could be combined to make as a third position.

Marx

Social Constructionism, a term that comes from the work of Karl Mannheim, was

expanded upon by Karl Marx (Crotty, 2015). Marx contended that those who have the power to

affect production means are the same individuals who can affect the consciousness of society.

Marx adds of human beings that “social being determines their consciousness” (Crotty, 2015).

This adds to the notion that individuals construct their knowledge and their interpretation of

events based on their past experiences, including experiences related to their social standing.

Piaget

Jean Piaget brought the ideas of a constructivist learning method for children to light with

his work in the mid-1900s. Piaget’s focus was on how humans make meaning of situations they

are in based on their previous ideas and experiences (Wartofsky, 1983).

Our knowledge proceeds not from sensation, not from perception alone, but from the

entirety of our actions of which perception constitutes only the function of signalization.

4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The proper mode of intelligence is not, in effect, contemplation, but transformation, and

its mechanism is essentially operatory (Piaget, 1970).

Piaget believed in genetic epistemology and that individuals have the knowledge in them Commented [SB17]: It is hard to determine what Piaget
believed- but you would want to say your interpretation of what
Piaget might have meant would be a better way to put it…
and that it is affected by their experiences to change their level of cognition (Wartofsky, 1983).

As von Glasersfeld (2005) puts it, in Piaget’s view, “what we see, hear, and feel – that is, our

sensory world – is the result of our own perceptual activities and therefore specific to our ways

of perceiving and conceiving.” Knowledge comes from actions and the individual reflecting on

those actions (von Glaserfeld, 2005)(von Glaserfeld, 2005). Commented [SB18]: Insert page – with your citation system it
is hard for me to highlight the areas your APA needs work – but I
will highlight a couple and let you catch the rest.

Vygotsky

Vygotsky developed on Piaget’s work and developed the term “zo-ped”, the zone of

proximal development, where a “child’s spontaneous concepts meet the logic of adult reasoning”

(Fosnot & Perry, 2005). The notion of the zo-ped being that adult reasoning makes its way

“down” to children, while the child’s concepts make their way “up” to the reasoning, which then

allows the child to make meaning (Fosnot & Perry, 2005).

Vygotsky also developed the idea that sociohistorical aspects of knowledge help people

make sense of a situation, which creates a “language of lived experiences”. These experiences

help the individual make meaning of the present constructed environment and allows them to

practice creative innovation based on that lived experience and knowledge to create new

knowledge (Fosnot & Perry, 2005).

5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Constructivism in Recent History

As part of the more recent discussion of constructivism, Schwandt (1994) begins his

analysis with a comparison to interpretivism. Schwandt (1994) states that interpretivism came

out of a desire to show that the aims and methods of social science research were identical to

those of natural sciences. This, however, was refuted by empiricists, who viewed that the

foundation of knowledge in the social sciences was different from that of the natural sciences. Commented [SB19]: Needs reference

To Schwandt (1994), truth is the result of perspective, adding that “knowledge and truth

are created, not discovered by mind”(p? ). Concepts, models, and schemes are devised to make

sense of experiences and are continually modified following new experiences (Schwandt, 1994).

Guba and Lincoln (1994) add that reality for the researcher in the constructivist model is

reconstructed using the voice of the author as well as those of the other participants.

Fish Examples Commented [SB20]: Awkward subheading title.

Stanley Fish (YEAR) uses two more recent examples to show his interpretation of

constructivism. As a professor, Fish one day had a list of names on the blackboard that were

readings for the next class. The students in the first class interpreted it as a list, based on their

previously understood social constructs of hierarchy and seriality. Before students came in for

the second section of the class, Fish drew a box around the names and wrote a page number at

the top of the box. He then told the second class that it was a poem and they interpreted it as such

and began analyzing the poem. They did this because of their newly constructed reality of the list

being a poem, thanks to their trusted professor adding that guidance. The second class

constructed a very different meaning of almost the same material based on their constructed

6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

meaning that it was a poem, rather than their first class understanding it as a list based on their

own constructed meaning (Crotty, 2015).

The second example comes from the sport of baseball and the notion of balls and strikes

and enforces Schwandt’s notion that concepts, models, and schemes are devised to make sense of

experiences and are continually modified following new experiences. Both balls and strikes are

socially constructed concepts based on the rules of the game of the day (Fish, 1996), which can

change from year to year based on how the rules of the game are defined (Stark, 2017). Baseball

players, umpires, and fans would adjust their constructed knowledge of what is a strike and what

is a ball based on the new knowledge that is presented to them in the rules (Fish, 1996).

Researcher-as-bricoleur

Researchers-as-bricoleurs has been a term used to describe researchers as individual who

create a bricolage (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Bricolage is the act of constructing an item or idea

with any materials that come to hand (bricolage, 2017). A Bricoleurs must be a “Jack of all

trades”, producing a closed-knit, pieced-together solution to a problem. Bricoleurs adapt their Commented [SB21]: Double quotes mean citation. Don’t think
you need to point it out in any way..

actions with new techniques and tools that become available to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

They comprehend that research is “an interactive process, shaped by his or her personal history,

biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity, and those of the people in the setting”

(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Denzin and Lincoln (1994) complete their text by noting that

researchers must “coble together stories” (p?) to create their own interpretation.

Relevance to the research at hand

In their original research on the subject of donor constraints of former student-athletes,

Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009) use a constructivist approach. They believed that the

7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

individuals they were interviewing each had their own interpretation of the experience of being a

student athlete and then considering donating back to the institution after they graduated. These

experiences differed depending on the individual’s age, gender, race, ethnicity, and also

dependent on the institution they attended, what sport they played, how much they played, how

much student debt they accumulated, and their current salary. Each individual has a different

experience. A constructivist approach allowed Shapiro and Giannoulakis (YEAR) to broadly Commented [SB22]: This might have been helpful to have
earlier in the text..

examine the constraints that kept former student-athletes from donating.

The same is true for this research project. I believe that a constructivist approach is best

suited to examining the different levels of meaning that affect former club sports student-

athletes’ decisions on whether or not to donate. Each former club sports student-athlete has had a

different experience, based on similar factors as those that affected the experiences of Shapiro

and Giannoulakis’ (YEAR) participants. Their experiences are also different than those of

Shapiro and Giannoulakis’ (YEAR)_ participants in that club sport student-athletes typically take

part in programs that are student led with much lower funding than varsity athletics. The students

participate for physical and social benefits more so than for competition. This set of experiences

is also different from the experiences of varsity student-athletes, enforcing the need to use a

constructivist approach to make meaning of the lived experiences of this specific group of

student-athletes.

Research Stance

Epistemology Commented [SB23]: APA error – no heading with subheading

without text to separate..

As a researcher, I believe strongly in a constructivist epistemological viewpoint. I agree

with Denzin and Lincoln (YEAR) that researchers should be bricoleurs, constructing their new

8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

object based on their own knowledge. Guba and Lincoln (1994) expand upon this with the idea

that the object being investigated and the investigator are linked as to create findings as the

investigation takes place.

I feel see value in the examples provided by Fish (1996), particularly the baseball Commented [SB24]: ??

example, and agree with him that our way of knowing is constructed based on our previous

knowledge. Crotty’s (2015) example of how individuals interpretation of the connotation of a

tree would depend greatly on the independent knowledge of trees and their role that each

individual brought to the table helps me understand how individuals can know the same object or

experience in different ways depending on their past experiences. Schwandt (1994) also makes a

valid point that our way of knowing is constantly evolving with the more knowledge and

understanding we add to the mix.

I believe that the constructivist lens allows me as a researcher to make sense of the world,

based on my personal experiences that I bring into the research process.

Ontology Commented [SB25]: This usually supercedes epistemology –

you might want to think about how they are defined.

While epistemology is understanding what it means to know, ontology is understanding

what is (Crotty, 2015). Items and objects will still exist whether or not we make meaning of it, Commented [SB26]: TO know what is – then only you can find
out what you know..

however, we would not be able to fully now what it is (Crotty, 2015). Guba and Lincoln (1994)

add that in a constructivist’s ontology, “constructions are not more or less “true”… but simply

more or less informed and/or sophisticated”. Constructions and their associated “realities” are

also able to be changed (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty (YEAR) make

the point of the “world always already there” (Crotty, 2015).Page? Commented [SB27]: If you are citing Crotty’s stance on the
work of Heidegger and M-P – then you want to be clear to the
reader

9
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The ontological lens I will be using for this project is one of relativism, as I believe that

we know based on our constructed realities. As Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty state, the world

will always already be there, but we then add our own constructed realities in the world based on

our past experiences. The only way to know exactly “how things really are” is to avoid our

personal opinions or learned knowledge, however, this is practically impossible to do, so we

construct our own realities in the ‘real’ world (Crotty, 2015). This ontological lens will allow me,

as a researcher, to explore the world on its own before interpreting it using my epistemological

constructivist lens.

Ryan – This is a tough paper to writ and I have mentioned that before – you have a lot of good

sources to draw from and this will hold you in good stead later on as you move forward. A few

things I would suggest for you to think about as you move along – the first is your logic and how

you present this – I think you have a lot to draw from, but the organization of the sections leave

some gaps for the reader and make it hard to follow your logic. Second, your APA requires

some significant revision – I can’t tell you how hard it is to see the content of the paper when

APA is not clearly presented. This is something I would encourage you to follow up on.

Finally, how you present the work of others is something that novice scholars need more direct

feedback on and I would suggest you think about this paper as an example of what you are

presenting and from what source and how that reads to the reader.

You have delved quite deeply into the literature and I think that with some fine tuning and some

additional work as you move to proposal you will have a solid first section of your chapter 3.

Good work!

Dr. B

10
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1. A clear and adequate introduction of each module (3 points); lost one point due to lack of some
clarity in the early part of the paper

2. A scholarly exploration of relevance and connection to your researcher identity, topic, or

interests (4 points);

3. Concerns that might need to be taken into account (4 points);

4. Critical decision points and junctures (4 points);

5. Gaps that will still need to be addressed or direction for future exploration (4 points).

6. APA and writing – 2 points– need to spend a better chunk of time on this as you move along.
Total – 21/25

References

11
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

bricolage. (2017, March 3). Merriam-Webster.com.

Crotty, M. (2015). The Foundations of Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research.
In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-17).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Fish, S. (1996, May 21). Professor Sokal's Bad Joke. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/15/specials/sokal-fish.html

Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constuctivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning. In C.

(. Twomey Fosnot, Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 8-38). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K.

Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-116). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J. G., & Li, S. (2008). Reinventing Undergraduate
Education: Engaging College Students in Research and Creative Activities. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley Periodicals.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer, & A. Wood, Trans.) Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Rockmore, T. (2005). On Constructivist Epistemology. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In N. K.

Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 119-137). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Shapiro, S. L., & Giannoulakis, C. (2009). An Exploratory Investigation of Donor Constraints

for Former Student-Athletes. International Journal of Sport Management, 10, 207-225.

Stark, J. (2017, February 6). MLB proposes changes to intentional walks, strike zone.
ESPN.com. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-
proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

12
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

von Glaserfeld, E. (2005). Introduction: Aspects of Constructivism. In C. (. Twomey Fosnot,

Constructivism: Theory, Perspectices, and Practice (pp. 3-7). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Wartofsky, M. W. (1983). From Genetic Epistemology to Historical Epistemology: Kant, Marx,

and Piaget. In L. S. Liben, Paget and the Foundations of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13