By Robert Hadden Mole
Vol. 3, Issue 1 (Winter 1999)

During the NAPCN meeting at Denton, TX in July 1998, a discussion arose over the future of the network.  Apparently, this has been going on for some time.  It concerns the following question:

Should NAPCN remain strictly Kellian in focus?  Or, should it embrace the larger constructivist movement, and invite constructivists of all kinds into its ranks?

It seems an important issue to investigate.  Using a convenience sample of the email addresses of NAPCN ’98 participants and PCP list subscribers, I forwarded this question to some 22 individuals, with the promise that each reply would be treated anonymously.  Eleven replies were fired back, one within 20 minutes, the rest within 72 hours (with one outlier at 5 days).  The length of many of the replies forced me to snip each one to a reasonable size.  I tried to do this without changing any of the meanings presented.

I have broken the replies down into four impromptu categories.  The first category voices support for the “strictly Kellian” viewpoint.  The second collection contains the “constructivists of all kinds” viewpoint.  The third category represents thoughtful words, but without declaring support for one side other the other.  The fourth category includes two opinions prompting us to look beyond the debate.

 Here is what this sample of NAPCN members are saying:

Strictly Kellian
 

 “My opinion is that Kelly had so much of value to say that is missed by so many constructivists (and constructionists).  I would like to keep the focus of NAPCN on Kelly’s psychology.  If it went more general, I think we would lose our edge and it may not be so interesting to me.  Kelly had a well-founded theory, and that is something other constructivists could benefit from.”

 “If other constructivists seemed to recognize PCP as having some unique value I would be less concerned about the results of having some broader organization.  But as a clinician I have found my solution-focused and narrative colleagues to be remarkably uninterested in PCP, even when they acknowledge Kelly as an intellectual forebear.”

“… NAPCN… should be mindful of [the] conceptual differences [between the Kelly constructivist position and social constructionism]… as well, [it should] take measures to preserve the integrity of the scientific pursuit of PCP as an integral component of the organization.”

 “I believe Kelly’s PCP is the core reason for the existence of NAPCN, and that NAPCN would lose its membership if it lost its focus.  I saw the Society for General Systems Research destroy itself by severing its links with Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and it would be sad if that happened to NAPCN.  I see it as desirable that NAPCN invite a wide range of interested people to its meetings.  There is no reason why it cannot have a predominant Kelly focus as an organization and still be eclectic in the topics for its meetings…”

 “I must admit I am ambivalent about the issue… I have found the discussions of broad constructivist issues intellectually stimulating but I am still waiting for the empirical support that is much more a part of the PCP tradition.  I would not like to see the PCP issues overwhelmed by the broader discussions.  Ultimately, I usually choose elaboration over definition but it does result in anxiety.  So I would reluctantly vote to let the social constructionist in!”

 “Several years ago I registered my opinion about attempting to start a journal which was to be called, Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  I recommended against doing so, on grounds that we should do our best to embrace constructivism as a general orientation…
 “Now, I believe, to continue to rally around PCP is no longer productive.  So much of psychology, particularly developmental psychology, has adopted the basic epistemology and the psychological theories that are compatible with constructivism…
 “I am quite willing to encourage scholars who regard themselves as constructivists to help us to elaborate constructivist thought, particularly as it relates to human psychological functioning…
 “As people who appreciate PCP, we are in a position to encourage people to capitalize on that literature…
 “So lets get on with it….NAPCN ? NANCPS::: North American Network for Constructivism in Personality Study!!!!”

 “I am in favor of a wider constructivist viewpoint.  I take this position first based on the belief that pluralism favors adaptation through natural selection, and this applies to both creatures and the intellectual legacies they may create.  The second argument in favor of this position lies in constructivism itself.  It is antithetical to the movement to favor one construction over another before either can be put to the test of disconfirmation.  Favoring one perspective a priori over others, in essence, objectifies it.  Also, a pluralistic construction of constructivism has greater potential to promote dialogue between the many and divergent intellectual legacies within our field.”

 “I would suggest we open it up to all constructivists and constructionists.  We all have more in common than the issues that divide us.  It will be a richer debate and a better organization is [sic] we are all together rather than in a lot of different organizations.  There are so few of us in each little corner in North America and the environment in psychology is so hostile in Kelly’s use of that term that we would all be in a better position if we [were] together in some way.  We could even have different sections of this overall group if that would make folks feel better; perhaps in a NAPCCN: a North American Personal Constructivist and Constructionist Network.”

More Thoughtful Words
 

 “I think that it is important to define Kelly’s constructivism in relation to the rest of the constructivist movement.  I like Jorn Scheer’s depiction of Kelly’s constructivism as inherently empirical, given the promise of the concepts of validation and man as scientist.  Many other branches of constructivism appear to be primarily philosophical or anthropological in their foundations.  It could be that to include other types of constructivists might actually draw out the distinctiveness of the Kellian approach through such contrasts.”

“As Robert Frost said in Mending Fences, perhaps fences make good neighbors, in part because they bring the neighbours in contact.  I would vote for a revered and still vibrant role for PCT in the larger scope of constructivism.”

Looking Beyond The Debate
 

 “Separately, a major goal of NAPCN should be to encourage more and more young people into the field…”

 “I think a more important question is how to bring PCP to a broader section of the professional population…there ought to be a concerted effort to bring it out into the workshop circuit and give it the same level of visibility as the other constructivist positions.  Then we could have a big constructivist tent without risking giving up the core of PCP—a powerful, scientific, psychological theory”.

What Next?