Impact of Symbolic Interactionism, Pragmatism and Social Constructionism on Communication and Media Practice
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/ijhess.v2i1.2547
Viewed : 423 times
Downloaded : 257 times
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to obtain more information about the submission process or if you have further questions.
Abstract
As communication technologies and media platforms continue to evolve, there is a growing need to re-examine the theoretical paradigms underpinning our understanding of human interaction and meaning-making. This research elucidates the enduring relevance of three sociological perspectives—Symbolic Interactionism, Pragmatism, and Social Constructionism—for making sense of contemporary communication landscapes. Employing a qualitative meta-synthesis methodology, we analysed 50 academic articles and book chapters discussing applications of these perspectives within communication and media studies. Our analysis reveals how core concepts from each tradition—including symbolic meaning-making, practical consequences of communication, socially constructed representations—contain explanatory power for grasping new communication patterns and challenges brought by digitalization. Researchers apply Symbolic Interactionist notions of symbolic cues and improvised self-presentations to study computer-mediated communication and social media self-constructions. Pragmatist views on communicative actions as tools for desired ends inform critical analyses of fake news propagation and disinformation campaigns. Social Constructionist emphasis on mass media representations shaping shared realities has expanded to deconstructions of algorithmically-curated information environments. By elucidating these and other linkages, our study aims to revitalize engagement with forgotten or overlooked theoretical foundations in order to advance communication scholarship and enhance reflexivity within emergent media ecosystems. We conclude that integrating insights from Symbolic Interactionism, Pragmatism, and Social Constructionism remains vitally important, both for scholarly aims of explaining reality and practical aims of consciously shaping it.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Allen, M. (2014). Narrative diversity and sympathetic abortion: What online storytelling reveals about the prescribed norms of the mainstream movements. Symbolic Interaction, 38(1), 42–63.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A Social Constructionist Approach to Disability: Implications for Special Education. Exceptional Children, 10.1177/001440291107700307, 77(3), 367-384.
Austin, C. G., & Huang, L. (2015). Gift or gift card? Symbolic interactionism in gift exchange. In M. C. Dato-on (Ed.), The Sustainable Global Marketplace (p. 19). New York: Springer.
Axelrad, S. (2015). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1(4), 388–389.
Azarian, R. (2021). Analytical sociology and symbolic interactionism: bridging the intra-disciplinary divide. The American Sociologist, 52(3), 1–18.
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes (pp. 179–192). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blumer, H. (1981). George Herbert Mead. In B. Rhea (Ed.), The future of the sociological classics (pp. 136–169). London: Allen & Unwin.
Braun, S. (2014). Can we all agree? Building the case for symbolic interactionism as the theoretical origins of public relations. Journal of Professional Communication, 4(1), 49–70.
Carlson, E. (2012). Precepting and symbolic interactionism – a theoretical look at preceptorship during clinical practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06047.x, 69(2), 457-464.
Carter, M. J., & Alvarado, A. M. (2017). Symbolic Interactionism as a Methodological Framework. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 1-19). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_62-1
Carter, M. J., & Alvarado, A. M. (2018). Symbolic interactionism as a methodological framework. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 1–19). Springer.
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2015). Symbolic interactionism. Sociopedia.isa. https://doi.org/10.1177/205684
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), 931–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116638396
Casino, V. J., & Thien, D. (2020). Symbolic Interactionism. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition) (pp. 177–181). California: SAGE Publications.
Černikovaitė, M. E., & Mitkutė, M. (2023). Expression of Identity in Tattoos of Symbols of Different Cultures. Information & Media, 10.15388/Im.2023.95.65, 96, 53-69.
Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Mills, J., & Usher, K. (2013). Linking Symbolic Interactionism and Grounded Theory Methods in a Research Design: From Corbin and Strauss’ Assumptions to Action. SAGE Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013505757
Charles, Q. (2018). Symbolic Interactionism: The Basics. Vernon Press.
Czarniawska, B. (2003). Social Constructionism and Organization Studies. In R. Westwood & S. R. Clegg (Eds.), Debating Organization: Point–Counterpoint in Organization Studies (pp. 128–139). Blackwell.
Denzin, N. K. (2014). Symbolic interactionism and the Media. The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication Theory (pp. 74–94). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gabatz, R., Schwartz, E., & Milbrath, V. M. (2017). Attachment theory, symbolic interactionism and grounded theory: articulating reference frameworks for research. Texto contexto – enferm, 26, 1–8.
Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716-740.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-Cultural Communication Theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (pp. 25–50). Sage.
Handberg, C., Thorne, S., Midtgaard, J., Nielsen, C. V., & Lomborg, K. (2014). Revisiting Symbolic Interactionism as a Theoretical Framework Beyond the Grounded Theory Tradition. Qualitative Health Research, 10.1177/1049732314554231, 25(8), 1023-1032.
Houser, N. (2010). The church of pragmatism. Semiotica, 178, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2010.007.
Knoblauch, H. (2013). Communicative constructivism and mediatization. Communication Theory, 23(3), 297-315.
Kunchamboo, V., & Little, V. (2022). Four ecotourism archetypes: expressing symbolic desires. Journal of Ecotourism, 10.1080/14724049.2022.2077355, 22(4), 502-517.
Low, J., & Thomson, L. (2021). Symbolic interactionism and the myth of a structural bias: a textual defense and illustrative advice. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 46(2), 97–119.
Maines, D. R. (2000). Pragmatism. In E. F. Borgatta & R. J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology (pp. 2217–2224). Macmillan.
Manyati, T. (2014). Innovation through knowledge sharing: Evidence from the informal sector in Harare, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 10.1080/20421338.2014.947196, 6(4), 281-288.
Num, K. S. F., Aizuddin, A. N., Tong, S. F., Said, M. S. M. (2023). A grounded theory research protocol on an attempt to practice interprofessional collaborative care by a primary care clinic health professional fresh graduate in diabetes care. Frontiers in Medicine, 10.3389/fmed.2023.1133948, 10.
Remmling, G. W. (2020). Towards the Sociology of Knowledge (RLE Social Theory): Origin and Development of a Sociological Thought Style. Taylor & Francis.
Salvini, A. (2010). Symbolic interactionism and social network analysis: An uncertain encounter. Symbolic Interaction, 33(3), 364–388.
Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2011). The symbolic interactionist perspective and identity theory. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 225–248). London: Springer.
Sheehy, M. (2011). Illuminating constructivism: Structure, discourse, and subjectivity in a middle school classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 10.1598/RRQ.37.3.2, 37(3), 278-308.
Springham, N. (2016). Description as social construction in UK art therapy research. International Journal of Art Therapy, 10.1080/17454832.2016.1220399, 21(3), 104-115.
Stryker, S., & Vryan, K. D. (2006). The Symbolic Interactionist Frame. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36921-X_1
Triplett, C. F. (2016). The Social Construction of “Struggle”: Influences of School Literacy Contexts, Curriculum, and Relationships. Journal of Literacy Research, 10.1080/10862960709336759, 39(1), 95-126.
Ukasoanya, G. (2014). Social adaptation of new immigrant students: Cultural scripts, roles, and symbolic interactionism. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 36(2), 150–161.
Wang, L. (2023). A Study of Symbolic Interactionism and Communication from the Perspective of American Social Psychology. European Review, 31(3), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798722000266
Wong, Y. J. (2006). Strength-Centered Therapy: A social constructionist, virtues-based psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.133, 43(2), 133-146.
Zhao, H. (2020). Explicating the social constructionist perspective on crisis communication and crisis management research: a review of communication and business journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10.1080/1062726X.2020.1802732, 32(3-4), 98-119.
