ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the emendation of constructionism by Ibarra and Kitsuse (in this volume) in response to the critique by Woolgar and Pawluch. The emended constructivist position completely purges objectivism from the formulation of the topic of constructivist inquiry but retains objectivism at the level of analysis. Three points emerge from a consideration of Ibarra and Kitsuse's emendation of CSP. First, emended CSP crystallizes the topic of constructionist investigations in consistent constructionist terms. Second, a sociology of reflexivity or an ethnography of argument—that is, the study of how forms of argumentation, representation, explanation, and demonstration are variously open or closed to radical questioning—is a powerful and productive response to the reflexive critique. Third, conjectures regarding the sociology of reflexivity indicate limitations to a fully realized reflexive sociology. The Sisyphean efforts to overcome these conventions, however, are the very resources for revealing their presence and potency.
