@inbook{Riegler78,
author = {Riegler A.},
title = {What does the future hold for radical constructivism?},
year = {2015},
URL = {https://constructivist.info/riegler/78},
editor = {Raskin J. D and Bridges S. K. and Kahn J. S.}
booktitle = {Studies in meaning 5: Perturbing the status quo in constructivist psychology. Pace University Press, New York: 64--90}
publisher = {}
place = {}
}

%0 Book Section
%A Riegler A.
%T What does the future hold for radical constructivism?
%D 2015
%U https://constructivist.info/riegler/78
%E Raskin J. D
%E Bridges S. K.
%E Kahn J. S.
%B Studies in meaning 5: Perturbing the status quo in constructivist psychology. Pace University Press, New York: 64–90
%I
%C
%X In the light of its heterogeneous nature, radical constructivism (RC) was recently referred to as a tool for problem solving. Can it re-invent itself to have a future as a major paradigm? To answer this question, RC is defined in terms of three increasingly larger sets of theoretical core principles and then aligned with possible empirical, methodological, and programmatic content to check its applicability for Gerhard Schurz’s definition of paradigms. Based on Peter Cariani’s list of intellectual, organizational, and social factors that help intellectual movements to sustain themselves and grow, it is pointed out which elements are already present and which still need to be developed. I argue that RC must be defined as paradigm rather than as a problem-solving tool in order to attract the researchers necessary to make it a self-sustaining community. As such, I believe it has a future in a variety of disciplines, including those that are traditionally linked with it such as communication science and family therapy, as well as new research domains such as quantum mechanics and computational theory.
%2 constructivism
%2 philosophy of science

PT - CHAP
A1 - Riegler A.
T1 - What does the future hold for radical constructivism?
Y1 - 2015
UR - https://constructivist.info/riegler/78
AB - In the light of its heterogeneous nature, radical constructivism (RC) was recently referred to as a tool for problem solving. Can it re-invent itself to have a future as a major paradigm? To answer this question, RC is defined in terms of three increasingly larger sets of theoretical core principles and then aligned with possible empirical, methodological, and programmatic content to check its applicability for Gerhard Schurz’s definition of paradigms. Based on Peter Cariani’s list of intellectual, organizational, and social factors that help intellectual movements to sustain themselves and grow, it is pointed out which elements are already present and which still need to be developed. I argue that RC must be defined as paradigm rather than as a problem-solving tool in order to attract the researchers necessary to make it a self-sustaining community. As such, I believe it has a future in a variety of disciplines, including those that are traditionally linked with it such as communication science and family therapy, as well as new research domains such as quantum mechanics and computational theory.
ER -

Riegler A. (2015) What does the future hold for radical constructivism? In: Raskin J. D., Bridges S. K. & Kahn J. S. (eds.) Studies in meaning 5: Perturbing the status quo in constructivist psychology. Pace University Press, New York: 64–90. Available at https://constructivist.info/riegler/78