During the 1990s, constructivism and its different variants were a much-debated topic in German-speaking Communication Studies, as well as in Gender Studies. Meanwhile, however, constructivist positions seem to be widely accepted. In our paper, we briefly ponder the epistemological consequences of constructivism, and introduce different constructivist positions that have exerted tremendous influence on the development of the field of Gender Studies within Communication Research. We differentiate between social and interactional constructivism – variants that presuppose a social subject – and discursive and poststructuralist positions, which underscore the importance of communicative action and do not assume an intentionally acting subject. Our goal in this paper is to shed light on the question of how constructivism and its different variants have changed and are still changing research and thinking about the interlinkages of communication, media and gender.

This paper analyses the paradigm of constructivism, relating it to current theoretical and empirical developments within social science. I am meeting the demand for describing social and cultural phenomena beyond correspondence-theoretical approaches by critically discussing various forms of constructivism and elaborating on the epistemological position of ‘The Social Construction of Reality’ (Berger & Luckmann). I argue that Berger and Luckmann are epistemologically ‘unscrupulously’ and, subsequently, show analytical weaknesses. This critical discussion forms the backdrop of an unfolding of the position of practice theories and a discussion of their innovative potential to social science research. In this context, the question of how to deal with media as artefacts and technologies is evaluated. I discuss this relationship and analyse it from a communication studies point of view, by means of two prominent analysis concepts, namely the ‘actor-network-theory’ of Bruno Latour and the ‘boundary objects’ approach of Susan Leigh Star from the field of science and technology studies. Finally, I outline central theoretical challenges and analytical perspectives for communication and media research.

The ‘New Realism’ is more than just a catchphrase. It offers the opportunity to reconcile theoretical and methodological standpoints such as realism and constructivism, which have so far been irreconcilable. Ontologically, this occurs through the inclusion of objective reality and observer perspective (‘Sinnfeldontologie’), epistemologically it occurs through the broadening of the concept of empiricism and the reference to the mediality of perception and experience (‘documentality’). This is relevant to journalism and journalism research, because the relevance of reality in journalism is evident. However, this cannot be substantiated adequately through constructivism, although this theory is very popular within Media and Communication Studies. Moreover, the concept of reality is closely related to the concept of truth in journalism; the latter even being standardised by law. A ’moderate realism’ or ‘soft constructivism’ can, therefore, theoretically substantiate this claim, and thus unify objective factuality and subjectively meant meaning.

Today, digital media saturate all domains of society. However, what are the consequences of such changing media environments to the construction of social reality? This paper aims at offering a conceptual approach which might be used to answer this question in the light of social constructivism. Our starting point is a discussion of the need for an advancement of constructivist thinking in Media and Communication studies. Drawing on the results of mediatization research, we show that the changes within the media environment have different consequences to each of the social domains. In light of this, a conceptual approach is needed that focuses on the meso level; particularly on issues of collectivity and organizations. In a further step, the main trends of a changing media environment are outlined and discussed with respect to their potential consequences to the construction of social reality. Finally, we introduce the approach of ‘communicative figurations’ in order to investigating these consequences. Hence, the transforming media-related construction of social reality can now be reconstructed empirically as well as theoretically on the meso level.

Betrachtet man die aktuelle Debatte um den Konstruktivismus in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, stehen immer wieder drei Fragen im Vordergrund: Wie genau konkretisiert sich konstruktivistisches Denken in der Kommunikations- und Medienforschung? Welche Grundlagen liefert es für eine empirische Forschung? Und inwieweit verschieben sich hierbei bisherige Blickwinkel und Ansätze? Diese Fragen aufgreifend führt die Einleitung in das Themenheft „Konstruktivismus in der Kommunikationswissenschaft“ ein. Hierbei wird zuerst diskutiert, warum die Debatte um Konstruktivismus jetzt (erneut) geführt werden sollte. Ausgehend davon werden die Linien des Konstruktivismus in der deutschsprachigen Kommunikationswissenschaft über die letzten fünf Jahrzehnte rekonstruiert und die verschiedenen Beiträge dieses Themenhefts in diese Diskussion eingeordnet. Schließlich werden Überlegungen zu einer konstruktivistischen Kritik angestellt, wie sie im Hinblick auf den fundamentalen und tiefgreifenden Charakter des Medien- und Kommunikationswandels notwendig erscheint.

Key words: konstruktivismus, medienwandel, kommunikationswandel, kritik, empirische medien- und kommunikationsforschung, mediatisierung

Today algorithms are deemed to have a power similar to that of journalism to produce public spheres and constructions of reality. The debate relating to this proposition allow us to observe how questions, which have formed the core of journalism research, are now being reformulated. Such questions concern the definition of what underpins information in society and in the news, the definition of relevance, the appropriateness of selection processes, the idea of objectivity and how items offered as information relate to ‘reality’. The epistemological challenge of the reality of the mass media (to Communication Studies) has, therefore, waxed virulent again, given the new indexes of the changed conditions for communication in society. We use the possibilities of constructivism when observing the debate about the significance of algorithms for producing a public sphere/reality and propose a view of professional journalism and algorithmically generated information not as two separate sites for constructing reality but as interwoven with and relating to each other.

Historically, journalism owes its authority to giving valid information about social reality from the use of specific forms as genres. However, this authority has doubtlessly become fragile. To examine this development and explain some of the reasons this article discusses the impact of constructivist theory on the development of a genre theory in Journalism Studies. While in the beginning, forms were mostly discussed in practical guides for future journalists, the constructivist theory of media forms offered a complex model of communication. Forms were understood as regulating, structuring and standardizing expectations of media texts for journalists and audiences alike. This article draws on discussions of communicative forms in social constructivism as a predecessor of radical constructivism. The assumption of a sharp distinction between factual and fictional journalistic forms, which produce an unambiguous reference to reality, then becomes theoretically and empirically problematic. Processes of hybridization are dissolving distinct journalistic genres – institutionalized communicative forms become contingent hybrids. Based on a constructivist analysis, this paper argues for an inclusion of the performative dimensions of forms. In such an understanding, any form is emerging in its performance as iteration and re-signification of established conventions.

This paper aims to point out some important theoretical innovations of the theory of Communicative Constructivism, and seeks to show the benefits of using this concept as a basis of the work in Communication and Media Studies. I start by reviewing the impact-oriented concept of communication, which underlies the Communicative Constructivism. Then, in working through Social Constructivism, I demonstrate why the Communicative Constructivism switches from language and knowledge to communicative action as the basic operation of generating knowledge. In conclusion, I examine the production and interpretation of television programmes in an exemplary manner, and will highlight the advantages of understanding these as artefacts, as communicative gestures of a corporated actor.

This paper seeks to answer the question of what argumentative contributions the present constructivist discourse has to offer to Media and Communication Studies. With regard to the many-voiced status of the present constructivist discourse, we need to decide which variant(s) of this discourse may reasonably serve as the theoretical framework of such a contribution. Hence, theoretical problems have to be solved first, in order to demonstrate why and how specified issues of the chosen discourse variant can substantially support the work of Media and Communication scholars. This paper proposes a strictly process-oriented and non-dualistic variant of constructivism, which clearly builds on the argument that any contact with reality essentially depends on the observer and his/her activities. In conclusion, this paper examines the consequences such an epistemological decision has for the conception, the analysis and the evaluation of basic issues such as truth, knowledge, understanding and culture, in order to answering the question of what we mean when we talk about the construction of reality via the media.

Can theoretical approaches be seen as communicative constructions? Using the example of the ‘Media Reality’ approach in communication studies, we show which benefits of approaching the development of theoretical approaches on the basis of a constructivist understanding of science. Firstly, the explanatory possibilities of social constructivism on macro-, meso- and micro-level of interaction are explained.

Key words: are generational change, collective knowledge production, opportunistic research logic. hence, the explanatory possibilities of communicative constructivism will be shown. here, different concepts of communication can be used, for instance, a language-bas