Abstract
The title of Bernhard Poerksen’s book, The Creation of Reality, encapsulates an underlying contradiction in both journalism and journalism education that exist globally. As journalists are expected to discover, summarize and analyze phenomena objectively, the ambiguous nature of perception in the communication process blurs the distinction in reporting the ‘facts’. In short, does reality exist in the dualistic sense the journalist’s objective claim requires; or rather, is reality an interpretation of events that is created by the observer? Poerksen argues that journalism and journalism education can benefit from a constructivist approach to epistemology. He posits that constructivism can serve as a systematic program of ‘irritation for both practice-oriented and also theory-based teaching, and it can fuel the kind of flexible intelligence that is required by the quality journalism of our time’ (p. 4).
The work is presented in three main sections: foundations, educational objectives, and ways of learning. He begins the first section by providing a robust explication of constructivist epistemology. A literature review is presented that reveals the interdisciplinary contributions – philosophical, psychological, cybernetic, biological and sociological – to the epistemological construct. Immediately the argument for journalists to accept the possibility of becoming the unbiased observer is recognized and dismantled. Poerksen explains the extreme differences in positions of realist and solipsism epistemology, and he argues that constructivism is an ideal alternative as an approach to understand journalism and journalism education. He posits that a constructivist approach portrays the observer as subjective, abandons the notion of absolute truth, makes distinctions, and is capable of recognizing their personal role in the construction of knowledge. He outlines the criticisms of constructivism, and skillfully argues against the limitations of self-contradiction, ‘self-dogmatisation’, and problems of practice and relevance. Poerksen endorses ‘discursive constructivism’, a flexible way of understanding knowledge that encourages intellectual creativity and possibilities of thoughts through recognition of personal creation of meaning.
The second section, educational objectives, addresses constructivism’s potential influence in understanding science, language, media epistemology and ethical awareness. Poerksen begins by attempting to situate constructivism within current understandings of the scientific research process. He poses five questions in an attempt to elucidate the constructivist response to: the appropriate methodological approach (i.e. quantitative vs. qualitative); the importance of context of origins, interpretations of social research, the implications of mixed methods designs, and the consequences of research. He argues, regardless of methodological design or approach, that the constructivist approach recognizes that its goal is not to ascertain an absolute truth or reality; instead, multiple perceptions may arise of phenomena producing an experiential reality. He moves on to discuss constructivism’s potential to deepen awareness of language and understanding of media epistemology. He argues that constructivism may strengthen journalists’ linguistic communication through recognition of observable differences of interpretation and reality construction. He reviews journalism’s professional practices and argues that rules and processes guide journalists in selection of ‘news’ and ‘reality’. He believes journalists are not passive, as realists would suggest; rather, journalist are agents who select phenomena and shape realities. He suggests that this extremely important role must be given greater attention in the training and education of journalists. Poerksen concludes the section on educational objections with a focus on media ethics. He suggests that media ethics should grant journalists autonomy and flexibility while asking that they recognize their contribution in the creation of reality in the context of an environment that presents limitless constraints.
Although the work sporadically offers implications for journalism education, it is the final section of the book that offers the anticipated application of constructivist epistemology to journalism instruction. Poerksen criticizes the linear transference of knowledge used by the majority of institutions, where instructors’ elementary treatment of knowledge assumes students are passive recipients eager to soak up knowledge from the expert. In contrast, constructivism notes that this linear process of transference of knowledge increases the likelihood for misunderstanding, realizing the influence of perception in every communication interaction. Poerksen believes journalism instructors must create engaging and enthusiastic environments for journalism study through refining their styles of communication (including listening), facilitating cultures of dialog, becoming moderators of conversation and research opportunities, engaging in self-reflection, and most importantly becoming agents of irritation. He uses the term irritation agents, borrowed from Siegfried Schmidt, to explain journalism educators’ role to ‘pluralise opportunities of perception and to shake up certainties, involving even instruments of provocation’ (p. 203).
The final chapter of the book presents the work’s greatest contribution with Poerksen’s suggestion that constructivism is the key to addressing the long-standing debate of the appropriateness of an academic or professional (practical) approach to journalism education. He uses the ideals of constructivism to serve as a bridge between theory and practice. Specifically, he returns to the notion of irritation, arguing for ‘informing irritation’. Rather than employing an ‘anything goes’ philosophy, informed irritation systematically enables journalists and journalism students to understand phenomena through constant refinement and revision of perceptions. He explains that ‘informing irritation’ guides individuals in a learning process through observation and interaction by recognizing that personal perceptions of the external environment are individually determined and thus relative interpretations.
Poerksen begins and concludes his work by stating his desire for the book to be a ‘source of stimulation’ for others to converse about the importance and appropriateness of journalism education. He presents a strong argument for the potential influence of constructivist epistemology if adapted within practices and education of journalism. He successfully dismantles criticisms of constructivism and dexterously articulates its compatibility with the profession of journalism through a systematic process of irritation. The book is an essential read for journalism educators across the globe regardless of their current academic approach to pedagogy. Readers will be forced to consider whether they promote a type of ‘flexible intelligence’ that could strengthen the profession of journalism.