Corruption as a Social Problem: a Constructionist Approach
https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-2-66-77
Abstract
Introduction. The article provides an overview of the constructionist approach in sociology in the concerning the phenomenon of corruption as a social problem. The relevance of the work is determined by the need to examine the possibilities of sociology in the study of anti-corruption discourse and the construction of corruption in the public consciousness.
Methodology and sources. The issue has grown in importance considering the need to study the perception of corruption in society and the processes of its construction. The methodological basis of the work is the analysis of primary sources (works by M. Spektor,
J. Kitsuse, J. Best) and research publications, including the retrospective analysis of the theoretical prerequisites for the development of a constructionist approach in the sociology of social problems. This paper gives a detailed overview of the concept of social problems, which is important for the development of theoretical and empirical studies of various social problems from constructionist positions.
Results and discussion. The paper presents the features of two directions within the framework of social constructivism: strict and contextual. The author identifies two main areas of corruption research in a constructionist discourse: the analysis of the construction of corruption as a social phenomenon and the analysis of the construction of deviance, which correspond to the phenomenological (strict) and contextual directions. This study defines the main theoretical aspects of the constructivist approach, its ideological prerequisites and traces the development of the main theoretical directions of constructivism within the interactionist approach in sociology. As a result of the analysis, the author highlights the limitations of the constructionist approach, which are significant for choosing a concept and conducting research and pays attention to the possibilities of developing an integrative approach.
Conclusion. Social constructivism has heuristic potential in exploring the discourse of corruption as a social problem and the construction of its deviance, which is a promising area of research on the perception of corruption in modern Russian society.
About the Author
E. A. Kovtun
Saint Petersburg State Institute of Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina A. Kovtun – Lecturer at the Department of Sociology, Saint Petersburg State Institute of Technology
26 Moskovsky ave., St Petersburg 190013
References
1. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1995), The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on sociology of Knowledge, Transl. by Rutkevich, E., Medium, Moscow, RUS.
2. Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (2001), The tree of human understanding, Transl. by Danilov, Yu.A., Progress-Tradition, Moscow, RUS.
3. Ulanovskii, A.M. (2010), “New paradigm" of social sciences: lines of development of contemporary constructivism”, Sotsial'naya epistemologiya: idei, metody, programmy [Social epistemology: ideas, methods, programs], in Kasavin, I.T. (ed.), Kanon+, ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, Moscow, RUS, pp. 279–298.
4. Best, J. (2007), “Historical development and defining issues of constructionist inquiry”, Handbook of constructionist research, in Holstein, J. and Gubrium, J. (eds.), Guilford Press, NY, USA, pp. 41–65.
5. Spector, M. and Kitsuse, J.I. (1977), Constructing social problems, Cummings Pub. Co., Menlo Park, Calif., USA.
6. Spektor, M. and Kitsuse, J.I. (2001), “Constructing Social Problems”, Konteksty sovremennosti – II: Khrestomatiya [Contexts of modernity-II. Reader], Transl. by Yasaveev, I.G., Publishing house of Kazan Univ., Kazan, RUS, pp. 160–163.
7. Blumer, G. (2007), “Social Problems as Collective Behavior”, Sotsial'nye problemy: konstruktsionistskoe prochtenie [Social Issues: constructionist approach], Transl. by Yasaveev, I.G., Publishing house of Kazan Univ., Kazan, RUS, pp. 11–26.
8. Kim, CK. (2014), “Anti-Corruption Initiatives and E-Government: A Cross-National Study”, Public Organization Review, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 385–396. DOI: 10.1007/s11115-013-0223-1.
9. Dungan, J., Waytz, A. and Young, L. (2014), “Corruption in the Context of Moral Trade-offs”, J. of Interdisciplinary Economics, vol. 26, iss. 1–2, pp. 97–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0260107914540832.
10. Egorov, V.A. and Miletsky, V.P. (2021), “Anti-corruption policy as a factor of influence on protest potential and stability in modern society”, DISCOURSE, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 98–111. DOI: 10.32603/2412-8562-2021-7-5-98-111.
11. Telegina, E.G. (2017), “Legal consciousness and legal culture as an anti-corruption tool”, Juvenis scientia, no. 6, pp. 38–41.
12. Gilinsky, Y.I. (2009), “The social construction of deviance: “problematisation” of problem”,
13. St. Petersburg Sociology Today, no. 1, pp. 327–344.
14. Yasaveyev, I. (2004), “Constructionist Approach to Social Problems”, The J. of Social Policy Studies, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 533–546.
15. Granovetter, M. (2007), “The Social Construction of Corruption”, On Capitalism, in Nee, V. and Swedberg, R. (eds.), Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, USA, pp. 152–172.
16. Graaf, G. de. (2007), “Causes of corruption: Towards a contextual theory of corruption”, Public Administration Quarterly, vol. 31, pp. 39–86.
17. Karepova, S.G., Nekrasov, S.V. and Pinchuk, A.N. (2018), “On the interpretation of the concept “corruption”: societal and socio-psychological aspects”, Humanities Perspectives, no. 2, pp. 52–64. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17805/ggz.2018.2.5.
18. Karepova, S., Pinchuk, A., Nekrasov, S. and Tikhomirov, D. (2019), “Corruption and anticorruption activities in modern society as perceived by the Moscow students: on the materials of a focus group research”, The J. of Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 113–137. DOI: 10.31119/jssa.2019.22.1.6.
19. Osipov, G., Karepova S., Glotov V. et al. (2019), Korruptsiya kak sotsietal'nyi fenomen: sotsiologicheskie, sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie i ekonomicheskie aspekty analiza [Corruption as a societal phenome-non: sociological, socio-psychological and economic aspects of the analysis], Nestor-Historia, SPb., RUS.
20. Becker, H. (1963), Outsiders: studies in sociology of deviance, The Free Press, NY., USA.
21. Saurwein, K.-H. Korruption – das Wiedereintauchen der «alten» Welt in die Moderne?” (2012), Transl. by Giryaeva, V., Russian Sociological Review, no. 11 (3), pp. 105–119.
22. Breit, E., Lennerfors, T.T and Olaison, L. (2015), “Critiquing corruption: A turn to theory”, Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, no. 15 (2), pp. 319–336.
23. Jones, B.J., McFalls, Jr.J.A. and Gallagher, III B.J. (1989), “Toward a unified model for social problems theory”, J. for the theory of social behavior, no. 19 (3), pp. 337–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00153.x.
24. Minina, V.N. (1999), “Sociology of social problems: analysis of main conceptions”, The J. of Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 74–90.
25. Simonova, T.M. (2009), “Towards the integral approach to social problems”, The J. of Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 66–74.
26. Blumer, H. (1971), “Social problems as collective behavior”, Social problems, vol. 18, iss. 3, pp. 298–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/799797.
27. Best, J. (2007), “Social problems”, Sotsial'nye problemy: konstruktsionistskoe prochtenie [Social Issues: constructionist approach], Transl. by Yasaveev, I.G., Publishing house of Kazan Univ., Kazan, RUS, pp. 115–145.
28. Ibarra, P.R. and Adorjan, M. (2018), “Social Constructionism”, The Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems / in A. J. Treviño (ed.), vol. 1, pp. 279–300.
29. Hilgartner, S. and Bosk, C.L. (1988), “The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model”, American J. of sociology, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 53–78.
30. Yasaveev, I.G. (ed.) (2007), Sotsial'nye problemy: konstruktsionistskoe prochtenie [Social Issues: constructionist approach], Publishing house of Kazan Univ., Kazan, RUS.
Review
For citations:
Kovtun E.A. Corruption as a Social Problem: a Constructionist Approach. Discourse. 2022;8(2):66-77. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-2-66-77
Views:
749
Email this article 