Identity is a topic that raises many questions and psychologists take different approaches to define it. Based on their own concerns; they ask different questions, use different methods and make different interpretations of data.

Part I: Essay

Identity is a topic that raises many questions and psychologists take different approaches to define it. Based on their own concerns; they ask different questions, use different methods and make different interpretations of data. This means that they produce different theories about identity. The social constructionist perspective suggests that identities are constructed through language and social relations. This essay will illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this statement with examples of research studies from this and the psychosocial perspective.

Social constructionists understand identities as fluid and originated through nurture in social interactions. One of the strengths of this perspective is that it sees identities in constant adaptation to circumstances in our bodies, relationships and environment (Phoenix, 2007). “When people talk to each other, the world gets constructed” (Burr, 2003, p.8). We use language to communicate, we construct our own identities through what and how we tell about ourselves (Phoenix, 2007). The psychologist Kenneth Gergen. shows how he actively constructed his identity as “pen writer” through his social relationships and how he adapted to the technological changes by the introduction of the computer (as cited in Phoenix, 2007, p. 71). This fluidity of identity gives us the flexibility to adapt to new circumstances and allows changes thought life. However, because identities are seen as an interpretation of who we are and how we change, the social constructionists are criticized for considering that everybody has contradictory, de-centred and changeable identities (Phoenix, 2007). In contrast to this perspective is to mention the psychosocial identity theory originated by Erikson and developed by Marcia. With his Semi-structured Identity Status Interview Marcia emphasises the development of one core identity as the main task of adolescence (Phoenix, 2007). Followers of this psychosocial theory see identities as stable once achieved. However, this theory is also criticized for overemphasizing the relevance of adolescence achieving our identity and limiting its fluidity since this makes later change in life less possible (Phoenix, 2007).

Social constructionist perspectives also emphasize the idea of people having multiple instead of one core identity. For social constructionist supporters different identities coexist and are used differently in social interactions depending on the situation. Hall’s analysis of everyday discourse shows how people use their different identities as black, white, man or woman depending on how they identified with Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill (as cited in Phoenix, 2007, p.77-78). This perspective understands diversity between identities and gives us more flexibility to change through social interactions but is also criticized for suggesting that we all have multiple and de-centred identities (Phoenix, 2007). The psychosocial perspective on the other hand supports the notion that we have one core identity that is the centre of who we are (Phoenix, 2007). This is a less flexible approach and can’t explain how we adapt to our social environment creating our identities.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The dichotomy nature versus nurture is also an area of discussion between the different identity theories. The social constructionist theory suggests that we all acquire our identities though nurturing and social interaction. Nasa Begum shows how she constructed and negotiated her identity as society and her understanding changes (as cited in Phoenix, 2007, p.87). The idea that we construct and use our identities flexibly is another of the strengths of this perspective (Phoenix, 2007). The psychosocial theory on the other hand suggests that it is in our nature to have a core identity. This arises critics against this theory for suggesting that people have more choices about their identities than they actually do (Phoenix, 2007). There are some aspects in life like disability where people can’t choose. There are many changes we can consciously promote on ourselves like choosing a partner but other changes happen relatively passively.

Physical disablement is also a commonly analysed topic in the development of theories around identity. Theories analyse embodies identities as expressed in accounts of people with physical impairments (Phoenix, 2007). The fact that for social constructionist theories identities are constructed through language and social relationships also applies here (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011). Social constructionist psychologists focus on how embodiment forms identity and how people negotiate their identities (Phoenix, 2007). People negotiate their identities in interaction with others and embodiment shapes how these identities are constructed (Phoenix 2007). This expresses one of the strengths of social constructionist ideas because it explains the adaptation that people go through after acquiring a disability. The writer Lois Keefe shares her own experiences about her identity changes after the accident that paralyzed her. Her fluid identity changed through this experience (White, 2007). This arises however some critics about the fact that identities are contradictories and people who have numerous identities can be associated with mental illnesses (Phoenix, 2007). Social constructionist theories contrast also in this topic with psychosocial theories, which allow less space for adaptation though life. Erikson considered the final stage of his eight developmental stages as one where people had difficulties to find identity against the risk of despair caused by physical impairments (Phoenix, 2007). Another strength of social constructionist theories compared to psychosocial theory is that it takes into considerations the differences between types of disabilities and within people who have the same disabilities (Phoenix, 2007) As the Begums example shows, sometimes gender, race and impairment intersect and shows how people can have simultaneously different identities depending on who are they relating to (Phoenix, 2007).

As this essay shows, the origin and definition of identity is a highly debated area. There is never one single answer to a particular question about identity. Both, the social construction and the psychosocial theory provide different views and ways of thinking about this topic. They both focus on different aspects of identity. There are areas where these perspectives coexist, complement or conflict with each other. Debates about if identities are fixed or fluid, multiple or single or the product of our genes or our physical, cultural and social environment will remain an area of discussion in the topic of identity. These debates help psychology progress and remain a vibrant discipline.

Words: 999

References:

Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J.M. (2011). A Social Constructionist Approach to Disability: Implications for Special Education. Council for Exceptional Children, 77 (3), 367-384.

Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd ed.). East Sussex: Routledge.

Phoenix,A. (2007). Identites and diversities. In D. Miell, A. Phoenix, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 43-95). Milton Keynes: The Open University.

White, P. (Speaker). (2007). Gender [Audio Programme 1, Week 3]. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Part II: Ethics questions

Scenario I

1. The major issues to consider in this particular case are the potential risks to the psychological well-being, mental health, personal values and dignity of the vulnerable participants. Researching ethnic status of the children is a sensitive topic and the respect towards the participants must be guaranteed.

The children might not understand the nature, purpose and anticipated outcome of the research. They could get uncomfortable or scared that they identity is revealed. Participants might see the investigators in a position of authority over them, feel pressure to continue or fear punishment if they withdraw or don’t answer all questions. The research could induce psychological stress, anxiety or humiliation. Also to consider is the fact that they might not agree with the analysis or interpretation made by the researchers or perceive the results as critical statements.

Also they way in which the interviews are conducted and recorded should show respect towards the participants and protect their dignity from shame or fear of repression.

To address these issues ethically the research assistants should have a police check by the CRB, gain informed consent from the children’s parents or guardians about the purpose and outcome of the research and their right to withdraw at any time. All information about the research should be documented and presented in a clear and understandable form. Consent should be an ongoing process. The children’s assent should be monitored by sensitive attention to any signs, verbal or not verbal, that they are not willing to continue.

Anonymity should be guaranteed at every stage and at the end of their participation the children should be debriefed and get feedback to identify if they have experienced any harm or discomfort during the research. The outcomes should be discussed and all questions they may have should be answered.

Words: 296

Scenario II

2 (a). The experiment violates the BPS ethical guidelines in many ways. The participants weren’t informed about the real nature and purpose of the research and weren’t aware of the possible outcomes or consequences.

As the researchers never obtained informed consent from the participants and, as the students didn’t know that their “adventures” on the corridor were part of the research, they weren’t given the right to withdraw from the experiment when feeling discomfort or to decline to answer any questions put to them. The researchers didn’t get the non-subjective approval of independent advisors knowing that unusual discomfort or other negative consequences may follow from the research. The participants were also insulted, which was against the principle of respect. They weren’t treated with dignity.

Nobody explained the participants how their data would be handled or what would happen with the answers they gave. No anonymity was guaranteed as the students could easily be identified by the code number assigned to them. No consent was obtained for disclosure of confidential information originated from the research.

The experiment generated in the participants feelings of aggression and they were unprotected from psychological and physical harm. No debriefing process took place to identify any unforeseen harm, discomfort or misconceptions and in order to arrange for assistance if needed. The researchers didn’t consider the fact that some participants may be feeling upset or may not agree with the results. They were just sent home without further explanation.

Words: 240

2 (b). To be more compliant with the current ethical standards the researchers should have obtained informed consent from the participants to give them the opportunity to understand the nature and purpose of the research, keeping adequate records of when, how and from whom consent was obtained. They should have also ensured the participants were aware of their right to withdraw at any time and informed them that they may decline to answer any question asked to them.

The researcher should have treated the participants with more respect without insulting them. The researchers should have ensure the anonymity of the research and obtain consent for disclosure of confidential information.

Considering that a certain level of deception is necessary to preserve the integrity of the research (a certain level of tension had to be generated to reproduce a real life situation and assess participants hostility), psychologists should have disclosed at the earliest feasible opportunity the nature of the deception, instead of sending the students home. The process of debriefing is missing and this is fundamental to answer questions, identify any harm caused and provide the participants with help if needed.

Words: 187