Criteria for rigor in constructivist interventions

Criterios de rigor para intervenciones constructivistas

Juan Morúa Ramírez (), Sergio Méndez Valencia and Alba Maria del Carmen González-Vega
Additional contact information
Juan Morúa Ramírez: Universidad de Guanajuato = University of Guanajuato, CEREFIGE - Centre Européen de Recherche en Economie Financière et Gestion des Entreprises - UL - Université de Lorraine
Sergio Méndez Valencia: Universidad de Guanajuato = University of Guanajuato
Alba Maria del Carmen González-Vega: Universidad de Guanajuato = University of Guanajuato

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This article reflects scientific rigor in qualitative research developed from a constructivist epistemology, specifically in intervention processes with individuals. Unlike the positivist paradigm, which seeks to be "objective" through statistical designs and reliable measurements, constructivism recognizes the subjectivity of both the observer and the observed, raising new questions about how to ensure rigor in knowledge generation. The central objective was to analyze how rigor criteria are established and met in constructivist research, where action and theory are intertwined. To this end, the following questions were posed: Does rigor lie in proving the transformation of the participant? How can this be guaranteed without resorting to objectivity? Is it possible to formulate valid hypotheses within this framework? The methodology used was qualitative, based on a dialogue with relevant constructivist authors such as Watzlawick, Nardone, García, Piaget, and von Foerster. Their contributions allow us to understand the role of communication, complexity, cognition, and second-order cybernetics in the construction of reality and in intervention processes. The results of this reflection show that rigor is not limited to proving transformations, but also requires systematically documenting the process, seeking to meet other criteria such as credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability of the findings. Furthermore, it is recognized that the hypotheses formulated in this paradigm are plausible and operational, rather than statistically verifiable, and that the transformation of the researcher is an inherent part of the process. In conclusion, adopting constructivism implies recognizing that knowledge is subjective and situated, which demands criteria of rigor distinct from those of positivism.

Keywords: Communication; Psychosocial intervention.; Cognition; Epistemology; Qualitative research (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-10-14
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in New Trends in Qualitative Research, 2026, 22 (4), pp.E1353. ⟨10.36367/ntqr.22.4.2026.e1353⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05800224

DOI: 10.36367/ntqr.22.4.2026.e1353

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().