Wanting to summarize the constructivism article means, logically or paradoxically, not being able to ultimately describe it or assign it to individual authors. From a constructivist point of view, constructivism does not exist at all. Rather, it or he depends on who describes it (observer) and how it is described (language as a medium) and what it is described for (contextualization). The following article decides to attempt to demonstrate some of the basic ideas of “constructivism” through observation while observing (describing) (second-order cybernetics). Constructivist thinking is not original per se: it can be summarized as a type of “thinking about thinking”, which has its roots very much in scientific-biological perspectives and, in its effects, the fundamental perspective for the applied systemic and hypnosystemic approaches in the therapeutic, psychological, economic and social sciences. Metaperspectively, a meta-theory is formulated from the areas of neurobiology/neuroscience, the sociology of knowledge, cybernetics, the epistemologically oriented history of philosophy and psychology. Even the term theory falls short, as will be shown below: it is rather a specific way of “perceiving, seeing and feeling in and on the world”: According to these roots, one can at least consider the radical, the Distinguish between philosophical, (neuro)biological, psychological, cybernetic, knowledge-sociological constructivism and the so-called Erlanger constructivism. Below are the basic ideas that connect or share all “varieties” of constructivism.

>> George A. Kelly (co-founder of constructivism) describes (Kelly, 1986) all knowledge as constructs that we adapt individually. Referring back to Jean Piaget, every reality is a construction of individual reality(s) as a (cognitive) act in the brain (creating the “world in the head”); The foundations therefore lie in our consciousness (Piaget, 1975). The individual actively reconstructs all personality characteristics as well as insights, intelligence, thinking, autonomy, etc. within himself with the help of two basic processes:
(1) Assimilation: Information is interpreted from the environment & according to previous knowledge,
(2) Accommodation: The already existing knowledge can be modified by new information and is therefore inherently self-referential. Added to this is the need for interaction with the material and socio-cultural environment.

As a consequence, this leads the radical constructivism of Ernst von Glasersfeld or the cybernetic constructivism of Heinz von Foerster to the consideration that an absolute reality and objective knowledge outside of the individual subjective reconstruction in an individual through perception is not “conceivable”: “ Truth is the invention of a liar” (Pörksen/v. Foerster, 202213). The world can only be understood through and through one's own interpretation of phenomena. People who think constructivistically do not deny the existence of an external reality (so-called reality). But you doubt that we can recognize this without any prerequisites and objectively: the world cannot therefore be recognized in its immediate essence. Thinking more constructivist, the observer asks how concepts of reality come about: Gunther Schmidt calls this “waiting on reality” (Schmidt, 20219). All varieties of constructivist thinking are (provisionally) convinced that cognition and knowledge are not based on correspondence with an external reality (correspondence theory of truth), but on viable (i.e. useful and [provisionally] usable) constructions of an observer, a knower (Glasersfeld, 1997). These construction(s) are both an individual act of creation and caused by complex developments in nature, culture, language, history and media and they are neither. The environment and world as we perceive it is a re-construction (“invention”) of us in our interaction with the social environment and surroundings. Individuals do not react to stimuli from an objective world, but rather create a subjective reality with the help of sensory impressions, which depends on the individual's individual character.
The view from the brain into the brain through the brain: the computation of the world
From a constructivist perspective, humans are understood as a largely informationally closed system, which is based on autopoesis (Hoffmann, 2022), circular causality and self-referentiality and is autonomously (structurally) determined. The computer metaphor that we are so used to, with its output and input or sender/receiver logic, falls short here. According to Mack (2016), this means: it is impossible to exchange nerve cells when interacting with the environment. Perception is therefore individually based on what all sense organs and the brain do with the respective stimuli. Nerve cells are purely binary: they only know (0) or (1), on/off, fire/don't fire: purely electrical impulses are processed by the sensory cells and the brain in such a way that only differences in the sense of contrast in time or spatial change (connectome). The chemical transmissions by switching from electrical to chemical energy at the synapses only modify the changes. Neural body functions and structures only pass on what is useful for constant development (Maturana, 1970, 1990; Maturana/Varela, 1987, 2009). Since the perceived external world is only a reconstruction of an active brain, we cannot know what the world really is like: perception only creates one of many possible worlds in our imagination according to the biologically given brain connections. The constructivist relies on neuroscientific research that (preliminarily) shows us that when the brain perceives the external world, it does not recognize it as it really is, but rather, controlled by nerve impulses in neural networks, it constructs it in a time and space dimension ( Pöppel, 2006) himself this perception and also provides it with the corresponding individual meaning (truth). Of course, this applies not only to seemingly real things in the outside world such as houses, people, stones, trees or cars, but also to the consideration of the mechanisms of cognition and the brain itself. The neuroscientifically collected and observed properties of the human brain itself are also consistent also just human constructs. Every perception, knowledge and thought process is based on the constructions of an observer. The constructivist is therefore interested in what proves to be useful or viable. For constructivism, the human organism is a system that is energetically open and structurally coupled with the environment and at the same time acts in an informationally closed manner, so that the brain only reacts to the information that has already been processed and interpreted from outside (autopoiesis). (Stangl, 2022). The consequence of this view is the consistent separation of observation and observer and the observation of the observer (Simon, 2018): “Everything that is said is said by an observer.” (Maturana 1998, p. 25) The perceptions or The reconstructions of our world should of course not be confused with reality. The metaphor that is often chosen for this is the difference between landscape and map: “The map is not the territory”. In the communicative exchange and in the observation of the observing/observer, we can exchange maps, but we do not see the landscape that the person concerned is reconstructing within themselves.
Against the triviality of the world – complexity and non-linear causality(s)
Abstraction of perception from the observer and a “reification” of the objectivity of natural sciences assume that examined objects have characteristic objective properties: input-output relations, rules, predictions. This can be seen in the linear-causal interpretation of trivial machines (v. Foerster, in: Simon, 20178), although the term machine here is to be interpreted very broadly. Von Foerster distinguishes these trivial machines in their ABCD logic from complex (human) systems, which are fundamentally non-trivial, i.e. not to be understood in causal-linear-logical terms (v. Foerster, 1988 in: Simon, 20178). Cause and effect are not causally and logically related and (behavioral) predictions cannot therefore be made using a causal linear cause-effect logic, but at best using a (preliminarily) viable plausibility heuristic. The human environment - the system and the counterpart systems of the human - are non-trivial and therefore cannot be described in trivial, “naive” causal logic: complexity is the key word that is introduced at this point. Complexity is an opaque, ambiguous or paradoxical term: it describes as a whole what is actually diverse. The perception of complexity is reduced in systems - a different complexity is reconstructed. The phenomenon of complexity, complexity reduction and complexity forgetfulness is examined in detail by Nassehi (2018) and its importance for our society and science.
observing, observer,
Designate – differences that make differences
Bateson (1972, 1982, 1985) gives another central reference to the coupling of perception and view of the world: “(…) perception only works with differences. Every reception of information is necessarily the reception of a message of a difference, and all perception of differences is limited by thresholds. Differences that are presented too small or too slowly cannot be perceived.” (Bateson, 1982, p. 39f) He therefore defines information(s) as differences that make the difference, which in turn depends on the respective direction of attention. Messages, observations and communicated content of all kinds no longer depend on the meaning (name) of a supposed sender and if possible. “correct/correct” reception from an alleged recipient. Rather, these are significantly influenced and dependent on the interpretation schemes of the supposed recipient: on the differences that make a central difference for the “recipient”. Any state that we can mark through differences that make a difference to us are so-called “marked states” (Spencer-Brown, 1969, in: Simon 20178); these differences between marked and unmarked states are determined by the respective observer and their context. Observing consists of the unity of distinguishing and labeling: we “name” distinctions by correlating distinctions with one another. “You perform an action (you make a difference = mark a space) and give it (it) a name (designate it with a signal).” (Simon, 20178). The prerequisite for this view is an all-party epistemological meta-perspective, without ontological determinations.
Thinking without language is
impossible: communication and language as a medium of reflection and thinking
As a consequence of constructivist thinking, Watzlawick sees reality as the result of communication and not of objective truths (Watzlawick, 1992). Seen from the meta perspective, there is not one reality, but rather plural realities, all of which (can) exist side by side and are therefore also communicable. Watzlawick repeatedly warns against viewing one's own reality as the generally valid one and "selling" it: according to Watzlawick, intentional refusal to communicate and significant communication disruptions are the frequent result.
For Theda Rehbock (2009), a central point of argument was to view language as more “as a mere element of communication”. In Wittgenstein's sense that “all philosophy represents language criticism” (Wittgenstein, 1960), the starting point for thinking is to view language as a vital element of thinking, human knowledge and self-knowledge, but also as language itself an instrument of human life and action. For Rehbock, there was always a clear and close connection between scientific language and everyday language, which is also reflected in the importance of literary devices in the language of science. With Merleau-Ponty (2013) she repeatedly criticizes the language of science in its objectivist view and reduction to langue. In contrast, it posits language as a slogan, as living speech, counter-speech and speaking. For Rehbock, the immanent physical biological anchoring of language as “matter-involving” also had to be clearly included in the theoretical considerations. These findings are now (neuro)scientifically substantiated in the polyvagally informed theories (Porges, 20102). For Rehbock and Porges, language and linguisticization mean the viable creation of usable intersubjective ideas through language as a learning product from (social) interaction: words mean concepts, concepts point to ideas and concepts. Word meanings are (inter)subjective constructs that only allow relative (value) judgments. In her language-philosophical statements, Rehbock always assumes language as a basic dimension of the personal horizon of meaning in relation to the other as a personal counterpart in a common world reference. For them, the norm here was understanding in relation to observing the relationship to one another. Language is the medium and the action: hardware and software at the same time, with which we not only exchange ideas about reality(s), but also help to shape them constitutively: So there can actually be no “understanding” of the other in the exchange of possible realities, but in the best case a “happy misunderstanding” or a consensus about what we collectively want to consider to be real as an interpretation and enduring ambiguities and dilemmas about what these meanings (can) mean for the individual.
Consequences for health services research, management and a “new” business administration
Health services research reconstructs communication (contexts) for a real healthcare system. She designs and shapes reality through her questions and the way she researches and communicates: not only through the “what”, but also through the “how”, the “where-for” and (often underestimated) through the “ How-For” in “Where-For” (Reinhard, 2014). It's not just decisions that change reality(s). How we “voice” supposedly true facts also changes the perception and reconstruction(s) of our reality(s). So in our environment we do not encounter a “true/real” environment, but rather a living environment designed, constructed and calculated by and through us. Switching from an objective reality to a constructed reality increases the responsibility that needs to be assumed (Pichler-Training, 2022). Health care research – thought of in a constructivist way – does not respond to a supposedly objective reality that would have to be grasped in order to act in a rational manner. More constructivist healthcare research promotes the move away from the (traditional) model of the homo economicus who acts in a rational manner towards a complexity-conscious, non-linear-causal-logical perspective: it focuses on responsible action in a chaotic, complex environment. What Kaspar and Mayrhofer (2015) formulated in a constructivist way for management also applies in this form to health care research: “(Management) means design - yes, but not or at most only to a small extent in the classic sense of doing, but rather in the sense of doing The sense of shaping and framing reality through speaking, acting and deciding. In this sense, management creates the reality that it subsequently treats as its own. To be on the safe side: Not only management in general, but also the varieties of business administration that are described as “hard”, “clear”, “quantitative”, such as those mentioned at the beginning, do this - through their presuppositions, their quantifications, etc. With such a shift from “ objective reality” to “constructed reality”, the design of the world in the sense of the construction of reality comes to the fore. What becomes real is what influential actors – individuals and individuals from e.g. B. business, politics, religion, science or art, or collectives such as. B. Board of Directors or Supervisory Board – (as) really see it. The opportunity to help shape, correct and change these realities lies in the insight that there is no reality independent of us, even in terms of hard data, figures and facts. There is a need for “critical observers [observation - author's note] who do not try to describe and interpret everything in terms of objective reality, but rather acknowledge that there is not one reality, but many. These realities are defined by individuals or groups and then guide their actions. It often happens that even other realities such as B. 'the markets' cannot be perceived or remain deliberately hidden. The way out: Critically observe and describe, critically reflect and interpret and cultivate an interactive exchange of dissent with others while accepting the inevitable constructions of realities.
In the sense of an enabling orientation according to Arnold (2019, 2017, 2014), this leads to transformational learning and action - also in systems. Nassehi (20182) refers to this as option enhancement: a difference that makes a difference. <<

Markus Greß-Heister MA, LL.M. , academic employee in business administration health management at the Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University Lörrach
“Constructivism makes life more beautiful, simpler and equally more complex, diverse and colorful because you lose the need to be right.”