The Study of China in Universities: A Comparative Case Study of A ...

Mannheim postulated that all knowledge arises out of an individual’s personal experience in real-life situations and is not in any sense an absolute (Morrish, 1978). His theories include the belief that the individual’s position influences the thought process and the result of thought is given a perspective from the individual’s beliefs. He believed that the sociology of knowledge examines and analyzes the mental process of whole institutions, such as universities and schools. These institutions are created by individuals who, in turn, are affected and influenced by their own involvement in the institutions. Mannheim argued about the relationship between the individual and knowledge and believed the situations surrounding individuals are inherent factors in determining the production of knowledge (Morrish, 1978). Thus, there is a reciprocal relationship interflow between the individual, society, and knowledge generated by individuals. Delanty (1997) suggested that the American tradition of symbolic interactionism in many ways reflects Mannheim’s thoughts. This leads me to discuss the second position that I adopt, taken from symbolic interactionism.

In Mead’s (1934) words, “self” is a part of the social process and is an experiential relationship to the social process as a whole (McKinney, 1955/1991). This means individuals are constantly considering where they are in their worlds and deciding what to do next—that is to say, individuals are engaged in active meaning making, and the activities of interaction occur through active communication (Blumer, 1969). In other words, individuals try to make sense through communication and reflection upon meanings that they perceive. The position that I adopt is that self is constructed through interaction with the world around the individual, and individuals are constantly exercised in making sense of what is happening through communication. From a methodological point of view, when seeking respondents’ interpretations of their professional world as they perceive it, the tradition of symbolic interactionism makes sense.

However, there is criticism of the adoption of the interactionist approach. For example, Bryman (2001) noted that the interactionists’ views that social phenomena are not produced only through the social interaction of social actors mean that reality is in a constant state of revision.