After posting my initial post on interpretism, I began to reflect and read/re-read Crotty on the topic. Now I'm not so sure that either Constructivism or Constructionism (Crotty distinguishes the two), should be placed in the interpretist fold. I was not definitive enough when I labeled constructivism as a horse of a different color. Possibly it is more like a platypus of sorts, a species that dislikes categorization. What seems to be materializing, at least to my mind are not just many truths, as the constructivist would say, but multiple constructivisms, multiple phenomenologies (Crotty 83-84), and I suspect multiples of most other methodologies. My question is, "What is important." It is as though ambiguity being taken for granted in constructivism, the model has done its best to construct more of the same a (more ambiguity); this is no way to build a railroad.