This approach is quite unique as a social problem refers to the activities of individuals or groups, which make assertions towards some harmful condition. The constructionists will focus on and examine what the claimsmakers say about conditions, rather than the conditions themselves. [5] This examination will often take the form of case studies, in which sociologists will look at how a particular public issue is constructed. Constructionism is also interested in problem identification, or its perception and definition. Of interest is how certain conditions come to be defined as problems by certain groups, as this usually reflects an issue of power that this group stands to lose or benefit from. Typification, or the characterization of a problem’s nature [6] is also important to sociologists. Typification will take the common forms of assuming a particular orientation for a problem, in order to provide a solution, as well as using typifying examples to capture public attention. Examples of this can be found later in this paper, in the discussion of Best’s logical structure of claimsmaking as applied to child sexual abuse. While constructionists agree that social problems are a subjective phenomenon, there is a division among them over the nature of constructionism, which manifests into the strict and the contextual approaches to constructionism. Strict constructionism, as advocated by John I. Kitsuse [7], emphasizes the subjective view of a condition, and regardless of the analysts view, does not see the condition as an objective problem. Rather than providing an objective analysis, the strict constructionist will focus on who is making the claim, and what type of logic is being used. They will examine to what extent various claims are accepted, and by whom, and the impact that they have. This goal of assumption free sociology was found to be virtually impossible because every claim is mad...
