Situated knowledge and learning

I read an extremely interesting paper of Edith Ackermann Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Construcionism: What’s the difference?. It seems some thoughts can be applied to anthropologists who go down into a radically different culture and have to build something (e.g. a report or a book). Can it be considered a sort of a constructionism form?
These are some extracts from the article:
“Constructionism — the N word as opposed to the V word — shares contructivism’s view of learning as “building knowledge structures” through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe (Papert, 1991, Mindstorms. Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, p.1).”
“To Papert, knowledge, even in adult experts, remains essentially grounded in contexts, and shaped by uses, and the use of external supports and mediation remains, in his mind, essential to expand the potentials of the human mind — at any level of their development. Papert’s constructionism, in other words, is both more situated more pragmatic than Piaget’s constructivism.”
“Papert draws our attention to the fact that “diving into” situations rather than looking at them from a distance, that connectedness rather than separation, are powerful means of gaining understanding. Becoming one with the phenomenon under study is, in his view, a key to learning. Papert’s research focuses on how knowledge is formed and transformed within specific contexts, shaped and expressed through different media, and processed in different people’s minds.”

Edith Akermann concludes by saying: “I think of cognitive growth as a lifelong attempt on the part of the subject to form and constantly reform some kind of balance between closeness and separation, openness and closure, mobility and stability, change and invariance.”