This article argues that the three most popular versions of constructionism in social problems research fail to eliminate social conditions as causal variables. Strict constructionism fails to empirically ground its analyses without reference to social conditions. Contextual constructionism ‘ontologically gerrymanders’ out social conditions as causal variables of social problems. Finally, debunking constructionism depends on the assumption that objectivism is true and then uses a negative theory of objectivism as constructionism in order to conduct investigations. That being so, the study of social problems should again investigate the way social conditions, as contextual to claims-making processes, create social problems. The ways in which opportunity structures affect the timing of the prominence and form of social problems is presented as a fruitful alternative.