Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valsiner, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Dangerous Curves in Knowledge Construction within Psychology

Fragmentation of Methodology

Jaan Valsiner

Clark University

Psychology has become divided by its methodological fixations, largely overlooking the centrality of its phenomena. The alienation of methods from phenomena results in skirmishes between preferred methodological styles (e.g. qualitative vs quantitative). This defies the integrative nature of science that functionally links theoretical and empirical facets of the research process in a methodology cycle. This integration was called for by C. Lloyd Morgan a century ago in the form of integrating the researcher’s introspective and extrospective experiences on the way to creating general knowledge. In contrast, our contemporary fragmentation of the discipline is compounded by forces of social canalization—it becomes controllable by different social interest groups. What kinds of questions are asked by researchers, to whom, and with what kind of focus becomes a task of negotiation between science and the given society. The increasing social control over the domain of ‘research ethics’ in psychology is an example of the social canalization of psychology’s knowledge construction. As a result, many basic questions are no longer addressed. To return to the creation of basic knowledge, psychology needs to reverse the fragmentation of its methodology and to assert the relative autonomy of its research practices from the control of social institutions.

Key Words: fragmentation • methodology • Morgan • phenomenology

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 5, 597-612 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354306067439


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
History of the Human SciencesHome page
F. J. Hibberd
John Anderson's development of (situational) realism and its bearing on psychology today
History of the Human Sciences, October 1, 2009; 22(4): 63 - 92.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
H. J. Stam
Introduction: Reclaiming the Social in Social Psychology
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2006; 16(5): 587 - 595.
[Abstract] [PDF]