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 Lamiell, J. T.
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?

On Sustaining Critical Discourse with Mainstream Personality Investigators

Problems and Prospects

James T. Lamiell

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, lamiellj{at}georgetown.edu

In an American Psychologist article published in 1981, the author of the present contribution began a critique of the epistemic tenets of the traditional individual differences framework for personality research, which has long dominated the field. Though at first that article and others published soon thereafter generated some needed critical discourse within the discipline, mainstream investigative practices remain now just as they have long been, and, in the meantime, the critical discourse itself has largely ceased. In the present contribution, the author relates his attempts to understand these developments through historical research into the roots of mainstream thinking. Given the nature and depth of these roots, the continuing resistance to change within the mainstream is more readily understood. Nevertheless, it is argued, the need for such change remains, and it is observed that in the prevailing intellectual climate of the discipline, such change still does not appear imminent.

Key Words: critical discourse • historical considerations • individual differences • individuals • personality psychology • statistical thinking

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 169-185 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354307075041


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
Theory PsychologyHome page
R. R. McCrae
The Physics and Chemistry of Personality
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2009; 19(5): 670 - 687.
[Abstract] [PDF]