Critical thinking in social and psychological inquiry.

Richardson, Frank C.; Slife, Brent D.

doi:10.1037/a0024723

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the human sciences theory transforms self-understanding and alters the constitutive features of practices and vice versa, in a reciprocal manner (Richardson and Slife, 2011). A psychology based entirely on the assumptions and methods of the natural sciences cannot escape self-defining conclusions about what is worthwhile and how it is to be studied, nor can it reach the degree of certainty associated with the natural sciences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversies in Psychotherapy Research: Epistemic Differences in Assumptions about Human Psychology

Shean

2013

APT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is the thesis of this paper that differences in philosophical assumptions about the subject matter and treatment methods of psychotherapy have contributed to disagreements about the external validity of empirically supported therapies (ESTs). These differences are evident in the theories that are the basis for both the design and interpretation of recent psychotherapy efficacy studies. The natural science model, as applied to psychotherapy outcome research, transforms the constitutive features of the study subject in a reciprocal manner so that problems, treatments, and indicators of effectiveness are limited to what can be directly observed. Meaning-based approaches to therapy emphasize processes and changes that do not lend themselves to experimental study. Hermeneutic philosophy provides a supplemental model to establishing validity in those instances where outcome indicators do not lend themselves to direct observation and measurement and require "deep" interpretation. Hermeneutics allows for a broadening of psychological study that allows one to establish a form of validity that is applicable when constructs do not refer to things that literally "exist" in nature. From a hermeneutic perspective the changes that occur in meaning-based therapies must be understood and evaluated on the manner in which they are applied to new situations, the logical ordering and harmony of the parts with the theoretical whole, and the capability of convincing experts and patients that the interpretation can stand up against other ways of understanding. Adoption of this approach often is necessary to competently evaluate the effectiveness of meaning-based therapies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversies in Psychotherapy Research: Epistemic Differences in Assumptions about Human Psychology

Shean

2013

APT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An application of the didactic tool theories-are-maps adds complexity to the conception of psychology offered in most undergraduate curriculums. We argue that this complexity can facilitate the kind of critical thinking in psychology education that has been called for by, for example, Dunn, Halonen, and Smith (2008), in relation to methodological skills, as well as the kind of critical thinking called for by, for example, Richardson and Slife (2011). Additionally, this conceptual tool adds the epistemological dimension that Reddy and Lantz (2010) found lacking in the undergraduate curriculum.…”

Section: Summing Upmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The epistemological foundations of psychology are seldom included in the undergraduate curriculum, and thus science is at risk of becoming a matter of applying methodological rules, as discussed by, for instance, Reddy and Lantz (2010). It has even been argued that this tendency causes psychological understanding to appear as if it comes about through method only (Richardson & Slife, 2011; Slife & Williams, 1997). Yanchar, Slife, and Warne (2008) argue that critical thinking in psychology must include the implicit assumptions that guide psychological reasoning (see also Kirschner, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theories as maps: Teaching psychology beyond mind and behavior.

Erikson

Erlandson

2015

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a challenge for psychology education to teach students about the possibilities and limitations of psychological theories. In the present article, we attempt to meet this challenge by employing the metaphorical expression “theories-are-maps” as a didactic tool for exploring the dynamics between psychology as a scientific project and the nature of the phenomena observed. Using mental illness as an example, we use the map metaphor to discuss the various difficulties involved in teaching theories in psychology, in such terms as the risk of confusing maps and terrain. While using theories-are-maps as a tool does add complexity to psychology education, it also helps illustrate how the relationship between theory and the “reality” that theoretical devices are describing can be envisaged. We see this as a contribution to the discussion on critical thinking in psychology, particularly in the teaching of psychology.

show abstract

“…There is a form of “circularity” implicit in the design requirements of RCT studies that contributes to self-defining conclusions about what is worthwhile, how therapy is to be described, how problems are described, and how change is assessed (Cushman & Gilford, 2000; Richardson & Slife, 2011). Some consequences of this circularity are evident in the assumption that participants can be validly matched on relevant variables and therapeutic approaches must be sufficiently structured to be administered from a manual in a limited and predefined number of sessions controlled manner (Stricker, 2006).…”

Section: Concerns About Lists Of Ebtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some methodological and epistemic limitations of evidence-based therapies.

Shean¹

2015

Psychoanalytic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emphasis on the importance of identifying evidence-based practices increased markedly after publication of a 1995 APA Task Force white paper. The APA call to action resulted in lengthy lists of therapies that have been reported to be effective. This body of research has been the rationale and justification for proposals to change how psychotherapy training programs in psychology are evaluated and accredited, professional competence is assessed, licensure granted, and reimbursement policies are structured. Given the potentially restrictive proposals set forth on the basis of lists of "empirically validated therapies," this paper describes methodological issues that should temper enthusiasm for adoption of training and certification restrictions based on this body of research. Several of these issues stem from a form of "circularity" inherent in design requirements of randomized control psychotherapy outcome studies. In effect, these requirements constrain the manner in which the psychological problems are defined, psychotherapy is practiced, and change is evaluated. Adoption of policies based on lists of empirically supported therapies will not legitimize the science of psychotherapy but rather limit how psychotherapy is conceptualized and practiced, stifle innovation and creativity in the field, and run counter to the welfare and interests of many individuals who seek psychotherapy services as well as many professionals. Alternative approaches to knowledge development based on the integration of process and outcome variables and the application of hermeneutics will allow for alternative and conceptually more informed approaches to describing and evaluating what actually occurs in most psychotherapy practices.

show abstract

Critical thinking in social and psychological inquiry.

Cited by 11 publications

References 30 publications

Controversies in Psychotherapy Research: Epistemic Differences in Assumptions about Human Psychology

Controversies in Psychotherapy Research: Epistemic Differences in Assumptions about Human Psychology

Theories as maps: Teaching psychology beyond mind and behavior.

Some methodological and epistemic limitations of evidence-based therapies.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About