On Mainstreaming Philosophy of Science in Psychology Through “Psychological Theoretics

Abstract

The principal goal of psychological science is not application but theory. This is because a good theory yields accurate predictions and control, two preconditions for applications. Thus, good psychological science is one that produces good theories. Against the background of reproducibility crisis and the apparent non-existence of an integrated subfield of psychology addressing those issues, I submit psychological theoretics (or psycho-theoretics) as a potential solution. The scope of psychological theoretics is outlined and distinguished from other closely related subfields. It was argued that psychological theoretics has the potential to make a unique contribution to the advancement of good psychological science. It is also worth noting that even if the global community of psychologists might not be ready for psychological theoretics as a new subfield, the reforms proposed under its rubrics would still remain relevant today and in the future. Indeed, the question of whether it is completely new will surely be the subject of scientific debate.

Epistemological Allyship

“…It appears that visible researchers are more likely to be cited for theoretical and methodological contributions than merely as a related empirical study. This is because ‘original, daring, [and] stimulating’ work (Lamont, 2019, p. 34) is more likely to occur in the form of theoretical and methodological contributions (Oppong, 2022a; Yankah, 2012). Thus, as much as epistemological allies are being called upon to expand the scope of what they read and cite, AMWs also have a responsibility to write about things that contribute unique perspectives.…”

“…However, this call is to encourage epistemological allies to search databases beyond their usual focus to include non-mainstream ones like African Journals Online and many similar others to locate relevant papers related to their work. This will enable them to begin to question established facts with cross-cultural evidence so as to improve the generalisability of their research beyond the Western contexts (Oppong, 2022; Wang et al, 2016). Though evidence exists that mentioning settings outside of Western contexts in the titles of research articles often leads to lower readership and citation (Kahalon et al, 2022), epistemological allies should take this as an opportunity to rather screen for more relevant research papers outside of Western settings to read and, if possible, cite.…”