The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology.

Abstract

There has been in the field of psychology a long and well-documented discontent with an apparent disorganization in its literature, most often interpreted as reflecting the absence of a unifying theory. This article examines some alternative ways in which some of the disorganization is being actively created by forms of argumentation used in reporting and discussing psychological research. One institutionalized form of argumentation used in reporting data actually generates the proliferation of theoretical terms in the literature. A second form of argumentation reifies theories into social groups, incorporating values that discourage theoretical integration. Some of the discontent arises from the incompatibility between the values latent in such social organizations and the values that motivate scientific inquiry at a personal level.

Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis.

“…Despite its importance for scientific progress, conceptual analysis is acknowledged less than experimentation and mathematization (see the following philosophers and historians of science: Bachelard, 1934Bachelard, /1984Hacking, 1983;Laudan, 1977;Whewell, 1989;psychologists: Green, 1992;Katzko, 2002;Machado et al, 2000;Slife & Williams, 1995;and biologists: Ghiselin, 1989;Vogel, 1998). The reasons why are undoubtedly many and varied (Machado et al, 2000).…”

Psychology's dilemma: An institutional neurosis?

“…Perhaps, but I wonder if the problems so identified are the epistemological ones that the Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System hopes to solve. There are a number of problems in psychology and efforts toward disciplinary unification have not necessarily diagnosed all of their proper causes (Katzko, 2002). Auguste Comte developed a similar ToK and is credited with "inventing" sociology as a discipline, although he neither invented nor discovered the related phenomena.…”

“…In this regard, the deliberate institutional implementation of a quasi-positivist ideology in psychology has been a methodological disaster on several fronts (Chow, 1996;Danziger, 1990;MacMartin & Winston, 2000;Michell, 1999;Morrison & Henkel, 1970;Stam, Radtke, & Lubek, 2000). In this context, I have argued (Katzko, 2002) that another kind of disunity has been internally generated by an inappropriate application of this ideology, and the evidence for it is the rhetorical structure of research articles.…”

“…Unification is an ongoing project in science, representing a goal and not a precondition for progress (Katzko, 2002). If such a theory is to be a "fix" for a problem, it depends on the sort of problem at issue.…”

“…The emergence of institutional designations can be a function of the scope of the phenomenon, the scope of intellectual interest, and the presence of wider social or economic applications (Pickstone, 2000). This can be viewed as an institutional selforganizing process (Wagner-Döbler, 1997) reflecting "the inherent richness of the phenomena, a practical need for division of labor, or simply different interests among investigators" (Katzko, 2002). Thus, one must distinguish diversity from disorganization, and then factor diversity out of the analysis.…”