Toward a theoretical psychology: Should a subdiscipline be formally recognized?

Abstract

The purpose of this article is (a) to promote careful consideration of a new subdiscipline called theoretical psychology and (b) to invite psychology's evaluation of its own scholarly and intellectual status. Increased signs of disciplinary fragmentation as well as threats to mainstream psychology's philosophy of science have presented challenges that call for thoughtful disciplinary discussion. The authors propose the formal recognition of a subdiscipline whose role is to facilitate this discussion. At the local level, theoretical psychologists should fill a role as consultants to their organization or department, similar to that of statisticians and methodologists. Researchers and practitioners WOUld consult with theoreticians about the types of explanations and methods they are using to see if these approaches are coherent, hold hidden problems, and are appropriate to the assumptions being made. Many psychologists already perform these roles, using a variety of supporting journals, organizations, and institutions. These supports are briefly reviewed, along with anticipated objections to this role and possible considerations for training these professionals. l•pfl•s article responds affirmatively to the question sed in the rifle. Although we attempt to present main arguments for and against the formal recognition of this subdiscipline, our view is that the arguments in favor far outweigh the arguments against. In short, we feel that this is an idea whose time has come. However, we are not naive enough to think that our proposal will not generate considerable controversy. On the contrary, the question of a theoretical subdiscipline raises all sorts of issues that go to the core of the discipline as a whole. Consequently, the question we raise is important to consider not only for the obvious reasons regarding the need for a new subdiscipline (or the need for subdisciplines at all) but also for the inevitable disciplinary selfevaluation this question engenders. From our perspective, this evaluation is precisely why a subdiscipline of theoretical psychology is needed.We begin by attempting to situate the question historically. A historical question related to the title question is as follows: Why has there not been a formally recognized subdiscipline of theoretical psychology to this point? As we show, psychology's stake in being recognized as a science, as well as its particular philosophy of science, is an important part of the answer to this question. Another issue that appears to be embedded in ttie title question is as follows: Why propose a subdiscipline O f theoretical psychology atthis point? We attempt to demonstrate that the philosophy of science long embraced by the discipline, and perhaps even our disciplinary identity, is changing. Part of tl~ purpose of theoretical psychology is to understand this change and to provide informed and formal discourse about what psychology may be changing to.Furthermore, issues that psychology must confront in the current intellectual climate argue for a formal subdisc...

Methodological pluralism: A framework for psychotherapy research

“…Indeed, this assumption, as with all ultimate assumptions, is unproven and untested. That is, there is no empirical evidence for empiricism (Slife & Williams, 1997). One can, of course, assert that empiricism has been successful, but without scientific evidence this is merely opinion.…”

Allgemeiner Theorieverlust in der Allgemeinen Psychologie?

“…Slife & Williams, 1997 Lewin, 1931;Bischof, 1981Bischof, , 2008. Demnach ist die Psychologie eine »verspätete« Wissenschaft, die sich -wie die Physik -potenziell schon seit der Zeit Galileis aus dem philosophischen Kontext hätte lösen können.…”

An unabashedly unrealistic wish list for the education and training of psychotherapists

“…Slife & Williams, 1997). Adopting this larger perspective would leave room for declining the single-truth's dictum that students in all approaches have to take required basic courses in biology, neurology, physiology, experimental psychology, learning, memory, perception, cognition, human development, and courses in mental illnesses and diseases, psychodiagnosis and assessment of mental disorders, and supposedly basic courses in psychotherapy.…”