Towards a cultural psychology of science

Abstract

In the present article the general guidelines for a cultural psychology of science are proposed and discussed. In order to do so, the first section of this article presents a literature review of philosophical, sociological, and psychological studies of science during the 20th century. Through this review, it becomes clear that the existing studies of science have either neglected the personal role of the scientist, or subsumed it under collective elements, or reduced it to cognitive styles and personality traits. To overcome this shortcoming, the cultural psychology of science proposes to understand the scientist as a purpose-oriented person that constructively transforms culturally available meanings in order to create novel scientific knowledge. This new theoretical synthesis is presented and exemplified through four aspects that define the personal dimension of science. In sum, this work looks to emphasize the crucial, driving role of the person of the scientists for the creation of novel scientific knowledge.

A Review of Psychology of Science

“…Chilean and Danish scholars reviewed the rise of cultural psychology of science, summarized that "cultural psychology of science proposes to understand the scientist as a purpose-oriented person that constructively transforms culturally available meanings in order to create novel scientific knowledge." [17] Peruvian scholar explored the early psychology thought of science in Paraguay, pointed out R. Ross who wrote an article in the Paraguayan journal "Letras" inó 1915 is the early explorer of psychology of science. Ross' argument is that geniuses' production is one of the most valuable potentials to a nation, "His argument agrees with considerations related to the subjective processes leading creative inspiration, the generation of new ideas and the relations between genius and insanity" [18].…”

Análise do Comportamento como uma Psicologia da Ciência

“…Os objetivos reproduzem as características do contexto teórico no âmbito do qual são elaborados e, em geral, eles também são uma adaptação dos objetivos da própria psicologia (Feist, 2006;Simonton, 2009). A despeito dessa diversidade, a psicologia da ciência, usualmente, objetiva compreender a dimensão psicológica do empreendimento científico (Carré, 2018;Feist, 2006); seja com vistas a identificar e determinar a influência de elementos psicológicos na produção de conhecimento (e.g., Frieze et al, 1981;Grosul & Feist, 2014;Krasner & Houts, 1984;Mitroff & Kilmann, 1975), seja para descrever, a partir de uma perspectiva psicológica, o próprio processo científico (e.g., Gholson & Houts, 1989;Mahoney, 2003;Romo, 1992;Simonton, 2009). Mitroff e Kilmann (1975), por exemplo, descrevem como diferentes tipos de personalidade influenciam o processo de revisão por pares; e Romo (1992) destaca a importância de uma análise psicológica do "processo de gestação" das descobertas científicas (p. 125).…”

“…Os estudos psicológicos da ciência utilizam diversos métodos, seguem uma multiplicidade de linhas de investigação e estão baseados em diferentes pressupostos teóricos (Feist, 2006;Feist & Gorman, 1998;Rueda & Monguilod, 2002). As pesquisas na área pautam-se, por exemplo, na tradição piagetiana (Feist & Gorman, 1998), na teoria da personalidade de C. G. Jung (Mitroff & Kilmann, 1975), na teoria da atribuição (Frieze et al, 1981), na psicologia motivacional e da personalidade de Maslow (Kožnjak, 2017), na psicologia cultural (Carré, 2018) e na teoria do conhecimento pessoal de M. Polanyi (Carré, 2018). São observadas, nesse contexto, diferentes psicologias da ciência, tais como a psicologia biológica, desenvolvimental, cognitiva, da personalidade, social e clínica da ciência (Feist & Gorman, 1998).…”

Culture & Psychology: 25 Constructive years

“…If we were to progress in this new and still developing science, it is the personal dialogicality of the scientist with her or his society:…this approach proposed the centrality of a knowledge-making person embedded in cultural environments—the scientist—for understanding scientific activity and its product, scientific knowledge. This centrality was elaborated and exemplified through four aspects of scientific activity: life experiences, commitment to experience, awareness of subsidiary meanings , and inclusive separation (Carré, 2019, p. 25, added emphasis).This focus of knowledge makers and their ways of building new understandings is crucial for overcoming the major obstacle on the way of this new direction of psychology—advancement of new methodology (Arruda, 2003; Valsiner, 2014a, 2017b; Valsiner, Molenaar, Lyra, & Chaudhary, 2009). The researcher’s ways of interpreting the materials from their own or other societies—and the researchees and interpreters counter-interpretations—need constant scrutiny and, at times, therapeutic treatment (Skjelsbaek, 2016).…”

“……this approach proposed the centrality of a knowledge-making person embedded in cultural environments—the scientist—for understanding scientific activity and its product, scientific knowledge. This centrality was elaborated and exemplified through four aspects of scientific activity: life experiences, commitment to experience, awareness of subsidiary meanings , and inclusive separation (Carré, 2019, p. 25, added emphasis).…”