Values in Psychological Science

Coverage and treatment of qualitative inquiry in general research methods textbooks.

“…First, they should aim for a level of methodological inclusivity that ensures readers understand that “there are multiple ways in which to do psychological research, and that there is more than one ‘scientific method’” (Gibson & Sullivan, 2018, p. 19). Ideally, a broadened conception of science—such as the one proposed by Osbeck (2018)—could be provided to better facilitate methodological inclusivity. At a minimum, they should be in accord with the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major: Version 2.0, which explicitly indicate that students be able to interpret and evaluate qualitative research in relation to research questions.…”

“…Such a framework can serve as a useful starting point for assessing qualitative research on its own terms. Fourth, textbooks should refrain from presenting psychological science in static and/or dogmatic terms by acknowledging that science is a human sense-making activity (see Osbeck, 2018) and by placing greater emphasis on the dynamism of historical and philosophical influences that underpin all discussions of methodology. And finally, these texts should include more attention to models and practices of mixed-method research.…”

“…The challenges are amplified for those teaching research methods/methodology courses because they are tasked with cultivating sophisticated analytic and evaluative skills (Connor-Greene & Greene, 2002) while introducing complex and abstract ideas such as validity (Stoa et al, 2022) and replication (Chopik et al, 2018). Moreover, instructors of research are entering the field at a time in which conventional methodological narratives coincide with dynamic conversations about epistemic values (Osbeck, 2018), a growing awareness of methodological contestation (Pryiomka & Clegg, 2020), and the rise of new methods grounded in different philosophies of science (Wertz, 2014). To appreciate the unique and challenging position that new methods/methodology instructors are in, historical context is needed.…”

The meaning of scientific objectivity and subjectivity: From the perspective of methodologists.

“…However, Searle (1997) proposed that phenomena could be identified as either inherently ontologically objective or subjective-although epistemologically objective methods could study either (as could epistemologically subjective ones). Osbeck (2019) suggested that researchers turn to pragmatism to select paradigms that can best expand the understanding of a phenomenon. Also, it could be useful to consider how the integration of epistemological perspectives might differ if inquiry was focused within human science, examining the experience of being human, instead of on natural science, studying objects in the world (e.g., Dilthey, 1888).…”

From cybernetic networks to social narratives: Mapping value in mental health systems beyond individual psychopathology.

“…(p. 1) For Clarke this process can be understood as “ social autopoiesis,” a concept which builds upon Maturana and Varela’s (1991) notion of autopoiesis —essentially self-organization — to include what von Foerster called eigenvalues: “stable yet mobile and multiple recursive consensuses about comparable environments” (Clarke, 2014, p. 7). In her book, Values in Psychological Science , Lisa Osbeck (2018) has described such values as vectors— a term she borrows from Gestalt psychology to connote how they chart motivation and directionality within sociomaterial systems “and cannot be further broken apart (‘split’) or reduced to anything more primitive” (p. 26). According to Clarke, such a “neocybernetic epistemology” allows for relations between concepts like “self” and “others,” otherwise held together implicitly through narratives, to be decoded as objects of discursive analysis.…”