10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Psychology as a Science of Subject and Comportment, beyond the Mind and Behavior

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The turn of qualitative inquiry suggests a more open, plural conception of psychology than just the science of the mind and behavior as it is most commonly defined. Historical, ontological and epistemological binding of this conception of psychology to the positivist method of natural science may have exhausted its possibilities, and after having contributed to its prestige as a science, has now become an obstacle. It is proposed that psychology be reconceived as a science of subject and comportment in the framework of a contextual hermeneutic, social, human behavioral science. Thus, without rejecting quantitative inquiry, psychology recovers territory left aside like introspection and pre-reflective self-awareness, and reconnects with traditions marginalized from the main stream. From this perspective psychology might also recover its credibility as a human science in view of current skepticism.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

          The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the “hardness” of scientific research—i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors—is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a “positive” (full or partial) or “negative” support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in “softer” sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field's level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The operational analysis of psychological terms.

            B. Skinner (1945)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A case history in scientific method.

              B. Skinner (1956)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                marino@uniovi.es
                Journal
                Integr Psychol Behav Sci
                Integr Psychol Behav Sci
                Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science
                Springer US (New York )
                1932-4502
                1936-3567
                24 October 2017
                24 October 2017
                2018
                : 52
                : 1
                : 25-51
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0001 2164 6351, GRID grid.10863.3c, Universidad de Oviedo, ; Oviedo, Spain
                Article
                9408
                10.1007/s12124-017-9408-4
                5846864
                29063995
                25e0e8a3-47c4-491a-85ed-1723277390b1
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Categories
                Regular Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                behavioral sciences,comportment,dualistic ontology,qualitative inquiry,positivist scientific method

                Comments

                Comment on this article