Research Skills for Psychology Majors: Everything You Need to Know to Get Started

Philosophy of Science
P
sychologist care about the Philosophy of Science much like everyone cares
about air. We live and breath and depend on air but we hardly know how it
works, nor do we take much time to understand the philosophical basis for
our various activities as psychologists. One could argue that this is evidence that
we are in a phase of science that Thomas Kuhn called normal science, that is,
we agree on the ground rules of what were doing and we spend our time acting
on the basis of these rules rather than debating them. We breath the air but dont
experience much angst about it. This is an enviable state of affairs that some other
disciplines, such as anthropology, cannot claim to share.
The assessment of the state of psychology in the previous paragraph is vintage
about 1975. In the Third Millennium, the state of the air and psychologys philoso-
phy of science are both actively debated. Global warming is not directly important
to this chapter, but it may be quite important to you later on in life. The philosoph-
ical basis of psychology is also in fux, and if you remain in psychology, especially
academic psychology, you will have to grapple with its complexity many times in
your career. This change can be attributed to several sources, including globaliza-
tion of psychology, the rise of indigenous psychology movements, the changing
demographics of the world psychology powers (USA, Western Europe), the rise of
new psychology powers (e.g., in East Asia), and the failure of social science to live
up to its expectations. The famous Chinese curse, now almost a clich, comes to
mind:
May you live in interesting times.
In this chapter, we will describe the mainstream, normative conception of science
shared traditionally by American (and most other) psychologists and then talk
about its critics and alternate conceptions. We will introduce some of the main
problems and debates in the normative view. We will also discuss a related area,
the Sociology of Science, and talk about a new feature of globalization, indigenous
psychology. Discussions and debates in this area of discourse are famously obtuse
and dense. Hopefully, this one wont be.
Metatheories
Philosophies of science are infuenced by, and often constitute, the metatheoretical
orientations of communities of scholars. Metatheories are general conceptions or
assumptions about the nature of things: of people, the world, science, and so on.
These conceptions guide the development of more specifc, detailed theories and
beliefs. Metatheories are at the basis of religious belief systems, personal world
views, individual and cultural values, political orientations, and science. Everybody
has them, but they are often not well articulated or even conscious. When
individuals are asked to reveal their metatheories, they often cannot do so or they
2003 W. K. Gabrenya Jr. Version: 1.0
Kong-zi (Confu-
cius)
Page 2
express them in ways that must surely be considered
illogical to an outside observer. Some metatheoretical
dimensions are important to philosophy of science
but most have implications for a wide range of human
concerns. The sidebar includes a list of many of the
frequently discussed metatheoretical issues. Meta-
theories relevant to philosophy of science are dis-
cussed in this chapter.
The Physics Model
Early in the previous Century, American psychology
made a conscious decision to emulate the way of
knowing of the natural sciences, the center of which
is physics. The physics model (authors term) refers
to the traditional philosophy of science accepted,
implicitly more than consciously, by most working psy-
chologists up until the 1980s, and still by the majority
of psychologists. This model is also labeled, loosely,
positivism or neopositivism although this is not a
precisely accurate usage.
The Physics Model, as employed in the social and be-
havioral sciences, has the following characteristics:
1. A real world exists
2. Humans can know this world
3. The events of the world are fully determined,
although in a highly complex manner
4. The world can only be known through empirical
research combined with rational analysis
5. Humans are a natural phenomenon to which a
determinist universe applies
6. Research will eventually build theories and mod-
els that are universal
7. All theories are tentative, subject to additional
research
8. Final theories or laws are attainable but always
subject to new, better theories
A Real World Exists
This point may seem ridiculously obvious, the flm The
Matrix aside, but Western philosophers have never
accepted it at simple, face value. Our only evidence
of a real world is through our sense organs, aided by
research instrumentation, so to start with we need to
assume that our mental representation of the sensed
world corresponds to whats actually out there (and
that people can accuarately communicate what they
sense to each other then agree on it). But in the
Metatheoretical Dimensions
1. The essential nature of human beings
dualism: are people merely natural products (animals) or
do they possess something that transcends nature, such as
a soul?
mind/body dualism: is mind a natural extension of the body,
or is it somehow distinct or special?
free will/determinism
goodness: are humans essentially good, evil, both, neither?
progress: is humanity progressing in some manner, or
recapitulating earlier forms in new ways?
human subjectivity: how is the apparent subjectivity (know-
ing self) to be accounted for?
2. The appropriate manner for studying humans and societies
natural science methods: can we extend the methods of
natural science to the study of humans?
special methods for humans: must special methods be
used to study humans that take into consideration other
features of this list, such as free will?
universalism: can the study of humans reveal universal laws
of causality?
cumulative knowledge base: in studying humans, can we
expect to build a body of knowledge that is cumulative
and develop theories that generally improve, or are we
just going around in circles?
theoretical polytheism: can more than one high-level theory
(e.g., behaviorism and cognitivism) be correct?
language: can human languages represent or communicate
adequately the substance of social science?
culture: are cultural universals possible, or must all psychol-
ogies be culturally bound? Does language represent reality
differently, and does this difference make it impossible to
make generalizations or comparisons across cultures?
3. The relationship between people and society
volunteerism: are people free to create social institutions
and economic systems as they prefer, that is, society is the
collective creation of individuals, or...
social determinism: are people the end products of strong
social forces that have a trajectory of their own, molding
individuals to their needs or functions?
individualism/collectivism: are people basically individuals out
for personal gain, constrained by the power of society, or
are they basically social beings distracted by their personal
needs?
Page 3
4. The universality and historical stability of knowledge gained
relativism: are universal laws of human behavior that are
valid across cultures, times, and genders impossible? Must
all generalizations about humans be limited to times and
places?
indigenous psychology: can their be one psychology that
applies to all humans, or must their be different sciences of
psychology for each culture?
5. The relationship of the scientist to the subject of study
values biases: are the values held by social scientists an
impediment to their research, always biasing them in ways
they may not be aware of? Do the value biases of the
researcher make scientifc psychology impossible?
shared subjectivity: can the scientist ever truly understand
the point of view of the subject/native?
6. The political relevance and uses of the knowledge gained
science and ideology: is social science an ideology refecting
or imposed by a particular social class or culture? Are the
fndings of social science and psychology used to maintain
the privilege of any group of people?
practical applications: can scientifc psychology be used to
understand and solve real-world social issues and prob-
lems?
7. The nature of domestic and international political
relationships and political economy
individual rights: shall the individuals rights be paramount,
or should they be secondary to the needs of the com-
munity?
form of democracy: are the masses suffciently wise and
informed to directly rule a nation, or must it be ruled by
elected and appointed offcials (or through nondemocratic
methods)?
international relations: can the relations among nations be
guided by international law and moral principles toward an
optimistic hope of peaceful and equitable world commu-
nity; or is power and violence the rule among nations in
a pessimistic world system in which each nation must be
expected to extract as much as resource as possible for its
citizens, with no regard for the well-being of others?
social darwinism: do the best and brightest naturally rise to
the top of society, and is this process a proper basis for
domestic political decisions?
social class: is the elimination of social class differences pos-
sible? Desireable?
Input vs. output equality: shall the goal of equality among
citizens be applied at the input side (equal opportunity,
etc.) or at the output side (equal outcomes)?
philosophy of science, some philosophers argue that
no true universe exists; the universe is simply what we
think it is. From this perspective, natural science is a
social construction, an artifcial edifce created by sci-
entists through social and political processes. Needless
to say, this interesting perspective is not the majority
opinion.
Realists in the philosophy of science hold that there
is indeed a real world, and that it is up to scientists to
discover it. The Realists present a compelling meta-
phor to illustrate this idea: think of all of the universe
as represented in an enormous book, a volume that
contains all the truth that is out there to be found.
Scientifc research allows us to turn the pages of the
book, one at a time. As we learn one more truth, a
page is turned. All of these truths already exist in
nature, we must simply keep turning the pages. Some
pages are more easily turned than others, and some
pages receive greater attention due to the many soci-
etal infuences on the direction and resources of the
sciences.
In social science and psychology, the Realist position is
not quite so obvious, as discussed in a later section.
Humans Can Know This World
Implicit in the Realist approach is the assertion that the
universe is knowable; the pages of the big book can be
turned. Can humans in fact turn all these pages? The
Realist approach does not assume that we humans are
the ones who will turn all the pages, but they are opti-
mistic that with suffcient Newtons, Darwins, Einsteins,
time, money, and favorable political conditions, well do
well. Social and behavioral scientists evidence the same
optimism, although their tasks are more diffcult.
The Events of the World are Fully
Determined
The Physics Model assumes a determined universe:
everything has a cause, and every event has an effect
(albeit sometimes minor). Fully understanding these
causes and effects is exceedingly diffcult, and some-
times specifc predictions are practically impossible,
leaving us with probabilistic predictions: there is a 75%
chance that cause A will produce a specifc effect, etc.
In the physical universe, the components do not make
choices and there is no volition. If subatomic particles
could make choices, physics would be rather different.
Page 4
The World Can Only Be Known Through Empirical Research
The centrality of empiricism to science was outlined in the chapter Psychology is a
Science. Scientists also accept the importance of rational analysisthe application
of logical consideration to the information at handbut the source of this informa-
tion is in the world, not in the mind.
Psychologists are trained in graduate school to view the collection of dataempiri-
cismas their greatest obligation as scientists. You will get a favor of this mandate
in this course, but the full treatment awaits your matriculation in a doctoral-level
research program.
Humans are a Natural Phenomenon to Which a Determinist
Universe Applies
It is at this point where the Physics Model becomes diffcult for social and behav-
ioral science. The classical view in psychology has been monistmind and body
are one in the same phenomenon. Psychological research assumes that psycho-
logical phenomena of all kinds are fully determined and that humans do not make
choices in a trully free manner. There is no free will, but only the illusion of free
will. However, this determinist view of the person is so completely at odds with
our subjective experience as living people, and with the fundamental beliefs of
many religions, that it has snarled behavioral science since the beginning.
In social science and in social psychology, August Comtes famous 19th Century
question has been at the heart of an ongoing confict that rages through psychol-
ogy, sociology, and other social science departments:
How can the person be both the cause and the consequence of society?
Comte is pointing out the problem that, on the one hand, society is made of
people and their products. The ideas in peoples minds, their behaviors, skills,
psychologies, etc. are the substance of society. In a sense, society is being
continually created or recreated by the total of all these people-things all the
time. But where did these people-things come from? In a determined uni-
verse, they must have been caused by something, such as by the enculturating
and socializing processes of societies, in the context of biological factors. So:
if society creates these people, how can they create society? More to the
point, if society creates its own components (people) how can there ever be
social change?
Many religions believe that humans have a soul of some kind, an aspect of
the person that comes from outside the physical universe. In many religions,
it is eternal and transcends the corporeal (physical) existence of the person
in a body. The soul can be a repository of the moral history of the person,
and/or it can exert a causal infuence on the persons thoughts and behaviors.
Because the soul is connected to or an extension of a non-physical entity
(a god) that is outside the physical universe, it takes its holder outside the
physical universe as well, and the deterministic universe of the Physics Model
no longer applies. By no longer applies, I do not mean that nothing the person
does is ever determined through natural psychological processes, but rather that
the persons thought and behavior can be so affected. If they can be affected by
How Does Newness Come
Into the World?
In The Sa-
tanic Verses
(1988), the
novel that
resulted in
his being
condemned
to death by
the Ayatolla
Khomeni,
Salman Rush-
die asks this diffcult question:
how does newness come into
the world? In a world of pow-
erful traditions and traditional
social relationships, how does
anything different or creative
ever take place?
Page 5
the soul, then a scientifc understanding of the person is fundamentally impossible.
By fundamentally impossible, I mean that, in the end, we cannot ever achieve a
complete natural science understanding of humans; but we might do a pretty good
job nonetheless.
In the day-to-day world of psychological research, the problems of free will, deter-
minism, and the soul are generally ignored because they are unsolvable. Psycholo-
gists themselves cover the widest range of religious orientations, from atheists to
deeply religious believers. However, a non-religious assault on the application of
the Physics Model to psychology has also been mounted in the last few decades;
this challenge is discussed in a later section.
Research Will Build Universal Theories and Models
The key term in this phrase is universal. Universalism in psychology is the as-
sumption that we can come up with good theories, and eventually laws, that apply
to all people in all places and times. Such universal theories must of course in-
clude components that account for places and times to the extent that they affect
psychology. Universal theories assume a universal basis for human psychology, that
is, that at some basic level all people are the same. This level is not just biologi-
cal, but also psychological in that the very basic psychological processes and the
processes of psychological development are the same in all people. People in dif-
ferent societies and of different ethnic groups grow to have different psychological
characteristics due to the interaction of biological and environmental infuences,
most notably cultural practices. Nonetheless, they are the same down deep.
The opposite of universalism is relativism. Relativism takes several forms, but the
core idea is that peoples basic psychological processes vary over times and places.
Culture enters the person at a very early point and shapes basic processes. In
other words, whereas universalism would say, Chinese use the same cognitive
processes as Americans to think different thoughts, relativist would say, Chinese
use different processes and think different thoughts. Indigenous psycholo-
gists (covered in a later section) are usually relativists.
The Physics Model has no place for relativism! Chemistry is chemistry; biol-
ogy is biology; the same processes work now as they did in the Beginning,
amen.
All Theories are Tentative, Subject to Additional Research
Theories are logically coherent, testable conceptions of how some part of
nature works. Laws are proven theories. Social and behavioral science have
a lot of theories but few laws. Natural science, however, has more laws, but
the interesting work is still at the theoretical level. Until a theory becomes
a law (and even afterwards), it is always a tentative, unproven conception that
must be subjected to empirical research.
In 1900, Newtons physics seemed like a sure thing and was presented as the
laws that you learned in High School. A few decades later, Newtonian phys-
ics had been shown to be merely a special case of Einsteins Relativity theories
(no relationship to relativism). Einsteins theories are generally considered to have
The good God does
not play dice with the
universe
Albert Einstein disliked the
probabilistic nature of Quan-
tum Theory and made this
famous statement in 1927.
Subsequent research proved
Einstein wrong (although
Hawking recently did suggest
one early throwing of the dice
in the evolution of the uni-
verse). Einstein later regretted
having made this statement.
Page 6
been way ahead of their time, but as early as the 1920s Neils Bohrs Quantum
Theory presented still another (although not fully competing) view of the universe.
While modern experimental physics has corroborated Einsteins theories, theoriz-
ing and research in physics by people such as the brilliant Stephen Hawking contin-
ues to push the edge forward and we must assume, almost as a matter of principle,
that Einsteins theories are not the fnal word.
Final Theories or Laws are Attainable
This last tenet of the Physics Model is essentially an expression of the assumption
that we will keep turning the pages of the big book of the universe, and as a result
we will uncover more and more laws of the universe. For psychology, this is a
problem because we dont always appear to be turning the pages particularly fast.
On the one hand, we perform a massive amount of rigorous, high quality research
that gives us a better and better understanding of psychological phenomena; but
on the other, we have failed to achieve a paradigm that explains these phenom-
ena in a unifed, consensually accepted, elegant manner (although some schools in
psychology do think theyve accomplished this). In other words, we dont have a
grand theory of the stature of those in the natural sciences.
Psychologists who work in the philosophy of science have responded to this
problem in several ways. At the most optimistic side, they point out that our disci-
pline is still very young and in a few hundred years well be at the same point that
natural sciences are at now. Or, perhaps we just need a brilliant individual who
can penetrate the hailstorm of incoming research fndings and see the essential un-
derlying theoretical truth that explains human psychology. This is the waiting for
Newton school of thought.
Another possibility is that psychology can (and maybe is) a paradigmatic science,
but our version or texture of the paradigm is simply different than that of natu-
ral science and we should not hold ourselves to such a high ideal. Our subject
matter is highly variable, and probabilistic approaches are the best (and perhaps
only) way to understand the subject. In this vague conception, we never expect to
have the predictive power of physics, and we accept the idea that our theories will
be weaker and smaller in their scopes.
At the most pessimistic end of this debate, several schools of thought argue that
humans cannot be studied from a natural science perspective. Humans are funda-
mentally different creatures and the Physics Model does not apply to them, both
in terms of what can be discovered and the methods by which we should conduct
research. This assumption is not based on religious conviction or concerns about
the presence of a soul, but rather views humans as transcendent of nature, a
special being that has developed (somehow) a free, creative, inventing, undeter-
mined mind. (More on this, later.)
Norms of Science
Science, like all human activities, operates on a set of norms. These norms indicate
appropriate beliefs and behavior for scientists. Two of the central norms, realism
and universalism, were discussed previously.
Page 7
Communism
Wait!, dont phone up Achcroft to report this book as a threat to national
security. In this context communism is not a political or economic system.
The norm of communism is simply that scientifc knowledge should be
shared. The knowledge of science is the property of the world, not of the
scientist, and new fndings must be disseminated. Actual practice falls pretty
far from this norm. Scientists who work for private organizations must
turn their fndings over to their employers and their publication rights are
negotiated. Nations guard scientifc fndings that are
related to their national security. Individual scientists
occasionally hide their fndings from their colleagues
until they are published in order to maintain a lead in
their felds.
Disinteredness
An ideal of normative science is that science is
value-free. The values and biases of the scientist can
not and should not interfere with rational judgment,
choice of research topics, evaluations of theories, and
so on. In natural science, personal values and biases
affect science when scientists hold on to pet theories
or refuse to accept theories for irrational reasons.
Social and behavioral scientists can be thought of as
living inside the subject matter of their research, so
values and biases are diffcult to avoid. Psychologists
choose research topics that have personal mean-
ings for themselves and cannot be expected to work
in these research areas in a value-free manner. The
way in which the research is conceptualized and
conducted is also subject to values and biases that
come from living in a culture, community, social
class, religion, sexual orientation, generation, and more. Psychologists
respond to this problem by trying to follow the principles of scientifc
methodology presented in this book and by submitting their results
for examination by other experts in the feld, a process called peer
review. Nonetheless, the point is often made that American psy-
chology suffers from values biases such as individualism, middle class
orientation, liberalism, anti-religiosity, secularism, etc. Some of these
charges are misplaced but others are not.
Organized Skepticism
The scientifc community, through peer review, replication, and skepti-
cism, will weed out bad ideas and promote good ones. The peer
review process is designed to facilitate this goal. (See sidebar.) Other
ways the scientifc community regulates its production of knowledge
include determining who receives research grants (mainly through a
different kind of peer review), who can deliver papers at major scien-
Peer Review - The Great Mandala
1. Spend a few years planning, conducting, analyzing, and
writing up some research.
2. Send the paper (in APA format) to a journal editor.
3. The editor decides if its not too terrible, then sends it to
three people who seem to be doing similar research for
their comments.
4. Hopefully, at least two of the three reviewers agree on
the quality of the paper.
5. The editor makes a decision:
a. Accept as is (this never happens)
b. Accept with revisions as suggested by the reviewers
c. Reject but give the author the chance to rewrite the
article and go back to step #2.
d. Reject outright
6. The author rants and rails against peer review (except
in outcome a) then either tries again or becomes an
administrator.
DNA for free:
www.ornl.gov/hgmis
DNA for bucks:
www.celera.com
Page 8
Sagan On Aliens
It would
be an
absolutely
transform-
ing event
in human
history [to
discover
aliens]. But, the stakes are so
high on whether its true or
false, that we must demand the
more rigorous standards of evi-
dence. Precisely because its so
exciting. Thats the circumstance
in which our hopes may domi-
nate our skeptical scrutiny of
the data. ... So, a kind of skepti-
cism is routinely applied to the
radio search for extraterrestrial
intelligence by its most fervent
proponents. ...
Public Broadcasting Service, http:
//www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/ Jan.
2003
tifc conferences, who gets tenure and promotion, and who is elected to preside
over scientifc organizations.
This system is far from perfect, to be sure, but in the long run it keeps science
running along the right track. The main barrier to the introduction of new
ideas in a science is the conservativeness of scientists: they like new ideas in
principle, but in fact they are always very skeptical about any particular new
idea. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. New ideas must
pass a higher bar to entry than research that simply hashes over old ideas.
Radical new ideas must pass an even higher bar. In the words of Carl Sagan,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Sagan was referring
to UFOs.) In geology, one of the most radical ideas of the 20th Century was
the concept of plate tectonics (drifting sections of the earths crust produce
moving continents, mountains, earthquakes, etc.). Geologists fought over this
seemingly impossible process for years before it became established truth.
(The idea was frst advanced in 1912 but not accepted until the 1960s!)
Psychologys version of UFOs would probably be parapsychology (telekinesis,
telepathy, precognition, etc.), and you shouldnt expect to see acceptance of
this idea until truly extraordinary proof is presented. The reluctance of geolo-
gists to embrace plate tectonics was due to their inability to fnd a mechanism
that would explain the movement of massive structures. The same inability to
identify a process hampers the acceptance of parapsychology. (It is also prob-
lematic that the effects dont hold up in good research.) Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
Social Constructionism, Relativism, and Postmodernism
The main competition to a Physics Model approach to science in psychology
as well as in social science is a set of ideas sometimes referred to collectively
as social constructionism. Social constructionism is in turn associated with
a large, amorphous movement in social science and the humanities known as
postmodernism.
The central ideas of social constructionism are greatly at odds with the
Physics Model, which is referred to pejoratively by members of this move-
ment as positivism (a partly incorrect use of this term).
Social constructionists (SCs) object to the passive nature of the subject
in the Physics Model. The subject means the person being studied, and
generally all humans. A passive subject is driven by strong determinist forces.
On the other hand, the active subject has free fll and approaches the world
in a proactive fashion, making choices and creatively changing his or her own
life and the surrounding society.
The Realist basis of the Physics Model is rejected by SC; instead the world is
phenomenal, that is, it only exists to the extent and in the manner in which
it is perceived by people. But since all people see things differently, the real
world is not a constant at all.
SCs reject universalism. They believe that culture (including gender, class, and
so on) makes an early entry into the person so that people are fundamentally
Page 9
different psychologically across cultures. This difference is so great that there is
no basis for comparisons across cultures. Comparisons always start with some
assumption of similarity, but without this anchor comparisons cannot be made.
Culture and the person are often said to be mutually constitutive, that is, they
create each other, continuously (this is the SC answer to Comtes question).
The SC approach to research is similar in some ways to the idiographic approach
favored by humanists in psychology. Nomothetic research compares people to
each other on dimensions (personality, intelligence, etc.) on which they are as-
sumed to vary in a meaningful way. For example, it assumes that the dimension
intelligence applies equally well to all people. A person with a 120 IQ
has more of something than a person with a 110 IQ, and this something
is the same thing (in different amounts) for these two people. Ideographic
research, on the other hand, holds that people are unique and cant be
compared to each other on dimensions. The goal of the researcher is to un-
derstand the uniqueness of each individual. SomeSCs charge that positivists
replace the person with variables (dimensions).
Although some SC researchers use nomothetic concepts (comparing people
on constructs that mean the same thing to all), they favor a qualitative re-
search methodology. Quantitative research represents concepts as numbers
by measuring them (e.g., IQ=125), whereas qualitative research uses many
different methods to describe the subject using language. For example, a qualita-
tive approach to understanding the effects of TV on childrens aggression would
involve observing children, interviewing them, analyzing the implicit meanings of
the TV shows they watch, analyzing the place of TV in modern society, and so on.
A quantitative approach would include performing experiments, measuring violent
behavior, and assessing personality using tests.
The Physics Model assumes that there is a real truth to be found, it is universal,
and it is logically exclusive; for example, both a theory and its opposite cannot
both be true. Some SCs believe that a single truth cannot be found and that there
are actually many truths. What is true for me does not have to be true for you;
what is true for Americans does not have to be true for Chinese. Truth is a matter
of personal taste. Mainstream scientists fnd this position
absurd:
It cannot be a matter of taste whether you believe
or do not believe that pollution is a menace, that the
underdeveloped countries are getting poorer, that the
multinationals are promoting a nuclear arms race, that
war is instinctual, that women and blacks are inferior,
or that the green revolution is a hoax. Let Feyerabend
[a radical SC] stand before the ovens of Dachau or the
ditch at Mylai and say that our scientifc understanding
of sociocultural systems is ultimately nothing but an
aesthetic judgment. (Harris, 1979, p. 23)
Many SCs view the Physics Model as the product of white
male middle class western European ideology (transplanted
to North America). As such, it is seen as biased toward
supporting the ideology and agendas of its creators to the
The ovens of Dachau. Dachau is a very pretty town
on the bus route from Munich. When I was there in 2000,
children played soccer on a feld next to the camp. There
was a large McDonalds.
Confused yet?
Question: Whats the difference
between the Mafa and a Social
Constructionist?
Answer: The Social Construc-
tionist makes you an offer you
cant understand.
Page 10
detriment of others: women, non-whites, non-Europeans, the working class, etc.
You may ask, what about value-free research, then? The answer is that social
constructionists do not believe that research can ever be value-free, but instead
see all research as either explicitly or implicitly (or unconsciously) value-laden. To
put this in concrete terms, the feminist research approach claims that research is
biased in favor of male values and goals and perpetuates male power. A very simi-
lar argument is made on behalf of the African-American or Afrocentric research
approach. To some this claim sounds outrageous, but in fact it is not without merit
(the argument is complex). In mainstream research, we would say that the answer
lies in being even more scrupulous about acting in accordance with our value-free
norm, in considering cultural differences, by including everybody in developing
research programs, and through examining our own attitudes and values. Social
constructionists reply that we are hopeless: the positivist research model cannot
be reformed because its assumptions or starting points (read: metatheory) are
faulty. Mainstream scientists respond along the lines of if science is but art, then it
is not very pretty art and we should all give it up and go study sculpture. And the
debate continues.
Indigenous Psychology
The center of world psychology is in America. American psychology is larger
and wealthier than any other psychology: it has the most research labs, the best
research funding, the best journals, and it is conducted in the language of inter-
national science, English. Many of the prominent psychologists in non-Western
nations were educated in American or European universities
prior to returning to their home countries. These return-
ing Ph.D.s brought American psychology back with them, the
result of which was the dissemination of American psychological
theory and method everywhere except in the former Commu-
nist bloc. However, as psychology in some non-Western nations
has reached a critical mass in number of psychologists, organiza-
tion, and resources, psychologists in these places have begun to
question their acceptance of Western psychology. Indigenous
psychologies have emerged, particularly in India and Asia.
Some of the common features of these indigenous psychologies
include the desire for a psychology by, from, about and for the
local culture. Local psychologists are urged to use local cultural
sources to study the behavior of people in their local contexts
using methods appropriate to this task. Above all, indigenous
psychologists believe that their work must be relevant to local
cultural patterns and local peoples concerns. Indigenous psychology movements
are not all the same, but some common concerns they share are:
(1) a universal psychology might not be possible; instead, perhaps each culture
must have its own psychology;
(2) the mainstream scientifc way of knowing that came out of the West (the Phys-
ics Model) may not be appropriate for research on non-Western people, or for
understanding the effect of culture on their psychological processes;
(3) the choice of research topics must emerge from the local needs of the popula-
Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
This beautiful, well-funded think tank near Taibei,
Taiwan is the center of indigenous psychology in the
country.
Page 11
tion, not from trends coming out of the West;
(4) perhaps indigenous psychologists must rebuild their psychology from the
ground up, founded on indigenous philosophical and cultural traditions rather than
the Greek base of Western psychology.
To Western psychologists who follow the Physics Model, the idea of truly indig-
enous psychologies violates several of their basic tenets and makes no sense. The
goal of localizing psychology to meet the needs of local people is seen as impor-
tant and laudatory; but rejecting scientifc methods and universalism is viewed as
essentially nonscientifc. The indigenous psychologists are correct in their assess-
ment of the hegemony of Western, especially American, psychology, however, and
of the irrelevance of American psychology for their cultural values, local concerns,
and available resources.
The bottom line issue concerning indigenous psychology is the validity of universal
psychology: can we have one at all? Are people in different cultures really that dif-
ferent?
Sociology of Science
The philosophy science is a branch of philosophy that considers what science
can know and how it can know. Sociologist study what scientists actually do. The
Physics Model is essentially a philosophical statement but scientists dont neces-
sarily follow these rulesor even know them. Sociology of Science (SoS) looks at
whats really going on in science. Robert Merton is usually credited with founding
this branch of sociology in the 1950s and Thomas Kuhn with invigorating it in the
1970s. In recent years, this feld has sometimes been called Social Studies of Sci-
ence. A smaller Psychology of Science has also emerged.
The basic idea of the Sociology of Science is that the practice of a science is infu-
enced by social factors. In the turning the pages of the book metaphor intro-
duced previously, scientists are assumed to be turning the pages in more or less
the right direction most of the time, but social factors affect how fast the pages
are turned, which wrong paths are followed, who turns the pages, and who gets
the credit. In other words, science marches on, but not in a social vacuum. Some
of the social factors that affect science include:
Societal and economic needs. Scientists get accused of living in an ivory tower in
isolation from the real world, but in fact the real world is always infuencing their
work. The needs of societies translate to actual research through two processes:
research grant funding and comparative evaluation of research projects. In the
United States, Congress sets guidelines for federal funding that federal institutions
(see below) translate into allocation of funds. These political decisions refect the
needs of the society and other factors, as discussed in the Values section. Corpo-
rations fund a great deal of research, some of which is theoretical science while
the majority is applied science or technology development. They make relatively
rational, market-driven decisions about where to throw their money. Consider
what your life would be like if one of your parents held the patent for Tefon.
Institutions. Science is rarely performed by lone geniuses who dont sleep (e.g.,
Thomas Edison). Organizations that support a particular type of science through
Robert K. Merton
Read this. The title of this
issue of the journal Indigenous
Psychological Research is The
development of indigenous
psychology (Bentu Xinlixue de
Kaizhan). Indigenous psycholo-
gists prefer to publish in their
own languages, not in English.
Page 12
grant funding or providing a place to work make a substantial difference in the
progress of a science. The United States is a tremendously wealthy nation and
has developed many institutions for supporting the sciences: The National Sci-
ence Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Cancer
Foundation, and many many more. The author complains: where is the Institute
for Cultural Psychology?
Values. Although the proscribed norm is that science shall be value free, in fact the
values of societies and of individuals infuence science tremendously. This infuence
can have two effects: certain topics are studied at the expense of others; and the
science itself is incomplete or incorrectly interpreted. We see the effect of values
on research topics very clearly right now in the debate over research using stem
cells and fetal tissue. Religious and ethical values, mediated by laws imposed by
governments, limit and guide what types of medical research may be performed.
These values bump into competing values for unfettered science, curing diseases,
and making profts on newly discovered medical procedures.
Individual values also infuence choice of research topics, especially in psychology
where the subject matter is so deeply embedded in the researchers own societies.
Psychologists often study whats important to them personally as individuals or as
members of social groups in society. The most easily seen examples of this effect
are that a preponderance of the research performed on gender and gender roles
is done by women; on ethnic minorities by ethnic minority psychologists; on im-
migrants by immigrants. There is nothing wrong with this situation, but it begs the
obvious, important question: if psychology were still composed of just white males,
who would be looking at these issues?
Scientists values affect how they view their own data. Here I am not referring so
much to the way they evaluate competing theories (although this also happens)
but rather to the way they interpret their research fndings and plan additional
research in accordance with their values and metatheories. Social psychology
presents a good example. The great majority of social psychologists are politically
liberal. We chose social psychology because we wanted to do research that would
beneft both individuals and society. This liberalism affects our choice of research
topics and it also infuences the approach we take to these topics. We study ag-
gression and violence from the perspective that aggression is bad; helping from the
perspective that it is good; prejudice from a very anti-prejudice position; relation-
ships from a morally-neutral position involving premarital sex.
A value bias that shapes all of psychology is its middle class orientation. By
defnition, everyone working in academia with a doctoral degree is middle or
upper-middle class (ignoring our poor salaries for the moment), regardless of the
class backgrounds of our parents. As a result, without actually saying so up front,
psychology favors the personality traits and behaviors of middle class people over
those of working class people. The vast research base of psychology comes from
middle class, mainly white, American college sophomores, making it easy to miss
the concerns of other groups. The science that comes out of this value-biased re-
search may be very good, but it should be examined for completeness: what is not
being studied? what perspective is being ignored? whose concerns are not being
met? who comes off looking good, or bad?
Historical events. Specifc events in the history of nations turn the directions of
www.nsf.gov
www.nimh.nih.gov
Page 13
sciences. When a nation must fght a war, science works in support of the war
effort wherever it can; when it has a big problem involving a particular disease (like
AIDS), it turns some research efforts in that direction; when hundreds of thou-
sands of soldiers return from a war shell-shocked (now termed PTSDPost-trau-
matic Stress Disorder), clinical psychology is born. (This happened following World
War II.)
Careers
When you complete your undergraduate Psychology degree, especially if you also
fnish graduate school, youll embark on a career in this or another feld. A career
is a life-long progression of closely related activities that takes place in a commu-
nity of others who are engaged in similar activities. It is not the same as a job: you
quit a job but you leave a career. In a job you work for an organization, but in a
career you also work for yourself, and you acquire a reputation and a status within
the community of peers that is carried from job to job. Your reputation and status
are very important, particularly in highly professional careers such as scientist or
medical doctor.
Scientists are very concerned about the progress of their careers, and in academia
they pass through a series of gates as they progress: getting tenure and advanc-
ing in rank; publishing research papers and becoming journal editors; getting a
frst position and moving on to more prestigious ones; winning awards; receiving
research grants; training doctoral students who themselves are successful; moving
into administrative positions; getting buried in the university graveyard.
All of these signs of career progress are achieved through competition with
peers, one way or another. Scientists are highly competitive and this trait
is revealed in very long working hours, careful career planning to achieve
maximum results, and also, not incidentally, scientifc progress. Career
planning involves exploiting niches in the feld where good work can be
performed, funding is really available, progress can be made, and the career
can go forward. Some of the social factors discussed in the previous section
provide these niches, so one could think of this careerism as the force in the
system and the social factors as the direction (that makes a vector, remem-
ber?) These vectors add up to the direction that science goes in and how
fast it moves. In other words, when we say science marches on, they are
the ones who are walking. Sociology of science is interested in which way
they go.
Important Advice
If you are at a bar and you have
a choice between talking to a
shoe salesman and a scientist,
pick the salesmanhe will
have something interesting to
say that you can make sense
of. Serious scientists dont
make small talk well and they
take notes while others talk.
The stereotype that they dont
bathe is false.