The last decade has provided a heighted challenge to the methods and evidence base of psychology and related fields. While these challenges have created tension within the field and beyond, intensive examination of psychology’s research and underlying assumptions present an opportunity for a much-needed paradigm shift.
By investigating the human mind and behavior, psychology has undertaken a bold task. Such an effort stands at the intersection of philosophical and scientific exploration of the human experience. In an effort to integrate the philosophical and scientific aspects of the human mind and behavior, psychologists began utilizing existing ontological, epistemological, and methodological frameworks, and developing their own. Among the most influential of these frameworks are: positivism, historicism, perspectivism, and naturalism (Burman, 1997; Faulconer, & Williams, 1985; Pearce, 2012; Świątkowski & Dompnier, 2017, Ye, 2017). While each provided its contributions, these frameworks also brought with them problematic assumptions that were infused into the body of psychological research over time. This paper puts forth the assertion that psychology is best served by an openness to a methodological naturalism which operates with an epistemic humility. Such humility recognizes the current incompleteness of our knowledge and acknowledges that positivism, historicism, and perspectivism each offer some valid responses to the problems posed by the project of coming to know the natural world. Such a framework serves as the strongest option for psychology to respond to its flawed development yet build upon its contributions.
Positivism offers a systematic approach in seeking to verify or nullify assertions through quantitative research. In a field involving many abstract components, positivism’s use of quantitative information offers an ability to try to draw upon concrete aspects of psychological questions to systematically establish findings (Burman, 1997; Faulconer & Williams, 1995). At the same time, positivism falls short by not accounting for human factors, such as human emotions or biases of researchers and participants, in the research process. Further, positivism restricts its study to only that which fits within its systematic approach, thereby excluding alternative methods of inquiry and their potential results.
While positivism outlines objective measure as the means to discovery, historicism focuses on human-oriented phenomena. Historicism highlights the contextual human factors that influence psychological frameworks across space and time (Faulconer & Williams, 1995). Recognizing factors such as historical, geographical, and cultural context tends to facilitate an intellectual humility that enables psychologists to acknowledge and revise limitations to existing theories. Historicism offers a safeguard against neglecting the contributions of people across history and culture. Yet, historicism risks failing to identify patterns that occur consistently across space and time.
Like historicism, perspectivism acknowledges the limitations of psychologists’ impact on the development of psychological theory and practice. It recognizes that an individual’s perspective shapes their interpretation and understanding of reality (Pearce, 2013). Perspectivism facilitates a recognition of one’s flawed awareness, decreasing the potential for globalizing one’s own perspective while discounting alternative views, ultimately contradicting reality. On the other hand, perspectivism runs the risk of discrediting accurate findings due to the flaws of the psychologists involved.
An alternative to the three aforementioned frameworks is naturalism. Naturalism asserts the world is knowable though reason and scientific thinking (Ye, 2017). While naturalism as a theory often claims knowledge of the world can be fully attained, complete knowledge of all that exists seems unlikely. Historicism and perspectivism account for the ways in which the collective human species does not currently know: we are limited in understanding by our existence within space and time, and we are limited to access fully complete and accurate knowledge only within our own perspectives. Positivism’s commitment to quantitative data contributed to the establishment of an evidence base for psychological theory.
Alternatively, naturalism as a methodology supports the notion that through science and reason, the world is largely knowable (Ye, 2017). Naturalism as a methodology offers a greater protection against problematic assumptions in that naturalism looks for its own past flaws. The methodology itself looks to uncover problematic past assumptions and seeks to self-correct. Unlike the other proposed approaches, naturalism is self-correcting insofar as it demands the conclusions reached continue to align with the reality of psychological studies and new psychological understanding. For example, through the replication of past studies, errors will mostly likely manifest, forcing researchers to reevaluate the prior research methods, conclusions, and theoretical backing (Świątkowski & Dompnier, 2017).
Psychology’s limitations have in many cases impeded its ability to carry out psychological inquiry and develop knowledge that is complete and fully accurate. This has led to imperfect, and in some cases, deeply problematic ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions within the field. Despite flaws, psychologists have still made important and accurate discoveries. Utilizing naturalism’s methodology, psychology can continue striving to advance and improve psychological understanding for the betterment of individuals and society.
References
Burman, E. (1997). Minding the gap: positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4560.1997.tb02461.x
Faulconer, J. E., & Williams, R. N. (1985). Temporality in human action: an alternative to positivism and historicism. American Psychologist, 40(11), 1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.40.11.1179opens in new window
Pearce, J. V. (2013). The potential of perspectivism for science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45,531–545. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2012.732013opens in new window
Świątkowski, W., & Dompnier, B. (2017). Replicability Crisis in Social Psychology: Looking at the Past to Find New Pathways for the Future. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 111–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.66opens in new window
Ye, F. (2017). On extreme versus moderate methodological naturalism. Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel, 45(1), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016- 9750-7opens in new window
Headshot: McGlynn.jpg; Mathai.jpg
About the Author
Maura McGlynn is a doctoral student in clinical psychology and a current extern at Children’s National Hospital. Shaped by her educational background in philosophy and doctorate degree in occupational therapy, Maura realizes the importance of the scientific and philosophical interconnections within the field of Psychology. Motivated to scientifically integrate psychological theory and philosophy, Maura has certifications in field traumatology, compassion fatigue, media psychology, and bioscience entrepreneurship.
Mini Mathai is a doctoral student in clinical psychology, who currently works at Nuance Neuropsychology. In wanting to learn more about the philosophical beginnings of psychology, Mini chose to attend psychology programs which teach from unique perspectives. Mini currently holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology and a Master’s degree in clinical psychology.