Theorizing in psychology: From the critique of ahyper-scienceto conceptualizing subjectivity

Abstract

It is emphasized that theoretical psychology is based on the practice of theorizing. After presenting and challenging some ideas about theories, three tasks for theoretical psychologists are discussed: theorizing as critique refers to describing psychology as a hyper-science that inflates its methodological and technical activities in order to conceal its lack of a natural–scientific foundation. Theorizing as reconstruction is an activity that seeks to make sense of history, culture, society, power, money, and politics in the development of the discipline and subjectivity. This task also traces the elements that have led to psychology’s difficulties. Theorizing as creation means developing theories that are able to make sense of psychological knowledge. It is suggested that a theory of subjectivity is needed that draws on not only the psychological sciences but also the psychological humanities. Finally, it is argued that theorizing remains a duty of psychological work.

Need satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multinational study of pathways toward social change.

“…Although beyond the scope of the present research, it would seem important to critically assess whether the epistemic foundation of our model is appropriate to all contexts of application. The insights brought by critical psychology (Teo, 2005) and the diverse perspectives brought by epistemologies from the Global South (for a discussion see Santos, 2019) raise awareness that concepts from mainstream psychology often fail to adequately capture the perspective of people from non-WEIRD countries (i.e., Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic; Henrich et al, 2010) as well as WEIRD countries (Adams et al, 2015).…”

What Can Educational Psychology Learn From, and Contribute to, Theory Development Scholarship?

“…Psychologists have tended to enunciate, investigate, and disseminate the explanatory aspects of theories much more than the descriptive ones, which is unfortunate given that each serves a unique role in theory development, and each informs the other (Berkman & Wilson, 2021). In fact, observations of phenomena "in the wild," followed by systematic organization and descriptions of those phenomena, typically precede the creation of a theory's explanatory aspects (McGann & Speelman, 2021;Teo, 2020). Piaget's (1964) cognitive constructivist theory began with his observations (e.g., children's incorrect answers on tests, his children's behaviors) from which he inferred phenomena (e.g., phases of cognitive development).…”

“…Likewise, effective descriptions can organize and thus better define disparate observations and empirical findings, revealing gaps in understanding, surfacing non-intuitive effects or outcomes, and prompting the generation of new ideas or hypotheses about the world and how it works (Borsboom et al, 2021;K. Gray, 2017;Teo, 2020). For example, Bandura's (2001) observations and eventual descriptions of how people could acquire and enact new behaviors without direct reinforcement were not easily explained using existing behaviorist theories.…”

What Is a White Epistemology in Psychological Science? A Critical Race-Theoretical Analysis

“…However, this focus reproduces epistemic ignorance about what it means to be a science. The outcome in psychology is not a true science but a hyperscience that resembles a science (by imitating and developing methods) without a full account of the psychological object ( Teo, 2020 ). Scientific method alone, the use of small or big machines, or the rhetoric of science, can only provide a semblance of science.…”