The article justifies the concept of different-level integration of psychological knowledge, defines the purpose of it development and presents the methodological-theoretical guidance for it. The concept development is based on the general scientific principles of integrity, activity, development, on the humanistic methodological orientation (G. Ball) combined with the analysis of modern studies on psychological knowledge integration. The concept must meet the following criteria: logical consistency, internal coherence of its conceptual positions; sensitivity to the modern socio-cultural and cognitive situations, it must use ideas and methods from other integrating approaches and have strengthened explanatory capacity.
We identified the tasks for the concept development. We put forward the idea of different levels of psychological science and discussed the differences in integration processes at these levels. We identified the ways facilitating integration processes on the above mentioned levels and substantiated creating a “matrix” of research methods, improving the existing models of psychological theories and heterogenous psychological phenomenology. The task to promote the formation of researchers’ integrative views was posed.
The concept consists of the following positions.
The integration processes at different levels of psychological science have their peculiarities; in particular, integration processes can differ by the ratio of spontaneity and controllability.
The integration processes can be facilitated from the top (i.e. from the meta-theoretical point of view) by: a) creation of a general multidimensional meta-theoretical space (the matrix of theories) and arrangement of different theories in it, taking into account their epistemological coordinates, explanatory potential; b) creation of a matrix with research methods; c) construction of a model of the heterogeneous psychological phenomenology; d) determination of complex relationships between space-models of theories, methods and the psychological phenomenology.
The integration processes can be facilitated from the bottom (i.e. from the point of view of the primary study of a particular psychological problem) by: the determination of a problem field in the modeled multidimensional space of the psychological phenomenology; considering the explanatory potential of different theories for a particular problem; using the resources (constructive components) of different theories, approaches (and their methods) for this problem research.
Researchers’ integrative dispositions can be expanded, in particular, by activating their reflection on the factors forming their individual scientific views. In this context, it is important to analyze the dependence of a researcher’s individual cognitive “habitus” (according to P. Bourdieu): 1) on the cognitive trends of the epistemic community to which the researcher belongs, 2) on the dominant paradigm of the scientific field, 3) on the syntagmatic experience of trans-disciplinary research.
Anderson, N. (2013). Unified psychology based on three laws of information integration. Review of General Psychology. Vol. 17 (2), 125-132.
Ball, H.O. (2017). Ratsiohumanistychna oriientatsiia v metodolohii liudynoznavstva (The ratiohumanistic orientation in the methodology of human studies). Kyiv: Vydavnytstvo PP «SKD» [in Ukrainian].
Ball, H.O. (2012). Intehratyvno-osobystisnyi pidkhid u psykholohichnii nautsi ta praktytsi (An integrative-personal approach in psychological science and practice): monohrafiia. Kirovohrad: Imeks-LTD.
Davyidov, A.P. (2000). Inversiya i mediatsiya v razvitii russkogo hudojestvennogo soznaniya (Inversion and mediation in the development of Russian artistic consciousness). Mir psihologii. №4, 51 – 57.
Green, C. (2017). Why Psychology Isn’t Unified, and Probably Never Will Be. Review of General Psychology. V. 19 (3), 207-214.
Harber, Y.E. (2013). Transformatsyia psykholohycheskoho znanyia v uslovyiakh ynformatsyonnoho obshchestva (The transformation of psychological knowledge in the information society.). Avtoref. dys. dokt. psykhol. nauk. Tomsk [in Russian].
Healy, P. (2012). Toward an integrative, pluralistic psychology: On the hermeneutico-dialogical conditions of the possibility for overcoming fragmentation. New Ideas in Psychology. Vol. 30, 271-280.
Henriques, G. (2013). Evolving from methodological to conceptual unification. Review of General Psychology. Vol. 17, 168-173. DOI: 10.1037/a0032929
Ianchuk, V. (2018). Kulturno-dyalohycheskyi ynterdetermynystskyi metapodkhod k analyzu psykholohycheskoi fenomenolohyy: teoretyko-prykladnыe vozmozhnosty (Cultural-dialogical interdeterministic meta-approach to the analysis of psychological phenomenology: theoretical and applied opportunities). Teoretychni doslidzhennia u psykholohii. Kharkov: Monohraf. Tom IV, 21-82. [in Russian]
Kimble, G. A. (1996) Psychology: The hope of a science. The MIT Press.
Koch, S. (1993). “Psychology” or “the psychological studies”? American Psychologist. Vol. 48, 902–904.
Mazylov, V.A. (2018) Integratsiya v psichologii: metodologicheskie aspektyi (Integration in psychology: methodological aspects). Vestnik KGU (Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta). Seriya: Pedagogika. Psihologiya. Sotsiokinetika. 2, 21-25 [in Russian].
Newell, А. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA, USA.
Osgud, C.E. (1979) From Yang and Ying to And or But in сross-cultural perspective// International J. of psychology. N.14, 34–42.
Royce, J. R. (1987). A Strategy for Developing Unifying Theory in Psychology In A. W. Staats & L. P. Mos (Eds.). Annals of theoretical psychology. Vol. 5, 275-284. New York: Plenum.
Staats, A. W. (2003) A psychological behaviorism theory of personality. In Millon, Theodore; Learner, Melvin J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. New-York: John Wiley & Sons, 135-158.
Stam, H. J. (2015). The neurosciences and the search for a unified psychology: the science and esthetics of a single framework. Front Psychol. Vol. 6, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01467
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology American Psychologist. Vol. 56 (12), 1069-1079.
Turner, J. (1990). The misuse and use of metatheory. Sociological Forum. Vol. 5 (1), 37– 53.
Valsiner, J. (2009) Integrating Psychology within the Globalizing World: A Requiem to the Post-Modernist Experiment with Wissenschaft. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. Mar. 43(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s12124-009-9087-x.
Wallis, S. (2010) Toward a Science of Metatheory. Integral Review. A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal For New Thought, Research, and Praxis. Vol. 6 (3), 73-115
Yanchar S. C., Williams D. D. Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher. 2006. Vol. 35. P. 3-12. .
Zavhorodnia, O.V. (2018). Rozrobka pryntsypiv intehratyvno-ekzystentsiinoho pіdhodu. Teoretychni doslidzhennia u psykholohii (Development of principles of integrative-existential approach.): Zbirnyk statei. Vpor. V.O. Miedintsev. Kharkiv: Monohraf. Tom. IV, 130-145 [in Ukrainian].
Zavhorodnia, O.V., Kopylov, S.O. (2018) .Tvorchyi spadok H.O. Balla v konteksti problem suchasnoi psykholohii (Creative inheritance Ball in the context of problems of modern psychology.). Teoretychni doslidzhennia u psykholohii: Zbirnyk statei. Vpor. V.O. Miedintsev. Kharkiv: Monohraf. Tom. III, 136-151 [in Ukrainian].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the Psychological Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License International CC-BY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. For more detailed information, please, fallow the link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/