ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2011
Toward poetic science.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staying with Questions and Resisting Quick Answers: Commentary on Zagaria, Andò, and Zennaro.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Do We Really Want a Future as Qualitative Psychologists?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Being or Becoming: Toward an Open-System, Process-Centric Model of Personality.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Imagine the Feeling: An Aesthetic Science of Psychology.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Personality as continuous stochastic process: what Western personality theory can learn from classical confucianism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- Peeking into personality test answers: inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2013Article
- Metaconceptual Frameworks and the Study of Human Infant Category Construction.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article is an extension of earlier discussion in the present journal regarding feelings in literature and, more broadly, the distinction between literary and scientific discourse. Valid though this distinction may be on some level, it is argued herein that it owes its very existence, in part, to a problematically narrow view of what constitutes science, one that not only eschews the life of feeling but that fails to abide by the primary obligation of the scientific endeavor-namely, to practice fidelity to the phenomena of concern. In this respect, it might plausibly be said that much of contemporary psychological science is not scientific enough and that, consequently, a more open and capacious conception is called for. More specifically, it is suggested that a portion of the discipline move in the direction of what might be called poetic science, a form of science that, in its very art-fulness, can do justice to the ambiguity, complexity, and depth that characterizes lived experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21637934What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.