Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32557115›Full record

ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2021

Psychology's Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration.

Jana Uher

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Towards a Framework for Unifying Research in Theoretical Psychology.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jana UherSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, UK. mail@janauher.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2450-4943

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences. Yet even after 140 years as an independent discipline, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. Its key phenomena, mind and behaviour, are poorly defined (and their definition instead often delegated to neuroscience or philosophy) while specific terms and constructs proliferate. A unified theoretical framework has not been developed and its categorisation as a 'soft science' ascribes to psychology a lower level of scientificity. The article traces these problems to the peculiarities of psychology's study phenomena, their interrelations with and centrality to everyday knowledge and language (which may explain the proliferation and unclarity of terms and concepts), as well as to their complex relations with other study phenomena. It shows that adequate explorations of such diverse kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all-immediate experience-inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena's joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all. But Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today's psychology into a science of populations rather than individuals, showing that blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but impeded the development of psychology as a science. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Indexed as

KnowledgePhilosophyClayHumansClayConstructExperienceIntegrative frameworkNomotheticSoft ScienceTerminology

Identifiers

PMID32557115
PMCPMC7801307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.