![]()
Continuing my investigation of unity in psychology - whether it's possible, why it's not there already, what can be done about it - I've discovered another supporter of the institutional/organisational hypothesis of psychology's woes.
Katzko (2004) points out that psychology is a 'federation of sub-disciplines' and that diversity is not problem, instead it is psychology's disorganisation that needs addressing. Katzko (2002) argues that this type of disorganisation is actually created by a discontent about the methodological basis of psychology.
To use a primitive analogy: members of each tribe in psychological research keep to their own tools for hunting. It's the use of the same tools that provide the social bonds that keeps the epistemological groups together.
Katzko (2004) goes on to say that psychology doesn't need unification in a top-down method but rather unification bubbles up from below.
Both of these arguments seems to me to be much the same as already made by Sternberg & Grigorenko (2001).
Katzko (2004) Psychology's dilemma: an institutional neurosis? (Abstract)
Katzko (2002) The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology. (Abstract)
Read more PsyBlog posts on Unity in Psychology
How to Be Creative
If we can all be creative, why is it so hard to come up with truly original ideas?
It's because creativity is mysterious. Just ask any scientist, artist, writer or other highly creative person to explain how they come up with brilliant ideas and, if they're honest, they don't really know.
But over the decades psychologists have given ordinary participants countless tests, forms and tasks and conducted hundreds of hours of interviews. From these emerge the psychological conditions of creativity.
Not what you should do, but how you should be...
Join PsyBlog's 51930 readers now:
Share/save this article:




Featured