Paradigms
AT one time psychology tended to be viewed as an experimental science, even though it started off from more humanistic approaches, this lost favour in the drive to be 'scientific', particularly when behaviourism became popular.
We could use this thread to discuss the different paradigms, their approaches to psychology (all types, as these often vary depending on whether you are referring to occupational, clinical, educational psychology and so on).
Firstly what do we mean by paradigm? It has been referred to as a combination of theory and method, a framework of interlocking assumptions about the proper aims and methods for gaining information. Kuhn suggests paradigm shifts occur more as a ‘revolution’ than a linear progress.
Then of course there is a dispute about what 'science' encompasses. There are varying definitions, including:
a) systematic, public, objective, replicable and predictive - normative or positivist approaches tend to aim for this and have been accused of having 'physics envy'. Although a healthy discussion of what physics scientists actually do can raise issues here.
b) forms of science - e.g. natural, moral, critical; here we look less at objective methods and emphasise the need to be systematic and insightful, but some suggest human sciences necessarily will be more subjective.
Important is debate considering whether psychology is a science, and if so of what type. Linked to arguments of objectivity versus interpretation, cause and effect versus understanding.
I will post up some ideas about paradigms and of course what use they are to us (given the nature of this forum, and my own background, I will focus mostly on social and occupational psychology - but please discuss more broadly if you wish).
|
Hi,
Re: Paradigms
Re: Paradigms - normative
