Kitty Jung wrote:
>It appears that this list is guilty of not taking an eclectic
>approach to the teaching of psychology or
>psychology in general.
This comment fascinates me (and I mean in a good way): it seems that my
main interest in psychology during the last few years has become trying
to understand what seem to be intractable controversies within the
discipline. These controversies seem to derive from various notions
about the nature of psychology and the nature of science in general.
These controversies, by necessity, must extend into our teaching because
we must teach about the nature and limits of psychology. Thus we all
need to be constantly asking ourselves the following question: what
should we be teaching about psychology and how should we be doing this?
Kitty advocates an eclectic approach. I, too, am for eclecticism. I
constantly am seeking out various ideas because this helps me to become
aware of my own assumptions and preconceptions. In addition, by looking
at various viewpoints, I might find a new idea that can help me to
better understand a topic of interest. Nevertheless, there is an
unstated problem with the promotion of eclecticism.
The adjective "eclectic" refers to "selecting from various systems,
doctrines, or sources" (eclectic comes from a Greek word meaning "to
select" or "to pick out"). The problem involves the process of
selecting: in order to select, we must have some criteria that allow us
to sift through the various systems, doctrines, or sources and choose
(pick, select) those to be included. It is these criteria for inclusion
and exclusion that are the problem. There are various groups of
psychologists, each of which have very different ideas about these
criteria of selection. And this comes back to the diversity problem I
spoke of in another post.
The slection problem inherent to the promotion of eclecticism raises
important questions for me (and I am very serious about asking these
questions). Should our criterion of selection be the highly inclusive
one of choosing any approach or set of ideas that has been promoted by
someone calling him-/herself a psychologist? Should we stop there? How
about including those who call themselves a social or behavioral
scientist? Should we remove the "scientist" and include any approach or
set of ideas that seeks to understand social/behavioral phenomena or
human nature in general? Continuing in this way, we come to the point at
which any approach that begins with any set of assumptions and
preconceptions is allowed a place in psychology. Psychology then refers
to virtually everything and nothing at the same time.
I don't know if anyone on this list would advocate this last criterion.
But I bet there is someone, somewhere who would. I have no answers, just
questions. I know that I prefer a natural-science approach because this
approach seems to have a proven track record of helping us to understand
the world around us in ways that have practical applications.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
"If you want to learn new things, you should try reading old books."
Richard Cytowic
