In my intro-psych classes, I try to make sense of the enormous diversity in
psychology, as well as possible causes of the controversies that sometimes rage
in our discipline, by contrasting two scientific traditions that seem to me to
be solidly established. By the term "scientific tradition," I am referring to
a fundamental approach to scientific research that involves: (1) a basic set of
goals (motivations) for that research; (2) a general way of asking questions
and of testing tentative answers in that research. In other words, a scientific
tradition involves a set reasons for doing research as well as the manner in
which one performs that research. I distinguish between what I call the
"subjective" and "objective" traditions in psychology. Let me quote from s
discussion of this that I hand out to students:
"In Chapter 2, we used the word "subjective" to refer to what is personal--to
an individual's thoughts and feelings about the world. Researchers from the
subjective tradition, therefore, attempt to know the thoughts, emotions, and
desires of individuals because they want to help individuals to achieve the
fullest expression of their potential. In trying to accomplish this goal, these
researchers tend to study individuals in uncontrolled research situations (for
example, in their clinics, clinical psychologists describe and treat people
suffering from mental disorders). In Chapter 2, we used the word "objective" to
refer to what is impersonal--to what is true about objects in the universe
independently of our thoughts or feelings about them. Researchers from the
objective tradition, therefore, attempt to describe and discover the causes of
mental events and behavior because they want to understanding the workings of
psychological phenomena as completely as possible. In trying to accomplish this
goal, these researchers tend to study groups of individuals in controlled
research situations (for example, in their laboratories, experimental
psychologists investigate rat learning in a maze)."
I then try to describe, in more detail, several characteristics of these
traditions. With respect to the subjective tradition, I state the following:
"The subjective tradition in psychology is characterized by the following: (a)
There is a focus on individuals. Thus, the data collected are most likely to
involve case studies involving single subjects. For example, clinicians tend to
focus on case studies of people with mental disorders. (b) There is little
control of the research situation. In fact, research often occurs in the
natural situations of everyday life where manipulation and control of possible
causal variables generally can not be performed. (c) There is a focus on
unobservable phenomena. Because they are most interested in the thoughts and
feelings of individuals, subjective researchers tend to study mental events
that are not directly expressed in behavior. (d) There is a strong motivation
to apply research findings to everyday life. Subjective researchers are not
very interested in performing "basic research" designed only to satisfy the
curiosity of the researcher. (e) There is a focus on the ultimate causation of
phenomena. That is, subjective researchers often study causes that are distant
in time from the phenomenon being investigated."
I then use the work of Sigmund Freud to illustrate the subjective tradition. On
the other hand, the objective tradition has the following characteristics
(again I am quoting from my handout):
"The objective tradition in psychology is characterized by the following: (a)
There is a focus on group averages. Thus, the data collected are most likely to
involve the measurement of large numbers of subjects. Correlational and
experimental studies are typically performed within the objective tradition.
(b) There is at least a moderate amount of control of the research situation.
In fact, research often occurs in laboratory situations where manipulation and
control of possible causal variables can more easily be performed. (c) There is
a focus on observable phenomena. In fact, objective researchers typically
prefer operational definitions that specify the observations we must make when
measuring a phenomenon. (d) There is a strong motivation to develop basic
knowledge. Although objective researchers prefer that their research findings
have applications to everyday life, they are more motivated by simple
curiosity: they desire to know the causes of a phenomenon. (e) There is a focus
on proximate causation of phenomena. That is, objective researchers often study
causes that are very close in time to the phenomenon being investigated."
I use B. F. Skinner to illustrate the objective tradition. Although I make the
point that it is not always a simple matter to classify a PARTICULAR RESEARCHER
as being within one or the other tradition, it seems to me that these
characteristics do paint a portrait of two fundamental kinds of research that
are performed within our discipline.
What do you think about this distinction? Is it a valid one? Is it too
simplisitic? Is it leaving out other variations?
Jeff Ricker
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale AZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
