Are scientific methods appropriate for psychology?

Fields of research such as psychology and sociology attempt scientific methods of study, for example the laboratory experiment.  However, the very focus of this research makes truly objective investigation difficult, some would say impossible.

Unlike the physical or biological sciences the focus of research is human behaviour with all the added complications this brings.  As we’ve seen time and time again in the past two years there is no perfect way to observe or research people. 

The laboratory experiment allows for tight control of variables enabling cause and effect relationships to be established but it is woefully short of ecological validity and there are serious issues with demand characteristics.  People behave differently when they know they’re being observed. 

To overcome demand characteristics and the issue of validity we can attempt naturalistic observations or field and natural experiments but then we lose that tight control so we can’t be sure what’s causing what.

With any method we also have the issue of expectations and blinkered viewpoints that Popper claims make truly objective analysis impossible.

Nomothetic versus idiographic

Psychology has a trend to look for general rules of behaviour or cognition which it formulates into models or rules.  This is referred to as the nomothetic approach.  Fewer attempts are made to consider individuals and their differences, the idiographic approach.  One exception to this is the approach favoured by the humanists:

Humanists and their non-scientific approach

Perhaps in the past I’ve given the impression that I don’t appreciate the humanistic approach but that’s not true.  Fair enough I tend to refer to them as the ‘Lib-Dems’ of psychology, but I like the Lib-Dems J.  However, unlike the other approaches there’s no sex and violence, no hard-core genetic determinism and certainly no ping-pong playing pigeons.  Perhaps that’s why the AQA course generally passes the humanists by, just a nodding glance of acknowledgement to Marie Jahoda and her deviation from ideal mental health.  There’s not a lot to hang your coat on!

Unlike the medical, behaviourist and cognitive approaches, humanists reject the scientific approach to studying people.  Its main proponents such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May and RD Laing prefer the phenomenological approach, relying on detailed self-report of conscious thoughts and analysis by qualitative techniques. 

The humanists therefore claim to produce a more holistic explanation of the human condition that focuses on uniquely human characteristics such as self-actualisation, hope, love, creativity and striving to be an individual. 

Social constructionism

Prepare for some philosophy!  Social constructionism is the idea that reality doesn’t exist as an external entity.  Reality is essentially what we as individuals interpret through our senses and our minds.  Crucial to this process is interaction and communication with others.  The nearest we’ve come to this concept during the course is Vygotsky’s concept of internalization.  According to the Lev-meister, we talk with more knowledgeable others, watch how they solve problems and then their ideas and their tactics become part of our way of thinking.  As a result, our understanding of the World is culturally determined. 

Social constructivists therefore appreciate that our current way of thinking is relative.  It is relative to the time in which we live and the culture in which we live.  Unlike more empirical approaches, constructionists realise that what we know today will change tomorrow.  The main proponent is Gergen (Kenneth to his friends). 

To try and ground this in more concrete terms; consider the cognitive approach.  It makes use of present day technology to produce analogies for cognitions.  Currently it adopts the information processing approach in which cognitive functions are all about inputs, processing and outputs.  Memory is described in terms of storage, deleting files and increasing efficiency.  Before the advent of mainframes and PCs cognitions were likened to telephone exchanges.  Tomorrow who knows?

Examples of social constructs include language, games, money, A-level grades.  More controversially some see race, ethnicity and even gender as social constructs.  Apparently in the 1960s only three distinct races were considered, today it’s over 30, suggesting that these things aren’t quite as black and white as we like to think! 

Next page