The article draws from historical and contemporary resources to articulate the enduring or persistent responsibilities of general psychology, suggesting “common ground” and “point of view” as useful concepts in line with these. It then explores three important developments in the discipline over the past several decades—big data analytics, methodological proliferation, and critical psychology—and considers the role of general psychology in relation to these developments. The point of the article is to claim and illustrate that general psychology includes a philosophy of science from within, and that it has lasting importance to the broader discipline, even as the discipline itself transforms.
AdjeridI.KelleyK. (2018). Big data in psychology: A framework for research advancement. American Psychologist, 73(7), 899–917.
2.
AraujoS. d. F. (2016). Wundt and the philosophical foundations of psychology: A reappraisal. Springer.
3.
BaraniukR. G. (2011). More is less: Signal processing and the data deluge. Science, 331(6018), 717–719.
4.
BennettL. M.GadlinH. (2012). Collaboration and team science: From theory to practice. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 60(5), 768–775.
5.
BentleyI. M. (1909). Mental inheritance. Popular Science Monthly, 75, 458–468.
6.
BilligM. (2008). The hidden roots of critical psychology: Understanding the impact of Locke, Shaftesbury and Reid. SAGE.
7.
BoydD.CrawfordK. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
8.
DanzigerK. (1994). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press.
9.
DarwinC. (1859). On the origin of species. John Murray.
10.
DerryS. J.SchunnC. D.GernsbacherM. A. (Eds.). (2014). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science. Psychology Press.
11.
DouglasH. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
12.
Falk-KrzesinskiH. J.BörnerK.ContractorN.FioreS. M.HallK. L.KeytonJ.SpringB.StokolsD.TrochimW.UzziB. (2010). Advancing the science of team science. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(5), 263–266.
13.
GiereR. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. The University of Chicago Press.
14.
GiorgiA. (1970). Psychology as a human science: A phenomenologically based approach. Harper & Row.
15.
GoertzenJ. R. (2008). On the possibility of unification: The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 829–852.
16.
GreenC. D. (2015). Why psychology isn’t unified, and probably never will be. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 207–214.
17.
HarlowL. L.OswaldF. L. (2016). Big data in psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Psychological Methods, 21(4), 447–457.
18.
HatfieldG. (2003). Psychology old and new. In BaldwinT. (Ed.), Cambridge history of philosophy, 1870–1945 (pp. 93–106). Cambridge University Press.
19.
HeidbrederE. (1933). Seven psychologies. Random House.
20.
HenriquesG. (2003). The tree of knowledge system and the theoretical unification of psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182.
21.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vols. 1 and 2). Henry Holt.
22.
JamesW. (1917). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Longmans, Green, & Co. (Original work published 1902)
23.
JastrowJ. (1901). Some currents and undercurrents in psychology. Psychological Review, 8(1), 1–26.
KleinJ. (2014). Communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research In O’RourkeM.CrowleyS.EigenbrodeS. D.WulfhorstJ. D. (Eds.), Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research (pp. 11–30). SAGE.
26.
KochS. (1993). Psychology” or “the psychological studies?American Psychologist, 48(8), 902–904.
27.
KülpeO. (1901). Outlines of psychology (TitchenerE. B., Trans). Sonnenschein.
28.
LaceyH. (1999). Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. Routledge.
29.
LaddG. T. (1899). On certain hindrances to the progress of psychology in America. Psychological Review, 6(2), 121–133.
30.
LamontM.MolnárV. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
31.
LaudenL. (1984). Science and values. The University of Chicago Press.
32.
LeavyP. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. Guilford Publications.
33.
LeonelliS. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. The University of Chicago Press.
34.
LevittH. M.BambergM.CreswellJ. W.FrostD. M.JosselsonR.Suárez-OrozcoC. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46.
35.
LevittH. M.MotulskyS. L.WertzF. J.MorrowS. L.PonterottoJ. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22.
36.
LonginoH. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Value and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
37.
MunsterbergH. (1899). Psychology and history. Psychological Review, 6(1), 1–31.
38.
O’RourkeM.CrowleyS. J. (2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese, 190(11), 1937–1954.
39.
OsbeckL. M. (2009). Transformations in cognitive science: Implications and issues posed. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29(1), 16–33.
40.
OsbeckL. M. (2019). Values in psychological science: Reimagining epistemic priorities at a new frontier. Cambridge University Press.
41.
OsbeckL. M.MaloneK. R.NersessianN. J. (2007). Dissenters in the sanctuary: Evolving frameworks in mainstream cognitive science. Theory & Psychology, 17(2), 243–264.
42.
OsbeckL. M.NersessianN. J. (2017). Epistemic identities in interdisciplinary science. Perspectives on Science, 25(2), 226–260.
43.
SchuabE. L. (1916). Translator’s preface. In WundtW. (Ed.), Elements of folk psychology (pp. v–vxi). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
44.
StaatsA. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3(1), 3–13.
45.
StamH. J. (2004). Unifying psychology: Epistemological act or disciplinary maneuver?Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1259–1262.
46.
StetsenkoA. (2018). Research and activist projects of resistance: The ethical–political foundations for a transformative ethico-onto-epistemology. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.002
47.
SullyJ. (1884). Outlines of psychology: With special reference to the theory of education. Appleton & Co.
48.
TeoT. (2009). Philosophical concerns in critical psychology. Critical Psychology: An Introduction, 2, 36–54.
49.
TeoT. (2013). Backlash against American psychology: An indigenous reconstruction of the history of German critical psychology. History of Psychology, 16, 1–18.
50.
TeoT. (2015). Critical psychology: A geography of intellectual engagement and resistance. American Psychologist, 70(3), 243–254.
51.
TeoT. (2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 281–291.
52.
TitchenerE. (1909). A text-book of psychology, Part 1. Palgrave Macmillan.
53.
VygotskyL. (1997). Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Van der VeerR. Trans.). In RieberR.WollockJ. (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp 35–146). Plenum Press. (Original work published 1927).
54.
WardJ. (1904). The present problems of general psychology. The Philosophical Review, 13(6), 603–621.
55.
WertzF. J. (2014). Qualitative inquiry in the history of psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 4–16.
