medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología

Órgano Oficial del Sistema Mexicano de Investigación en Psicología (SMIP)
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2016, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Invest Psic 2016; 8 (1)

Psychology. What to investigate?

Ribes IE
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 7
Page: 85-95
PDF size: 125.17 Kb.


Key words:

Conceptual confusion, ordinary language, general theory, research methodology.

ABSTRACT

It is argued that scientific research in psychology can only be grounded on the questions framed in the logic of a general theory. Psychology lacks such a general theory, mainly due to prevailing conceptual confusion in its disciplinary language. Confusion derives from the assumption that psychological terms in ordinary language denote special entities or processes, and from erroneous identification of words with things and events. It is asserted that any scientific research methodology depends upon a general theory, so that there are no autonomous methodologies that by themselves justify or validate the research findings. It is pointed out the existence of at least eight different ontological paradigms and, therefore, eight different, immeasurable psychologies that, although using the same terms, raise different questions about non comparable psychological phenomena. Some problems of psychological research derived from this state of affairs are examined and some initial steps to overcome it are proposed.


REFERENCES

  1. Bachrach, A. J. (1962). Psychological research: An introduction. Nueva York: Random House.

  2. Benjamin, W. (1996). On language as such and on the language of man. En M. Bullock, H. Eiland, M. Jennings, & G. Smith (Comps.), Selected writings (pp. 59-61). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  3. Neisser, U. (1981). John Dean’s memory: A case study. Cognition, 9, 1-22.

  4. Ribes, E. (2000). Las psicologías y la definición de sus objetos de conocimiento. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 26, 367-383.

  5. Ribes, E. (2010). Lenguaje ordinario y lenguaje técnico: un proyecto de curriculum universitario para la psicología. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 27, 55-64.

  6. Ribes, E. (2013). Una reflexión sobre los modos generales del conocer y los objetos de conocimiento de las ciencias empíricas, incluida la psicología. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 30, 89-95.

  7. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Invest Psic. 2016;8