2002•Theory & PsychologyRequires access

The Psychology of Psychology

Graham Richards

Open publisher page 62 citations

Abstract

Rhetorical calls for disciplinary unity and vision currently lack any grounding in historically informed analysis of Psychology's character and functions, while the historians of Psychology providing the material for such an analysis continue to remain marginalized. A framework for considering the issue is outlined in terms of a circuit reflexively linking the discipline ('Psychology') and its subject matter ('psychology'). This focuses on the psychologist role, the `inputs' from which Psychological ideas ultimately derive, and the disciplinary `outputs', which in turn affect psychology itself. Thus viewed, the prospects for disciplinary unity appear necessarily faint. The importance of history of Psychology, however, is clarified and reinforced. (The distinction between `Psychology'/ `Psychological' to refer to the discipline and `psychology'/'psychological' to refer to its subject matter is sustained throughout this paper.)

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Rhetorical calls for disciplinary unity and vision currently lack any grounding in historically informed analysis of Psychology's character and functions, while the historians of Psychology providing the material for such an analysis continue to remain marginalized. A framework for considering the issue is outlined in terms of a circuit reflexively linking the discipline ('Psychology') and its subject matter ('psychology'). This focuses on the psychologist role, the `inputs' from which Psychological ideas ultimately derive, and the disciplinary `outputs', which in turn affect psychology itself. Thus viewed, the prospects for disciplinary unity appear necessarily faint. The importance of history of Psychology, however, is clarified and reinforced. (The distinction between `Psychology'/ `Psychological' to refer to the discipline and `psychology'/'psychological' to refer to its subject matter is sustained throughout this paper.)

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 62 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Rhetorical calls for disciplinary unity and vision currently lack any grounding in historically informed analysis of Psychology's character and functions, while the historians of Psychology providing the material for such an analysis continue to remain marginalized. A framework for considering the issue is outlined in terms of a circuit reflexively linking the discipline ('Psychology') and its subject matter ('psychology'). This focuses on the psychologist role, the `inputs' from which Psychological ideas ultimately derive, and the disciplinary `outputs', which in turn affect psychology itself. Thus viewed, the prospects for disciplinary unity appear necessarily faint. The importance of history of Psychology, however, is clarified and reinforced. (The distinction between `Psychology'/ `Psychological' to refer to the discipline and `psychology'/'psychological' to refer to its subject matter is sustained throughout this paper.)

Key concepts: Theoretical psychology, Discipline, Asian psychology, Critical psychology, Philosophy of psychology, Psychology, Subject (documents), Rhetorical question

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Psychology of Psychology — Research Paper | ScholarLens