Search

The paper aims to develop a critical sociocultural understanding on the epistemological and historical analysis of evidence-based (EB) paradigm in contemporary psychological knowledge-production (research) and knowledge-application (practice). It firstly retraces the emergence of EB in medical disciplines, its paradigmatic status, and its subsequent adoption by mainstream psychological sciences. The description of EB historical roots and key concepts leads to the second part, where the paper reflects on key epistemological criticalities scholars have raised toward the EB paradigm. Then, we develop our sociocultural perspective to enrich the epistemological analysis and critique of EB. Specifically, we propose a hermeneutic and interpretative understanding which frames EB as a re-enactment of the positivist scientific research ambition to reach for a complete formalization of biological/psychological phenomena (endo-genetical dynamics), and of new socioeconomic, political, and individual needs posed by contemporary Western societal institutions to scientific knowledge (exo-genetical dynamics). Furthermore, building on such understanding, we suggest that EB works as a contemporary epistemic indicator and threshold, serving two functions: selective filtering and exclusion. Finally, we speculate that EB endo-genetical and exo-genetical developmental dynamics can be interpreted as an expression of the contemporary presentist regime of temporality and as a shift towards the regime of performative techniques instead of context-specific and future-oriented relational competences, also tracing a determining factor that has directed, directs and will continue to direct scientific research in psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current paper investigates Psychoanalytic, Cognitive, Behaviorist, and Socio-cultural theories and critiques how they have (or might have) contributed to the study of radicalization. The paper asserts two arguments that lack emphasis in the current radicalization research: 1) radicalization refers to a process, and does not always refer to violent behavior; 2) radicalization research needs to pay tribute to socio-cultural, political, and historical context while designing research and discussing findings. These two points are essential to extend the concept of radicalization and to be sensitive to different research contexts and populations. Currently, the conceptualization of radicalization appears to be generalized to violent action among minority groups (mainly Muslims) in limited contexts (mostly Western countries). The article claims that Psychology can better contribute to this diverse field of interest with its well-established theoretical contributions to the understanding of human beings and its compassion to seek differences amongst people across different contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are there so many controversies in evolutionary psychology? Using a couple of concepts from philosophy of science, this paper argues that evolutionary psychology has not reached the stage of mature, normal science, since it does not currently have a unifying research program that guides individual scientists working in the discipline. The argument goes against claims made by certain proponents and opponents of evolutionary psychology, and it is supported by discussion of several examples. The paper notes that just because evolutionary psychology has not reached the stage of normal science, the discipline is nevertheless a source of many progressive theoretical developments and interesting empirical discoveries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay takes up the framework of Semiotic Cultural Psychology, which in last decade was very productive in analyzing societal phenomena. Digging into complex sensemaking mechanisms, underlying the interaction between individual and his surrounding environment, has consolidated a base of empirical data gathered from different societies. Aiming to better understand the role of culture in this interaction, the current paper proposes to bridge these findings of observable macro-processes with the ones from the Active inference theory and cognitive science. Similarities between the two frameworks, as well as possible benefits of employing them for one goal, are discussed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its overall intent, the paper aims to instantiate the Valsinerian (2018) proposal of resistance as a fundamental process of human psyche. It attempts to use the concept of resistance to challenge the dualistic axiomatic basis of traditional psychology and argues for the benefits of dialectical metatheory in which theory of resistance is grounded. As a fundamental attribute of human functioning, resistance arises out of the tension of contradictions between opposites within the same whole. To grasp its nature and operation, the dialectical metatheory is needed rather than a dualistic metatheory which is endemic in traditional Psychology. The paper contrasts the two metatheories with each other and outlines the basic premises of dialectical metatheory. It also further elaborates the theory of resistance by addressing the three significant questions about the nature of resistance: Is resistance present in all encounters between persons and between persons and culture? Is resistance limited to negation or is it generative? Is resistance central to making development possible and bringing about transformational change? Through the application of dialectical framework in conceptualizing individual and collective relations, the dualistic thinking in cultural psychology about individualism and collectivism as mutually exclusive categories is questioned. Also, it opens out the space for finding the hidden transcripts of resistance in collectivist culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this commentary paper I try to make complementarily more discussion on two question. First, the target paper (Zagaria, Andò, & Zennaro, 2020) points out the lack of continuity in the concepts used in psychology. The authors aim for a rigorous definition which is necessary to rebuild mud figures of psychology, but is that the only direction? Second, the evolutionary psychology seems to allow for a diversity of methodologies, but is there any limitations and possibilities of approaching the origin of the mind from biologically based methods? To answer this question, I went back and examined Freud's earlier studies and Vygotsky's theoretical considerations from the history of psychology. As a result, it was pointed out that the shift from the biological world to the psychological world had a fundamental problem of conversion from quantity to quality. As a clue to its elucidation, I considered on the semiotic mediation, the psychological causality, and the work of apperception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary society has blurred the territorial borders that colonialism used to divide nation-states. Information about different peoples that have survived the impact of brutal violence perpetrated for centuries reaches everywhere in the world through information networks and disputes visibility. The modernization of the sciences happened during the period of consolidation of the so-called modern societies, in a process directly linked to the invasion of the indigenous territories of Abya Yala/Pindorama. Contemporary science is descendant of a large-scale colonialist process. The territory of knowledge has been colonized by economic and political interests that put researchers to work for purposes increasingly far from the desired freedom of thought. This paper argues that a escape from the entrapments of psychological methodolatry depends on the implication of a researcher connecting science to ethics, breaking the vicious cycle of reaffirmation of supposed scientific truths when they prove to be insufficient to approach basic human questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a methodological concept of phenomenological elucidation to promote the development of phenomenology as psychology. After offering a minimal review of the historical relationship between phenomenology and psychology, the first section gives a brief overview of the descriptive phenomenological approach developed by A. Giorgi and other psychologists. However, for phenomenology to evolve as a human science, the method should not remain descriptive. One needs to be able to answer the question of "why". The second section outlines the process of phenomenological elucidation on the topic of dream analysis. This process answers the question of "why" based on identifying differences between the fundamental phenomenological structure of the dream experience and that of the real experience. Husserl's classification of intentionalities is used as a heuristic for this identification. In the final section, phenomenological elucidation is defined as a way to answer the "why" question by treating the differences between the experiences in question as specific cases of more fundamental differences in phenomenological structure. This method is expected to be effective in the development of phenomenology as psychology, that is, as an empirical human science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews seventy years of theoretical research and proposes systematic curiosity as an integrative tool for human flourishing with a focus on four key aspects: firstly, acknowledge curiosity’s multidimensional nature instead of harmonizing its complex taxonomy; secondly, emphasizing intentional curiosity as opposed to impulsive curiosity; thirdly, prioritizing domain-general curiosity for broader applicability across educational, organizational, and therapeutic settings; and lastly, focusing on curiosity as a developable skill rather than an innate trait. By segmenting systematic curiosity into cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components, and relating these to interactions with the self, others, and the world, the framework aims to apply across the spectrum of human experience. Furthermore, the framework encourages an exploration of various evidence-based activities for flourishing so individuals can discover the most suitable strategies for their specific context. Implications for both theory and practice are examined, limitations are discussed, and avenues for future research are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article stems from an interest taken in discussing the usage of the terms ambivalence and ambiguity, which are very present in Psychology's publications and savoir faire. It is important to reiterate that in common sense and even in scientific publications these terms are often used as synonyms or notions of little conceptual delimitation. The relevance of such differentiation is proposed once these notions participates of the emergence of the new in human subjective experience, and, in a methodological approach, ambiguity and ambivalence are dimensions that leads the researcher goes beyond a repetitive sterile description of the subject's speech, moving towards new perspectives of the psychological data. This paper aims to retrieve the qualifying power of such notions by making a broader reflection on the functions of language in the production of interpretive realities. We also propose to bring up a reflection about ambiguity in the construction of meaning and to reiterate ambivalences as inherent to human nature, its affective record and the process of human becoming. As a way to explain the proposed themes, we will analyse an excerpt from the documentary "Últimas Conversas", produced by the Brazilian filmmaker Eduardo Coutinho, in which high school students from public state schools in Rio de Janeiro tell their stories, speaking of dreams and shared challenges. The character Rafaela was selected for this article because of the emergence of unspeakable emotions from her narrative about an expected future as a promise of reconciliation with the alterity of her life story. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]