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]

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]