Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Estrid Sørensen
(Ruhr-Universität Bochum)
Lotte Huniche (University of Southern Denmark)
Send message to Convenors
- Location:
- Economy 24 a
- Sessions:
- Friday 19 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Warsaw
Long Abstract:
The session discusses how to contribute to change or improve psychological research methods without taking the stance of the well-known distanced critique that the methods of mainstream academic psychology fail to account for subject's perspectives, power asymmetries etc. Instead the speakers attempt to apply the lessons of post-colonial STS to think about psychology's methods from the perspective of the research object, or from the point of view of the matter of concern of psychological research. The papers engage with psychology's method not with the aim of deconstructing them (even if deconstruction may be a necessary step in the engagement), but more to think methods normatively, taking upon ourselves to engage with these methods, with the discipline and community of psychology. This may imply taking into account various aspects, such as the structure and constitution of the discipline and profession. The current moment for discussing psychology's methods is particularly interesting. As a result of the revealing of various fraud casses psychologists throughout the Euro-American world intensively discuss and re-consider their methods and what they call their 'scientific culture'. From an STS perspective, informed by various studies on replication, the social construction of science etc. psychology's current suggestions seem systematically to miss the point. But how, then, would it be possible to hit the point? This is the main question to be discussed in the session, on the background of empirical presentations relating to the current debates and practices of academic psychology.
The papers will be presented in the order shown and within one session
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 19 September, 2014, -Maarten Derksen (University of Groningen)
Paper long abstract:
Over the past three years a crisis has been developing in psychology. Spectacular cases of fraud, a widely shared suspicion that questionable research practices are rife in parts of the discipline, and a growing unease with its incentive and reward structure have fuelled an intense debate about fundamental epistemological and social issues in the practice of science. These issues overlap to a large extent with those of STS, which raises the question whether and how STS can contribute to the debate. I focus on replication, and explore whether classic studies of this topic such as those of Collins and Gilbert & Mulkay have any guidance to offer. I note that to a limited extent this work already informs psychologists' reflections, and analyse what more could be drawn from it. Finally, I argue that the issue of how STS can intervene in psychology must always be considered together with the reverse: how psychology could (knowingly or unknowingly) intervene in STS. In this case, the latter issue could include the question why the topic of replication has fallen out of fashion in STS.
Annegrete Juul (University of Copenhagen)
Paper long abstract:
Concepts and models originating within social cognitive theory play a significant role in psychology and beyond. Especially Bandura's concept of perceived self-efficacy has been influential and is widely used as theoretical underpinning in different kinds of behaviour management programs and activities not the least within health promotion and disease prevention. I start out investigating the appeal of perceived self-efficacy for patient empowerment programs. I show how the interactive aspects of behaviour, cognition and environment in Bandura's social cognitive theory fade to the background with the concept of perceived self-efficacy. I also note that self-efficacy works by 'desocializing' individuals from their social contexts, by 'deinstitutionalizing' through lack of attention to interactions between agents and institutions, and by 'dehistoricizing' the question of social agency and control. I then turn to ethnographic explorations of situations of disease self-management and how Bandura's notion of perceived self-efficacy is applied in patient empowerment programs. I show how this directs attention towards particular manageable aspects of life with a chronic condition and seeks to instantiate standardised trajectories of change; and not the least how this involves frictions between these aspirations and practiced situations of disease self-management. I end by discussing how these STS inspired insights may be thought of and generate reflection within psychology and social cognitive theory particularly.
Steven Brown
Paper long abstract:
The psychology of memory has been the site of major debates over the comparative status of experiments and qualitative methods. Despite efforts to combine these methods in various ways, research has for the most part developed along entirely distinct lines. In this paper, I argue that this apparent methodological division is structured around different orientations to 'bottom line' arguments over the possibility of establishing the veracity of recollections. Drawing on Stengers' 'cosmopolitical' approach to relations between practices, I explore parasitic and symbiotic relations between the approaches that bypass the difficulty of conjugating rival ontologies.
Estrid Sørensen (Ruhr-Universität Bochum) Lotte Huniche (University of Southern Denmark)
Paper long abstract:
Current attempts at gaining recognition of qualitative methods in psychology are characterised by producing, naming, demanding and adhering to specific, well defined, and unambiguous methodological standards. The paper analyses how the trend of methodological standardisation affects psychological knowledge production. On the one hand we argue that an appropriation by standardisation is taking place through the disenchanted creation of transparency and legitimacy. On the other hand some qualitative researchers in psychology oppose standardisation and celebrate instead authentic experiences and engagement with their research subjects. We argue that this amounts to naturalisation of `core values´.
Both the preoccupation with qualitative methods as a standardized set of techniques and as naturalised engagement downplay research practice as an unfolding process of assembling the research object of psychology through academic work and of assembling psychological knowledge accordingly. We attempt to apply STS insights to engage in the current debates and coin our contribution systematic research assembling.