Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito
FrancoAngeli Journals

Commentaries

N. 1 (2024)

Three approaches to overcome compartmentalization: A brief epistemological analysis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rpc1-2024oa17127
Inviata
10 gennaio 2024
Pubblicato
15-10-2024

Abstract

The authors of the target article (Salvatore et al., 2022) provided an in-depth analysis of the features and the causes of professional psychology’s fragmentation, generally referred to as compartmentalization. The present contribution is a critical reflection on the three approaches aimed at overcoming it. In conclusion, some preliminary remarks are presented regarding the primary components that a theory of practice should encompass.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Bennett, M. R. & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Blackwell.
  2. Blackburn, S. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Second edition revised. Oxford University Press.
  3. Brinkmann, S. (2002). Minds, brains, or persons? What is psychology about? In B. D. Slife, S. C. Yanchar & F. C. Richardson (eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophi-cal Psychology (pp. 13-29), Routledge.
  4. Brock A. C. (2015). The history of psychological objects. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman & K. L. Slaney (eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology: Methods, Approaches, and New Directions for Social Sciences. First edition (pp. 151-165), John Wiley & Sons.
  5. Corradini A. (2017). La frammentazione della psicologia: alcune riflessioni epistemologiche. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 3, 565-568. DOI: 10.1421/88358.
  6. Danziger K. (1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15(1), 1-13. DOI: 10.1177/004839318501500101.
  7. Danziger K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Danziger K. (1997). Naming the mind. How psychology found its language. Sage.
  9. Danziger K. (2008). Marking the mind: A history of memory. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Dupré J. (1993). The disorder of things. Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Harvard University Press.
  11. Fletcher G. (1995). The scientific credibility of folk psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  12. Feser E. (2005). Philosophy of mind. A beginner’s guide. Oneworld Publications.
  13. Gaj N. (2016). Unity and fragmentation in psychology. The philosophical and methodological roots of the discipline. Routledge.
  14. Gaj N. (2017). La psicologia tra scienza e professione: riflessioni per una teoria della pratica. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 3, 599-605. DOI: 10.1421/88364.
  15. Gaj N. (2018). Psychology between science and technology: A proposal for the development of a theory of practice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 38(2), 77-91. DOI: 10.1037/teo0000081.
  16. Gaj N. (2021). Why the professional practice of psychology requires a personalistic account of psychological phenomena. Theory & Psychology, 31(4), 573-591. DOI: 10.1177/0959354321989434.
  17. Hacking I. (1995). Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the science of memory. Princeton University Press.
  18. Hacking I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
  19. Henriques G. (2017). Achieving a unified clinical science requires a metatheoretical solution: Comment on Melchert (2016). American Psychologist, 72(4), 393-394. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000143.
  20. Hibberd F. J., Petocz A. (2022). Philosophy, realism and psychology’s disciplinary fragmentation. Philosophical Psychology, 36(3), 621-649. DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2022.2081542.
  21. Lamiell J. T. (2010). Wiliam Stern (1871-1938): A brief introduction to his life and works. Pabst Science Publishers.
  22. Martin J., Sugarman J., Thompson J. (2003). Psychology and the ques-tion of agency. State University of New York Press.
  23. Morrison M. (2011). One phenomenon, many models: Inconsistency and complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 342-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.042.
  24. Nagel E. (1961). The structure of science. Problems of logic of scientific explanation. Hackett.
  25. Nelson H. G., Stolterman E. (2014). The design way. Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Second edition. MIT Press.
  26. Richards G. (2002). The psychology of psychology. A historically grounded sketch. Theory and Psychology, 12(1), 7-36. DOI: 10.1177/0959354302121002.
  27. Salvatore S. et al. (2022). Compartmentalization and unity of profes-sional psychology. A road map for the future of the discipline. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 1. DOI: 10.3280/rpc1-2022oa14450.
  28. Sternberg R. J., Grigorenko E., Kalmar D. (2001). The role of theory in unified psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 21(2), 99-117. DOI: 10.1037/h0091200.
  29. Von Wright G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Cornell University Press.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...