Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

, Volume 88, Issue 5, pp 385–393 | Cite as

Psychological Science in the Global World

  • A. L. ZhuravlevEmail author
  • I. A. MironenkoEmail author
  • A. V. YurevichEmail author


The formation of global science in the modern world implies both the emergence of new objects and subjects of research and a change in the international scientific community. In the opinion of the authors, the globalization of psychological science determines not only integration but also differentiation of trends in world science. These processes challenge the mainstream theoretical ideas of the second half of the 20th century about human nature and the methodological foundations of the respective theories. The formation of global psychology as a multipolar network is viewed not as a single theoretical trend but rather as a divergent development of new and reconsidered old psychological concepts in an attempt to assess the modern empirical realities generated by the era of globalization. The authors propose to define global psychology as a stage in the development of psychological science, generated by the new reality, the assessment of which requires new approaches. The discourse of global psychology is directed to the establishment of a discipline that would respond adequately to the challenges of our time and reflect the psychological features of contemporary humans. The authors argue, that Russian science should actively participate in the dialogue and integration at this new stage, preserving at the same time its authentic identity, because it is its originality that can be of interest and, consequently, in demand on the part of international psychology.


global psychology “indigenous psychologies” (IPs) novelty of objects and subjects of psychological studies the scientific psychological community in the epoch of globalization integration and differentiation of world science the place and role of Russian psychology in world science 



  1. 1.
    S. A. Lebedev, “Science in the global world,” Vek Globalizatsii, No. 2, 145–151 (2012).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. G. Enriquez, “Developing a Filipino Psychology,” in Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context, Ed. by U. Kim and J. W. Berry (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993), pp. 152–169.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Y. F. Ho, “Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives,” J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 29, 88–103 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.-S. Yang, “Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology,” Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 3, 241–263 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. Kim and J. W. Berry, Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Georgas and K. Mylonas, “Cultures are like all other cultures, like some other cultures, like no other culture,” in Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context, Ed. by U. Kim, K. S. Young, and K.-K. Hwang (Springer, New York, 2006), pp. 197–221.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Jahoda, “On the rise and decline of  ‘indigenous psychology,’” Culture Psychol. 22 (2), 169–181 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. W. Berry, “Achieving a global psychology,” Can. Psychol. 54 (1), 55–61 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. J. Marsella, All psychologies are indigenous psychologies: Reflections on psychology in a global era. Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. P. Todes, Darwin without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. G. Anan’ev, Man As an Object of Cognition (Izd. Leningrad. Gos. Univ., Leningrad, 1968) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. J. Gergen, “Culturally inclusive psychology from a constructionist standpoint,” J. Theor. Soc. Behav. 45 (1), 94–106 (2015).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Valsiner, “Integrating psychology within the globalizing world: A requiem to the post-modernist experiment with Wissenschaft,” Integrative Psychol. Behav. Sci. 43 (1), 1–21 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Valsiner, Between Self and Societies: Creating Psychology in a New Key (TLU Press, Tallinn, 2017).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Rosa, “Acts of psyche,” Cambridge Handbook of Socio-Cultural Psychology, Ed. by J. Valsiner and A. Rosa (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007), pp. 205–236.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. K. Hwang, “The rise of indigenous psychologies: In response to Jahoda’s criticism,” Culture Psychol. 23 (4), 551–565 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Sundararajan, “The Chinese notions of harmony, with special focus on implications for cross-cultural and global psychology,” Humanistic Psychol. 41, 25–34 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. K. Hwang, “Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms,” J. Theor. Soc. Behav. 45 (1), 39–62 (2015).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Lasser and C. Plotts, “Global migration: The need for culturally competent school psychologists,” School Psychol. Int. 36 (4), 358–374 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. F. Petrenko, “Multipolar culture of united humanity,” Vek Globalizatsii, Nos. 1–2, 126–132 (2016).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Toomela, “Modern mainstream psychology is the best? Noncumulative, historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical,” in Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years Gone Astray?, Ed. by A. Toomela and J. Valsiner (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2010), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Valsiner, A Guided Science: History of Psychology in the Mirror of Its Making (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2012).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Danziger, “Does the history of psychology have a future?,” Theor. Psychol. 4, 467–484 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. B. Lykes and G. Moane, “Editors’ introduction: Whither feminist liberation psychology? Critical explorations of feminist and liberation psychologies for a globalizing world,” Fem. Psychol. 19 (3), 283–297 (2009). Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Unger, Resisting Gender: Twenty-Five Years of Feminist Psychology (Sage, London, 1998).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. M. Mays, J. Rubin, M. Sabourin, and L. Walker, “Moving toward a global psychology,” Am. Psychol. 51 (5), 485–487 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    I. A. Mironenko and P. S. Sorokin, “Culture in psychology: Perennial problems and contemporary methodological crisis,” Psychol. Russ.: State Art, No. 4, 35–45 (2015).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Sorokin, “‘Global sociology’ in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems, and perspectives,” Curr. Sociol. 64 (1), 41–59 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    U. Beck and N. Sznaider, “Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda,” Brit. J. Sociol. 57 (1), 1–23 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    I. A. Mironenko, Russian Psychology in the Global Science Space (Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. V. Yurevich and I. P. Tsapenko, “Globalization of Russian science,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, No. 12, 1098–1106 (2005).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    V. A. Kol’tsova, T. A. Nestik, and V. A. Sosnin, “Psychological science in the struggle for peace: Research objectives and vectors,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 5, 5–15 (2006).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. G. Dikaya, “Urgent problems and prospects of labor psychology research in conditions of globalization,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 29–44 (2007).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. V. Yurevich, “Russian psychology in the global mainstream,” Vopr. Psikhol., No. 1, 3–14 (2010).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    T. V. Kornilova, “Internationality of psychology versus ‘national psychologies,’” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 91–99 (2015).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. L. Zhuravlev and T. A. Nestik, “Psychological features of collective creativity in network communities,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 19–28 (2016).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. L. Zhuravlev and A. N. Zankovskii, “Trends in the development of organizational psychology,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 77–88 (2017).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. A. Gostev, “Psychological aspects of global manipulation studies,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 4, 17–28 (2017).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    I. A. Mironenko, “From forecast to foresight of future Russian psychology,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 119–123 (2017).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    I. A. Mironenko, “Integrative and isolationist tendencies in contemporary Russian psychological science,” Psychol. Russ.: State Art 7 (2), 4–13 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. L. Zhuravlev and T. A. Nestik, “Psychological features of collective creativity in network communities,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 19–28 (2016).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    V. Korionov, “They cemented the fortress…,” Pravda, Aug. 12 (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations