Advertisement

Introduction: Subjectivity and Knowledge – The Formation of Situated Generalization in Psychological Research

  • Ernst SchraubeEmail author
  • Charlotte Højholt
Chapter
Part of the Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences book series (THHSS)

Abstract

Based on contemporary debates about the possibilities and limits of scientific generalization and efforts of epistemological renewal, the chapter delineates three major approaches to generalization in psychological research: (1) numerical generalization, generalizing through representative samples, (2) post-generalizing traditions, conceiving generalization not as a decisive goal in scientific work, and (3) situated generalization, generalizing through subjectivity-in-context. The chapter argues for a theoretical and methodological vocabulary which systematically includes the subjective dimension of human life in psychological inquiry and situates the processes of generalization in persons’ common, social, cultural, and material practices of everyday living. Reconsidering the challenge of psychology to include human subjectivity and everyday life in the production of scientific knowledge, it shows how psychologies of human subjectivity permeate the history of psychology from the very beginning. Within these traditions significant perspectives contributing to the formation of a situated generalization are identified, and finally summaries of the chapters of the book are presented.

Keywords

Subjectivity Generalization Situated generalization Psychological production of knowledge Psychological epistemology Practice research 

References

  1. Axel, E., & Højholt, C. (2019). Subjectivity, conflictuality and generalization in social praxis. In C. Højholt & E. Schraube (Eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life (pp. 23–40). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bang, J. (2019). On the worldliness of the general. In C. Højholt & E. Schraube (Eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life (pp. 101–114). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Beckstead, Z., Cabell, K., & Valsiner, J. (2009). Generalizing through conditional analysis: Systemic causality in the world of eternal becoming. Humana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11, 65–80.Google Scholar
  4. Brinkmann, S. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Brinkmann, S. (2015). Empirical philosophy: Using your everyday life in theoretical psychology. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches, and new directions for social sciences (pp. 409–423). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Brock, A. (2016). The universal and the particular in psychology and the role of history in explaining both. In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 29–46). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chimirri, N. A., & Schraube, E. (2019). Rethinking psychology of technology for future society: Research practice from within everyday life. In K. O’Doherty, L. Osbeck, E. Schraube, & J. Yen (Eds.), Psychological studies of science and technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Dafermos, M. (2019). Developing a dialectical understanding of generalization: An unfinalized dialogue between Vygotsky and Davydov. In C. Højholt & E. Schraube (Eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life (pp. 61–77). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Davydov, V. V. (1984). Substantial generalization and the dialectical-materialist theory of thinking. In M. Hedegaard, P. Hakkarainen, & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dege, M. (2019). Rethinking generalization with Kurt Lewin and action research. In C. Højholt & E. Schraube (Eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life (pp. 41–60). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Demuth, C. (2017). Generalization from single cases and the concept of double dialogicality. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52(1), 77–93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-017-9399-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreier, O. (2007). Generality and particularity of knowledge. In V. van Deventer, M. Terre Blanche, E. Fourie, & P. Segalo (Eds.), Citizen city: Between constructing agent and constructed agent (pp. 188–196). Concord: Captus University Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Dreier, O. (2016). Conduct of everyday life: Implications for critical psychology. In E. Schraube & C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 15–33). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–201). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hess, D. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hodgetts, D., Stolte, O., Drew, N., Sonn, C., Nikora, L. W., & Carr, S. (2020). Social psychology and everyday life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Højholt, C. & Kousholt, D. (2019). Developing knowledge through participation and collaboration: Research as mutual learning processes. Annual Review of Critical Psychology.Google Scholar
  20. Højholt, C., & Schraube, E. (2016). Toward a psychology of everyday living. In E. Schraube & C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Holzkamp, K. (1983). Grundlegung der Psychologie. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  22. Holzkamp, K. (1991). Experience of self and scientific objectivity. In C. W. Tolman & W. Maiers (Eds.), Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 65–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holzkamp, K. (2013a). Missing the point: Variable psychology’s blindness to the problem’s inherent coherence? In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (A. Boreham & U. Osterkamp, Trans.) (pp. 60–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Holzkamp, K. (2013b). Psychology: Social self-understanding on the reasons for action in the conduct of everyday life. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (A. Boreham & U. Osterkamp, Trans.) (pp. 233–341). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Holzkamp, K. (2016). Conduct of everyday life as a basic concept of critical psychology. In E. Schraube & C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 65–98). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jensen, U. J. (1999). Categories in activity theory: Marx’s philosophy just-in-time. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 79–99). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  28. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J. (2019). Learning and everyday life: Access, participation, and changing practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawrence, J. A., Dodds, A. E., & Valsiner, J. (2004). The many faces of everyday life: Some challenges to the psychology of cultural practice. Culture & Psychology, 10(4), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leontyev, A. N. (2009). Problems of the development of the mind. Pacifica: Marxists Internet Archive.Google Scholar
  35. Lewin, K. (1931). The conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian modes of thought in con-temporary psychology. Journal of General Psychology, 5, 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muchow, M., & Muchow, H. H. (2015). The life space of the urban child. In G. Mey & H. Günther (Eds.), The life space of the urban child: Perspectives on Martha Muchow’s classical study (pp. 63–146). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  38. O’Doherty, K., Osbeck, L., Schraube, E., & Yen, J. (Eds.). (2019). Psychological studies of science and technology. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M. I., & Laurance, W. F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Røn Larsen, M. (2016). “May I please tell you a little anecdote?”: Inter-professional decision-making about inclusion in the borderland between normal and special schooling. International Journal on School Disaffection, 12(1), 65–84.  https://doi.org/10.18546/IJSD.12.1.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  42. Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique. Overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schraube, E. (2013). First-person perspective and sociomaterial decentering: Studying technology from the standpoint of the subject. Subjectivity, 6(1), 12–32.  https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2012.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schraube, E., & Højholt, C. (Eds.). (2016). Psychology and the conduct of everyday life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Searle, J. R. (2002). Consciousness and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stern, W. (1900). Die psychologische Arbeit des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, insbesondere in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie und Pathologie, 2(6), 413–436.Google Scholar
  47. Stern, W. (1911). Die Differenzielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  48. Stern, W. (1938). General psychology: From the personalistic standpoint (H. D. Spoerl, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Tateo, L. (2013). Generalization as creative and reflective act: Revisiting Lewin’s conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian modes of thought in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 23(4), 518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tateo, L. (2016). The nature of generalization in psychology. In G. Marsico, R. Andrisano Ruggieri, & S. Salvatore (Eds.), Reflexivity and psychology (pp. 45–64). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Teo, T. (2009). Philosophical concerns in critical psychology. In D. Fox, I. Prilleltensky, & S. Austin (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 36–53). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Teo, T. (2015). Historical thinking as a tool for theoretical psychology: On objectivity. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches, and new directions for social sciences (pp. 135–150). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Teo, T. (2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tolman, C. (1989). The general psychological crisis and its comparative psychological resolution. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2(3), 197–207.Google Scholar
  55. Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valsiner, J. (2015). Generalization is possible only from a single case (and from a single instance): The value of a personal diary. In B. Wagoner, N. Chaudhary, & P. Hviid (Eds.), Integrating experiences: Body and mind moving between contexts (pp. 233–243). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Valsiner, J. (2019). Generalization in science: Abstracting from unique events. In C. Højholt & E. Schraube (Eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life (pp. 79–98). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Valsiner, J., Marsico, G., Chaudhary, N., Sato, T., & Dazzani, V. (Eds.). (2016). Psychology as the science of human being: The Yokohama manifesto. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Vygotzky, L. S. (1927/1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 3. Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology (R. van der Veer, Trans.) (pp. 233–243). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Psychology of Everyday Life, Department of People and TechnologyRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations