Abstract
The subjectivity of the researcher is as much embedded in society, history, and the larger culture as any other subjectivity. Political-economic conditions, the Zeitgeist, social characteristics, the academic habitus, personal idiosyncrasies, institutional realities, or politics can influence the questions, methodologies, interpretations, and applications of research. It is argued that internationalization, the historicity of the societal embeddedness of knowledge, and personal limitations should embolden epistemic modesty as a virtue. In contrast, it is argued that epistemic grandiosity is the more common practice of scientists, which is analyzed on the background of the development of new idols, the neoliberal transformation of academia, and a post-truth society. Using instances from the natural and human sciences, the (im)possibility of epistemic modesty as part of epistemic subjectivity, and contours for a new critical psychology of science, are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aalbers, D., & Teo, T. (2017). The American Psychological Association and the torture complex: A phenomenology of the banality and workings of bureaucracy. Journal für Psychologie,25(1), 179–204.
Adams, G., & Estrada-Villalta, S. (2017). Theory from the South: A decolonial approach to the psychology of global inequality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.031.
Bacon, F. (1965). A selection of his works (S. Warhaft, Ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Macmillan.
Bhatia, S. (2018). Decolonizing psychology: Globalization, social justice, and Indian youth identities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus (P. Collier, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Candolle, A. d. (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siècles: Suivie d’autres études sur des sujets scientifiques, en particulier sur la sélection dans l’espèce humaine. Genève: Georg.
Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Code, L. (1993). Taking subjectivity into account. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 15–48). New York: Routledge.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York, NY: Zone.
Devereux, G. (1967). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. New York: Humanities Press.
Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.
Fine, G. (2008). Does Socrates claim to know that he knows nothing? Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy,35, 49–85.
Fleck, L. (1979). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1935).
Fowers, B. J. (2005). Virtue and psychology: Pursuing excellence in ordinary practices. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Original work published 1986).
Freud, S. (1977). Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse. Frankfurt/Main: Fischer.
Galton, F. (1962). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. Cleveland, OH: World (Original work published 1869).
Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5000 years. London: Melville House.
Grenberg, J. (2005). Kant and the ethics of humility: A story of dependence, corruption, and virtue. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist,5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
Hersch, E. L. (2006). Philosophically-informed psychotherapy and the concept of transference. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,26(1–2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091276.
Hiebsch, H. (1977). Wissenschaftspsychologie: Psychologische Fragen der Wissenschaftsorganisation. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Holton, G. (1973). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1982). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York, NY: Continuum (Original work published 1947).
Jackson, J. P., & Weidman, N. M. (2004). Race, racism, and science: Social impact and interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: Abc-Clio.
Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kim, U., Yang, K.-S., & Hwang, K.-K. (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context. New York: Springer.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lombroso, C. (1905). The man of genius (2d ed.). London: W. Scott.
Marx, K. (1962). Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Erster Band) (Marx Engels Werke Band 23) [Capital: Critique of political economy (Volume I) (Marx Engels Works: Volume 23)]. Berlin: Dietz (Original work published 1867).
McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Müller-Freienfels, R. (1936). Psychologie der Wissenschaft. Leipzig: Barth.
Oeser, E. (1988). Das Abenteuer der kollektiven Vernunft. Evolution und Involution der Wissenschaft. Berlin: Parey.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J., Malone, K. R., & Newstetter, W. C. (2011). Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostwald, W. (1908). Erfinder und Entdecker. Frankfurt am Main: Rütten & Loening.
Plato. (1997). Complete works (edited, with introduction and notes by J. M. Cooper; associate editor, D. S. Hutchinson). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Popper, K. R. (1992). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge (Original work published in 1935).
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (Eds.). (2008). Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smyth, J. (2017). The toxic university: Zombie leadership, academic rock stars and neoliberal ideology. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Teo, T. (2008). From speculation to epistemological violence in psychology: A critical-hermeneutic reconstruction. Theory & Psychology,18(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086922.
Teo, T. (2016). Embodying the conduct of everyday life: From subjective reasons to privilege. In E. Schraube & C. Hojholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 111–123). London: Routledge.
Teo, T. (2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology,21(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000132.
Teo, T. (2018a). Outline of theoretical psychology: Critical investigations. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teo, T. (2018b). Homo neoliberalus: From personality to forms of subjectivity. Theory & Psychology,28(5), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318794899.
Tucker, W. H. (1994). The science and politics of racial research. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper.
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Teo, T. (2019). Academic Subjectivity, Idols, and the Vicissitudes of Virtues in Science: Epistemic Modesty Versus Epistemic Grandiosity. In: O’Doherty, K.C., Osbeck, L.M., Schraube, E., Yen, J. (eds) Psychological Studies of Science and Technology. Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25308-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25308-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25307-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25308-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)