• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Concerning Paradigmatic Status of Psychological Science: For a Flexible and Flowing Psychology in the Face of Practical and Theoretical Challenges

Sorokin P. S., Мироненко И. А.

We comment on the article by Zagaria et al., which explicates the ““soft” nature of
psychology: a minor consensus in its “core”” (Zagaria et al., p. 1), manifested by the
discordant character of definitions of psychological “core-constructs”. Zagaria et al.
build on the assumption that psychological science should reside in the status of a
paradigm, meanwhile the real state of things they consider as pre-paradigmatic, imperfect
and unhealthy, from which a transition to a paradigm is necessary.We cannot agree
with this provision. We argue that not internal coherence and consistency, but the
ability to reflect multifaceted reality, to answer its innovative manifestations in various
dimensions and solve tasks that life poses to humanity with an adequate set of different
tools not reducible to a single approach, is what makes the value of science. Psychology
originally developed as poly paradigmatic science, because its subject has a most
complex nature, holistic, yet incorporating many aspects different in their essence
and, therefore, requiring different versions of the methodology. Considering epistemology
of psychological science from the philosophical perspective implying special focus
on the ontological issues, we argue that poly paradigmatic structure of psychology is a
virtue, not weakness. Thanks to such a structure, modular, like a Swiss knife, our
science may offer the most effective solutions for a variety of problems. Multiplicity of
relative approaches is best fit for life and innovation, even though we have to sacrifice
rigor and concordance of definitions in introductory textbooks.