Psychology and its Love Hate Relationship with Science PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay I submitted as part of the module's assessment....

Description

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 1

QUESTION 5:

Psychology and its Love/Hate Relationship with Science

“Psychology cannot always be clearly classified as a science. Many of the practical counselling concepts and tips for life crises described as psychology are explicitly distant from academic science.” - Benjamin Ziemann, 2014

The question of whether psychology is the scientific study  of the mind and behaviour, or simply the study  of the mind and behaviour, is one which has been hotly debated for decades. Within the field, similarly, there has been a divide between psychology professionals who believe it should be the former or the latter, resulting in a divided approach to research and the practice of psychology as a whole. Counselling and self-help literature are particularly alienated from psychology’s scientific realm, something which has hitherto been described as a problem. However, science or at least the modern scientific method is guided by and based on two main philosophies: empiricism and positivism, both of which are flawed and in many ways ill-suited to psychology’s area of interest, the mind. Psychology’s most positive impact, furthermore, arguably lies in its application, much of which is separate to psychology’s scientific study. These statements will be proved through the following three arguments. First, positivism and empiricism, and therefore in extension, science, are far from perfect frameworks and are often not suitable for areas of study such as the mind. Second, psychology exists outside of science, in some respects, particularly in terms of its application, and can, in fact, be helpful for that reason. And third, preoccupation with being a scientific field can stunt psychology’s reach, growth, and helpfulness. By arguing the aforementioned points, and anticipating and addressing the common counterarguments, the reader should

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 2 naturally be convinced that psychology has in many respects outgrown science, and could benefit from running contrary to a tool to which it is in many ways is not suited.

The philosophical underpinnings of science are flawed and thus it is not a suitable tool for examining the mind

Psychology as a science follows the guidance and framework laid by empiricism and positivism. Positivism is a philosophy and a doctrine, first and foremost, borne by Auguste Comte, though it can be traced back to more historical philosophers such as Kant, Hume, and Descartes (Harre, 1985). This doctrine arose in reaction to the scepticism of its contemporary philosophies, which doubted that one can ever truly ‘know’ their own world or be sure of all that they perceive (Indick, 2002). Thus, positivism is a reaction to the negativism that was popular at the time of its conception. Positivism takes a more literal view of the senses, looking at that which can be perceived or observed as ‘positive’ elements of the world, and assuming the validity and existence of such elements. One of the most useful aspects of this doctrine is that it allows for the acceptance of fact, and thus modern science as we know it, and the scientific method, emerged from it and its counterpart: empiricism. Looking at psychology applied, counselling research conforms to this naive empiricism. Its basic tenets are as follows: we have direct contact with reality through observation; science exists to identify empirical relationships that occur regularly enough to base empirical generalisations on; and knowledge of counselling can only be gained through observing the social event that is ‘counselling’ (Strong, 1991). Essentially, positivism and naive empiricism place an inherent faith in one’s senses and perception and thus assume that these perceptions are accurate, true, and universal. They also assume these perceptions to be unbiased and deem only such unbiased information as true knowledge. This philosophy underpins the scientific method as we know it today.

Psychology adopted empiricism as its preferred underlying principle and allowed it to govern its research methodology in the wake of its Freudian era to alleviate its so-called ‘physics envy’ and establish itself as equal to the natural sciences in terms of its seriousness

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 3 and worthiness (Indick, 2002). It is essential to understand the beginning of the conception of psychology as a science as it can highlight not only what psychology gained from this transition, but also what it sacrificed. This transition was valuable in that it not only gained academic and public respect, it also helped psychologists to gain funding, government backing, and access to vulnerable populations. However, it had to pay a price and make sacrifices to be a part of this exclusive club, the main sacrifice being that it had to overlook or accept the shortcoming and flaws of the scientific method and its associated frameworks. One such flaw is that naive empiricism assumes that observations are unbiased by nature, and thus are universal, and that truth and knowledge, in general, are universal. However, social psychology and evolutionary biology have demonstrated time and time again that human beings are incapable of passively observing reality. Instead, individuals construct or organise their reality and interpret it as they perceive it (Lyotard, 1984; Radnitzky & Bartley, 1987). Indeed, much of the theory around psychotherapy directly disagrees with this assumption, and prior to psychology becoming a science (in its Freudian years) the field was less naive in that regard.

Counselling in practice today still recognises personal truths, individual perspectives, and nuanced interpretations of a definitive external reality, which is perhaps a more realistic way of viewing the world and the individuals that reside within it. By nature, all observations are connected intrinsically with the frame of references of the observer, meaning that unbiased objective knowledge is necessarily bound with values, beliefs, theoretical assumptions, and the methods of measuring the observation (Thomas, 1979). The observer can only access their external reality through their own individual framework, their own lens, and their own experiences. Thus, even if an external reality does exist independent of observation, it is not possible to directly observe it. Naive empiricism exacerbates this problem of objective observation by putting itself in a place of ignorance. Instead of carefully examining and trying to unearth the assumptions and beliefs that underlie observation, their existence is denied, leading to unexamined bias (Strong, 1991). Psychodynamic and systemic theories take an entirely unscientific approach in this regard, and are largely unconcerned with observing external reality, focusing instead on how events, relationships, and social dynamics have made a client who they are today, and how this has led to them observing and

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 4 interpreting the world around them in a particular way (often in maladaptive ways and the primary reason for the therapy session itself). This is one way in which psychology and science are incompatible, and one way in which conforming to the philosophies underlying science would stifle and limit psychology as a field.

In fact, even those who are pro-positivism as a philosophy recognise that it may not be suited to all areas of interest, such as the human mind. Comte (1975) has famously claimed that “all ideas of quality are reducible to ideas of quantity”, summing up the quantitative imperative that accompanies positivism and empiricism (p. 109). However, Comte himself elaborated on this point and qualified it by stating that the application of mathematical analysis is not appropriate to all areas, particularly social phenomena due to their complexity. Comte even went so far as to state that their suitability for mathematical analysis was “out of the question” (p. 111). Comte, in this way, dictated clearly that professionals ought to use quantities where quantities are fit to be used, but abstain from applying such considerations to what it is beyond their power to apply them to. While Comte’s views were largely accepted by later positivists, his distrust of the quantitative imperative was not. This is key to understanding why psychology feels it must always conform to such rigid methodology when this was never supposed to be the case. It also illustrates how psychology is excepted by even positivists themselves as a suitable subject to the framework. One final criticism of positivism and empiricism (and in extension, modern science) is that they deny all knowledge that is not directly observable, and must use hypo-thetic-deductive logic to theorise entities which are not directly observable. The idea behind this is that theorised entities have observable consequences even if the entities themselves are not observable (Lee, 1991). Taking this approach means that psychology divorces and distances itself from the construct or phenomenon of interest by looking at its observable consequences and finding ways to measure such consequences. This, in fact, may be counterproductive when the mind and its workings are one’s primary subject of study.

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 5 Psychology exists outside of science and can be helpful because of this

As dictated by empiricism, scientific methodology aims to quantify all information, no matter how nuanced, personal, or individual, in order to get that all-elusive significant p-value. The quantitative imperative is the idea that when you cannot measure your data you cannot understand it. This is a dominant perspective in psychology research, and it means that qualitative methodology is overlooked and even scorned as it does not conform to this doctrine (Michell, 2003). However, qualitative methodology affords psychology a much deeper and more novel knowledge of human beings and their feelings, thoughts, and why they do what they do. People are more than a number, and more than how they relate to the ‘mean’ or average person, who, in any case, does not exist. As James (1912) put it, “in every concrete individual there is a uniqueness that defies all formulation” (p. 109). Psychology has the capacity to focus on this uniqueness, by focusing on the individual outside of the general, unlike other sciences, through case studies and counselling sessions. If we conceptualise psychology, however, as purely ‘one of the sciences’ in the same way that the natural sciences are sciences, then we neglect the knowing of the individual and their uniqueness, and unjustly favour ‘the average human being’, which does not exist (Allport, 1962).

One example of a strand of psychology which resides outside of the scientific realm is self-help literature. This is often classed as ‘popular psychology’ due to its accessibility and availability. Self-help literature has helped individuals dealing with depression, menopause, smoking cessation, overeating, phobias, and sleep problems (Starker, 1986; Gould & Clum, 1993; Lyons & Griffin, 2003; Anderson et al., 2005). Although there may not be a wealth of empirical support for the effectiveness of these sources, and although self-help literature is often dismissed and criticised, the very fact that such literature has been so welcomed into individual’s lives, and become such a profitable industry is reason enough to accept their potential to benefit people. The popularity of such literature also suggests some level of distrust for or dissatisfaction with the mainstream scientific approach to mental health or individual problems, and a desire to manage one’s own life without prying eyes. Self-help literature is particularly popular among women, and this may indicate that this is an avenue through which women can gain help and feel understood, in ways that they could not from

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 6 the more ’regulated’ and mainstream approaches such as academic scientific areas (Tallen, 1990). As science is still a male-dominated field and is largely regulated by men and has many male gatekeepers, self-help sources may more directly tap into women in need of support more easily than mainstream avenues as there are fewer barriers to access and dissemination of results (Banchefsky & Park, 2018). This is one way in which psychology can help people outside of the scientific realm.

There is a well-documented gap between research and practice within psychology in terms of counselling and psychotherapy. Many frame this gap as a failure on the part of psychotherapists to educate themselves and take on new evidence-backed techniques, or a fault on the part of researchers in disseminating their findings (Martin & Martin, 1989). However, it is worth considering if there may be an explanation for this disparity other than stubbornness and ignorance. Perhaps this gap exists because there are techniques and strategies which counsellors find helpful, but the scientific method is not the correct tool to verify such techniques’ effectiveness or justify their use. Alternatively, this gap may stem from the fact that research advice is often irrelevant, unhelpful, conflicting, and generally inadequate in meeting the needs of clients and practitioners (Howard, 1985). Research is often out of step with practice, not just because practitioners take time to incorporate new methods, but because those within the academic realm are often not checking in with those who are practising to find out what form of support they require. This schism between research and practice may also result from the refusal of psychotherapists to be ‘scientist-practitioners’, as they do not believe that this is the correct direction for psychotherapy today. Indeed there is evidence to support the notion that researchers and clinicians hold different assumptions and beliefs about human development, problem causality, and client resourcefulness, highlighting the gap between psychology as a science and psychology as something else entirely (Howard, 1985). This gap, whatever it may be caused by, highlights the failure of academic science to be put into actual useful practice and meet the needs of individuals and clinicians and suggests that psychology does much of its good outside of this narrow scientific lens.

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 7 Viewing psychology as a science can stunt its growth and limit its reach and helpfulness

When arguing over whether or not psychology should be deemed a science, often those arguing lose sight of one of the most important elements of psychology, if not the most important: its ability to help people. It is my view that what matters when approaching psychology and trying to help individuals is not what is ‘true’ or accurate, but what helps  and what is useful in treating each individual human being. While the alignment with modern science may have helped psychology in gaining a more respectable reputation as an area of study, psychology has now been established as important and worthwhile, thus it is not necessary to linger on this empirical ground. The empirical method is simply a tool with which to test specific questions in order to get a definite but generalised answer (Indick, 2002). The very nature of the mind, however, is that its functions are not always observable. Thoughts, emotions, and individual perceptions, all must be inferred from behaviour or language. Positivism is reductionistic. The quantitative imperative ignores all that which is not deemed statistically significant or does not fit into that all-important p-value. It denies the existence of that which it cannot perceive, suggesting non-empirical knowledge is false simply because the empirical method is insufficient to verify it. Commitment to naive empiricism is felt on all sides. For instance, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology will not accept studies that do not conform to naive empiricism standards, a practice commonly employed in many scientific journals and one which pushes those in the field towards empirical methodologies (Strong, 1991). This means that if one wishes to engage in the academic realm of psychology and have one’s findings reviewed by one’s peers, one must use methodology deemed appropriate by such peer-reviewed journals, potentially sacrificing the best method for the most widely accepted method. This stunts psychology’s knowledge base and growth as it means sometimes using a framework or a model that is ill-suited to answering the research question or achieving the relevant goal such as aiding recovery from mental illness or trauma.

Even well-known positivists such as Carnap, who was also, of course, pro-science, could acknowledge that the scientific framework is not the only possibility for addressing

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 8 questions. Instead, he stated, selecting a framework should always be a pragmatic process, and there may be some areas (such as the mind) in which measurement may not be possible, representative, or helpful  (Carnap, 1966). In this way, Carnap, like many of his peers, agreed that progress in science and more generally in any field is a matter of finding the most useful framework for what one wants to achieve. This is significant and worth noting when considering how psychology should be conceptualised today, particularly considering that often what causes psychological pain is not what is true but what that person’s perception of the situation is. For instance, for someone who presents with low self-esteem who has suffered through a string of traumatic events in their life, what is most important at the point that individual is at now (the therapy stage) is their reaction to those events and how they have internalised the meaning  of those events. Furthermore, one of the benefits of counselling is its adaptability, and how it is moulded to the needs of each individual client. This is in direct disagreement with the ‘generalisability’ or ‘universality’ element of positivism or empirical frameworks, which sometimes seep into psychotherapy through the manualisation of therapies. If psychotherapy approaches were designed using scientific research alone they would all be designed to treat the ‘mean’ human being. Counselling, however, must recognise an individual’s needs as singular and provide the client with the exact form of support that they require.

Psychotherapy can uniquely realise the value of each individual and that they are deserving of effective and efficient help with any psychological problem, regardless of how alike they are to other people, or how closely they approximate the ‘average’ human being. Scientific research, however, with its empirical framework devalues the individual outside of the whole, particularly devaluing those who would be in the minority, seeking instead to focus on the majority. Empiricism and in extension the scientific method can also restrict creative thought by rejecting arguments and theories which cannot be tested through empirical methodology (Indick, 2002). In this way, science, with its preoccupation with what can be condensed into numerical data and statistical power, limits psychology’s capacity for knowledge to that which we can measure, sense or easily infer, thereby excluding other possibilities.

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE 9 Counterarguments and conclusion

One of the main arguments for why psychology should be viewed as a science is that the scientific method supposedly decreases bias and holds psychology to a standard. Furthermore, being labelled as a science has helped psychology as a field and people have benefited from this. While both of these statements are true to an extent, the fact that being thought of as a science is now limiting  psychology and its ability to help people, as described above, means that it is time to move on. Additionally, science is in no way free from bias and is guilty of many distortions of reality such as the overestimation of effect sizes, publishing bias, and ulterior motives (Fanelli, Costas, Ioannidis, 2017). And while there is no denying that psychology as a science has helped people, it is important to look to the future ...