A new scientific paradigm for research on individuals
Press release in PDF-Version
It has been long known that a comprehensive understanding of
individuals requires the joint expertise of multiple disciplines. But
theories and methods from different disciplines cannot be easily combined,
and the findings often cannot be directly compared. Therefore, Jana Uher
has explored the “theories behind the theories and methods” – the
metatheories and methodologies – that researchers from different
disciplines have developed about individuals. On this abstract level of
consideration
– in science, referred to as philosophy-of-science – she
specified three properties that determine the ways in which humans can
perceive a given phenomenon. As all scientists are humans, these three
properties also determine the methods needed to overcome the limitations
of human perception for enabling scientific investigations. On the basis
of these properties, Jana Uher developed research frameworks that are
applicable across the sciences and that are integrated in the
Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm. This new paradigm
therefore provides important tools for bridging gaps between disciplines
and for enabling collaborative research.
Individuals are explored in many different sciences, such as biology,
medicine, psychology, sociology and economy, that are each specialised on
particular phenomena and abilities of individuals. But ultimately, all of
the different domains are relevant for each single individual. Therefore,
the joint expertise of multiple disciplines is needed to develop a
comprehensive understanding on individuals. But theories and methods often
cannot be easily combined across disciplines and the findings from
different fields often cannot be directly compared.
In her new research trilogy, published in the international journal
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, Jana Uher
therefore explored the “theories behind the theories and methods” – the
meta-theories and methodologies – that researchers in different
disciplines have developed about individuals. In science, this abstract
level of exploration is referred to as philosophy-of-science (see the
Science Blog “What is
philosophy-of-science? And why is it needed?”).
A central goal was to develop foundations that would be applicable in
all sciences that study individuals. Jana Uher specified three properties
that determine whether and how a given phenomenon can be perceived by
individuals in everyday life. This down-to-earth starting point from
ordinary everyday life experiences may be surprising given the abstract
level of consideration taken. But the researcher explains: “All scientists
are human individuals and equipped with the same perceptual abilities as
everyone else. Scientists develop research methods and technologies to
overcome the limitations of our human perceptual abilities for enabling
explorations. Microscopes, for example, magnify the tiniest objects so
that we can perceive them through the lens of microscope with our naked
eye. For this reason, the three properties also determine whether and how
the phenomena that we normally cannot directly perceive in everyday life
can be made perceptible under research conditions.”
The first property specified in the new paradigm is the localisation of
the phenomenon under study in relation to the body of the individual under
study. In everyday life conditions, we can directly see other people’s
hair and eyes, but we cannot see their bones and inner organs. Therefore,
scientists have developed techniques, such as x-rays or surgery, that
allow us to render such internal physical phenomena accessible to
investigation.
We can also directly perceive individuals’ behaviours in everyday life
and in research. But we cannot directly perceive what others are thinking
or feeling or the motives they may have for doing something. This entails
particular exploratory challenges that are directly related to the two
further properties that Jana Uher considers in her new science paradigm.
The second property is a phenomenon’s extension in time. We can take
our time to study and compare the hair colour and body size of individuals
because these phenomena change so slowly. But studying and comparing
individuals’ behaviours is complicated because behaviours change
dynamically from moment to moment. Therefore, in a given moment, several
individuals will hardly ever do exactly the same thing. To render
individuals’ behaviours directly comparable, special conditions are
arranged in which individuals show the same kind behaviour in parallel,
such as in foot races. Then one can directly see who runs faster—even
without stopping times (see the Science
Blog “What is ‘personality’?”).
Individuals’ bodies and many other objects, such as chairs and mobile
phones, are tangible because they consist of matter—they are material
physical phenomena. But behaviours are not material objects that one can
touch – they are immaterial. Behaviours are bound to the muscles by which
they are produced. Therefore, direct relations between behaviours and
muscles can be identified. But the muscles are there even if they are not
used to produce behaviours, and the same muscles can be used to produce
different behaviours, such as raising an arm to pick an apple from a tree
or to catch someone’s attention. Thus, behaviours are not the same as the
muscles used to produce them. This refers to the third property that Jana
Uher considers and that she calls physicality: the extension of a
phenomenon in space.
This third property may be the most difficult one to understand as it
concerns the difference between physical phenomena, such as the brain,
heart beat and behaviour, and the intangible phenomena of the psyche.
Specifically, we can determine the length of a wooden stick and the size
and weight of a brain. We can also determine the frequency of heart beats
and the length of a person’s steps. Sticks and brains are material
objects, heart beats are physiological phenomena and foot steps are
behaviours. All four phenomena have an extension in space and are thus
physical. But we cannot determine the spatial extension of a thought or an
emotion that we may have. This insight was already made, amongst others,
by one of the central figures in modern philosophy: Immanuel Kant who
lived in the 18th century.
A key question in philosophy has always been how to identify the ways
in which our bodies are connected to our minds—the body-mind problem.
There is no doubt that thoughts occur in individuals’ brains. We also know
that individuals’ thoughts and feelings are related to the brain’s
electrical and chemical processes. These physiological processes and the
matter of the brain can be made perceptible to us, such as by using
neuro-imaging techniques.
But how the body and mind are specifically connected with one another
is still not well understood. One-to-one connections between individuals’
physiological brain activity and their thinking and feeling obviously
cannot be found. These non-spatial properties of the phenomena of the
psyche are called “non-physical” in Jana Uher’s new science paradigm.
This body-mind problem has fascinated not only philosophers but also
quantum physicists, among them Niels Bohr. He was concerned with the
puzzling findings that physicists, such as Isaac Newton and many of his
contemporaries, have revealed about the nature of light. Some experiments
have shown that light has the properties of electromagnetic waves; but
other experiments have shown that light has the properties of particles.
Now, what is light?
Assumptions about both properties are needed to explain the phenomena
emerging from light—but how can light be comprised of both? Bohr solved
this wave-particle dilemma by introducing the idea of complementarity.
Both kinds of properties are needed to explain light, but in any given
experiment, only one of these properties can be studied. This can be
conceived of like the two sides of a coin; we can always look at just one
side at a given time, but every coin always comprises both sides.
This idea became an important principle for developing knowledge about
complex phenomena that feature contradictory properties. This principle
provides the conceptual basis for exploring in their own rights each of
the properties that can be conceived for an object of research without
ignoring their existence just because they are incompatible with other
properties that can be conceived for the same object of research as well.
Bohr also suggested that this principle of complementarity could be
useful for exploring the body-mind problem. Everyone has both a body and a
mind. Individuals cannot be comprehensively explored and understood by
considering either only their bodily properties or only their psychical
properties. Body and mind always function together in the single
individual. But the methods required for studying bodily phenomena cannot
be used to study psychical phenomena, and vice versa.
Jana Uher incorporated these ideas into her science paradigm. She
criticises that different kinds of phenomena are often not clearly
differentiated, such as psychical and behavioural phenomena. As a
consequence, some kinds of phenomena are not properly studied. For
example, psychologists often use questionnaires to study people’s
behaviours. But what we believe and say about what we have done is not the
same as what we have actually done because this past behaviour is long
over. Moreover, people’s thoughts occur entirely in their heads, but
behaviours occur external to their bodies. Therefore, they cannot be the
same.
Similarly, the coloured images produced by neuro-imaging do not reflect
people’s thoughts and emotions as often assumed but only the physiological
activities of their brains. These are associated with people’s psychical
activities but in ways that are still largely unknown. One can only infer
that some thoughts and particular kinds of emotions have occurred but not
which specific ones. Therefore, neuro-imaging methods cannot be used to
study the thoughts and emotions that someone has while these pictures are
being taken in the brain scanner.
In her new science paradigm, Jana Uher argues for a more careful
consideration of the different properties that can be conceived for the
different kinds of phenomena explored in individuals. Such
differentiations can be made on the basis of the three properties that she
considers. Because they determine the ways in which human individuals can
perceive a phenomenon, these properties also determine the methods that
researchers must develop for its exploration.
She demands: “Each phenomenon should be explored in its own right and
with research methods that are appropriately matched to that phenomenon’s
particular properties. We should stop using the same method for various
kinds of phenomena just because that method is considered a standard tool
in a given discipline. Instead, we should critically analyse whether a
given method is really suitable for exploring a particular object of
research or whether alternative methods should be developed and used
instead. This can be achieved only by relying on the expertise of
scientists from different disciplines”.
Scientific publications:
Uher, J. (2015a). Conceiving "personality": Psychologists’
challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary
Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 398-458.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1
[Download]
[Highlights]
Uher, J. (2015b). Developing "personality" taxonomies: Metatheoretical
and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of
data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and
Behavioral Science, 49, 531-589.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4
[Download]
[Highlights]
Uher, J. (2015c). Interpreting "personality" taxonomies: Why previous
models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour,
functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 600-655.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3
[Download]
[Highlights]
Uher, J. (2015d). Agency enabled by the psyche: Explorations using the
Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on
Individuals. In C. W. Gruber, M. G. Clark, S. H. Klempe & J. Valsiner
(Eds.). Constraints of Agency: Explorations of theory in everyday life.
Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Vol 12 (pp. 177-228). Cham, Springer
International.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9_13
[paper request] [Highlights]
Uher, J. (2013). Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment
methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story. Why it is time
for a paradigm shift. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science,
47, 1-55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6
[Download]
[Highlights]
Last update: 13.10.2015
Keywords: method, theory, model, science, philosophy-of-science,
theory of science, methodology, metatheory, philosophy, knowledge,
personality, individual, psyche, behavior, physiology, morphology,
individual differences, neuroimaging, brain, body-mind problem,
mind, body, physics, complementarity, epistemology, comparative,
questionnaires, assessments, ratings, judgments, transdisciplinary
philosophy-of-science paradigm for research on individuals,
TPS-Paradigm.
|