{"title":"心理学中科学家与实践者的区别","authors":"Patrick M. Whitehead","doi":"10.29044/v11i2p3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using transactional analysis models of ego states (Berne 1961, 1964), the author proposes a typology of scientists and diagrams twelve types based on integrated ego states, contaminated Adult, and single ego state with dual exclusion. The typology is presented as the latest in what could be called the psychology of science, whose exemplars include Thomas Kuhn (1962/2012) and Abraham Maslow (1969). Psychology of science is differentiated from philosophy and theory of science, and existing research into the personality of scientists is explored. Of major importance is the apparent divide between scientist and practitioner in clinical and counselling psychologies. \nBased on Feyerabend’s (1970) infamous quip about science that “anything goes”, the author shows how using a proposed transactional analysis of scientist types, Feyerabend’s comment can be understood three ways—Parent: “Scientists shouldn’t be so serious”; Adult: “It seems that anything goes”; and Child: “No rules!” It is only in their integration (P – A – C) that Feyerabend’s meaning can be understood. So, too, for the psychological practitioner, whose practice cannot be divorced from its scientific foundations. The author concludes by using the proposed typology to suggest how the same typology applied to practitioners may explain their responses to research.","PeriodicalId":261512,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research & Practice","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the Scientist – Practitioner Divide in Psychology\",\"authors\":\"Patrick M. Whitehead\",\"doi\":\"10.29044/v11i2p3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using transactional analysis models of ego states (Berne 1961, 1964), the author proposes a typology of scientists and diagrams twelve types based on integrated ego states, contaminated Adult, and single ego state with dual exclusion. The typology is presented as the latest in what could be called the psychology of science, whose exemplars include Thomas Kuhn (1962/2012) and Abraham Maslow (1969). Psychology of science is differentiated from philosophy and theory of science, and existing research into the personality of scientists is explored. Of major importance is the apparent divide between scientist and practitioner in clinical and counselling psychologies. \\nBased on Feyerabend’s (1970) infamous quip about science that “anything goes”, the author shows how using a proposed transactional analysis of scientist types, Feyerabend’s comment can be understood three ways—Parent: “Scientists shouldn’t be so serious”; Adult: “It seems that anything goes”; and Child: “No rules!” It is only in their integration (P – A – C) that Feyerabend’s meaning can be understood. So, too, for the psychological practitioner, whose practice cannot be divorced from its scientific foundations. The author concludes by using the proposed typology to suggest how the same typology applied to practitioners may explain their responses to research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":261512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research & Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29044/v11i2p3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29044/v11i2p3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
利用自我状态的交易分析模型(Berne 1961,1964),作者提出了一种科学家的类型学,并根据综合自我状态、受污染的成年人和双重排斥的单一自我状态绘制了12种类型的图表。类型学在所谓的科学心理学中是最新的,其典范包括托马斯·库恩(1962/2012)和亚伯拉罕·马斯洛(1969)。将科学心理学与科学哲学和科学理论区分开来,并对现有的科学家人格研究进行了探索。最重要的是临床和咨询心理学中科学家和实践者之间的明显分歧。根据费耶阿本德(1970)关于科学的一句臭名昭著的妙语“一切皆有可能”,作者展示了如何使用对科学家类型的交易分析,费耶阿本德的评论可以有三种理解方式:父母:“科学家不应该如此严肃”;大人:“似乎什么都可以”;孩子:“没有规则!”只有在他们的整合中(P - A - C),费耶阿本德的意义才能被理解。心理学从业者也是如此,他们的实践不能脱离其科学基础。作者通过使用提出的类型学来建议如何将相同的类型学应用于从业者可以解释他们对研究的反应。
Examining the Scientist – Practitioner Divide in Psychology
Using transactional analysis models of ego states (Berne 1961, 1964), the author proposes a typology of scientists and diagrams twelve types based on integrated ego states, contaminated Adult, and single ego state with dual exclusion. The typology is presented as the latest in what could be called the psychology of science, whose exemplars include Thomas Kuhn (1962/2012) and Abraham Maslow (1969). Psychology of science is differentiated from philosophy and theory of science, and existing research into the personality of scientists is explored. Of major importance is the apparent divide between scientist and practitioner in clinical and counselling psychologies.
Based on Feyerabend’s (1970) infamous quip about science that “anything goes”, the author shows how using a proposed transactional analysis of scientist types, Feyerabend’s comment can be understood three ways—Parent: “Scientists shouldn’t be so serious”; Adult: “It seems that anything goes”; and Child: “No rules!” It is only in their integration (P – A – C) that Feyerabend’s meaning can be understood. So, too, for the psychological practitioner, whose practice cannot be divorced from its scientific foundations. The author concludes by using the proposed typology to suggest how the same typology applied to practitioners may explain their responses to research.