克服动机科学中的分裂:为什么、何时以及如何整合理论?

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Reinhard Pekrun
{"title":"克服动机科学中的分裂:为什么、何时以及如何整合理论?","authors":"Reinhard Pekrun","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09846-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Theories in motivation science, and in psychological science more generally, are in a state of fragmentation that impedes development of a robust body of knowledge. Furthermore, fragmentation hinders communication among scientists, with practitioners, and with policymakers and the public. Theoretical integration is needed to overcome this situation. In this commentary, I first provide an overview of the integrative frameworks presented in this collection of articles. Based on this overview, I discuss if and when we should integrate theories. Several non-trivial conditions need to be met for integration, including convergence of phenomena, constructs, and theoretical propositions. Next, I address strategies for integration, including rules for merging constructs and ways to integrate propositions. I also discuss how the generation of integrative frameworks, if not successfully enacted, can paradoxically lead to further proliferation rather than a reduction of theories. In contrast, successful integration reduces redundancy and simplifies the conceptual space used to describe, explain, or predict a set of phenomena. Successful integration may require not only theoretical work but also empirical validation, strategic efforts in the scientific community, and change of institutional policies. In conclusion, I argue that within-discipline integration alone is not sufficient to overcome the current theoretical stagnation in the field. Attention to advances in neighboring disciplines, formalization of models of motivation, and theoretical differentiation to consider the specificity of constructs, populations, and contexts are needed as well.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overcoming Fragmentation in Motivation Science: Why, When, and How Should We Integrate Theories?\",\"authors\":\"Reinhard Pekrun\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09846-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Theories in motivation science, and in psychological science more generally, are in a state of fragmentation that impedes development of a robust body of knowledge. Furthermore, fragmentation hinders communication among scientists, with practitioners, and with policymakers and the public. Theoretical integration is needed to overcome this situation. In this commentary, I first provide an overview of the integrative frameworks presented in this collection of articles. Based on this overview, I discuss if and when we should integrate theories. Several non-trivial conditions need to be met for integration, including convergence of phenomena, constructs, and theoretical propositions. Next, I address strategies for integration, including rules for merging constructs and ways to integrate propositions. I also discuss how the generation of integrative frameworks, if not successfully enacted, can paradoxically lead to further proliferation rather than a reduction of theories. In contrast, successful integration reduces redundancy and simplifies the conceptual space used to describe, explain, or predict a set of phenomena. Successful integration may require not only theoretical work but also empirical validation, strategic efforts in the scientific community, and change of institutional policies. In conclusion, I argue that within-discipline integration alone is not sufficient to overcome the current theoretical stagnation in the field. Attention to advances in neighboring disciplines, formalization of models of motivation, and theoretical differentiation to consider the specificity of constructs, populations, and contexts are needed as well.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09846-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09846-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

激励科学理论以及更广泛意义上的心理科学理论都处于支离破碎的状态,这阻碍了知识体系的健全发展。此外,各自为政还阻碍了科学家之间、与从业人员之间、与政策制定者和公众之间的交流。要克服这种状况,就必须进行理论整合。在这篇评论中,我首先概述了这组文章中介绍的整合框架。在此概述的基础上,我将讨论我们是否以及何时应该整合理论。整合需要满足几个非难条件,包括现象、建构和理论命题的趋同。接下来,我将讨论整合的策略,包括合并建构的规则和整合命题的方法。我还讨论了整合框架的生成如果不能成功实施,会如何自相矛盾地导致理论的进一步扩散而不是减少。相反,成功的整合可以减少冗余,简化用于描述、解释或预测一系列现象的概念空间。成功的整合可能不仅需要理论工作,还需要经验验证、科学界的战略努力以及机构政策的改变。总之,我认为仅靠学科内部的整合不足以克服该领域当前的理论停滞。我们还需要关注邻近学科的进展、动机模型的正规化,以及理论的差异化,以考虑建构、人群和环境的特殊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Overcoming Fragmentation in Motivation Science: Why, When, and How Should We Integrate Theories?

Theories in motivation science, and in psychological science more generally, are in a state of fragmentation that impedes development of a robust body of knowledge. Furthermore, fragmentation hinders communication among scientists, with practitioners, and with policymakers and the public. Theoretical integration is needed to overcome this situation. In this commentary, I first provide an overview of the integrative frameworks presented in this collection of articles. Based on this overview, I discuss if and when we should integrate theories. Several non-trivial conditions need to be met for integration, including convergence of phenomena, constructs, and theoretical propositions. Next, I address strategies for integration, including rules for merging constructs and ways to integrate propositions. I also discuss how the generation of integrative frameworks, if not successfully enacted, can paradoxically lead to further proliferation rather than a reduction of theories. In contrast, successful integration reduces redundancy and simplifies the conceptual space used to describe, explain, or predict a set of phenomena. Successful integration may require not only theoretical work but also empirical validation, strategic efforts in the scientific community, and change of institutional policies. In conclusion, I argue that within-discipline integration alone is not sufficient to overcome the current theoretical stagnation in the field. Attention to advances in neighboring disciplines, formalization of models of motivation, and theoretical differentiation to consider the specificity of constructs, populations, and contexts are needed as well.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信