{"title":"ace心理学研究人员指南:培养研究人员在理论选择和理论整合方面的知情决策","authors":"Martijn van Zomeren","doi":"10.1177/10892680231182033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychology is as diverse as it is divided: For many research questions asked, different and competing theories will often exist to answer them. Despite the value of diversity, this lack of theoretical common ground has resulted in major empirical fragmentation in psychological research (e.g., a “confetti factory” of empirical trivia), but also to a lack of attention within the research process itself to theory selection (i.e., which theory to use and why?) and theoretical integration (i.e., how can one “connect the dots”?). This article aims to offer practical guidance to researchers in psychology about how to make informed decisions on theory selection and theoretical integration. To this end, I outline the ACES ( Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing) guide, which offers a process-oriented guide toward such informed decision-making. Through its four-step structure and each step’s engaging and critical lead questions, researchers actively engage in a dialog in which they systematically question and explore which theories to select (and why), and whether a synthesis of different theories is possible and appropriate. As such, the ACES guide offers a practical, theory-focused tool for researchers in psychology.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ACES Guide for Researchers in Psychology: Fostering Researchers’ Informed Decision-Making about Theory Selection and Theoretical Integration\",\"authors\":\"Martijn van Zomeren\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10892680231182033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychology is as diverse as it is divided: For many research questions asked, different and competing theories will often exist to answer them. Despite the value of diversity, this lack of theoretical common ground has resulted in major empirical fragmentation in psychological research (e.g., a “confetti factory” of empirical trivia), but also to a lack of attention within the research process itself to theory selection (i.e., which theory to use and why?) and theoretical integration (i.e., how can one “connect the dots”?). This article aims to offer practical guidance to researchers in psychology about how to make informed decisions on theory selection and theoretical integration. To this end, I outline the ACES ( Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing) guide, which offers a process-oriented guide toward such informed decision-making. Through its four-step structure and each step’s engaging and critical lead questions, researchers actively engage in a dialog in which they systematically question and explore which theories to select (and why), and whether a synthesis of different theories is possible and appropriate. As such, the ACES guide offers a practical, theory-focused tool for researchers in psychology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of General Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of General Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231182033\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231182033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The ACES Guide for Researchers in Psychology: Fostering Researchers’ Informed Decision-Making about Theory Selection and Theoretical Integration
Psychology is as diverse as it is divided: For many research questions asked, different and competing theories will often exist to answer them. Despite the value of diversity, this lack of theoretical common ground has resulted in major empirical fragmentation in psychological research (e.g., a “confetti factory” of empirical trivia), but also to a lack of attention within the research process itself to theory selection (i.e., which theory to use and why?) and theoretical integration (i.e., how can one “connect the dots”?). This article aims to offer practical guidance to researchers in psychology about how to make informed decisions on theory selection and theoretical integration. To this end, I outline the ACES ( Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing) guide, which offers a process-oriented guide toward such informed decision-making. Through its four-step structure and each step’s engaging and critical lead questions, researchers actively engage in a dialog in which they systematically question and explore which theories to select (and why), and whether a synthesis of different theories is possible and appropriate. As such, the ACES guide offers a practical, theory-focused tool for researchers in psychology.
期刊介绍:
Review of General Psychology seeks to publish innovative theoretical, conceptual, or methodological articles that cross-cut the traditional subdisciplines of psychology. The journal contains articles that advance theory, evaluate and integrate research literatures, provide a new historical analysis, or discuss new methodological developments in psychology as a whole. Review of General Psychology is especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between subdisciplines in psychology as well as related fields or that focus on topics that transcend traditional subdisciplinary boundaries.