Three Kinds of Unification for Psychology.

Paul F. Ballantyne, Ph.D.
pballan@comnet.ca

A paper for the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec City, Canada, June 13, 1992.

Abstract

Despite the efforts of unificationists such as A.W. Staats, J.R. Royce, A. deGroot, and C.W. Tolman who suggest possible criteria or preconditions for a unified psychological science, the task of specifying exactly what is meant by the term unification has received relatively little attention in the literature. Three kinds of unification (unification of the sciences, of psychological subject matter, and of psychological theories) are defined here as a basis for drawing conclusions regarding the present degree and potential for unification of psychology. It is suggested that the concepts of Pluralistic Monism and Activity (supported by the theory of Direct Perception) cut across the traditional dualisms of our science (including: natural vs. social; internal vs. external; subject vs. object, etc.). Finally, a brief outline of a possible assessment methodology for comparing the maturity of various theoretical positions in psychology is put forward.

Definitions

(I) Unity of the Sciences

The term unity of the sciences refers to our understanding of the relationship between the various sciences such as: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology. The question also has been commonly put forward in terms of the relationship between the so-called natural and social sciences.

(II) Unity of Psychology's Subject Matter

The question of the unity of psychological subject matter is not only an issues of (1) how the various areas of specialization and methods of psychology are complementary, but is also an issue of (2) which theoretical concepts best capture the complexity of the subject matter.

(III) Unification of Psychological Theories

The question of the unification of psychological theories is one of how to determine the superiority and complementarity between conflicting accounts of given psychological processes. As Royce pointed out, part of the solution to the problem of theoretical indeterminacy rests in obtaining an explanatory outline of the career of a theory.

Conditions and requirements of unificationist positions

Staats proposed that "grand" unifying theories must have effects on all the major areas of psychology, must show how the various methods contribute to some general structure, and also show the various specialists the wider meaning of their own findings (Staats, 1983, pp. 331-334).

Royce suggested that a prerequisite to a unified psychology would be a valid method of theory appraisal, which is equally adequate for the full range of theories "rendering them... amenable to... comparison" (Royce, 1988, pp. 59-60).

De Groot set down the "precondition" that "conceptual analysis and consensus meetings... be acknowledged and rewarded as truly scientific work" (1989, p. 23).

C.W. Tolman suggested that the problems of psychology's theoretical indeterminacy and fragmentation can be solved only by way of a metatheoretical restructuring of psychology along the lines of direct perception and dialectical materialism (Tolman, 1987; 1989; 1991).

Conclusion

I suggest that psychologists are now in a better position to understand the present degree of and potential for unification in psychology. That is, the establishment of a system of psychology that understands its place in the scientific hierarchy, that comprehends the unity of its own subject matter, and that is able to bring about unification between apparently divergent theoretical positions is well under way.

The dialectical concepts of Pluralistic Monism, Activity, and the supporting theory of Direct Perception expose the artificiality of the traditionally held dualisms of our science (thereby helping to provide a fuller understanding of the three kinds of unification and of our science as a whole).

It is realized, however, that until the present-day system builders (i.e., the Watsons, Woodworths, and Neissers) actually sit down to write up a definitive, systematic text of general psychology such claims to superiority of approach are likely to be met with taxing skepticism. But with this much apparent progress at our fingertips, can the widespread interest and funding opportunities necessary for such a communal endeavor be far behind?

*Looking back on this 1992 paper, I see now that the kind of "textbook of general psychology" alluded to in this conclusion is one that abandons the Social Darwinist and Interactionist approaches of the past and takes up an explicit transformative approach to the various (perception, learning, motivation, personality, etc.) chapters. Given half a chance, I should certainly like to help write such a textbook.

References

deGroot, A., (1989). Unifying Psychology: Its preconditions. In Wn. Baker, M. Hyland, R. van Hezewijk, & S. Terwee (Eds.). Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology, Vol. II. New York: Springer-Verlag.

deGroot, A. (1990). Unifying Psychology: A European view. In P. Drenth, J. Sergeant, & R. takens (Eds.). European Perspectives in Psychology. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Royce, J.R. (1978). How can we best advance the construction of theory in psychology. Canadian Psychological Review, 19, No. 4, 259-274.

Royce, J.R. (1988). The implications of differential theory appraisal and the context of discovery for advancing theory in psychology. In H.V. Rappard, L. Mos, Wm J. Baker, H.J. Stam (Eds.). Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology, Vol. I. New York: Springer.

Staats, A.W. (1983). Psychology's Crisis of Disunity: Philosophy and Method for a unified science. New York: Praeger.

Staats, A.W. (1987). Unified Positivism: Philosophy for Uninomic Psychology. In Wm J. Baker, M.E. Hyland, H. van Rappard, A.W. Staats (Eds.). Current Issues in Theoretical Psychology. New York: North-Holland Pub.

Staats, A.W. (1991). Unified Positivism and Unification Psychology: Fad or Field? American Psychologist, 46, 899-912.

Tolman, C.W. (1987). Dialectical Materialism as psychological metatheory. In H. Stam, T. Rogers, K. Gergen (Eds.). The Analysis of Psychological theory. New York: Hemisphere.

Tolman, C.W. (1988a). Theoretical unification in psychology: A materialist perspective (pp. 29-36). In W.J. Baker, et al. (Eds.). Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tolman, C.W. (1989). Pluralisitc Monism: William James as Closet-Heraclitean. Psychological Record, 39, 177-194.

Tolman, C.W., & Lemery, C.R. (1990). How to reconcile theoretical differences in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 8, 397-402.

Tolman, C.W. (1991). Theoretical indeterminacy, pluralism and the conceptual concrete. Theory & Psychology, Vol. 1, 147-162.