Theoretical psychology: discursive transformations and continuity in Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung

3Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Psychological Research (formerly Psychologische Forschung) has been published for a century which makes it a valuable subject matter for historical investigations. The journal’s development bears traces of the progress in psychology. This development is of particular interest for the field of theoretical psychology which investigates the epistemological and methodological background. Our hypothesis is that the history of Psychological Research is indicative for the transformations within the discourse of the discipline, i.e., the general context of communication in psychology. We revisit the changes in the editorial practises of the journal through a scientometric mixed-methods approach, combining bibliometric analyses which compare Psychological Research to Psychological Review and the British Journal of Psychology with a single-case investigation. Regarding form, we find continuities and disruptions in the development of the editorial customs from long and single-author to short and multi-author contributions. Investigating content through word frequency analysis shows that the journal’s history reflects the rise of the cognitivist paradigm as well as a transition from theoretical discourse towards experimentation. The analysis of a single case demonstrates the nature of past theoretical discourse in contrast to contemporary practises. Overall, our findings support the assumption of discursive transformations. From the perspective of theoretical psychology, these transformations can be described as a shift towards Methodism which entails a critical negligence of theory.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wendt, A. N., & Wolfradt, U. (2022). Theoretical psychology: discursive transformations and continuity in Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung. Psychological Research, 86(8), 2321–2340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01727-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free