Article summary with Fragmentation or Differentiation: Questioning the Crisis in Psychology by Zittoun, Gillespie & Cornish - 2009

What is this article about?

There seems to be a crisis in the field of psychology due to the fragmentation of traditions with different research questions and methodologies. The authors challenge the notion of this fragmentation and propose a second narrative of differentiation. Building on this second narrative the crisis can be viewed as an opportunity for development in the field of psychology.

A crisis is defined by the authors as a cycle between progressive changes and significant reorganization that can either lead to (1) the disappearance of initial components or sciences or (2) the differentiation of these components or sciences. 

What kind of crisis is there in psychology?

There are different perspectives on the perceived crisis in psychology. According to Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions, psychology is in a pre-scientific state with conflicting paradigms, and a mature crisis will only emerge with a clear paradigm. According to the rationalist assumption of a grand unifying theory, psychology is in crisis due to the absence of unity within the field. According to a pragmatist perspective, a crisis in psychology is based on the inability to carry out essential activities. This pragmatist perspective identifies two aspects of the crisis: (1) the difficulty in collaboration and communication among researchers with different methods and goals and (2) the challenge of addressing complex social issues that require interdisciplinary approaches due to difficulties in communication.

How is psychology fragmented?

Previous research on the fragmentation of psychology by Yurevich stated that psychology is fragmented along three dimensions:

1. Vertical disunity (e.g. cognitivism, behaviourism and psychoanalysis);
2. Horizontal division into natural scientific and humanitarian psychology and;
3. Diagonal division into research and practical psychology.

However, the authors criticize Yurevich's fragmentation, suggesting that this metaphorical analysis may be influenced by the choice of metaphor rather than reflecting the true nature of psychology. The static description of fragmentation also restricts the potential for mutual enrichment and collaboration. In addition, due to the diversity of psychology the fragmentation assumptions of psychology being an idealized, linearly progressive science and having a single unifying perspective may not even be true. Furthermore, the fragmentation narrative provides no solutions to guide psychology out of its perceived crisis.

How is psychology differentiated and a complex developmental process?

Uncovering truths in psychology does not necessarily lead to simple, grand truths, but could instead lead to the concept of branching complexity. The authors suggest psychology is not simply fragmented, but organized around the diverse activities of researchers within networks and scientific communities which result in the field's complexity. Different levels of observation and intra-psychological models serve as branching points for knowledge construction and result in people having developed networks and scientific communities with their own specific tools and techniques. The scientific networks and communities, marked by traditions and boundaries, are essential for the progress and specialization of subfields within psychology and thus its development and differentiation. However, this narrative of differentiation also has three problems:

1. Rigid boundaries of scientific networks can hinder progress, for instance when methodological commitments limit the analysis of certain phenomena;
2. Boundaries can become problematic when different traditions analyse similar phenomena but fail to interact productively and;
3. There is no overarching coordinating system for the entire field.

To tackle these problems an alternative solution is proposed to reorganize boundaries and networks in the field of psychology, namely the use of collaborative research methodologies.

What are collaborative research methodologies?

The developmental narrative for psychology suggests that psychologists perceive a crisis when encountering researchers with different theoretical frameworks, facing insufficient tools, and struggling with communication and coordination across traditions. The use of collaborative research methodologies can help guide the field of psychology out of this crisis. There are two forms of collaboration: (1) analyzing the same data from different perspectives and (2) constructing data from diverse viewpoints. In both forms, collaborative work is viewed as more than validation through triangulation; it constitutes the object as a complex phenomenon.

However, collaborative work has methodological and epistemological implications. For instance, the need for collaboration may lead to a crisis when researchers cannot coordinate their activities due to the lack of shared assumptions or goals. To address this issue, researchers should find nodal concepts that can coordinate different theories and models, enabling dialogue between disciplinary traditions. For instance, in the 20th century the notion of 'structure' enabled the dialogue between linguistics, psychologists and anthropologists. Collaborative work also has an unpredictable nature and needs time and freedom to allow authentic new knowledge to emerge. Supportive institutional conditions are essential for collaborative research, and psychologists play an important role in creating, maintaining, and adapting these conditions. Maintaining adequate frames for thinking is crucial for the development of psychology.

What is the conclusion?

The narrative of fragmentation in psychology can lead to negative views on the state of psychology. The authors therefore suggest a developmental narrative, which rejects the idea that science simplifies the world, but instead emphasizes the increasing complexity brought about by scientific advancements. Rather than lamenting differentiation, this narrative sees it as a natural part of knowledge development in this field.

In response to crises experienced in the field of psychology, collaborative research methodologies can be used, which impact methodological practices, epistemological choices, and institutional strategies. It encourages a bottom-up approach to address the crisis, creating connections, redefining boundaries, and opening new avenues for understanding and action while recognizing that knowledge proceeds through differentiation.