History for "polycentric" psychological science
an "outsider's" case
What factors determine whether the development of the history of psychology tends to history or to psychology? Danziger states that the history of psychology has become more a historical discipline than a psychological one, due to the "monocentric" character of the mainstream psychology of the second half of the twentieth century, with the complete dominance of the American tradition. When a unified assessment of theoretical developments of the past is generally secured, the history of psychology, like the history of mathematics or physics, loses connections with the actual context of scientific research in the field and turns to a historical agenda.Now the situation has changed. The polycentric multi-paradigmatic nature of psychology can hardly be doubted today. Danziger denotes these processes as the "decline of the insider history." The time has come for the critical history of psychology. Substantial contributions are already being made by Western colleagues, "the insiders" of mainstream psychology. However, global challenges call also for "the outsiders" (as Danziger assesses those who are outsiders from the point of view of the scientific mainstream but who lay claim to the position of insiders by virtue of their disciplinary affiliation) to contribute.A noteworthy example of an "outsider's" critical historiography of the multi-paradigmatic development of psychological science is the work of M. G. Yaroshevsky (1915–2001), the founder of the Russian school in history of psychology. The chapter highlights Yaroshevsky's multilevel historical and theoretical model of the categorical language of psychological science.
Mironenko, I. A. (2016)., History for "polycentric" psychological science: an "outsider's" case, in S. Hroar klempe & R. Smith (eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 111-121.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.