Where is the Trouble in Pseudo-empirical Research?

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Philosophy of Science
• Linguistics

Background:

• Smedslund's work highlights pseudo-empirical research in psychology.
• This research tests concepts derivable from the meaning of psychological terms, rather than empirical data.
• The narrative form offers a framework for understanding this phenomenon.

Purpose of the Study:

• To demonstrate the consistency between Smedslund's perspective on pseudo-empiricism and narrative theory.
• To utilize narrative theory to explain the nature of pseudo-empiricism in psychological research.
• To resolve the paradox of 'trouble' as a research premise within concept-definitional psychological inquiry.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis integrating Smedslund's findings with narrative theory.
• Examination of methodological and discursive features of psychological research.
• Analysis of reification, abstraction, quantification, and statistical group-level analysis.

Main Results:

• Smedslund's concept of pseudo-empiricism aligns with narrative models.
• A paradox arises because 'trouble' is necessary for research but absent in conceptual analysis.
• Research practices like quantification and abstraction create an illusion of empirical problems.

Conclusions:

• Narrative theory provides a lens for understanding pseudo-empiricism in psychology.
• Methodological choices in research obscure the lack of genuine empirical problems.
• The study resolves the paradox by explaining how research can appear empirical despite its conceptual nature.