SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Psikoloji Çalışmaları / 2021 / Cilt: 41 Sayı: 3

A Critical Approach to Methodological Problems in Psychology and Suggestions

Psikolojide Yöntem Sorunlarına Eleştirel Yaklaşım ve Öneriler

Meral Gezici-yalçın(Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi)0000-0002-8751-3428
Canan Coşkan(Universität Bielefeld)0000-0003-0963-8951
Pages
759–787
Publication Date
2021-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Within this framework, we propose that if the discussion begins with the basic principles required to construct a critical perspective (i.e., reflexivity, intersubjectivity, and situated knowledge), then questioning the purpose and the target of knowledge production instead of the type (i.e., qualitative or quantitative) of knowledge (and, consequently, the data) can become a more crucial basis of discussion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Psychological science faces paramount problems for its inclination toward using deductive methods through a single-sided and western-centrist perspective, which is solely based on the principle of falsifiability since its declaration of disciplinary independence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although several solutions, such as open science and pre-registration practices, have been developed to counteract these problems, paucity exists in research that presents a historical critique of the discipline of psychology.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Within this framework, we propose that if the discussion begins with the basic principles required to construct a critical perspective (i.e., reflexivity, intersubjectivity, and situated knowledge), then questioning the purpose and the target of knowledge production instead of the type (i.e., qualitative or quantitative) of knowledge (and, consequently, the data) can become a more crucial basis of discussion.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Psikolojide yöntem sorunları · bilimsel paradigmalar · nitel ve nicel yöntemler

Abstract

Psychological science faces paramount problems for its inclination toward using deductive methods through a single-sided and western-centrist perspective, which is solely based on the principle of falsifiability since its declaration of disciplinary independence. Although several solutions, such as open science and pre-registration practices, have been developed to counteract these problems, paucity exists in research that presents a historical critique of the discipline of psychology. For this reason, we firstly aim to remember the foundation of this discipline in terms of the paradigms of the history of psychology. To posit our ontological and epistemological perspectives, we then provide a detailed account of the principles of epistemological diversity, reflexivity, intersubjectivity, and situated and contextualized knowledge production as grounded on the critical approach and queer feminist science studies. Moreover, we underline the importance of holding these principles at the center of psychological studies. Afterward, we argue for a potential solution to methodological problems using multiple and mixed methods through a dialectical understanding and a critical approach framed by the suggested principles. Furthermore, we discuss the potential contributions of considering the issue of methodology from a critical perspective and approach it as a toolbox, in which one can find diverse methods and techniques to overcome the methodological problems of psychology. In doing so, we briefly introduce multiple and mixed methods and summarize the current discussions around the use of such methods in psychology. In summary, we argue that the contribution of psychology to solutions to societal problems can be enhanced using multiple and mixed methods from a critical perspective and the transformation of the existing literature. Within this framework, we propose that if the discussion begins with the basic principles required to construct a critical perspective (i.e., reflexivity, intersubjectivity, and situated knowledge), then questioning the purpose and the target of knowledge production instead of the type (i.e., qualitative or quantitative) of knowledge (and, consequently, the data) can become a more crucial basis of discussion.

Özet

Bağımsız bir alan olarak ortaya çıktığı günden bu yana doğa bilimlerinin tümdengelimci araştırma yöntemine yönelen, bu yöntemi tek taraflı, Batı merkezci ve sadece yanlışlama ilkesi temelinde kullanan psikoloji bilimi, günümüzde devasa sorunlarla karşı karşıya. Bu sorunlar karşısında açık bilim ve ön-kayıtlanma uygulaması gibi bazı çözüm önerileri geliştirilse de bir bütün olarak psikoloji disiplininin tarihsel eleştirisinin yapıldığı az sayıda eser göze çarpıyor. Bu nedenle bu yazıda amacımız öncelikle paradigmalar açısından psikoloji tarihine kısa bir göz atarak her şeyin nasıl başladığını hatırlamak. Bunun ardından, ontolojik ve epistemolojk pozisyonumuzu ortaya koymak için psikolojiye eleştirel yaklaşım ve güncel kuir feminist bilim çalışmaları temelinde epistemolojik çeşitlilik, düşünümsellik, öznelerarasılık, konumlandırılmış ve bağlamlandırılmış bilgi üretme ilkelerini ayrıntılandırıyor ve bu ilkeleri psikoloji çalışmalarının merkezinde tutmanın önemine değiniyoruz. Takiben, çoklu paradigmaların ve karma yaklaşımların diyalektik bir şekilde ve önerdiğimiz ilkeler çerçevesinde eleştirel bir yaklaşımla kullanılmasının psikolojinin farklı alanlarındaki genel yöntem sorunlarına çözüm olabileceği savını tartışıyoruz. Yöntem konusuna eleştirel bir pencereden bakmanın, içinde farklı yöntemlerin ve tekniklerin bulunduğu bir ‘alet çantası’ metaforuyla yaklaşmanın, psikolojinin yöntembilimsel sorunlarını aşmaya yönelik katkılarının neler olabileceğini irdeliyoruz. Bu esnada, çoklu ve karma yöntemleri kısaca tanıtıyor ve psikolojideki kullanımlarına yönelik güncel tartışmaları özetliyoruz. Kısaca bu yazıda, psikolojinin toplumsal sorunların çözümüne katkısının, çoklu ve karma yöntemlerin eleştirel bakış açısıyla alan yazını da dönüştürecek bir amaçla kullanılmasıyla artabileceği savını ortaya atıyoruz. Bu çerçevede, eleştirel bakış açısı için gerekli temel ilkelerle (düşünümsellik, öznelerarasılık, konumlandırılmış bilgi) yola çıkıldığında, bilginin (ve dolayısıyla verinin) türünden (nitel veya nicel) ziyade, bilginin hangi amaçla ve kim için üretildiği sorusunun daha önemli bir tartışma zemini yaratabileceğini ileri sürüyoruz.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gezici-yalçın, M., Coşkan, C. (2021). A Critical Approach to Methodological Problems in Psychology and Suggestions. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 3, 759–787. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-844357

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (117)

  1. Acar, G. ve Şahin, D. (1990). Psychology in Turkey. Psychology andDevelopingSocieties, 2, 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/097133369000200206 google scholar
  2. Adams, G. ve Salter, P. H. (2019). They (color) blinded me with science: Counteracting coloniality of knowledge in hegemonic psychology. K.W. Crenshaw, L.C. Harris, D.M. HoSang, & G. Lipsitz google scholar
  3. (ed.), Seeing race again: Countering colorblindness across the disciplines içinde (s. 271-291). Berkeley: University of California Press. google scholar
  4. Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villasenor, A., Losada, J. L., Sanchez-Algarra, P. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name?. Quality & Quantity, 52(6), 2757-2770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0700-2 google scholar
  5. Ashworth, P. (2015) (3. bs.). Counceptual foundations of qualitative psychology. J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods içinde (s. 4-24). London: Sage. google scholar
  6. Astuti, R., Solomon, G. E. A. ve Carey, S. (2004). Constraints on conceptual development: A case study of the acquisition of folkbiological and folksociological knowledge in Madagascar. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69(3), 1-161. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3701405 google scholar
  7. Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. ve Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham: Open University Press. google scholar
  8. Beattie, P., Bettache, K. ve Chong, K. C. Y. (2019). Who is the neoliberal? Exploring the neoliberal beliefs inventory across East and West. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 20-48. https://doi. org/10.1111/josi.12309 google scholar
  9. Bergold, J. B. ve Flick, U. (Ed.). (1987). Ein-Sichten. Zugange zurSichtdesSubjects mittels qualitativer Forschung. Tübingen: DGVT. google scholar
  10. Bettache, K. ve Chiu, C-Y. (2019). The invisible hand is an ideology: Toward a social psychology of neoliberalism. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12308 google scholar
  11. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa google scholar
  12. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage. google scholar
  13. Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology? British Journal of Sociology, 35, 75-92. https://doi.org/10.2307/590553 google scholar
  14. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge. google scholar
  15. Busch-Jensen, P. ve Schraube, E. (2019). Zooming in zooming out: Analytical strategies of situated generalization in psychological research. C. H0jholt ve E. Schraube (Ed.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life içinde (s. 221-241). Cham: Springer. google scholar
  16. Churchland, P. S. (2019). Nörofelsefe (çev. Ö. Yılmaz). İstanbul: Alfa. google scholar
  17. Cipolla, C., Gupta, K., Rubin, D.A. ve Willey, A. (2017). Queer feminist science studies: An introduction. C. Cipolla, K. Gupta, D. A. Rubin ve A. Willey (Ed.), Queer feminist science studies: A reader içinde (s. 3-24). Washington DC: University of Washington Press. google scholar
  18. Clarke, V. ve Braun, V. (2019). Feminist qualitative methods and methodologies in psychology: A review and reflection. British Psychological Society, Psychology of Women and Equalities Section Review, 2(1), 13-28. google scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997 google scholar
  20. Cohen, D. ve Kitayama, S. (2019). Handbook of cultural psychology (2. bs.). New York: Guilford Press. google scholar
  21. Cosgrove, L., Wheeler, E. E. ve Kosterina, E. (2015). Quantitative methods: Science means and ends. google scholar
  22. I. Parker (Ed.), Handbook of critical psychology içinde (s. 15-23). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. google scholar
  23. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches set (2. bs.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  24. Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  25. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M. ve Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research içinde (s. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  26. Cushman, P. (1990). Why the self is empty: Toward a historically situated psychology. American Psychologist, 45(5), 599-611. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.5.599 google scholar
  27. Dege, M. (2019). Rethinking generalization with Kurt Lewin and action research. C. H0jholt ve E. Schraube (Ed.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life. Theory and history in the human and social sciences içinde (s. 41-60). Cham: Springer. google scholar
  28. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. google scholar
  29. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (3. bs.) içinde (s. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  30. Dilthey, W. (1922/2017). Hermeneutik ve tin bilimleri (Çev. D. Özlem). İstanbul: Notos. google scholar
  31. Dutt, A. ve Kohfeldt, D. (2019). Assessing the relationship between neoliberal ideology and reactions to Central American asylum seekers in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12312 google scholar
  32. Ebbesen, C. L. (2020, June 17). Flawed estimates of cognitive ability in Clark et al. Psychological Science, 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tzr8c google scholar
  33. Engels, F. (1876-78/1977). Anti-Dühring (Çev. K. Somer). Ankara: Sol. google scholar
  34. Farr, R. (1987). Social representations: A French tradition of research. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17(4), 343-69. google scholar
  35. Fereday, J. ve Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2011295 google scholar
  36. Ferguson, C. J. ve Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024445 google scholar
  37. Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver & Boyd. google scholar
  38. Francis, G. (2012a). The psychology of replication and replication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6) 585-594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459520 google scholar
  39. Francis, G. (2012b). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 151-156. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9 google scholar
  40. Freshwater, D. ve Fisher, P. (2015). Mixed methods dissonance and values in research with marginalized groups. S. Hesse-Biber ve R. Burke Johnson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry içinde (s. 665-676). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  41. Gannon, L., Luchetta, T., Rhodes, K., Pardie, L. ve Segrist, D. (1992). Sex bias in psychological research: Progress or complacency?. American Psychologist, 47(3), 389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.389 google scholar
  42. Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034436 google scholar
  43. Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266 google scholar
  44. Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage. google scholar
  45. Gjorgjioska, M. A. ve Tomicic, A. (2019). The crisis in social psychology under neoliberalism: Reflections from Social Representations Theory. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 169-188. https:// doi. org/10.1111/josi.12315 google scholar
  46. Greene, J. C. ve Caracelli, V. J. (Ed.). (1997a). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms, No. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. google scholar
  47. Greene, J. C. ve Caracelli, V. J. (1997b). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. J. C. Greene ve V. J. Caracelli (Ed.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms, No. 74 içinde (s. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. google scholar
  48. Greene, J. C. ve Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed-method practice. A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research içinde (s. 91-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  49. Guba, E. G. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 8, 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-1633(87)80037-5 google scholar
  50. Guba, E. G. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research içinde (s. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  51. Guba, E. G. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (3. bs.) içinde (s. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  52. Hartwich, L. ve Becker, J. C. (2019). Exposure to neoliberalism increases resentment of the elite via feelings of anomie and negative psychological reactions. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12311 google scholar
  53. Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T. ve Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science, Plos Biology, 13(3), e1002106. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.1002106 google scholar
  54. Henningsen, P. ve Kirmayer, L. J. (2000). Mind beyond the net: Implications of cognitive neuroscience for cultural psychiatry. Transcultural Psychiatry, 37(4), 467-494. https://doi. org/10.1177/136346150003700401 google scholar
  55. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. ve Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X google scholar
  56. Herek, G. M., Kimmel, D. C., Amaro, H. ve Melton, G. B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46(9), 957-963. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.957 google scholar
  57. Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Introduction: Navigating a turbulent research landscape. Working the boundaries, tensions, diversity, and contradictions of multimethod and mixed methods inquiry. S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry içinde (s. xxxiii-iiii). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  58. Holtz, P. ve Monnerjahn, P. (2017). Falsificationism is not just ‘potential’ falsifiability, but requires ‘actual’ falsification: Social psychology, critical rationalism, and progress in science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 47(3), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12134 google scholar
  59. Holzkamp, K. (1973). Sinnliche Erkenntnis: Historischer Urspung und geselschaftliche Funktion der Wahrnehmung. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Athenaum. google scholar
  60. Hope, E. C., Brugh, C. S. ve Nance, A. (2019). In search of a critical stance: Applying qualitative research practices for critical quantitative research in psychology. Community Psychology in Global Perspective, 5(2), 63-69. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24212113v5i2p63 google scholar
  61. Howarth, C. (2006). How social representations of attitudes have informed attitude theories: The consensual and the reified. Theory & Psychology, 16(5), 691 714. https://doi. org/10.1177/0959354306067443 google scholar
  62. Howitt, D. (2010). Introduction to qualitative methods in psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. google scholar
  63. H0jholt, C. ve Schraube, E. (2019) (Ed.). Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the psychological study of everyday life. Cham: Springer. google scholar
  64. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 google scholar
  65. Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (1994). Psychology in Turkey. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 729-738. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599408246562 google scholar
  66. Kitayama, S., Varnum, M. E. W. ve Salvador, C. M. (2019). Cultural neuroscience. D. Cohen ve S. Kitayama (Ed.), Handbook of culturalpsychology (2. bs.) içinde (s. 79-118). New York: Guilford Press. google scholar
  67. Lefebvre, H. (1981/2010). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi III: Moderniteden modernizme (gündelik hayatın meta-felsefesi) (2. bs.). İstanbul: Sel. google scholar
  68. Lewin, K. (1931). The conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian modes of thought in contemporary psychology. Journal of General Psychology, 5, 141-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1931. 9918387 google scholar
  69. Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868-896. https://doi.org/10.1086/218177 google scholar
  70. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  71. Markus, H. R. ve Hamedani, M. G. (2019). People are culturally shaped shapers: The psychological science of culture and culture change. D. Cohen ve S. Kitayama (Ed.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2. bs.) içinde (s. 11-52). New York: Guilford Press. google scholar
  72. Maxwell, J. ve Loomis, D. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research içinde (s. 241272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  73. Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung (5. bs.). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag. google scholar
  74. Mayring, P. (1989). Die qualitative Wende: Grundlagen, Techniken und Integrationsmöglichkeiten qualitativer Forschung in der Psychologie. W. Schönpflug (Ed.), Bericht über den 36. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaftfür Psychologie in Berlin 1988. Band 2 içinde (s. 306-313). Göttingen: Hogrefe. google scholar
  75. Meehl, P. E. (1997). The problem is epistemology, not statistics: Replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions. L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik ve J. H. Steiger (Ed.), What if there were no significance tests? içinde (s. 393-425). London: Routledge. google scholar
  76. Metraux, A. (1985). Der Methodenstreit und die Amerikanisierung der Psychologie in der Bundesrepublik 1950-1970. M. G. Ash ve U. Geuter (Ed.), Geschichte der deutschen Psychologie im 20. Jahrhundert içinde (s. 225-251). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. google scholar
  77. Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. J. Forgas (Ed.), Social cognition içinde (s. 181-209). London: Academic Press. google scholar
  78. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J.,. ve Contestabile, M. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422-1425. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aab2374 google scholar
  79. Panno, A., Leone, L. ve Carrus, G. (2019). Attitude towards Trump policies and climate change: The key roles of aversion to wealth redistribution and political interest. Journal ofSocial Issues, 75(1), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12318 google scholar
  80. Parker, I. (1990). Discourse: Definitions and contradictions. Philosophical Psychology. 3, 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089008572998 google scholar
  81. Parker, I. (1999). Critical psychology: Critical links. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 3-18. google scholar
  82. Parker, I. (2015). Handbook of critical psychology. London: Routledge. google scholar
  83. Pashler, H. ve Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science a crisis of confidence?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253 google scholar
  84. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3. bs.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  85. Pettigrew, T. F. (2018). The emergence of contextual social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 963-971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218756033 google scholar
  86. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford: Basic Books. google scholar
  87. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T. ve Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 747-763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747 google scholar
  88. Reicher, S. (1997). Laying the ground for a common critical psychology. T. Ibanez ve L. ^niguez (Ed.), Critical social psychology içinde (s. 83-94). London: Sage. google scholar
  89. Reicher, S. ve Sani, F. (1998). Introducing SAGA: Structural analysis of group arguments. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.267 google scholar
  90. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. ve Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. M. Wetherell ve C. T. Mohanty, (Ed.), The Sage handbook of identities içinde (s. 45-62). London: Sage. google scholar
  91. Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1412/2902 google scholar
  92. Richards, G. (2012). ‘Race’, racism and psychology: Towards a reflexive history. London: Rouledge. google scholar
  93. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 google scholar
  94. Roy, D. ve Subramaniam, B. (2016). Matter in the shadows: Feminist new materialism and the practices of colonialism. V. Pitts-Taylor (Ed.), Mattering: Feminism, science and materialism içinde (s. 2342). New York: NYU Press. google scholar
  95. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. U.S.: Pantheon Books. google scholar
  96. Sale, J., Lohfeld, L. ve Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the qualitative-quantitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43-53. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1014301607592 google scholar
  97. Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 63-75. https://doi:10.1016/0149-7189(94)00050-8 google scholar
  98. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. ve Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 google scholar
  99. Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12, 6-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X012003006 google scholar
  100. Subasic, E., Hardacre, S. L. Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K. ve Reynolds, K. J. (2018). “We for she”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 707-724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218763272 google scholar
  101. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Ed.), The social psychology of inter-group relations içinde (s. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. google scholar
  102. Tebes, J. K. (2005). Community science, philosophy of science, and the practice of research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3-4), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-3399-x google scholar
  103. Teddlie, C. ve Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. London: Sage. google scholar
  104. Teo, T. (1999). Methodologies of critical psychology: Illustrations from the field of racism. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 119-134. google scholar
  105. Teo, T. (2001). Karl Marx and Wilhelm Dilthey on the socio-historical conceptualization of the mind. C. D. Green, M. Shore, & T. Teo (Ed.), The transformation of psychology: Influences of 19th-century philosophy, technology, and natural science içinde (s. 195-218). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10416-010 google scholar
  106. Teo, T. (2008). From speculation to epistemological violence in psychology: A critical-hermeneutic reconstruction. Theory and Psychology, 18(1), 47-67. google scholar
  107. Teo, T. (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295-303. google scholar
  108. Teo, T. (2011). Empirical race psychology and the hermeneutics of epistemological violence. Human Studies, 34(3), 237-255. google scholar
  109. Triandis, H. C., & Brislin, R. W. (1984). Cross-cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 39(9), 1006-1016. google scholar
  110. Verfaellie, M. ve McGwin, J. (2011). The case of Diederik Stapel. American Psychological Assosication. https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/diederik-stapel. Erişim tarihi: 20 Ocak 2021. google scholar
  111. Walsh, R., Teo, T. ve Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy ofpsychology: Diversity of context, thought, and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  112. Willey, A. (2016). Biopossibility: A queer feminist materialist science studies manifesto, with special reference to the question of monogamous behavior. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41(3), 553-577. google scholar
  113. Willig, C. (2012). Perspectives on the epistemological bases for qualitative research. H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf ve K. J. Sher (Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics içinde (s. 5-21). American Psychological Association. https://doi. org/10.1037/13619-002 google scholar
  114. Witzel, A. (1982). Verfahren der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Überblick und Alternativen. Frankfurt: Campus. google scholar
  115. Zelazo, P. D. ve Paus, T. (2010). Developmental social neuroscience: An introduction. Social Neuroscience, 5(5-6), 417-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2010.510002 google scholar
  116. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997 google scholar
  117. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J.,. ve Contestabile, M. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422-1425. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aab2374 google scholar