CC BY
0V. Medintsev
Methodological foundations of psychological research in the works
of G. Ball and V. Druzhinin
Vladislav Medintsev
Abstract . V. Druzhinin's research in experimental and differential psychology is known to a wide range of modern psychologists; his contribution to the development of fundamental methodology of psychological science is much less known. The typology of empirical research methods he developed is based on formalized descriptions - principles of general systems theory and elements of formal logic. The research conducted somewhat earlier by G. Ball was methodologically similarly oriented. His interpretations of the concepts of "task", "model" and their typology were also built on systemological and logical foundations. The article compares the main ideas and provisions of the approaches of G. Ball and V. Druzhinin, highlighting the features of their complementarity .
Keywords: theoretical model, method of psychological research, system, environment, interaction, task.
Citation: Medintsev V. A. Methodological foundations of psychological research in the works of G. Ball and V. Druzhinin. Теоретичш до^дження у психологи: монографiчна серiя. Сост. В. О. Медшцев. Том 22. 2024. С. 41-51. doi: 10.24412/2616-68602024-3-41-51.
Vladimir Druzhinin is known primarily as a specialist in the fields of experimental and differential psychology. At the same time, his theoretical and methodological ideas, which form the basis for the description of experimental research methods, were not paid attention to by the psychological "mainstream". It seems that the reason for this was the formalized tools of systemology and logic that he used. Due to his scientific specialization, these components are of particular interest to me, and Georgy Alekseevich Ball conducted research in this area for a long time, and later we did
Theoretical model of psych
Perhaps V. Druzhinin expressed his methodological position most succinctly and concisely in the statement: "The same is true in science: it is impossible to understand the paradigm of science while being in strict connection with science, using the means developed in it." itself. A completely obvious consequence 8, p. 5]. And the methodological position from which V. Druzhinin approached the development of the problems of empirical research in psychology seems quite natural: "The most general foundations of the logic of a social-scientific description of psychological research could be considered a systemological grid of concepts. Since the material in natural scientific psychological
the same (see [ 1; 2; 3] and others). Just as G. Ball and I were not aware of V. Druzhinin's developments in the 2010s, he, apparently, was not aware of the results of G. Ball's research in the 1970s and 1980s. It seems useful to compare their methodologically related approaches, which were formed independently, but in the same historical period. Further in the article such a comparison will be made, which I will begin with a brief description of the psychological research model of V. Druzhinin.
:al research (V. Druzhinin)
research is behavior, the so-called model of the logic of action or the logical description of behavior serves as a language that can be used to describe the psychological research itself' [ibid., pp. 17-18]. There is no need to go into the issue of what was called "social scientific description" and "natural scientific psychological research" in the 1990s, but it is important that in essence we are talking about using the apparatus of systemology and one of the sections of formal logic as a methodological basis for theoretical and empirical psychological research, namely, as will be said below, the "logic of action" created by G.Kh. von Wricht. In the structure of natural scientific psychological research, V. Druzhinin, following Ya.A. Ponomarev, identified groups of
interacting components: "A psychologist who studies mental reality using a natural scientific method, that is, who considers the psyche as an integral part of objective reality, is forced to identify a carrier of the psyche in the latter. Such a carrier can be an individual, a contact group, a social community. The subsequent division of objective reality is carried out on the basis of the interaction criterion. That part of objective reality that directly interacts with the selected system (we will thus call an object with a psyche) is defined as the environment, and the rest, interacting with the system indirectly through the environment, is usually not considered. Thus, the researcher initially works with two components: the system and its environment, and the
relationship between them. This relationship is defined as interaction and includes the relationship of the system to the environment and the environment to the system. Interaction relationships are the basic material for any psychological analysis" [ibid., pp. 36-37]. The interaction of the system with the environment is detailed by the chain "exchange of influences" and is mediated by the psyche. The author suggests distinguishing two variants of such an exchange of influences - with different sources of the first influence ( E - states of the environment, S - states of the system, Figure 1).
Figure 1. Interactions between the system and the environment (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 [ 8]).
The impact of the environment on the system is mediated theoretical model of interactions there are three compo-
by the psyche, and "the independent ontology of psychic re- nents: the environment ( E ), the system (person - S ) and the
ality is a postulate on which all subsequent reasoning about psyche ( ¥ - is a component of the system S ). The totality of
the methods of its study is based" [ibid., p. 41]. Thus, in the all the identified relationships and their interaction of the
system, psyche and environment are illustrated by a graph (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Spatial graph of interactions (Fig. 3 in [ 8]).
Based on this model, various typologies can be con- "observed" and "constructed" (also introduced not entirely
structed. In one of them, the author differentiates between clearly defined indicated by a dotted line).
"Observed" relationships: "Unobservable" ("constructed") relations:
1) E ti---E t2 1) ¥t 1 - - - ¥t 2
2) E t2 = = =>E t3 2) ¥t 1 - - - ¥t 3
3) S ti = = =>S t2 3) Et 1 1
4) S t2 - - - S t3 4) ¥t 1 - - - St 1
5) S t2 ^E t2 5) ¥t 2 ^St 2
6) E ti---S ti and E t3 - - - - S t3 6) ¥t 2 - - - Et 2
Otherwise, as the author shows, it is possible to distinguish classes of relations on the basis of their determinative or non-determinative nature. In addition, depending on the accepted reference point of relations, it is proposed to distinguish between causal and teleological models. Based on the theoretical model constructed in this way, the methods of empirical psychological research and plans for their construction are further outlined quite clearly. The specifics of the empirical psychological method are considered in connection with the subject- object nature of the subject - using the apparatus of formal logic and elements of the "logic of actions" of V. von Wricht .
Task . The need to conceptualize the concept of "task" in the description of the structure of empirical research was due to the allocation of the component "task of the subject" in it. For this, V. Druzhinin used the approach of E. Hunt, based on the formalized description of artificial intelligence systems and intended for implementation in programming languages. I quote: " <...> the task is described by a set of initial conditions ( X ); a set of final conditions ( Y ); a set of operations ( O ); the law of composition ( Z ), i.e. the definition of some relations on these sets" [ 8, p. 89]. If three of the four sets are defined, then the following types of tasks are possible:
1). "Direct problem" of finding the result ( Y ).
2). "Inverse problem" of finding the set ( X ).
3). "Operational task" of finding methods of action (including problems of proof, etc.).
4). The problem of finding a pattern (a set of operations
O ).
Model . The concept of "model" is widely used in scientific discourses, however, its implied contents, as well as the process of modeling, sometimes differ significantly. Although V. Druzhinin did not set the task of developing his own interpretation of the concept of "model", he gave a definition to which he adhered, namely: "After all, a model is a rational opposition of one object to another (image and original) by a subject" [ibid., p. 12]. This definition does not seem clear enough to me (in particular, why only opposition?), although the text contains clarifications of this interpretation. Thus, the class of theoretical methods in psychology is defined as one in which "the subject interacts with a mental model of an object (more precisely, the subject of research)" [ibid.]. And the transduction method is defined as a process when "a simpler and/or more accessible object is taken as an analogue of a more complex object, the result of its application is a model of an object, process, state" [ibid., p. 14]. Two main types of modeling are also distinguished: structural-functional and functional-structural :
"In the first case, the researcher wants to identify the structure of a separate system based on its external behavior and for this purpose selects or constructs an analogue - another system with similar behavior. Accordingly, the similarity of behavior allows us to draw a conclusion (based on the rule of logical inference by analogy) about the similarity of structures. <...> In the other case, based on the similarity of the structures of the model and the image, the researcher judges the similarity of functions, external manifestations, etc. This method is widespread in many sciences, in particular - in comparative anatomy, paleontology, cultural studies, etc." [ibid., pp. 14-15].
A broad systemological inter
Georgy Alekseevich Ball began his research in the 1960s, their general direction was to strengthen the interaction of psychology with formalized scientific disciplines, and the results were systemic descriptions of: a) the structures and functioning of active systems; b) information and the systems that carry it (for more details, see [ 9]). I will highlight three main conceptual tools, to the development of which G.A. Ball contributed in the 1970s-1980s.
System . A system is defined as follows: "A set of objects considered by a researcher together with the relationships
Even from this brief presentation of the main methodological components, I believe, it is clear that V. Druzhinin developed a coherent theoretical and methodological model of psychological research, on the basis of which he created a detailed typology and a substantive description of the methods of empirical psychological research - scientifically more rigorous than in most approaches of a similar orientation. As noted at the beginning of this article, G. Ball conducted research in a substantively close methodological direction somewhat earlier, below we will briefly consider his methodological position and the results obtained.
:ion of the problem (G. Ball )
between these obj ects that interest him is usually called a system, and the objects that form the specified set are called components of this system" [ 4, p. 11]. Systems have three types of properties:
1. Structural properties characterize: a) individual components of the system, considered as a single whole; b) relationships between components of the system; c) relationships between individual components and the system as a whole.
2. Functional properties characterize the system as a single whole and its relationships with objects outside it.
3. Substrate properties characterize its individual components (in addition to properties " 1a").
On this conceptual basis, G.A. Ball considers models and tasks as systems of a special kind.
Model . In the interpretation of G.A. Ball, "System B is a model of system A for an active system Q (an individual human being, a group, an animal, a robot, etc.), if the basis for its use by this active system is its structural similarity to the modeled system A " [ibid., pp. 13-14]. If the role of system Q is played by a researcher who, in order to understand system A, studies its model B, then such a model is a means of scientific knowledge. In relation to the modeled system, a model can be primary or secondary (for example, a psychological research project is a primary model, theories of intelligence are secondary models). In the context under consideration, any knowledge is an ideal model (for society or an individual as active systems).
Task . " A task, in its most general form, is a system whose mandatory components are: a) the subject of the task, which is in its initial state (or, as we will often say in the future, the
Three strategies of psycholog
In the 2010s, G. Ball returned to the development of the problem of using formalized descriptions in psychology - already on an improved theoretical basis (at this stage, we
initial subject of the task ); b) a model of the required state of the subject of the task (we identify this model with the requirement of the task)" [p. 31]. The solution to a task is defined as an impact on the subject of the task with the aim of its transition from the initial state to the required one; the system that carries out such an impact, by analogy with the naming used in cybernetics of that period, is called a solver (examples of solvers are animals, people, groups of people, technical devices, etc. It is important to note that this interpretation of the problem (like the theoretical model created by V. Dru-zhinin, see above) has a general methodological content: "If the concept of a problem is interpreted broadly enough, then the activity of the subject can be presented as a system of problem solving processes" [ 4, pp. 6-7]. As for the use in psychological science, then, as G. Ball specified, the category of a problem covers not only external in relation to the solver (in particular, the subject), but also internal tasks for him (accepted from outside or formed by him himself). The latter may include speech, motor, mental, mnemonic , perceptual, imaginative and other tasks.
research (G. Ball, V. Medintsev)
conducted joint research). Believing that formalized descriptions in the period of widespread introduction of digi-
tal technologies in all areas of scientific activity will be increasingly in demand in the planning and implementation of psychological research, we sought the most universal approach possible as a methodological basis for describing interactions. In a number of studies, we showed that the formalized descriptions used in psychology can be attributed to one of two strategies. Within the framework of the first strategy, researchers, based on the pattern described in the "humanitarian" language, select suitable mathematical models and, on this basis, develop formalized descriptions of phenomena in the subject areas of psychology. Within the framework of the second strategy, researchers find opportunities for applying theoretical models used in physics, biology and other natural sciences in psychology. By improving the methodological approach that G. Ball has been developing since the beginning of his scientific activity, we came to understand the possibility of implementing the third strategy : to develop the application in psychology of the most general mathematical models.
By the result of the analysis of the experience of developing formalized descriptions and modern principles of
constructing data presentation systems, we came to an understanding of the main idea of the method within the framework of the third strategy - to link the description of scientific problems with the most general humanitarian concept of culture (in the interpretation according to [ 5]) through the most general mathematical concept of set . The result of our research was the method set-theoretic description of processes ([ 6], etc.). A procedure for applying the method is provided, which, in a simplified presentation, consists of constructing a space of mappings of cultural modes, which includes the mode of the subject of study. The components of the specified space are presented in their states at the beginning and end of the time interval (stage) under consideration. The processes of changing the components of the structure are considered in the schematism of mappings of sets of their elements. All processes involving the components of the specified space in their various combinations are considered theoretically possible. The application of the method allows one to organize the existing knowledge about the subject under study, on this basis formulate hypotheses in relation to it, and outline methods for its theoretical or empirical study.
As can be seen, G. Ball and V. Druzhinin proceeded from the understanding that when conducting any scientific and psychological research it is necessary to rely on the clearest possible conceptual systems and general methodological principles, for which they chose the provisions of the general theory of systems. Since they conducted their research independently of each other and in different periods of time, there are certain differences in their theoretical models. In particular, V. Druzhinin does not provide a definition of the system that he is guided by, as a system he considers only an agent (a person as an active system) - in the theoretical model, two components interact with this system ( S ): the psyche (postulated as an independent entity ¥ ) and the environment ( E ). All subsequent methodological consequences (types of psychological research and processes studied in psychology, empirical methods, etc.) are built on the results of the analysis of the variants of interactions of these components. G. Ball approached the construction of a theoretical model of interactions differently. In his interpretation, a system is a set of objects considered by the researcher together with the relationships between these objects that interest him. In the context of such an approach, a three-component structure ( S; E; ¥ ) is also a system,
since V. Druzhinin considers the interactions within it. On the other hand, G. Ball, as one might assume, did not introduce the environment as a separate component of the analyzed structure, since among the properties of the system that he identified are functional properties that characterize the system as a single whole and its relationships with objects outside it. However, in the general compositional plan, both researchers similarly conceptualized the main components of interactions, the detailing of which can be used to obtain theoretical models of all possible subjects of scientific and psychological research.
A significant difference of G. Ball's approach is the use of a broad systemic interpretation of the concept of "task", according to which any activity of the subject can be presented as a system of problem-solving processes, including the subject-researcher in planning and conducting theoretical and empirical psychological research. For V. Druzhinin, the interpretation of the task is important in connection with the need to consider the "task of the subject", while the four main types of tasks identified by him are similar to the types identified by G. Ball (with different terminological design), which also indicates the methodological kinship of the approaches. I note that G. Ball developed a detailed
multi-level typology of tasks, but the description in the monograph [ 4] is narrowed to the class of educational tasks, although other publications of that period also considered their other classes.
In implementing one of his main methodological ideas, namely the idea of increasing the logical perfection of scientific and humanitarian discourse, G. Ball gradually came to understand the need for the integration of psychological knowledge, as well as the fact that its basis could be formalized descriptions of the functioning of both the psyche as a whole and any subjects of psychological research [ 9]. Some problems of such integration were analyzed in our joint works, others - as the development of research in this direction - in my publications ([ 10] and others).
Now, in retrospect of the methodological heritage of V. Druzhinin and G. Ball, the potential complementarity of their approaches is quite clearly visible - not as a recognition of inconsistent positions (like the well-known principle in physics), but as an opportunity to combine the most successful components of each approach in one, more perfect, theoretical model. In the 2010s, the complementary components of the approaches considered were essentially embodied in the set-theoretic method of describing processes (G. Ball, V. Medintsev), namely:
• the concept of a system as a structure of interacting elements (G. Ball, V. Druzhinin);
• functional and structural properties of the system (G. Ball);
• procedural nature of the description of structures (V. Druzhinin);
• tasks and models as systems of a special kind (G. Ball);
• interpretation of the environment as elements interacting with the system under study (V. Druzhinin);
• description of processes between components of the structure as mappings of sets (in the interpretation of the problem by V. Druzhinin);
• analysis of all theoretically possible processes between the components of the structure under consideration and selection of those that are feasible and those that are not (V. Druzhinin).
It is regrettable that G. Ball and V. Druzhinin conducted their research separately and it can be assumed that if they had worked together, the scientific and theoretical result could have been more significant and obtained much earlier.
References
1. Балл Г.А. Об основных положениях и некоторых применениях теории познавательных задач // Вопросы психологии. 1984.
№3. С. 34-41.
2. Балл Г.А. О понятиях "воздействие", "действие" и "операция". Вопросы психологии №4 1974, с. 10-20.
3. Балл Г.А. Проблемы взаимодействия психологии с формализованными научными дисциплинами // Психологический журнал.
1989. №10 (6). С. 34-39.
4. Балл Г.А. Теория учебных задач: Психолого-педагогический аспект. М.: Педагогика, 1990.
5. БаллГ.А., МединцевВ.А. Медиаторы межпарадигмального взаимодействия в исследованиях культуры // «Психология третьего
тысячелетия»: I Международная научно-практическая конференция: сборник материалов. Дубна: Международный университет природы, общества и человека «Дубна», 2014. С. 22-26.
6. Балл Г.А., Мединцев В.А. Теоретико-множественный метод описания процессов и его применение в психологии: монография.
К.: Педагопчна думка, 2016. 88 с.
7. Балл Г.А., Мединцев В.А. Формализованное описание процессов как теоретический ресурс изучения развития // Мир
психологии. - 2016. - № 1. - С. 53-66.
8. Дружинин В.Н. Структура и логика психологического исследования. Москва : ИПРАН. 1994. 163 с.
9. Мединцев В.А. Основные системологические идеи Г.А. Балла в психологии и человековедении // Перспективы
психологической науки и практики: сборник статей Международной научно-практической конференции. РГУ им. А. Н. Косыгина, 16 июня 2017 г. / под ред. В.С. Белгородского, О.В. Кащеева, И.В. Антоненко, И.Н. Карицкого. М.: ФГБОУ ВО «РГУ им. А.Н. Косыгина», 2017. С. 91-94.
10. Мединцев В.А. Проблемы, решаемые интеграцией психологического знания; направления и ареалы её реализации //
Теоретичш дослщження у психологи. Том V. 2018. С. 91-111.
11. Медшцев В. О. Деяю теоретичш джерела дiалогiчного тдходу у психологи // Практична психологш та сощальна робота. -
2002. - №9-10. - С. 107-109.
