CC BY
3O. V. Zavgorodnya Theoretical guidelines for working out the problem of methodological tools
for integrating psychological knowledge
В1ДОМОСТ1 ПРО АВТОРА
Abstract. The article outlines theoretical guidelines for working out methodological tools for integrating psychological knowledge. The article describes the state of modern psychology, states the need for its self-reflection in order to determine the boundaries, dimensions, specifics of its cognitive field, outline prospects and directions of development. Taking into account the contexts of the modern cognitive situation, ontological complexity, methodological and epistemological diversity in psychology, already available in the interdisciplinary discourse of ideas of integrative Strategies, a number of areas of development of methodological tools for integrating psychological knowledge are highlighted. The possibilities of facilitating integration at different levels of functioning of psychology are clarified. The importance of researchers ' reflection on Psychological Science is emphasized, and the types of their integration attitudes are outlined.
Keywords: integration, methodological tools, Psychological Science, System, Network, psychological knowledge, theoretical model.
Цитування. Zavgorodnya O. V. Theoretical guidelines for working out the problem of methodological tools for integrating psychological knowledge. Теоретичш до^дження у психологи: монографiчна серiя. Сост. В.О. Медшцев. Том 18. 2023. С. 30-45. doi: 10.24412/2616-6860-2023-2-30-45.
Many researchers express concern about the methodological situation that has developed in psychology. The range of definitions of the cognitive field of research ranges from extremely subjectivistic, problematic in terms of verification, to extremely objectivistic, leading to a reduction and loss of the specifics of psychology. The problem of fragmentation of psychological knowledge is closely related to the variety of definitions of the subject of psychology. This becomes an obstacle to the development of psychology and its effective use. Therefore, the development of methodological tools for ensuring integration is an urgent task. Such tools can be high-level conceptual tools of abstraction used in descriptions of psychological phenomenology, mediators of interparadigmatic interaction, predictive models of psychology and its branches that correspond to the current cognitive situation and cultural contexts. Conceptual diversity in modern psychology makes it necessary to introduce into the problem field of science means of constructing psychological knowledge, schemes of the subject area of science, multidimensional models that can represent psychological phenomenology in the broadest context.
Most researchers see the essence of the crisis in psychology in the contradictory positions of different approaches to leading issues of psychology and agree that modern psycho-
logical knowledge is "a dizzying array of incompatible theories, models, methods, and sometimes philosophies" (Yanchar and Slife, 1997, pp. 235-36). According to A. Toomela: "over the past 60 years, thousands, if not millions, of statistically established relationships of various variables with each other have been obtained in psychological research. At the same time, many fundamental questions were not even raised due to the limited methodological thinking the study of fragments provides little for understanding the human personality as a whole" (Toomela, 2007, p. 18). A number of questions arise: What does progress in psychology mean? How is it related to integration, and what can be its tools? In the context of our research, important works are those that comprehensively cover the current challenges of modern psychology (Smedslund, 2016; Zagaria, Ando, Zennaro, 2020, etc.), issues of methodology (Балл, 1917; Гусельцева, 2017; Toomela, 2007; Garber, 2019 et al.), the problem of integration of psychological knowledge (Henriques, 2013; ball, 1917; Янчук, 2018; Завгородня, 2020 et al.), works on the consideration of metatheoretic strategies in the socio-humanitarian sphere (Wallis, 2010), in particular, in psychology (Янчук, 2018, 2018; Garber, 2019; Henriques, 2013). Important methodological guidelines for the research are works that analyze the difficulties of theoretical unification of psychology (Yanchar and Slife,
1997; Toomela 2007), discussion of possible tools of unification Stam, 2015; Perez-Alvarez, 2018; Lincoln and Hoffman, 2019), with an appeal to meta-theorizing (Henriques, 2013; flrnyK, 2018; Garber, 2019).
In accordance with the set goal, it is planned to perform the following tasks: to outline the factors of actualization of integrative metatheoretization in modern psychology; to determine the theoretical foundations for the development of methodological tools; to find out the tasks of integration at the metatheoretic level; to determine the possibilities of facilitating integration at the level of empirical research; to outline the problem of promoting the integration attitudes of the researcher. Theoretical research methods were used, in particular analysis, interpretation and conceptualization.
Actualization of integrative meta-theorizing. The most important social factors that actualize integration are globalization and the widespread inclusion of psychology in practice. Information exchange, the needs of practice, the need to develop common standards of the profession actualize the search for a general scientific context of psychology, stimulate both spontaneous and purposeful integration processes. One of the most relevant modern strategies is integrative meta - theorizing. If psychological theories are
considered psychological phenomenology as a subject of research, then metatheories themselves make theories their specific object (Wallis, 2010).
There are several reasons for the increased attention to meta-theorizing. One of the reasons is the lag of psychology in the conceptualization of psychological phenomenology, which is rapidly changing, that is, a "gap" is created between theory and the subject field. Changes in human psychology associated with cultural and civilizational transformations require new conceptualizations, concepts, and methodological research techniques. Another reason for the actualization of meta - theorizing is the fragmentation, inconsistency and variability of psychological knowledge, and the difference in theorizing languages. The reason for the increased attention to meta-theorizing is also the WEIRD problem (the problem of dominance in Psychological Science by researchers from WEIRD countries, that is, countries that are characterized as Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and democratic), the influence of IndiGo psychology, the Emic approach ,postcolonial and gender studies; these studios offer a different perspective of the analysis of psychological phenomenology, associated with the rejection of the universalization of the "psychology of the Euro-American white man" and the coverage of the study of the psychological "otherness" of representatives of
postcolonial countries, minorities, people of different identities, different races, ethnic groups, cultures, etc.
The development of new information technologies in the context of psychological research and practice also encourages interest in meta-theorizing.
Theoretical foundations of the development of methodological tools. In our work, we rely on the general scientific principles of integrity, activity, development and interaction. According to these principles, we consider the development of the field of psychology as its evolutionarily directed qualitative changes - the growth of differentiation and integration, the achievement of greater internal consistency and integrity through the comprehension by subjects of the field of psychology of its meaning, existential purpose, through the active interaction of these subjects, aimed at overcoming obstacles to strengthening the cultural function of Psychology, its humanizing influence, which, in particular, involves integration efforts.
Integration; in a broad sense, means the unification of individual elements into a whole, the restoration of unity; the state of connection of individual differentiated parts into a single whole, as well as the process that contributes to this state. In the context of psychology, integration means the activity of subjects of this sphere, focused on its
integrity, through finding mediators-intermediaries between disparate parts, factors of combining psychological knowledge, and more broadly the entire field of psychology, including practice, determining common professional and value orientations. Any integration, especially purposeful, is associated with the activity of subjects in the field of psychology, as well as with their interaction with each other. The interaction of these subjects can contribute to communication and integration processes in psychology to varying degrees (attitude to cooperation, orientation to universal values, compliance with ethical principles), and can also have an inhibitory effect (preference for strategies of ego -or group-centered rivalry, avoiding or imitating cooperation, ignoring ethical principles, etc.). Purposeful integration is associated with setting up for communication and communication of all valuable things accumulated by psychology, despite contradictions, combining elements (different ideas, approaches, methods, technologies) into a network with a sufficient range of freedom. Without integration efforts, it is impossible to overcome the fragmentation of psychological knowledge, the splitting of psychology into academic and practical, the decline in the prestige of psychology, and so on.
Fundamental to our approach is the principle of racio-humanism, which is based on the concept of raciohuman-istic worldview and methodological orientation in human studies developed by G. O. Ball. The concept provides for attention to the value aspect of scientific activity; constructive revision of transdisciplinary categories, including the category of rationality; orientation to harmonious rationalism, which is based on intellectual culture in its broadest sense (and therefore provides for dialogical interaction of logically justified and intellectually understood positions, development of the potential of various positions through dialogue); requirements for ensuring adequacy, content, logical clarity, clarity of models (in particular, system descriptions) of the studied processes, taking into account their complexity; construction of appropriate methodological tools.
In improving the methodological tools for integrating psychological knowledge, the principles of triple modeling of the studied psychological phenomenology; spirals of understanding and constant "honing" of the tools; reflexive "lensoanalysis"; the principle of resource openness; complementarity; transsystem; acceptance of the antinomicity of psychological phenomenology; susceptibility to the contexts of modernity and the needs of practice; broad inter-
pretation of the model; consideration of the multilevel nature of Psychological Science are appropriate. Let's outline some of them in more detail.
The principle of triple modeling of the studied phenomenology. This principle is connected with the idea of three spheres of vision of psychological phenomena and the concept of "scientific ignorance" (M. Kuzansky's expression in the work "De Docta ignorantia"). "Scientific ignorance" is inseparable from a deep view of psychological phenomenology, in particular when it comes to spiritual and existential sources of personality. We distinguish: 1) the sphere of clarified, clear vision (a network of visible and explained facts),
2) the sphere of problematic, changing or dim vision (a network of partially visible, but insufficiently explained facts),
3) the sphere of potential knowledge, invisible, unknown, variably hypothetical, imagined in various versions. Depending on the field, the requirements for developing and adapting integration tools change.
The principle of reflexive "lensoanalysis" of the methodological vision consists in the reflection of multidimensional, multi-level and fluidity of psychological phenomenology, reflection of the relationship between the subject and the object of research, subjectivity of the researcher and subjectivity of the subject (giving a voice to the object of research), analysis of the limitations of individual positions
and methods (methodological "lenses") of interpretation, identification of cognitive biases, their socio-psychological, cognitive and motivational factors (in particular, psychological defenses); these principles prevent absolutization and rigidity of research guidelines, and promote flexible use of methodological tools. It should be noted that subjectivity is one of the characteristics of the new methodological tools, since when creating it, the developer relies on his own version of the subjective picture of psychological phenomenology. Based on the fact of the author's "presence" in the work, there is a need for a reflexive study of the subjectivity (experiences, aspirations, value priorities) of the developer of methodological tools, tracing the connections and continuity of various ideas close to him, a certain section of scientific culture, his projections regarding the object of research and analysis of his methodological preferences. The principle of reflexive "lensoanalysis" is closely related to the principles of additivity and resource openness. The principle of openness consists not only in openness to scientific ideas and concepts in an integrative context, but also in using other approaches as metatheoretic resources. The principle of additivity (complementarity) consists in determining the range of suitability and research advantages of
certain methodological tools, their appropriate combination and internal logical consistency of various tools with each other.
The principle of acceptance of antinomicity, necessary in the knowledge of super - complex psychological phenomena, is tolerance to cognitive uncertainty, "scientific ignorance", acceptance of the complexity and inconsistency of psychological phenomena, taking into account the dynamics of transitions of their various states (frozen, stable, flowing, "volatile"), in the context of improving methodological tools provides increased attention to mediators-tools for coordinating contradictions in understanding the phenomenon (intellectual style, way of thinking, norms of discussion, dialogical universals, etc.).
The principle of structural and functional heterogeneity of Psychological Science. We assume that Psychological Science has a multi-level structure. Of course, there can be many levels and sublevels (for example, I.E. Tap6ep identifies 8 levels). However, we will consider three main levels of psychology, which is important in the context of integration: I - from the initial description of the problem to the analysis of the data obtained and the first conceptualizations (initial level); II-from the first conceptualizations to psychological theories of the "middle" level; III - from conceptualization, mid-level theories to leading psychological
theories and meta-theorizing. At different levels of functioning of Psychological Science (conditionally - "from above", "from below"), integration processes have their own characteristics, which is manifested, in particular, in the ratio of signs of spontaneous flow of the process and purposeful, conscious management of it.
Tasks and prospects of integration at the metatheoretic level
Assistance to integration processes "from above "(at the metatheoretic level) is possible through the development and improvement of a number of integration tools and the implementation of such tasks:
• self-reflection of psychology, from the point of view of the evolution of conceptual models, existing methodological approaches;
• identification of stages, phases, shifts in psychological knowledge, mapping past achievements, determining the features of the current state, understanding trends and prospects for development in a changing social and intellectual context;
• assessment of the progress of psychological knowledge as a result of changes and interaction of scientific approaches;
• isolation of independent, internally ordered theories, explanatory models; determination of the specifics, accents, direction of a particular theory - explanatory, heuristic, analytical, exegetic; assessment of the clarity and adequacy of basic assumptions, key concepts, explanatory models of basic psychological theories; identification of the Essential, most significant in theory, compared with the less significant, secondary;
• logically based deployment of theories in order to formulate hypotheses for possible empirical confirmation;
• correlation of available empirical data in the context of assessing the validity of theories;
• redefining theory as a result of theoretical analysis and empirical data analysis;
• determining the possibilities of formalizing the theory;
• identification of various theoretical logics, correlation of different positions, attempts to "mutually translate" different languages of the description of psychological phenomenology;
• finding similarities, intersections and differences between different theories, identifying opportunities and limitations of their integration;
• "inventory", systematization, clarification of the the-matically focused categorical apparatus and conceptual foundations of individual subject areas, taking into account the variability of the meanings of concepts;
• formation and improvement of variants of the language of science, correlation of different languages for describing such phenomena, finding the most appropriate (taking into account the orientation to accuracy or depth of comprehension) language for describing the essence of the theory;
• conceptual ordering of individual subject areas of psychology;
• understanding psychology as a source of explanatory models in the context of interdisciplinary research.
• constructing a model of heterogeneous psychological phenomenology;
• creation of a common multidimensional theoretical and methodological meta-space (matrix of theories) and justification of the place of various theories in it, taking into account their epistemological coordinates, explanatory possibilities, scope of applicability, logical sequence of positions, internal consistency, methodological sophistication;
• identification of complex relationships between simulated matrices of phenomenology and theories;
• determination of integratively appropriate criteria for ordering psychological approaches;
• development of mediation tools (determination of the principles and forms of interaction of various psychological approaches), development of tools for coordinating explanatory schemes, in particular, description of tools for implementing Inter-conceptual dialogue and Inter-conceptual "translation";
• definition of principles and criteria for integratively oriented ordering of existing research methods.
To implement these tasks, it is advisable to use meta-analytical procedures (genetic-tendential, chronotopic, ax-iological analysis) and construct multidimensional models.
Providing conditions for facilitation of integration processes at the stage of empirical research. At the level of the initial description of the problem, its formulation, description of phenomena is carried out using the language of psychology, highlighting unexplored aspects, putting forward hypotheses, purposefully collecting data, processing them, and analyzing them. At Level I, integration is largely spontaneous. A researcher motivated by the desire for the most
complete and diverse knowledge of a particular phenomenon will not be limited to any one perspective of the subject's vision. Even being a supporter of a certain theory, he will go beyond it, turn to the possibilities of different approaches, consider the phenomenon from different positions, trying to create an adequate and complete model of the phenomenon under study.
Providing conditions for facilitation of integration processes "from below" and developing appropriate tools is possible through the use of resources (constructive components) of various theories and approaches for the study of the problem field; determining its place and a specific problem in the simulated multidimensional space of psychological phenomenology based on the leading dimensions of the specified space; taking into account the scope of applicability, explanatory potential of theories on a specific problem. Let's take a closer look at possible tools for studying current psychological problems. We are talking about specially directed analytical procedures and modeling.
• The following analytical procedures are proposed for testing: system - polyconceptual analysis; transitive analysis; polyfocused reflexive analysis, as well as comparative polyconceptual modeling. System-polyconceptual analysis consists in determining the range of suitability and research advantages of a particular concept (approach), rereading
ancient concepts in the context of the current situation and a specific problem; combining and flexibly using the cognitive and instrumental capabilities of various concepts on a specific problem to solve such issues (from the point of view of approach a, approach B,... approach n):
• which metaphorical constructs best represent the phenomenon under study (or a set of phenomena) - DF;
• what facts (or network of facts) are emphasized in the study;
• what special properties does DF have (attribute analysis);
• what areas or aspects can be identified in the DF;
• what components make up the DF;
• what are the functions and dysfunctions of DF?;
• how components are combined into one whole (structural analysis);
• what are the genetic aspects of DF, coverage of its developmental history (genetic analysis).
Transitive analysis is a flexible analysis of the studied reality in the context of its states - stable ("solid"), fluid, and "volatile".
Polyfocused reflexive analysis of the studied reality in the space of its cognition consists in a multi-level reflection
of the subjectivity of the research position, in particular, identifying its advantages and disadvantages, the role of psychological defenses of the subject of research (defensive psychological analysis), cultural context, etc.
Comparative polyconceptual modeling-creation and comparison of several models of DF based on different approaches to its cognition.
In understanding the model, we proceed from the following considerations. Model-a substitute object that, under certain conditions, can replace the original object, reproducing the properties and characteristics that the researcher is interested in. Reproduction can be carried out in subject (layout, device), sign (graph, diagram, program, theory) and figurative-symbolic (metaphor, artistic image) and mixed forms. Model-any system that carries information that can be used about another/simulated/ system. The model relation is ternary, i.e. it connects three systems; model, active system (in particular, subject) and simulated system (Балл, 2017). The model must meet the problem, be practical, flexible, and suitable for working with facts. It has a hypothetical character, reflects the variability of attempts to study an object and predict its changes (activity, development, extinction), can become its original explanation, a tool for finding new properties, a focus of both recognized
and New debatable ideas. Models in some cases can be terminological^ sustained, built mainly on the basis of a logical approach, differ in order and completeness, and in others - can be built mainly on the basis of an intuitive approach, openness, reliance on hearing and empathy, have a verbal-figurative and figurative-symbolic form (CTapoBOMTeHKO, 2007).
It takes into account the prospect of identifying different areas of the studied phenomenology, types of its functioning, stages of development; accordingly, finding the zone of best suitability of different models for representing different spheres, types, stages, which opens up the possibility of variability of their interpretation in different contexts, building multidimensional enriched models and expanding explanatory opportunities for the studied phenomena.
The model must adapt to the reality under study (as a map for the territory it represents), reflect the most significant, in particular, its state (solidified, flowing, volatile, "real" or "atmospheric", etc.); and, in fact, this can determine the similarity of the model to a system or network.
Based on the principle of triple model construction, we distinguish three areas of vision of phenomena (see above). The use of logical constructs is appropriate mainly in relation to the sphere of clear vision (a network of visible and
explained facts), and the use of metaphorical-hypothetical constructs can be productive in relation to the second and third spheres, especially in the zone of "changing and insufficient visibility".
Different meth strategies in practice overlap, combine, act as leading ones in different areas of research, complement and strengthen each other. This versatility of analysis and synthesis procedures creates the basis for 1) comparing conceptual approaches to this problem, 2) creating an amplified DF model.
Promoting integration attitudes of researchers. Another important issue is the promotion of the formation of inte-grative attitudes of researchers. For a long period of time, psychology was dominated by logic or / or, aimed at proving the correctness, truth of the promoted position and devaluing other alternatives (through concentration on their weaknesses, imperfections, emphasizing their own advantages over them). This led to a reduction, limited partial vision of the subject of psychology. Thus, a disintegrated set of partial ideas about the general subject of study was formed, which caused the crisis of psychology.
In the field of integration attitudes of psychologists, based on the analysis of a number of studies (Балл, 2017; Смирнов, 2005; Henrikes, 2013, etc.), 5 positions can be distinguished:
The first position is "methodological nihilism", a position that devalues methodological reflection, in particular on the problem of fragmentation of psychological knowledge, identifying methodological dimensions with fruitless philosophizing.
The second position is "methodological monism" - a conscious preference for a certain approach as the only correct one, harsh criticism and rejection of all others; ignoring the diversity of ideas in psychology, the belief that there is a single scientific methodology, outside of which scientific knowledge is lost, and, accordingly, only one true scientific theory is possible; the tendency to devalue alternative concepts (through concentration on their weaknesses, imperfections, emphasizing the advantages of' one-faith " methodology and theory) (42).
The third position - "lazy pluralism" - is that all psychological theories should be recognized, since the diversity of approaches in psychology is its advantage; the problems associated with the disunity of different approaches are minimal, so one should not strive to" build bridges " between them, leaving psychology in its current fragmented state and recognizing such a non-integrated state as inevitable.
The fourth position - "extended tolerant monism" - is the belief that it is necessary and possible to build a" unified theory", united around several approaches (according to the
preferences of the author of the theory, for example, from behavioral and cognitive perspectives), analyzing everything created in psychology, selecting and assimilating everything that is best and adequate from the point of view of this unified theory and its basic provisions.
The fifth position - "integrative pluralism" - is the belief in the complementarity of different approaches, the relevance of building methodological tools for their integration without losing the uniqueness of the vision and advantages of each. According to this position, all global psychological approaches that have passed natural selection in the history of Psychological Science are equally legitimate and equally adequate, but we must look for "transitions", "bridges" between them that would serve as the framework of a single system of psychological knowledge. Representatives of this position proceed from the statement of the multifaceted complexity of mental life, call for limiting strict epistemo-logical, methodological and ontological requirements. They substantiate the need to use different approaches based on different theoretical foundations regarding this complexity and multidimensional; argue that the advantages of one approach can compensate for the limitations of others, that different approaches are complementary. In their opinion, it is worth combining efforts and intellectual resources in the direction of integration.
The polyvariance of the methodological views of psychologists and their theoretical preferences can be described by delineating individual cognitive "lenses", focusing on certain leading principles; however, each of the principles can be interpreted differently. Assistance to the integration attitudes of researchers is possible, in particular, under the following conditions:
• activation of their reflection on the factors of the individual system of scientific dispositions (analysis of the impact on the researcher's habit of cognitive dominants of the epistemic community to which he belongs, paradigms of the scientific field, syntagmatic experience of transdisciplinary research);
• awakening the desire for a deeper understanding of the problem, expanding psychological knowledge about the essence of the phenomena under study;
• formation of positioning ability-determination of one's own initial cognitive positions, method of theorizing, research method;
• awareness of the methodological, ontological and epistemological polyvariance of various approaches and theories, with an understanding of their capabilities, limitations and scope of extrapolation of results, determining
the limits of application of results; stating coincidences and inconsistencies of different positions;
• acceptance of the existence of alternative explanations, the desire to get acquainted with them, to understand their validity;
• refusal to devalue other alternatives (by focusing on their weaknesses, imperfections, and emphasizing their own advantages over them)
• determining the possibilities of a dialog between carriers of different positions;
• enabling mechanisms for identifying, empathizing and reflecting participants in a potential dialogue, defining a common goal, establishing a productive dialogue, finding ways and means of cooperation based on the opponent's understanding;
• establishing productive interaction subordinated to a common goal - deepening ideas about the essence of the phenomenon being studied and discussed, finding ways and means of cooperation;
• recognition of the mutual influence and interdependence of all factors affecting the functioning of the phenomenon under study, as well as the personality of the researcher;
• expanding the vision of the problem area, awareness of the limitations of one's own initial interpretation (vision), pushing the paradigm framework;
• overcoming emotional blockages caused by the impact of your own research priorities;
• overcoming negative feelings about carriers of a different research position;
• attempts at reflexive identification with the reasoning of the opposing partner;
• disclosure of opportunities for joint development of ideas and solutions on a dialogic basis;
• creation of the widest possible information base for Theoretical and empirical study of the problem area from various positions;
• creation of joint knowledge, taking into account individual and cultural differences, according to the logic of mutual enrichment and mutual development.
The researcher's cognitive priorities are revealed, according to P. Healy, at all levels: at the epistemological level - in the range between first-and third - person perspectives, between explanatory and experiential (experiential) approaches, between natural science and humanitarian orientations"; at the methodological level - between quantitative / experimental and qualitative / descriptive approaches;
at the ontological level-we are talking about "differences in the "natural" and "Human" Kind and the differences in the "metaphysics of things" and "metaphysics of people"" (Healy, 2012, p. 273).
Coexistence in conditions of conceptual diversity requires researchers to establish interparadigmatic dialogue,
So, due to the variability of psychological knowledge, the difference in the languages of theorizing, it is necessary to use tools for correlating various theories and building a common metatheoretic context. The methodological toolkit includes high-level conceptual tools of abstraction, mediators of interparadigmatic interaction, multidimensional models that can represent psychological phenomenology, schemes of the subject area of science, as well as predictive models of psychology and its branches that correspond to the current cognitive situation and cultural contexts. To overcome the fragmentation of psychology, prepare and promote its integration, in addition to these, methodological tools for the formation and improvement of theoretical models of integration of psychological knowledge, forecasting the processes of its implementation are necessary. The study defines theoretical guidelines and directions for
knowledge of psychological phenomena through the overcoming of paradigmatic and author's bias accompanied by reflexive "lensoanalysis", and therefore contributes to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study.
The proposed concept of improving the tools for integrating psychology is not complete, but provides for further study.
working out the problem of methodological integration tools. Such guidelines can be a constructive revision of the category of rationality, dialogism, understanding of marginal trends in the development of knowledge, transdisci-plinarity of scientific search. A number of principles that are appropriate in the context of working out this problem are described. Based on the characteristics of the current state of psychology, the necessity of its self-reflection is stated in order to determine the boundaries, dimensions, specifics of its cognitive field, outline prospects and directions of development. Taking into account the ontological complexity and epistemological diversity in psychology, the leading directions for improving methodological tools for integrating psychological knowledge are identified based on the ideas of integrative strategies already available in the interdisciplinary discourse.
Л^ература
1. Балл Г.О. Рацюгумашстична орiштацiя в методологи людинознавства: наукове видання. Ки1в: Видавництво ПП «СКД». 2017. 300 с.
2. Завгородня О.В. Теоретико-методологiчнi засади дослщження та фасилггаци iнтеграцiйних процесгв у психологи. В монографп: Теоретико-методолопчш основи штеграци психологiчного знання. Кшв: Видавничий Дiм «Слово», 2020. С. 5-45.
3. Смирнов С.Д. Методологический плюрализм и предмет психологии Вопр. психологии. 2005. № 4. С. 3-8.
4. Старовойтенко Е.Б. Культурная психология личности: монография. Москва: Академический проект; Гаудеамус, 2007. 420 с.
5. Янчук В. Культурно-диалогический интердетерминистский метаподход к анализу психологической феноменологии: теоретико-прикладные возможности. Теоретичш доолдження у психологи. Харьков: Монограф. 2018. Том IV. С. 21-82.
6. Garber, I. Schemas of the Transformation of Psychology in an Information Society J. Russian East Eur. Psychol. 2019, 56, 296-313 https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2019.1659699
7. Healy P. Toward an integrative, pluralistic psychology: On the hermeneutico-dialogical conditions of the possibility for overcoming fragmentation. New Ideas in Psychology, 2012, 30, 271-280.
8. Henriques G. Evolving from methodological to conceptual unification. Review of General Psychology. 2013. Vol. 17. P. 168-173. DOI:
10.1037/a0032929
9. Lincoln, J., and Hoffman, L. Toward an integration of constructivism and existential psychotherapy. J. Construct. Psychol.2019, 32, 108-
125. doi: 10.1080/10720537.2018.1461719
10. Perez-Alvarez, M. Psychology as a Science of Subject and Comportment, beyond the Mind and Behavior. Integr. psych. behav. 52, 25-51 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-017-9408-4
11. Stam H. J. The neurosciences and the search for a unified psychology: the science and esthetics of a single framework. Front Psychol. 2015. Vol. 6. P. 1467. Oct 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01467
12. Smedslund J. Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2016. Vol. 50(2). P. 185197.
13. Toomela A. Culture of science: Strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology. IPBS: Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. 2007. Vol. 41(1). P. 6-20.
14. Wallis S. Toward a Science of Metatheory. Integral Review. A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, and Praxis. 2010. Vol. 6 (3). P. 73-115.
15. Yanchar S. C, Slife B. D. Pursuing unity in a fragmented psychology: Problems and prospects, Review of General Psychology. 1997. Vol. 1. P. 235-255.
16. Zagaria, A., Ando, A., and Zennaro, A. Psychology: a giant with feet of clay. Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci.2020, 54, 521-562. doi: 10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5
