Post by omorson on Sept 17, 2017 20:22:16 GMT
My preferred method would be causal, as I would like to align my research more closely with those of the hard sciences. I gravitate to the popular position of cognitive psychology and as such, I do tend to work in. If possible, I would like to work in with experiments of low degrees of freedom where I believe causal psychology is most productive. This is preferential because it minimizes the question of laboratory validity.
This being said, I do not foresee myself being exclusive to any one camp. I would like to work out, to theorize, and observe phenomena and make predictions and theories; then if possible work in and test these, get nitty gritty, and reductionist, operationalize my theories, and seeing them in action. I don't believe that psychology can be purely causal or normative in nature. I believe that, of course a psychologist can work in either realm, but I think truly both are needed to get a sense of the whole of human behaviour and cognition (let alone other organisms). As such, I would like to be able to be normative as well, and take into account structural realities, cultural norms and form ideas and predictions around that knowledge.
My method, hypothesizing, and research will be dictated by the subject I am studying. If I am looking into more mechanistic phenomena where there are lower degrees of freedom, I would work in and apply a causal science approach. If I am studying a broader phenomena with much higher degrees of freedom I would work out and apply a normative science approach. Everything in between is where it gets interesting, and as I have a slight biological bias, I would probably prefer causal to see if I could determine just how little agency we have in our thinking and actions.
This being said, I do not foresee myself being exclusive to any one camp. I would like to work out, to theorize, and observe phenomena and make predictions and theories; then if possible work in and test these, get nitty gritty, and reductionist, operationalize my theories, and seeing them in action. I don't believe that psychology can be purely causal or normative in nature. I believe that, of course a psychologist can work in either realm, but I think truly both are needed to get a sense of the whole of human behaviour and cognition (let alone other organisms). As such, I would like to be able to be normative as well, and take into account structural realities, cultural norms and form ideas and predictions around that knowledge.
My method, hypothesizing, and research will be dictated by the subject I am studying. If I am looking into more mechanistic phenomena where there are lower degrees of freedom, I would work in and apply a causal science approach. If I am studying a broader phenomena with much higher degrees of freedom I would work out and apply a normative science approach. Everything in between is where it gets interesting, and as I have a slight biological bias, I would probably prefer causal to see if I could determine just how little agency we have in our thinking and actions.