No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The article discusses the ideas expressed in the study by Yu.N. Oleinik and A.L. Zhuravlev, devoted to the problem of scientific traditions as a mechanism for the continuity of psychological knowledge. It is argued that the low interest of the psychological community in the targeted development of the problem, recorded in the study, also characterizes foreign studies of the history of psychology. At the same time, it is proposed to more clearly draw the line between scientific traditions as a subject of historical and psychological research and their study as a subject of targeted theoretical and methodological analysis. In the first case, scientific traditions are quite actively studied in the context of studying personalities, scientific schools, psychological institutes, etc. In the second case, scientific traditions really rarely become the subject of special theoretical and methodological analysis, which may be a consequence of the unsatisfactory state of the methodology of the history of psychology. It is shown that the analysis of scientific traditions is actually not included in the subject, tasks and methods of the modern history of psychology. The above allows us to assert that the methodology proposed by A.L. Zhuravlev and Yu.N. Oleynik “theoretical model for studying the totality of traditions in domestic psychology” is in demand and is aimed at developing the methodology of the history of psychology. The advantages of the proposed model are discussed, and questions of a theoretical, methodological, and historical-psychological nature that arise due to familiarity with it are formulated.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.