Joint perceptual decision-making: a case study in explanatory pluralism

Traditionally different approaches to the study of cognition have been viewed as competing explanatory frameworks. An alternative view, explanatory pluralism, regards different approaches to the study of cognition as complementary ways of studying the same phenomenon, at specific temporal and spatial scales, using appropriate methodological tools. Explanatory pluralism has been often described abstractly, but has rarely been applied to concrete cases. We present a case study of explanatory pluralism. We discuss three separate ways of studying the same phenomenon: a perceptual decision-making task (Bahrami et al., 2010), where pairs of subjects share information to jointly individuate an oddball stimulus among a set of distractors. Each approach analyzed the same corpus but targeted different units of analysis at different levels of description: decision-making at the behavioral level, confidence sharing at the linguistic level, and acoustic energy at the physical level. We discuss the utility of explanatory pluralism for describing this complex, multiscale phenomenon, show ways in which this case study sheds new light on the concept of pluralism, and highlight good practices to critically assess and complement approaches.

The place of theory in assembling the central argument for a thesis or dissertation

While theory plays a variety of roles in forming the central argument of an academic work, it is often assigned a secondary status to that of research methods. The following paper focuses specifically on the benefits for psychology research students in engaging with the capacity of theory to enhance the coherence and originality of their academic works (such as theses or dissertations). Barriers to engagement with theory are identified and contributory factors discussed. General trends in academic environments are seen to play an important part in why many students view theory as difficult, unnecessary, and unconnected with the real world. The article then develops an account for understanding the dynamic and multilayered ways in which theory contributes to research enquiries. A framework involving six different layers of theory is described along with a model for understanding how these layers interact and the order in which they might be best addressed. The paper also considers some of the complications between these layers and possible changes to learning environments in psychology that could promote stronger involvement with theory.

Reconceptualizing subjectivity in critical social psychology: Turning to Foucault

This article focuses on a reading of Foucault which draws on “technologies of the self,” as opposed to “technologies of subjectivity,” and examines the relevance of this work for critical psychology. The article draws on consumerism to highlight the ways in which contemporary individuals understand, and are understood, through a desire to “know oneself.” Attention then turns to Foucault’s understanding of the precept “care for the self” to explore the ways in which this enables a reconceptualization of contemporary consumers as both positioned and capable of agency. The article argues that psychology could usefully benefit from an understanding of subjectivity that acknowledges existing power knowledge structures, whilst also looking for moments of resistance via individual techniques such as critical self-reflection, reciprocal relationships, and ultimately a “care of the self.” This article attempts to advance the interpretation of Foucault within critical psychology and suggest an alternative for theorizing subjectivity.

Theoretical Communities and Theory & Psychology: A Decade Review

As we have reached a full 20 years of publication I take the opportunity to review developments in the last decade and look forward to potentially new movements both within and on the boundaries of psychology. Here I discuss the most pressing issues that have found their way into Theory & Psychology as well as promoting the epistemological and theoretical diversity that continues to be represented in our pages. While noting the presence of institutional pressures on theory development both within and from without psychology, theory continues to thrive and we are its beneficiaries. Our authors in this special issue demonstrate a wide set of concerns that are both critical and reflect the broad theoretical communities which support the journal.