The ACES Guide for Researchers in Psychology: Fostering Researchers’ Informed Decision-Making about Theory Selection and Theoretical Integration

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Review of General Psychology Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1177/10892680231182033
Martijn van Zomeren
{"title":"The ACES Guide for Researchers in Psychology: Fostering Researchers’ Informed Decision-Making about Theory Selection and Theoretical Integration","authors":"Martijn van Zomeren","doi":"10.1177/10892680231182033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychology is as diverse as it is divided: For many research questions asked, different and competing theories will often exist to answer them. Despite the value of diversity, this lack of theoretical common ground has resulted in major empirical fragmentation in psychological research (e.g., a “confetti factory” of empirical trivia), but also to a lack of attention within the research process itself to theory selection (i.e., which theory to use and why?) and theoretical integration (i.e., how can one “connect the dots”?). This article aims to offer practical guidance to researchers in psychology about how to make informed decisions on theory selection and theoretical integration. To this end, I outline the ACES ( Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing) guide, which offers a process-oriented guide toward such informed decision-making. Through its four-step structure and each step’s engaging and critical lead questions, researchers actively engage in a dialog in which they systematically question and explore which theories to select (and why), and whether a synthesis of different theories is possible and appropriate. As such, the ACES guide offers a practical, theory-focused tool for researchers in psychology.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231182033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychology is as diverse as it is divided: For many research questions asked, different and competing theories will often exist to answer them. Despite the value of diversity, this lack of theoretical common ground has resulted in major empirical fragmentation in psychological research (e.g., a “confetti factory” of empirical trivia), but also to a lack of attention within the research process itself to theory selection (i.e., which theory to use and why?) and theoretical integration (i.e., how can one “connect the dots”?). This article aims to offer practical guidance to researchers in psychology about how to make informed decisions on theory selection and theoretical integration. To this end, I outline the ACES ( Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing) guide, which offers a process-oriented guide toward such informed decision-making. Through its four-step structure and each step’s engaging and critical lead questions, researchers actively engage in a dialog in which they systematically question and explore which theories to select (and why), and whether a synthesis of different theories is possible and appropriate. As such, the ACES guide offers a practical, theory-focused tool for researchers in psychology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ace心理学研究人员指南:培养研究人员在理论选择和理论整合方面的知情决策
心理学是多种多样的:对于所提出的许多研究问题,通常会存在不同的、相互竞争的理论来回答它们。尽管多样性很有价值,但这种理论共同点的缺乏导致了心理学研究中的经验碎片化(例如,经验琐事的“五彩纸屑工厂”),也导致了研究过程本身缺乏对理论选择(即使用哪种理论以及为什么?)和理论整合(即如何“连接点”?)的关注。本文旨在为心理学研究者提供如何在理论选择和理论整合方面做出明智决策的实践指导。为此,我概述了ACES(分析、比较、评估和综合)指南,该指南为这种知情决策提供了一个面向过程的指南。通过其四步结构和每一步的引人入胜的关键引导问题,研究人员积极参与对话,系统地质疑和探索选择哪些理论(以及为什么选择),以及综合不同理论是否可能和合适。因此,ACES指南为心理学研究人员提供了一个实用的、以理论为中心的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of General Psychology
Review of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Review of General Psychology seeks to publish innovative theoretical, conceptual, or methodological articles that cross-cut the traditional subdisciplines of psychology. The journal contains articles that advance theory, evaluate and integrate research literatures, provide a new historical analysis, or discuss new methodological developments in psychology as a whole. Review of General Psychology is especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between subdisciplines in psychology as well as related fields or that focus on topics that transcend traditional subdisciplinary boundaries.
期刊最新文献
Relational Ontology in the Mapuche Thinking: Possibilities for Indigenous Well-Being Amidst Colonial Settings Education and Training: Professional The 4D Model of American Political Conservatism: Disgust, Disorder Aversion, Deontology, and (Social) Dominance The Kokoro in Japanese Spiritual Care Antiracist Psychology to Advance Equitable Public Policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1