Dr. Wayne Podrouzek, Philosophical Foundation of Psychology
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/08/01
Dr. Wayne Podrouzek works as an Instructor for the Psychology Department of University of the Fraser Valley and instructor in the Psychology Department of Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Dr. Podrouzek earned his a Bachelor of Arts in Child Studies and a Bachelor of Science (Honours) from Mount Saint Vincent University, a Master of Arts from Simon Fraser University, and Ph.D. from Simon Fraser University under Dr. Bruce Whittlesea. Here is part 4 of an interview from a few years ago.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you consider the prevailing philosophical foundation of Psychology? If you differ, what is your personal philosophical framework?
Dr. Wayne Podrouzek:Wow – you know how to pick your questions.
First, I don’t think there is ONE philosophical foundation in psychology anymore. We are all linked by our methodologies – but even those are much more diverse than before. Not too many years ago, anything that remotely smelled like qualitative methodology was looked at askance by most experimental psychologists. Now, in our own department, we find there are several faculties using these methods, and the rest of us still associate with them, if begrudgingly… (Ok, joke).
Some years ago most of us would likely have identified as some variant of positivism, but now I suspect that, again, it’s much more diverse, and many might identify as cognitive relativists. I don’t even know how many of us would identify as ontological objectivists (philosophical realists) anymore. Actually, this is an interesting question, and I could see an honors project in some variant of this issue.
So, if we’re looking for the kinds of underpinning that really links us altogether I guess (hope) it would be some lip service to the general tenets of “science” and empiricism (although I have to wonder, when in our ethics – provided to us by the tri-council guidelines, developed by “scientists” – we are to ensure the “spiritual” safety of our subjects – whatever that is: I just want some variant of quasi-objective measure of “spiritual well-being”).
Perhaps there are more Cartesian Dualists out there than I would have thought. (Still the issue of measurement, though). There is no specific set of methods on which we all agree, no set of criteria to which we hold ourselves – but perhaps a Wittgensteinian language-game understanding of the word “science” is broadly descriptive, and perhaps good enough.
Jacobsen: To you, who are the most influential Psychologists? Why are they the most influential to you?
Podrouzek: I wish I were better to read in psychology so I could better answer this question. I have great admiration for Skinner. I think he got the short end of the stick in evaluation of his debate with Chomsky (who I think is likely one of the brightest puppies to walk, crawl, or slither on the earth today – although I have always disagreed with virtually all of his psychology – considered “state of the art” when I was going to university: psycholinguistics, the preeminence of syntax, the existence of a language acquisition device, etc.).
I think that Skinner’s contribution to psychology has been undervalued, and that much of his work may well reincarnate later in our history. I really liked the “tightness” of Skinner’s work: methodologically sounds, often insightful while being atheoretic, clever.
I think he was a bit of an idealist and I don’t think his idea of Walden 2 would ever fly, but an interesting idea. I got an appreciation of Skinner’s work when I studied under one of his grades, Ron van Houten.
I was also quite influenced by Vygotsky’s work “Thought and Language.” In particular, he has helped shape my understanding of the relationships between thought, language, semiotics, and pragmatics, in a developmental context.
Of course, there are many psychologists in my own areas that have influenced my thinking. My advisor, Bruce Whittlesea, is certainly one of these. You cannot work closely with someone for a few years without walking away influenced. There are also big names – Tulving, Jacoby, etc. I tend to think about human processing in “Transfer Appropriate Processing” terms (a la, Bransford, Franks, Morris, & Stein).
However, someone who is not so well known, Paul Kolers (Procedures of Mind, Mechanisms of Mind) has most influenced me in terms of thinking about theories of the types of processing that occur in mind. And Gibson’s notion of affordances always haunts my thought when I bend it to thought and action.
A number of philosophers; Carnap (logical positivism), Quine (ontological relativism and the underdetermination of theories), Popper (falsificationism), Nagel (philosophy of science, anti-reductionism re consciousness), Putnam (excellent discourses on reductionism and functionalism), and other philosophers of science (such as Russell) have probably had more influence on my thought about the nature of theories (in particular, cognitive theories) than psychologists.
It’s kind of the difference between methods and substantive areas. The method is paramount; the understanding of the substantive area follows from the understanding of the method.
So, the short answer is gee, I don’t know. It’s all pretty much a swirl.
Jacobsen: Finally, many Psychology students are interested to know, do you know anyone famous within Psychology?
Podrouzek: I’ve met several, and spoken with them, but I would not say that I “know” them. We would not even count as acquaintances, although quite a few are nice and say “hi” to me at conferences.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 