According to Walter Mischel (2008), "Psychologists treat other peoples' theories like toothbrushes—no self-respecting person wants to use anyone else's". With the current work, which introduces the humanistic theory of welfare (HTW), I must plead guilty as charged. Given the abundance of existing theories and models in psychology and wellness studies, it's reasonable to question the need for new ones.
I believe we do. While theories are important in science, it's important to note that Michael's warning was not intended to discourage the development of new theories. He criticized the publication of early theories aimed at furthering careers over knowledge. Mischel cautioned against narrow "turf" ideas focused on "sub-fields within sub-disciplines." Mischel warned against creating a "Terminological Tower of Babel" that separates sub-fields and disciplines, causing unnatural joints. Theories should not be limited by artificial sub-field boundaries imposed by organizations or bureaucratic traditions. They should be as broad as necessary.
New theories must be publicly and critically discussed. Science advances by refining concepts, addressing errors, and improving understanding over time. During the development of the HTW, I extensively compared and critiqued previous ideas. I apologize if my analyses were very harsh.
To achieve this goal, I drew inspiration from Ernst Mayr's work. Mayr's long and productive career as a biologist taught him that "progress in the biological sciences is characterized by the gradual but decisive development of new concepts and the abandonment of those that were previously dominant." Major new notions are often developed by novel integration of established information, rather than separate discoveries.
Please check our service, if you need help to publish your article in Scopus, Copernicus or even Sinta journal.
Comments
Post a Comment