Toward a Meta-Psychological Methodology: Reflections on Maslow and the Role of Experiencing and Perspective in Scientific Methods

Abstract

In this brief article, I consider two concepts that Maslow advances in Toward a Humanistic Biology that relate to the role of scientific observation in psychological research and were forward-thinking at his writing. These are the importance of the humanistic concept of experiencing as a way of developing understanding, and the recognition of the impact of the perceptive capacities of observers. I consider these concepts in light of advances in critical and qualitative psychology, integrating concepts such as epistemic privilege and the use of experiencing as a method toward critical science—offering a contemporary foundation for a meta-psychological methodology.

In Toward a Humanistic Biology, Maslow (1969) was working to develop a meta-psychology for the study of human experience. Although he was writing at a time when qualitative research tended not to be seen as part of psychological science (Wertz, 2014), he took up the problem of how subjectivity could best be studied, questioning established views that scientific neutrality was the ideal. Like others before him (e.g., Dilthey, 1893/1989), he argued that distinctive observational processes will benefit the study of human life from the study of natural science, distinguishing “pioneering, scouting, originating . . . [from] applying, validating, checking, verifying” (p. 724). In exploring this problem, he put forth two ideas that I wish to explore and develop. Both appear seminal for advances in scientific methodology since his writing: the function of the humanistic concept of experiencing (e.g., Gendlin, 1996) and the idea that the perceptive capacities of the observer matters.

For Maslow, all observers of life are not created equal. Certain people are better observers than others—although he implied that perceptive ability can be enhanced through training and dedication. He advocated for studying the most developed among us in any area of interest (e.g., most wise, artistic, sensitive) to understand humans’ capacities and to foster a good society. Although I agree that individual differences in observers can be important, his idea that there are some humans whose aptitude is generally superior and whose ideas should trusted implicitly over others alarms me. I feel concern about who would be the judge of perspicacity, what would be judged as valuable to observe, and how diversity in perspectives and values would fare in this judgment.

Yet I recognize that Maslow was a Jewish man who was raised in a climate of antisemitism and was overtly protesting oppressive regimes, even in this article. Indeed, he advocated for the importance of reflexivity so researchers could better understand their own limits as well as the experiences of others. Given this understanding, I reinterpret his vision in the light of advances made in multicultural psychology and qualitative psychology since his day. In this brief reflection, I present a contemporary consideration of his concern around participants having unequal access to knowledge. I discuss (a) his recognition of the impact of the perspective of the observer in relation to feminist concept of epistemic privilege and (b) a reinterpretation of the humanistic process of experiencing as a method toward holistic and critical knowledge.

Knowledge Disparity and Standpoint Critical Perspectives

Maslow foreshadowed the need for researcher reflexivity, stating that “any social scientist who is at all sophisticated knows that he must examine his own prejudices and preconception before going in to work with any society or subcultural group” (p. 730). This statement predated the growing focus on researcher reflexivity and culture that is occurring across methodological perspectives. Levitt et al. (2022) found that expert methodologists from across epistemological and methodological perspectives agreed that the field should better foster researcher self-examination and cultural situation in methods education. While Maslow described this reflection as a path toward objectivity, he did not attend to the question of researcher positionality, which recognizes that scientists who live their lives in varied social conditions may both view different realities from one another and value different kinds of observation. Although this frame may have led to his view of intelligence as singular, the concept of epistemic privilege may advance his concern about variation in researchers’ observational and analytical capacities.

Epistemic Privilege

Feminist epistemologists have put forth the concept of strong objectivity (Harding, 2015) to contrast with the notions of scientific objectivity that were popular at Maslow’s time (and that continue to be presented naively in methods education in psychology; Eagly & Riger, 2014). The notion behind this concept is that, although all knowledge is grounded in the social positions of observers, some perspectives may have more value than others in the task of generating knowledge. Instead of viewing observation as located in a position of neutrality, marginalized groups are thought to contribute importantly to science because they have unique knowledge about the limitations of the systems that ostracize them (Code, 2006). Instead of characterizing these perspectives as biased or irrational, situated knowledge is given authority because it sheds light on experiences often hidden from view.

This concept of epistemic privilege has been further developed within a recent model of intersubjective recognition that considers its workings within researcher collaboration (Levitt et al., 2021). In this approach, research team members with lived experience with a topic of study (e.g., sexism, an illness, a problem) often are thought to have improved interpretive abilities as they may carry inarticulable experiences that deepen their understanding, such as (a) experiences of ambiguity, (b) embodied experiences, (c) the accumulation of experience, and (d) its social negotiation. At the same time, other knowledge disparities may exist within a research team, such as (a) long-standing contact with a topic or of the participants, (b) methodological or analytical expertise, or (c) greater knowledge about a field of study. In this approach, there is not one best observer but there are observers who bring varied types of experience and knowledge together in the research process. A precondition for collaborative or participatory research then is to engage in reflexivity to the point that team members can recognize and value the forms of expertise that exist among them (or seek others with needed expertise). While this model retains Maslow’s concern with the differential perspicacity of researchers, it advances it by adopting a contemporary critical perspective that recognizes the impact of positionality and is multidimensional in viewing types of expertise.

Experiencing as a Method of Critical Science

For Maslow, the study of human science began with speculation, experiencing, and abduction—that is, a process through which researchers infer a tentative theory (or hypothesis) to explain a phenomenon (Peirce, 1878). He cautioned the field about focusing on the humanistic concept of experiencing at the exclusion of other forms of scientific investigation but described it as having a foundational role. Experiencing (Gendlin, 1996) refers to the internal holistic, immediate, and often implicit bodily sense that occurs in response to events. Experiencing can be limited because of conditions of worth that have led clients to deny aspects of themselves and learn to ignore certain feelings or responses. By attending then concertedly to aspects of experience that seem unintegrated or discordant, clients can reconcile them with the whole of their experience.

Rennie (2007) viewed the process in which clients gain a more complete understanding of their experiencing as akin to the hermeneutic process through which qualitative researchers generate understanding. He argued that this skill is why Maslow and Rogers were both strong scientists and healers—they had developed a capacity to attend to nuances in both their clients’ experiencing and their own conceptual processes. Maslow referred to this investigative approach as the researcher having an attitude of love. I translate this into believing that skilled humanistic researchers are trained to utilize their refined empathic attunement in the research project to guide participants to attend to undifferentiated and unintegrated aspects of experience.

Just as humanistic therapists have been adopting critical social justice perspectives in which clients’ denial of their experiences is seen as sometimes reflecting oppressive dominant narratives that restrict clients’ self-exploration and knowledge (e.g., Comas-Díaz, 2012; Hoffman et al., 2020; Jenkins et al., 1991; Levitt et al., 2019; Levitt & Whelton, 2023), humanistic scholars may use their skill at facilitating experiencing to examine both interpersonal and cultural conditions of worth within the research endeavor. This focus within interviews can allow new insights, needs, and actions to come forth. In data collection, exploring interviewees’ experiencing in relation to a research topic can bring to light new evidence of which they were unaware prior to the interview. They may bring to light not only new aspects of holistic experience but also an articulation of the social pressures that had constricted their awareness previously and an exploration of how liberatory experiencing might unfold.

By selecting participants with the concept of epistemic privilege in mind, researchers can recruit participants to ensure that many aspects of a topic can be explored both intellectually and experientially, within the scope of their question. As Maslow suggested, while being guided by empirical data, scientists can use their attunement to their own experiencing as well to assist them in the process of developing understanding and hypotheses and in the shaping of interpretations (as in researcher reflexivity statements that are now common in qualitative research; Levitt et al., 2017). This process would not conclude investigation but it may alert them to new possibilities, conditions, or arrangements worthy of further exploration.

In short, I see Maslow’s wish to root science in experiencing and reflexivity as reflecting his concern that we actively seek develop knowledge that is based upon stronger and more sensitive observation of the phenomena we study. In this brief essay, I have suggested two extensions of his ideas that I see as in keeping with current advancements in research practice: reconceptualizing experiencing as a method to further both internal and critical knowledge and developing research methods that honor varied forms of epistemic privilege. They may aid us in modernizing and promoting Maslow’s mission of developing both own our and our interviewees’ perspicacity. The articulation of this approach may lead us toward a meta-psychological methodology that has increased fidelity to our phenomenon and utility for solving diverse problems.