Neutrality,Relevance and Accountability in Psychological Research and Practice in South Africa

Abstract

Some support is found for a suggestion that South African psychologists tend to avoid research problems with political implications; but this can be ascribed more to mundane reasons than to action in accordance with scientific principle. The neutrality concept is found to be too ambiguous for use in a scientific context. The various opinions that have recently been expressed concerning relevance are reviewed. The conclusion is drawn that it is meaningless to use relevance without stating to what it refers. It is not an absolute concept. To clarify its use, a distinction between communal, utilitarian and sapiential relevance is proposed. The latter is concerned with the definition of the basic constructs and paradigms of psychology as a scientific discipline. This has become a controversial subject as a result of the rise of numerous special psychologies, including cross-cultural psychology, which attempts to grapple with the case for a universal as distinct from a number of indigenous psychologies. A compromise solution is suggested. Accountability is dealt with as relative to the responsibilities and values perceived and held by individuals. It is not subject to an abstract, ideologically conceived morality. To the question of what constitutes scientifically valid knowledge in the context of the proposed model, a pragmatic answer in preference to a metatheoretical one is favoured.