The theoretical analysis of the crisis in psychology is one of the most important contributions of Vygotsky, which has yet remained undervalued by the majority of modern scholars. For Vygotsky, the crisis in psychology is not a simple expression of the existence of separate and competitive theories and approaches, but a result of fundamental theoretical and philosophical tensions in the domain of psychology and also the tension between existing psychological theories and rapidly growing practice. Vygotsky attempted, on the basis of a dialectical method, to elaborate a theoretical framework which can explain the meaning of the crisis in psychology and contribute to defining a strategy for its resolution. In this article I will also discuss the relevance of Vygotsky’s analysis for the consideration of some crucial theoretical issues in psychology (integration of psychological knowledge, relationship between academic psychology and professional practice, etc.).
BinswangerL. (1922). Einführung in die probleme der allgemeinen psychologie [Introduction to problems of general psychology]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
2.
BradleyB. (2008). The Vygotskian family in the supreme court of practice. Culture & Psychology, 14(1), 37–44. doi: 10.1177/1354067X07085810
3.
BrentanoF. (1973). Psychology from an empirical standpoint (RancurelloA. C.TerrellD. B.McAlisterL., Trans.). London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1874)
4.
BriskmanL. B. (1972). Is a Kuhnian analysis applicable to psychology?Science Studies, 2, 87–97.
5.
BühlerK. (1978). Die krise der psychologie [The crisis of psychology]. Frankfurt, Germany: Ullstein. (Original work published 1927)
6.
BuryD.StraussS. M. (2006). The scientist-practitioner in a counselling psychology setting. In LaneD.CorrieS. (Eds.), The modern scientist-practitioner (pp. 119–129). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BussA. J. (1978). The structure of psychological revolutions. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14, 67–64.
8.
DanzigerK. (1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15, 1–13.
9.
DrieschH. A. (1925). The crisis in psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
EinsteinA. (1922). Uber die gegenwärtige krise der theoretischen physik [About the current crisis of theoretical physics]. Kaizo (Tokio), 4, 1–8.
11.
ElmsA. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 967–976.
12.
FahlR.MarkardM. (1999). The project “Analysis of Psychological Practice” or: An attempt at connecting psychology critique and practice research. Outlines, 1, 73–98.
13.
GergenK. (1988). United we fall: A response to Krantz. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 219–222.
14.
GilgenA. R.GilgenC. K. (1996). Historical background, analytical overview and glossary. In KoltsovaV. A.OleinikY. N.GilgenA. R.GilgenC. K. (Eds.), Post-Soviet perspectives on Russian psychology (pp. 3–52). London, UK: Greenwood Press.
15.
GillenJ. (2000). Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(2), 183–198.
16.
GoertzenJ. (2008). On the possibility of unification: The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 829–852. doi: 10.1177/0959354308097260
17.
GreenB. (1999). Introduction: Understanding and researching professional practice. In GreenB. (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
18.
HenriquesG.SternbergR. (2004). Unified professional psychology: Implications for the combined-integrated model of doctoral training. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(10), 1051–1063.
19.
HusserlE. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1936)
20.
HymanL. (2012). Vygotsky’s crisis: Argument, context, relevance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 473–482. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.007
21.
IlyenkovE. V. (2009). The ideal in human activity. Pacifica, CA: Marxists Internet Archive.
22.
JamesW. (2001). Psychology: The briefer course. Toronto, Canada: General Publishing Company. (Original work published in 1892)
KemmisS. (2009). Understanding professional practice: A synoptic framework. In GreenB. (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 19–38). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
25.
KozulinA. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
LakatosI. (1970). History of science and its rational reconstructions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 91–136). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LaneD.CorrieS. (2006). Defining our identity as scientist-practitioners. In LaneD.CorrieS. (Eds.), The modern scientist-practitioner (pp. 90–102). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
LeontievA. A. (1990). L. S. Vygotsky. Moscow, Russia: Prosveshchenie.
30.
Luis Gonzalez ReyF. (2009). Historical relevance of Vygotsky’s work: Its significance for a new approach to the problem of subjectivity in psychology, Outlines, 1, 59–73.
31.
MartinJ.SugarmanJ. H.ThompsonJ. (2003). Psychology and the question of agency. New York: State University of New York.
32.
MarxK. (2009). Das Kapital. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. (Original work published 1867)
33.
MarxK.EngelsF. (2002). The Communist manifesto. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. (Original work published 1840)
NissenM. (2000). Practice research: Critical psychology in and through practices. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 2, 145–179.
36.
PackerM. (2006, April). Is there a Vygotskian psychology after Marx?Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
37.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1992). Postmodern epistemology of practice. In KvaleS. (Ed.), Psychology and postmodernism (pp. 146–165). London, UK: Sage.
38.
QuineW. V. (1980). Two dogmas of empiricism. In QuineW. V. (Ed.), From a logical point of view (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1951)
39.
RaelinJ. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 495–519.
40.
RatnerC. (1997). Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: Theoretical and empirical considerations. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
41.
SchatzkiT. R.Knorr-CetinaK.Von SavignyE. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London, UK: Routledge.
42.
ShankJ. B. (2008). Crisis: A useful category of post–social scientific historical analysis?The American Historical Review, 113(4), 1090–1099. doi: 10.1086/ahr.113.4.1029
43.
StaatsA. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Philosophy and method for a unified science. New York, NY: Praeger.
44.
StaatsA. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3(1), 3–13.
45.
StamH. J. (2004). Unifying psychology: Epistemological act or disciplinary maneuver?Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1259–1262. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20069
46.
StetsenkoA.ArievitchI. (2004). Vygotskian collaborative project of social transformation: History, politics, and practice in knowledge construction. International Journal of Critical Psychology, 12(4), 58–80.
47.
SturmT.MülbergerA. (2012). Crisis discussions in psychology: New historical and philosophical perspectives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 425–433. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.001
48.
TeoT. (2005). The critique of psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory. New York, NY: Springer.
49.
TeoT. (2008). From speculation to epistemological violence in psychology: A critical-hermeneutic reconstruction. Theory & Psychology, 18, 47–64. doi: 10.1177/0959354307086922
50.
TeoT. (2009). Philosophical concerns in critical psychology. In FoxD.PrilleltenskyI.AustinS. (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 36–54). London, UK: Sage.
51.
TolmanC. W.LemeryC. R. (1990). How to reconcile theoretical differences in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 8, 397–402.
52.
ToulminS.LearyD. E. (1985). The cult of empiricism in psychology, and beyond. In KochS.LearyD. E. (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 594–617). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
53.
ValsinerJ. (2006). Dangerous curves in knowledge construction within psychology: Fragmentation of methodology. Theory & Psychology, 16, 597–612. doi: 10.1177/0959354306067439
54.
Van der VeerR.ValsinerJ. (1993). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
55.
VasilevD. D. (1996). The crisis in psychology and its Russian dimensions. In OleinikY.GilgenA.GilgenC. (Eds.), Post-Soviet perspectives on Russian psychology (pp. 213–228). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
56.
VaziulinV. A. (1988). Logic of history: Questions of theory and methodology. Moscow, Russia: Moscow University.
57.
VeresovN. (1999). Undiscovered Vygotsky. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
58.
VygotskyL. S. (1976). Mind in society: The development of higher pyschological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59.
VygotskyL. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
VygotskyL. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In RieberR. W.CartonA. S. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
61.
VygotskyL. S. (1991). Pedagogical psychology. Moscow, Russia: Pedagogika. (Original work published 1926)
62.
VygotskyL. S. (1997a). The historical meaning of the crisis of psychology. In RieberR. W.WollockJ. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 233–344). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
63.
VygotskyL. S. (1997b). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In RieberR. W. (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4, pp. 1–252). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
64.
WarrenN. (1971). Is a scientific revolution taking place in psychology? Doubts and reservations. Science Studies, 4, 407–413.
65.
WillyR. (1899). Die krisis in der psychologie [The crisis in psychology]. Leipzig, Germany: Reisland.
66.
YancharS. C.SlifeB. D. (1997). Pursuing unity in a fragmented psychology: Problems and prospects. Review of General Psychology, 1, 235–255.
67.
YaroshevskyM. G. (1989). Lev Vygotsky. Moscow, Russia: Progress.
68.
YaroshevskyM. G.GurgenidzeG. S. (1997). Epilogue. In RieberR. W.WollockJ. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 345–370). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
69.
YurevichA. V. (2009). Cognitive frames in psychology: Demarcations and ruptures. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 43(2), 89–103. doi: 10.1007/s12124-008-9082-7
70.
ZittounT.GillespieA.CornishF. (2009). Fragmentation or differentiation: Questioning the crisis in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 104–115. doi: 10.1007/s12124-008-9083-6
