This article contributes to psychology’s epistemic project by proposing a methodology that foregrounds the relation between research methods and subject matter. Considering method-driven and subject-driven approaches as being opposite poles of a continuum, the science of psychology has historically tended toward emphasising one or the other. Method-driven approaches claim legitimacy through an emphasis on a unifying standardised method, while subject-driven approaches insist on human-centred conceptions of psychology’s subject matter. Both poles are accompanied by one-sided methods-to-matter relations which limit the ways in which phenomena can be known in surprising and unforeseen ways. Phenomenon-driven research conceptualises the engagement with methods and matter as mutually intra-acting. Systematic research assembling points to the practical crafting of research activities through ongoing engagement with how phenomena can be known through intra-action. In our time of particularly unsettled, changing, and complex phenomena, psychology’s epistemic projects need methodologies that aim at ways of knowing that can bring out the unexpected.
AbbeyE.SurganS. (2012). Editors’ foreword: Tension of the “old” brings about new methods in psychology. In AbbeyE.SurganS. (Eds.), Emerging methods in psychology (pp. xi–xv). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
2.
BanisterP.BurmanE.ParkerI.TaylorM.TindallC. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology. Bristol, PA: Open University.
3.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4.
BreidensteinG.HirschauerS.KalthoffH.NieswandB. (2015). Ethnographie: Die Praxis der Feldforschung [Ethnography: The practice of field research]. Konstanz, Germany: UVK.
5.
BrownS.StennerP. (2009). Psychology without foundations: History, philosophy and psychosocial theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BurmanE. (1997). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 785–801. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00049
7.
Butler-BowdonT. (2007). Fifty psychology classics. Who we are, how we think, what we do: Insight and inspiration from 50 key books. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey.
8.
BuytendijkF. J. J.PlessnerH. (1936). Die physiologische Erklärung des Verhaltens. Eine Kritik an der Theorie Pawlows [The physiological explanation of behavior. A critique of Pavlov’s theory]. Acta Biotheoretica, 1(3), 151–172. doi: 10.1007/BF02147637
9.
CamicP. M.RhodesJ. E.YardleyL. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
11.
DanzigerK. (1990). Constructing the subject. Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DespretV. (2004). The body we care for: Figures of anthropo-zoo-genesis. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 111–134. doi: 10.1177/1357034X04042938
13.
DuckettP. (2011). Future directions for qualitative research. In BanisterP.BunnG.BurmanE.DanielsJ.DuckettP.GoodleyD.Whelan… P. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in psychology. A research guide (2nd ed., pp. 165–178). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
14.
EarpB. D.TrafimowD. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621
FleckL. (2005). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
17.
FlickU. (2007). Managing quality in qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
18.
GlaserB.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
19.
GoertzenJ. R. (2008). On the possibility of unification: The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 829–852. doi: 10.1177/0959354308097260
20.
GomartE.HennionA. (1999). A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 220–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03490.x
21.
HaigB. D. (2014). Investigating the psychological world: Scientific method in the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
HolzkampK. (1991). Experience of self and scientific objectivity. In TolmanC. W.MaiersW. (Eds.), Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 65–80). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HolzkampK. (2013). Missing the point: Variable psychology’s blindness to the problem’s inherent coherences. In SchraubeE.OsterkampU. (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (pp. 60–74). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
HowittD. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research methods in psychology: Putting theory into practice (4th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
25.
HunicheL. (2003a). Learning from the voiceless. New Genetics and Society, 22(3), 257–269. doi: 10.1080/1463677032000147216
26.
HunicheL. (2003b). Studying genetic risk in the conduct of everyday life. Outlines: Critical Social Studies, 5(1), 47–54.
27.
HunicheL. (2009). Existential concerns in families with Huntington’s disease. Towards an understanding of the person in social practice. Theory & Psychology, 19, 93–113. doi: 10.1177/0959354308101421
28.
HunicheL. (2011). Moral landscapes and everyday life in families with Huntington’s disease: Aligning ethnographic description and bioethics. Social Science and Medicine, 72(11), 1810–1816. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.039
29.
HunicheL.SørensenE. (2019). Psychology’s epistemic projects. Theory & Psychology, 29(4), 441–448.
30.
IngoldT. (2013). That’s enough about ethnography!HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383–395. doi: 10.14318/hau4.1.021
31.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
LaveJ. (2011). Apprenticeship in critical ethnographic practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LawJ. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, UK: Routledge.
34.
LivingstonE. (2008). Ethnography of reason. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
35.
MaxwellS. E.LauM. Y.HowardG. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498. doi: 10.1037/a0039400
36.
MruckK.MeyG. (2010). Einleitung [Introduction]. In MeyK.MruckG. (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie [Handbook of qualitative research in psychology] (pp. 11–32). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
37.
OkelyJ. (2012). Anthropological practice: Fieldwork and the ethnographic method. New York, NY: Berg.
38.
ParkerI. (1989). The crisis in modern social psychology – and how to end it. London, UK: Routledge.
39.
ParkerI. (2005). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
40.
ParkerI. (2015). Psychology after the crisis: Scientific paradigms and political debate. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
41.
PashlerH.WagenmakersE. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. doi: 10.1177/1745691612465253
42.
PorterT. M. (1994). Making things quantitative. Science in Context, 7(3), 389–407. doi:10.1017/S0269889700001757
43.
PorterT. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
PrzyborskiA.SluneckoT. (2010). Dokumentarische Methode [Documental method]. In MeyG.MruckK. (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie [Handbook of qualitative research in psychology] (pp. 627–642). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
45.
RabinowitzV. C.WeseenS. (1997). Elu(ci)d(at)ing epistemological impasses: Re-viewing the qualitative/quantitative debates in psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 605–630. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02451.x
46.
Santiago-DelefosseM.GavinA.BruchezC.RouxP.StephenS. L. (2016). Quality of qualitative research in the health siences: Analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Social Science & Medicine, 148, 142–151. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007
47.
SchwandtT. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 58–72. doi: 10.1177/107780049600200109
48.
SchwandtT. A. (2012). Valuing methodological diversity. Qualitative Social Work, 11(2), 125–129. doi: 10.1177/1473325011433928a
49.
SmithJ. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9–27. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.510659
50.
SmithJ. A.HarréR.LangenhoveL. V. (1995). Rethinking methods in psychology. London, UK: Routledge.
51.
SørensenE. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SørensenE. (2013). Human presence: Towards a posthumanist approach to experience. Subjectivity, 6(1), 112–129.
53.
SørensenE. (2017). The social order of facts vs. truths. EASST Review, 36(1), 12–13.
54.
SousaD. (2014). Validation in qualitative research: General aspects and specificities of the descriptive phenomenological method. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(2), 211–227. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2013.853855
55.
TafreshiD.SlaneyK. L.NeufeldS. D. (2016). Quantification in psychology: Critical analysis of an unreflective practice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(4), 233–249. doi: 10.1037/teo0000048
56.
ThompsonC. (2005). Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57.
TongA.SainsburyP.CraigJ. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
58.
ValsinerJ. (2012). Series editor’s foreword. Methods, methodology, and meaning: Psychology’s struggles in the game of “Being a science”. In AbbeyE.SurganS. (Eds.), Emerging methods in psychology (pp. vii–x). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
59.
ValsinerJ.RudolphL. (2012). Who shall survive? Psychology that replaces quantification with qualitative mathematics. In AbbeyE.SurganS. (Eds.), Emerging methods in psychology (pp. 121–140). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
60.
VerranH. (2001). Science and an African logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
61.
WattS. (2010). “But it’s got no tables or graphs in it…”: A legacy of scientific dominance in psychology. In Scott-JonesJ.WattS. (Eds.), Ethnography in social science practice (pp. 42–56). London, UK: Routledge.
62.
WertzF. J.CharmazK.McMullenL. M.JosselsonR.AndersonR.McSpaddenE. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
63.
WhiteheadA. N. (1920). The concept of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
WilligC. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
65.
WilligC.Stainton-RogersW. (2008). The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology. London, UK: Sage.
66.
WundtW. (1900–1920). Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythos und Sitte [Cultural psychology: An investigation into the developmental laws of language, myth, and conduct] (10 vols.). Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.
67.
YardleyL. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative research. In SmithJ. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 235–251). London, UK: Sage.
