国外本土心理学研究进展

首先指出本土心理学产生的思想基础是后现代主义思潮和多元文化的理念,其直接的推动力是来自于心理学内部对严格的行为主义的局限的批判和对具有文化契合性的心理学的倡导以及心理学应用方面的需要;其次,阐明了本土心理学与心理学本土化涵义上的区别和本土心理学4种主要研究模式;最后,对本土心理学的积极作用和存在的问题进行了评述。.     

心理学本土化与本土心理学述评

本文主要对心理学本土化兴起的原因,心理学本土化运动在中国的发展和关于心理学本土化和本土心理学的一些主要观点进行了综述。并对心理学本土化中存在的问题提出了看法。     

本土心理学评析

西方主流心理学的客观主义倾向和缺乏文化敏感性直接导致了本土心理学的产生。心理学的本土化过程包括论题的本土化、概念和理论的本土化、方法学的本土化以及学科制度的本土化四个方面。本土心理学存在一定的局限性,只有将文化的特殊性和跨文化的相似性都纳入本土心理学的研究议程中,它才能更好地发展。     

人格理论的走向:从"本土化"到"大众化"

立足科学“大众化”的理念,对于不同文化传统的人群来说,要求与人的“非物质属性”(精神)相关的所有学科走向“本土化”。使久浸在“西方化”气氛中的人格研究从追求“国际性”转向“本土化”,当是现代心理学走向“大众化”的第一步。     

本土心理学特征论析

本土心理学作为一种研究取向,具有五个基本特征：取向人文性;文化契合性;范式多样性;内含普适性;心理学研究独立化和自由化的表现。其中文化契合性是主导特征。     

中国本土心理学研究中需关注的几个问题

本土心理学尽管以深厚的本土文化资源作为其发展的后盾,充分体现了文化契合性特征,在获致本土文化资源的滋养下,彰显出极强的生命力,但是,不可否认的是。始生之物的本土心理学还缺失一定的发展规范,理念上还有较为混乱和易混淆的地方,这都成为本土心理学健康发展的障碍。深入地澄清和剖析本土心理学的某些概念和发展上的理念,已经成为促进本土心理学研究的当务之急。     

心理学全球化与本土化的冲突与消解

心理学全球化强调心理学在全球范围内的发展,目的是构建大一统的全球化心理学。心理学本土化遵循"一种心智,多种心态"的研究原则,是以社会历史文化为依托建立本土心理学的过程。在心理学全球化的发展进程中,学术帝国主义和文化霸权主义削弱了非西方心理学的话语权利,遏制了心理学本土化的发展,造成心理学全球化与本土化的冲突。为了消解这种冲突,应该基于文化的视角提出心理学全球化的研究原则以有利于其发展。     

从"非心理学"视角看术语连等式:心理=心灵=精神——兼议心理学"首席"术语的英汉互译

术语规范化是一门学科成熟的标志之一。作为现代心理学“首席”术语的心理,乃源自灵魂而非精神。从西方舶来后,却将它与精神和心灵混用,使心理学主干术语远离规范化的要求。从理论心理学“本土化”的研究取向出发,本着以“我”为主的学术立场,建议按术语单义性和大众习惯性的原则来英译心理学中三个主干术语—心理、心灵和精神。     

心理学本土化的后现代反思

心理学本土化目前在我国的发展面临很多困惑,究其原因,主要在于现代心理学的科学主义倾向明显,导致很多研究者在对心理学学科性质、研究方法、研究对象等根本问题上存在严重的认识偏颇。要解决心理学本土化过程中的困惑,需要重新对心理学的学科性质、研究方法、研究对象等基本问题进行反思。后现代主义心理学在一定程度上能够给予本土心理学研究者以思考,帮助其重拾学术自信,促进研究者在未来的心理学本土化研究中更好的开展相关的工作,进而产生更多的学术创新。     

工夫论:研究梁漱溟心理学思想的新视野

对梁漱溟心理学思想的研究中始终存在以下问题:西方心理学框架的束缚,思想与生活实践的分离,思想演变历程的忽视。要解决这些问题,需要新的研究视野。工夫论具有“知行合一”的特质,其中思想与行动融合无间,而且具备动态展现的条件; 梁漱溟有丰富工夫实践,且与他的心理学思想有不可分离的联系。这些使工夫论作为研究视野契合于梁漱溟的心理学思想成为可能,并使之有别于既有的心理学史和本土心理学研究。     

Emulation vs. indigenization in the reception of western psychology in Republican China: An analysis of the content of Chinese psychology journals (1922–1937)

The present study examines the practice of empirical psychology in China during the Republican period using a content analysis of its journals. By seeking answers to questions of what kinds of psychology from the West first attracted the Chinese; whether they found a way of developing a psychology more in tune to their own cultural assumptions of selfhood; and to what uses they felt the new discipline could be put, it shows the extent to which its journal content adopted a Western or an indigenous orientation. It thus contributes to the recent debate about indigenization of psychology globally and situates the origins of these issues in China much earlier than has been envisaged by contemporary Chinese indigenous psychologists. Throughout this period, indigenous concerns informed the research agenda, the dominant practice being psychometrics. But because of a lack of social support, they remained largely confined to the pages of psychology journals. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines

The status of efforts to indigenize psychology in the Philippines is reviewed. We address progress in four aspects of indigenization: theoretical/conceptual, methodological, topical, and institutional. Much, but not all, of this progress is the result of efforts associated with the indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) movement, which emphasizes (a) the development of a Filipino psychology that reflects the unique experiences and orientations of Filipinos, (b) Filipino identity and national consciousness, (c) explicit socio‐political considerations, (d) application of psychology to societal problems, (e) the study of less elite Filipinos, (f) interdisciplinary efforts, and (g) the use of indigenous languages in the development and dissemination of indigenous psychology. We note considerable progress, but also controversy, in the selection and interpretation of indigenous concepts and less progress in the formulation of indigenous theories. Existing theories are narrow in scope, only partially specified, and have uncertain heuristic value in generating verifiable predictions. Filipino psychologists have also adapted or further specified Western theoretical frameworks to make them more sensitive to Philippine contextual factors. Many indigenous measures have been developed, but more information is needed on their psychometric properties. Several indigenous research methods have been described and these methods typically emphasize the importance of the researcher‐participant relationship. There remain questions about the objectivity and cultural uniqueness of these methods, however, many of which involve (a) unstructured conversations and discussions in lieu of structured interviews, (b) varying degrees of participant observation, or (c) qualitative phenomenological methods. Extensive topical indigenization is evident in studies that focus on everyday Filipinos and Philippine societal concerns. Institutional indigenization is reflected in courses, theses and dissertations, journals, books, conferences, and professional organizations with an indigenous focus. Potential limitations or risks to the indigenous movement include insularity and the limited research culture. Implications of the Philippine case for indigenization efforts in other cultures are discussed.     

Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez

Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) refers to the psychology born out of the experience, thought and orientation of the Filipinos, based on the full use of Filipino culture and language. The approach is one of "indigenization from within" whereby the theoretical framework and methodology emerge from the experiences of the people from the indigenous culture. It is based on assessing historical and socio-cultural realities, understanding the local language, unraveling Filipino characteristics, and explaining them through the eyes of the native Filipino. Among the outcomes are: a body of knowledge including indigenous concepts, development of indigenous research methods and indigenous personality testing, new directions in teaching psychology, and an active participation in organisations among Filipino psychologists and social scientists, both in the Philippines and overseas.     

Indigenization and the history of psychology

This article argues for the development of a historical perspective to help understand the process of indigenization in psychology. The indigenization of psychology in both the United States and India is shown to be part of larger social, economic, and political processes. A center and periphery model of knowledge production and praxes is deployed to show how practices of scientific imperialism are used to maintain the hegemony of the center. It is argued that historical approaches may be useful to challenge and counter such practices. Finally, the authors call for a polycentric history of psychology that will correspond to the emerging polycentrism exemplified in indigenous psychologies.     

The psychology of practice and the practice of the three psychologies

The keynote speakers at the 2nd Asian Association for Social Psychology Meetings were asked to clarify the relationship among the three scholarly fields known as cultural psychology, indigenous psychology and cross‐cultural psychology. Are they three names for the same thing? If not are they complementary or antagonistic enterprises? Does one approach subsume the other(s) or make the other(s) possible? What follows is my own general view of the “three psychologies” issue. I suggest that cultural psychology and indigenous psychology are kindred approaches, which differ in significant ways from cross‐cultural psychology. A distinction is drawn between the study of “mentalities” (the proper unit of analysis for cultural and indigenous psychology) and the study of “mind” (a non‐cultural phenomenon). Cultural psychology is a type of interpretive analysis of social practice which asks, “what are the `goals, values and pictures of the world' with reference to which this behavior might be seen as rational?” The essay describes the assumption of rationality and the place of cultural critique in interpretive analysis. Is there any significant difference at all between cultural psychology and indigenous psychology? One aim of cultural psychology (“globalizing the local”) is premised on the view that “indigenous psychologies” may have relevance outside their points of origin. How open is the indigenous psychology movement to the idea that (e.g.) a psychology with a “Chinese soul” might illuminate the psychological functioning of members of non‐Chinese populations?     

心理学研究本土文化取向的理论与实践

经由本地化研究建立本土心理学的呼声,自20世纪80年代以来,在两岸三地即已时有所闻．惟对“本土”或“本地化”的概念并不明确。到90年代末期台湾部分心理学家提出三地论的概念^[3],认为港、台、大陆三地因长期隔离,社会形态各异,故而主张三地华人社会的心理学者应各自建立自己的本土心理学(台湾本土心理学、大陆本土心理学、香港本土心理学)。此种纯以地区为前提的心理学研究取向有待商榷．原因是如将心理学视为研究人性特质的科学。并将心理与行为视为人性特质的表徽。显而易见的是,影响心理与行为的文化因素大于地区因素。基于此义．本文提出采用心理学研究本土文化取向的建议．并试从心理学思想的演变中分析探讨此一建议的合理性。一得之愚尚请学界先进批评指教。     

Constantine,Babel, and Yankee Doodling: Whose Indigeneity? Whose Psychology?

This essay addresses the issue of indigeneity in terms of local cultures. The authors do so in conversation with Kim, Yang, and Hwang’s recent book, Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context. The life and work of Virgilio Enriquez is reviewed briefly as an exemplary indigenous psychologist. He illustrates the possibility of an indigenous psychology with a local, regulative grammar of cognition, affect, behavior, and relationships. The accounts of the tower of Babel and Constantine point to the irreversible damage of homogenizing culture and imposing it on other cultures. We argue that the imposition of a local, particular Western psychology on a global scale might risk a similar cost. The authors propose that current research in indigenous psychologies might take more seriously the notion that culture is not monolithic but should be understood from the point of view of the analysis of power relationships. Secondly, the authors argue that the role of language has not received sufficient attention in terms of shaping thought and increasing the incommensurability between cultures. Thirdly, it is argued that positivist epistemology has dominated the field and that more hermeneutic approaches must be considered. Fourth, the question must be asked regarding who controls indigenous research. Too often control has been exogenous rather than in the hands of local leaders. Finally, it is suggested that North Americans would do well to examine and recognize the indigeneity of their own psychology.     

Indigenization of Psychology: Empirical Assessment of Progress in Indian Research

The development of an indigenous psychology has generally been documented by examples of indigenous constructs and conceptual analyses of their emergence. In contrast, the present article proposes an empirical approach. Indigenization is conceived as a gradual process that may be operationalized, and measured by content analysis of journal articles as the discipline develops and changes. Measures are proposed to assess the extent to which the concepts, problems, hypotheses, methods, and tests: (a) emanate from, (b) adequately represent, and (c) reflect back upon, the cultural context in which behaviour is observed. Application of these to 355 empirical and 31 theoretical articles from Indian journals and 39 foreign empirical articles published by Indian psychologists, indicates some slight movement toward an indigenous discipline, and some interesting relationships that assist in understanding its development. Factors contributing to indigenization and the utility of the empirical approach are discussed.     

Presentism and Difference: On the Inclusion of Indigenous Psychologies in the History of Psychology

In response to “Jagged 85’s” interference and Adrian Brock’s essay the first part of this contribution refers to psychological knowledge and practices outside the European and North American canon of academic psychology that tend to be lumped together under the term “indigenous”. A distinction between “textual”, “subaltern” and “synergetic” forms of indigenous psychologies is suggested. The second part highlights the agency of Indian academic psychologists and their attempts to “indigenize” academic psychology. The conclusion advocates the institutionalization of unified social science studies programmes.