1 / 6

Paradigms, ‘for scientific purposes’, monitoring

Paradigms, ‘for scientific purposes’, monitoring. Harré, R. and Secord, P. F. (1972) The Explanation of Social Behaviour . Oxford: Blackwell . Ethogenics , role, rule, performance, performativity.

ellie
Télécharger la présentation

Paradigms, ‘for scientific purposes’, monitoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Paradigms, ‘for scientific purposes’, monitoring Harré, R. and Secord, P. F. (1972) The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.

  2. Ethogenics, role, rule, performance, performativity Marsh, P., Rosser, E. and Harré, R. (1974) The Rules of Disorder. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  3. Recognition (Hegel, Lacan, Rogers, Berne, Harré) Goffman, E. (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (original published 1959). Harmondsworth: Pelican.

  4. Representations, Innovation, Respect-Contempt Harré, R. (1983) Personal BeingA Theory Individual Psychology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  5. Accedie (dereliction, sloth), honour (beyond life) Harré, R. (1979) Social Being: a Theory for Social Psychology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  6. Critically assess the value of the construct 'personality' with reference to one specified theory of 'personality' in psychology 1. We know this is a difficult question, and we have deliberately asked a question for which a ready-made answer could not be copied or downloaded, giving you the task of thinking this through. 2. You need to draw on what you know from other areas of the degree to answer this, and we expect you to show initiative in answering the question demonstrating that broader understanding of debates in psychology. 3. You need to be clear what you mean by ‘construct’ as a presupposition or conceptual framework (and you may find it useful to think, for example, about ‘hypothetical constructs’ and ‘social constructionism’). 4. You need to step back and think critically about the advantages and disadvantages of the term ‘personality’ to describe what individuals have in common and how they differ from each other. 5. Choose ONE theory of personality in psychology (we put ‘personality’ in scare quotes because we are asking you to step back and think about that notion) to answer the question (which could be one we cover in the course). 6. You should define what you mean by a ‘theory’ (taking, for example, ‘humanistic’ or ‘social learning’ or ‘psychodynamic’ OR being more specific and referring to, for example, the theory of Rogers or Bandura or Freud). 7. Do NOT just describe the theory (you will fail) or just assess the theory (we have not asked you to do that), think about how the theory in relation to the question (with the theory you choose as an example to answer the question). 8. Remember that this is asking you to ‘critically assess’, and so you should weigh up advantages and disadvantages (of the value of the notion of ‘personality’) in the course of your answer. 9. Structure your answer so that you briefly say what you are going to do, set out the steps in the argument (referring to the theory you have chosen) and end with a conclusion, summing up what your answer to this question is. 10. You can write in first person but, as with all other pieces of work for the degree, you must make clear that you are basing your argument on your reading, and you should reference the reading you refer to at the end of the essay (in BPS format).

More Related