Abstract:Can the contemporary academic discipline of psychology, strongly relying on experiment as ideal way of psychological research, learn from Wilhelm Wundt’s strictly limited methodical understanding of the psychological experiment? Addressing this question, I firstly draw on Wundt’s early proposal of his research programme of experimental self-observation and then proceed with his methodical argument against the Würzburg school’s application of introspection on complex psychological phenomena. Centrally, Wundt aimed at showing the unprofessionalism of the Würzburg school’s introspective approach. Holzkamp’s early analysis suggested that this strong focus on showing the “wrongness” of introspective methods will in the long-term block addressing the more important underlying question regarding psychology’s research object(s)—what can and should be accessed by introspection? Against the backdrop of cultural theoretical approaches, this seems confirmed for today’s academic landscape of psychology: These approaches namely point to the fact that is exactly the relation between the researcher, the research subject and the research object that is still undetermined in answering this question. Beyond Wundt’s methodical approach that strongly limited the experiment’s scope to the objectifiable “simple” mental phenomena—and with it reducing the introspective encounter of the researcher and the research subject to a minimum—today, experimental, quantitative approaches encompass a much broader field of application, frequently working with self-reporting questionnaires that do not address the topic of introspection at all anymore. I therefore point to the fact that Wundt's objection against the Würzburg’s school’s research practice is more topical than ever: The question of a person’s relatedness with the (cultural) world seems to also demand that researcher understand psychological data that were quantified by questionnaire also as dialogical and not per se as a purely objectified third-person perspective on complex psychological phenomena.

Paradoxes in psychology resonating in its empirical research of religion

"A dim recognition." Religion as a font of psychological innovation

Psychology’s Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration

Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

Induced Christian Neurosis: An Examination of Pragmatic Paradoxes and the Christian Faith

Where are we, and where should we go? An introduction to Davis et al., "Sixty years of studying the sacred: Auditing and advancing the psychology of religion and spirituality".

Developmental psychopathology as a meta-paradigm: From zero-sum science to epistemological pluralism in theory and research

Debating Experimental Psychology’s Frontiers: Re-discovering Wilhelm Wundt’s Contribution to Contemporary Psychological Research

Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus

Postmodernism and Neurotheology. Some Current Issues Around the Phenomenon of Religious Experience

Inching Toward a Unified Metatheory for Psychology

Potential for Collaboration: Differences Between Evolutionary Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology as Scientific Disciplines

A Plea for Scientific Ambitions: Reply to Commentaries from Martin Wieser, Nikolai Veresov, Asger Neumann, and Peter Krøjgaard

The Self as the Spiritual Subject. An Overview of Selected Concepts in View of the Positivist Paradigm

Experimental Psychology and Psychoanalysis: What We Can Learn from a Century of Misunderstanding

Implications of Debunking the “Critical Positivity Ratio” for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue

Humanistic psychology and religion: Steps toward reconciliation

Primal World Belief Research, For Skeptics

How paradoxical leaders guide their followers to embrace paradox: Cognitive and behavioral mechanisms of paradox mindset development

Self-reflexivity, Recessivity and the Evolution of Psychology

Bias in the evaluation of psychology studies: A comparison of parapsychology versus neuroscience