Skip to main content
Log in

Psychological Science in the Global World

  • Review
  • Published:
Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The formation of global science in the modern world implies both the emergence of new objects and subjects of research and a change in the international scientific community. In the opinion of the authors, the globalization of psychological science determines not only integration but also differentiation of trends in world science. These processes challenge the mainstream theoretical ideas of the second half of the 20th century about human nature and the methodological foundations of the respective theories. The formation of global psychology as a multipolar network is viewed not as a single theoretical trend but rather as a divergent development of new and reconsidered old psychological concepts in an attempt to assess the modern empirical realities generated by the era of globalization. The authors propose to define global psychology as a stage in the development of psychological science, generated by the new reality, the assessment of which requires new approaches. The discourse of global psychology is directed to the establishment of a discipline that would respond adequately to the challenges of our time and reflect the psychological features of contemporary humans. The authors argue, that Russian science should actively participate in the dialogue and integration at this new stage, preserving at the same time its authentic identity, because it is its originality that can be of interest and, consequently, in demand on the part of international psychology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interestingly, works of the Russian school substantiate the opposite position, the fundamental irreducibility of one language to another [20].

REFERENCES

  1. S. A. Lebedev, “Science in the global world,” Vek Globalizatsii, No. 2, 145–151 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  2. V. G. Enriquez, “Developing a Filipino Psychology,” in Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context, Ed. by U. Kim and J. W. Berry (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993), pp. 152–169.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Y. F. Ho, “Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives,” J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 29, 88–103 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. K.-S. Yang, “Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology,” Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 3, 241–263 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. U. Kim and J. W. Berry, Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Georgas and K. Mylonas, “Cultures are like all other cultures, like some other cultures, like no other culture,” in Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context, Ed. by U. Kim, K. S. Young, and K.-K. Hwang (Springer, New York, 2006), pp. 197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. Jahoda, “On the rise and decline of  ‘indigenous psychology,’” Culture Psychol. 22 (2), 169–181 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. W. Berry, “Achieving a global psychology,” Can. Psychol. 54 (1), 55–61 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. A. J. Marsella, All psychologies are indigenous psychologies: Reflections on psychology in a global era. www.apa.org/international/pi/2013/12/reflections.aspx.

  10. D. P. Todes, Darwin without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. G. Anan’ev, Man As an Object of Cognition (Izd. Leningrad. Gos. Univ., Leningrad, 1968) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. J. Gergen, “Culturally inclusive psychology from a constructionist standpoint,” J. Theor. Soc. Behav. 45 (1), 94–106 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Valsiner, “Integrating psychology within the globalizing world: A requiem to the post-modernist experiment with Wissenschaft,” Integrative Psychol. Behav. Sci. 43 (1), 1–21 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. J. Valsiner, Between Self and Societies: Creating Psychology in a New Key (TLU Press, Tallinn, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Rosa, “Acts of psyche,” Cambridge Handbook of Socio-Cultural Psychology, Ed. by J. Valsiner and A. Rosa (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007), pp. 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. K. Hwang, “The rise of indigenous psychologies: In response to Jahoda’s criticism,” Culture Psychol. 23 (4), 551–565 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. L. Sundararajan, “The Chinese notions of harmony, with special focus on implications for cross-cultural and global psychology,” Humanistic Psychol. 41, 25–34 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. K. K. Hwang, “Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms,” J. Theor. Soc. Behav. 45 (1), 39–62 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Lasser and C. Plotts, “Global migration: The need for culturally competent school psychologists,” School Psychol. Int. 36 (4), 358–374 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. V. F. Petrenko, “Multipolar culture of united humanity,” Vek Globalizatsii, Nos. 1–2, 126–132 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Toomela, “Modern mainstream psychology is the best? Noncumulative, historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical,” in Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years Gone Astray?, Ed. by A. Toomela and J. Valsiner (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2010), pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Valsiner, A Guided Science: History of Psychology in the Mirror of Its Making (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  23. K. Danziger, “Does the history of psychology have a future?,” Theor. Psychol. 4, 467–484 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M. B. Lykes and G. Moane, “Editors’ introduction: Whither feminist liberation psychology? Critical explorations of feminist and liberation psychologies for a globalizing world,” Fem. Psychol. 19 (3), 283–297 (2009). http://fap.sagepub.com.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. R. Unger, Resisting Gender: Twenty-Five Years of Feminist Psychology (Sage, London, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  26. V. M. Mays, J. Rubin, M. Sabourin, and L. Walker, “Moving toward a global psychology,” Am. Psychol. 51 (5), 485–487 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. I. A. Mironenko and P. S. Sorokin, “Culture in psychology: Perennial problems and contemporary methodological crisis,” Psychol. Russ.: State Art, No. 4, 35–45 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. Sorokin, “‘Global sociology’ in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems, and perspectives,” Curr. Sociol. 64 (1), 41–59 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. U. Beck and N. Sznaider, “Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda,” Brit. J. Sociol. 57 (1), 1–23 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. I. A. Mironenko, Russian Psychology in the Global Science Space (Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, 2015) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  31. A. V. Yurevich and I. P. Tsapenko, “Globalization of Russian science,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, No. 12, 1098–1106 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  32. V. A. Kol’tsova, T. A. Nestik, and V. A. Sosnin, “Psychological science in the struggle for peace: Research objectives and vectors,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 5, 5–15 (2006).

  33. L. G. Dikaya, “Urgent problems and prospects of labor psychology research in conditions of globalization,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 29–44 (2007).

  34. A. V. Yurevich, “Russian psychology in the global mainstream,” Vopr. Psikhol., No. 1, 3–14 (2010).

  35. T. V. Kornilova, “Internationality of psychology versus ‘national psychologies,’” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 91–99 (2015).

  36. A. L. Zhuravlev and T. A. Nestik, “Psychological features of collective creativity in network communities,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 19–28 (2016).

  37. A. L. Zhuravlev and A. N. Zankovskii, “Trends in the development of organizational psychology,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 77–88 (2017).

  38. A. A. Gostev, “Psychological aspects of global manipulation studies,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 4, 17–28 (2017).

  39. I. A. Mironenko, “From forecast to foresight of future Russian psychology,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 119–123 (2017).

  40. I. A. Mironenko, “Integrative and isolationist tendencies in contemporary Russian psychological science,” Psychol. Russ.: State Art 7 (2), 4–13 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. A. L. Zhuravlev and T. A. Nestik, “Psychological features of collective creativity in network communities,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 19–28 (2016).

  42. V. Korionov, “They cemented the fortress…,” Pravda, Aug. 12 (1993).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. L. Zhuravlev, I. A. Mironenko or A. V. Yurevich.

Additional information

Translated by B. Alekseev

RAS Academician Anatolii Laktionovich Zhuravlev is Director for Science of the RAS Institute of Psychology. Irina Anatol’evna Mironenko, Dr. Sci. (Psychol.), is a Professor at St. Petersburg State University. RAS Corresponding Member Andrei Vladislavovich Yurevich is a Deputy Director of the RAS Institute of Psychology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhuravlev, A.L., Mironenko, I.A. & Yurevich, A.V. Psychological Science in the Global World. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 88, 385–393 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618030164

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618030164

Keywords:

Navigation