I read this paper and is very interesting, but I think I see one big problem maybe.
The author is saying that psychology rely too much on natural-science methods, like experiments and variables, because these methods cannot capture the whole of human subjectivity, which is complex and entangled. So he propose we need more “armchair scholarship” and methods from humanities to better represent this subjectivity.
But here is my question for clarify: Isn’t the author’s own paper a kind of “armchair scholarship”? He is making a big argument about what psychology should do, but he is not really using any of the methods he criticizes to prove his own point. He is not doing a study or showing data. He is just thinking and writing.
So, if the natural-science methods are so bad for understanding subjectivity, and his own method (armchair thinking) is the better way, how can we be sure his conclusions are right? Maybe his own thinking is also limited by his own subjectivity, no? He says we need to include “the Other” but this paper is just his own voice.
This feels a bit like he is making a circle: He uses armchair thinking to argue for armchair thinking. Doesn’t this make the whole argument weak? If his method is the solution, why should we believe him without any evidence from the methods he says are flawed? It seems like the paper is maybe doing the thing it complains about; it is not really proving its point, just stating it.
Maybe I misunderstand, but this seems like a big problem that could compromise the whole study. What do you think?