A ciência na obra de Kenneth Gergen

Abstract

Kenneth Gergen is an American psychologist who has occupied a prominent place among those who, suspecting the bases that have historically supported psychology as a science, started to search for alternatives to their scientific work. Despite its importance, there is a dearth of studies in the literature about its theoretical proposals and the development of its thinking throughout its work, especially in the Brazilian context. In this dissertation, we propose a conceptual historical study whose general objective is to analyze the science discourse in Gergen’s work. Specifically, we seek to understand the criticism of science constructed throughout the work, identifying the different proposals for psychological science developed by the author, as well as their transformations. We were guided by a qualitative perspective of producing knowledge, sustained by social constructionist epistemology. Methodologically, this research is based on the notion of internal criticism proposed by Gergen himself, which is organized from the evaluation and reflection of the descriptions and practices proposed in the work analyzed. The analysis considered the books written by Gergen, as well as his articles on the subject of science, and the works of some critics and commentators. The realization of the study made it possible to identify the centrality and importance of the proposal of social constructionism for the author, as well as some of the characteristics of its antecedents and also the later developments, highlighting a period in which Gergen posed critically against empirical-positivist epistemology, and a more recent path traced in his work toward the construction of a performative social science. The research also pointed to the fact that the works analyzed do not present great theoretical ruptures among themselves, suggesting the notion of a great science project that has been constructed and lapidated over time by the author, characteristically marked by a logic that accompanies the format: critical analysis, opposition and proposition. It is hoped that these research results may continue to foster debate in this field, inviting readers to conduct ongoing research on ways of doing and researching in Psychology.