Abstract

Psychologists increasingly support the development of a methodological pluralism for research applications. Methodological pluralism, particularly as conceptualized by William James, can provide important benefits, such as a shift away from the totalizing hegemony of the received view of science and the formulation of deeper, more clear accounts of psychological life. Before such a methodological pluralism can be viable, however, psychologists must secure a theoretically coherent set of methods and an indigenous epistemology. Failure to address these concerns not only decreases the likelihood that psychologists will formulate a coherent account of psychological life, but also increases the likelihood that psychology will suffer from increased fragmentation and perhaps dissolution as an autonomous discipline