Commentary: Idiographic Science: Its Polyphonic Arena and Need for Reflexivity

I want to chart out the way in which the role played by language in the idiographic perspective is closely connected to the broader theoretical and methodological dimensions concerning the very definition of what idiographic science is, and what we consider to be knowledge, and which language is appropriate for psychology in general. The idiographic perspective originates in a highly polyphonic scientific arena, constituted of many theoretical and methodological voices that are frequently silenced by a chorus of gloomy complaints about the recurrent crises facing psychology. Can psychology overcome this condition of “distress?” The way it is suggested in this Yearbook is one that involves reconceptualization of the methodological approach, a challenge to the basic “myths” of psychological science, and the adoption of a reflexive attitude. Reflexivity—viewed as the problematization of research methods and the very conditions in which scientific analysis is produced—can be compared to the researcher’s “internal dialogue,” albeit within the polyphony of the scientific arena. In the light of these considerations, the chapters of Venuleo; Mininni, Ligorio, and Traversa; and Branco in this volume share a common metatheoretical element linked specifically to the dimension of reflexivity and its connections with the issue of language in idiographic science.