Adler, A. (1964). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Ansbacher, H. L. & Ansbacher, R. R. (eds.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar

Angell, J. R. (1904). Psychology: An introductory study of the structure and function of human consciousness. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

Angell, J. R. (1907). The province of functional psychology. Psychological Review, 14, 61–91.Google Scholar

Angell, J. R. (1915). Chapters from modern psychology. New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (eds.). (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Oxford: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Araujo, S. F. (2016). Wundt and the philosophical foundations of psychology. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Araujo, S. F. (2017). Psychology between science and common sense: William James and the problems of psychological language in the Principles. New Ideas in Psychology,  46, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Baars, B. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Bacon, F. (1937). In Jones, R. F. (ed.), Novum Organum.New York: Odyssey Press, Inc., Originally published 1620.Google Scholar

Bacon, F. (1996). Sylva Sylvarum: Or a natural history in ten centuries. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Originally published posthumously 1627.Google Scholar

Baker, D. B., & Benjamin, L. T. Jr. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist–practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55(2), 241–247.Google Scholar

Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2016). Current perspectives on cognitive diversity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 509. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00509Google Scholar

Bentley, M. (1929). “Observer” and “subject.” American Journal of Psychology, 41, 682.Google Scholar

Bergner, R. M. (2017). What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37(2), 77–90.Google Scholar

Berlin, I., & Hardy, H. (1999). The Roots of Romanticism: The AW Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts 1965. Washington, DC: The National Gallery of Art.Google Scholar

Black, M. (1955, June). XII.–Metaphor, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 55, 1, pp. 273–294.Google Scholar

Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloor, D. (1984). The strengths of the strong programme. In Brown, J. R. (ed.), Scientific rationality: The sociological turn (pp. 75–94). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen sandpunkte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1957). Studies on hysteria. Strachey, J. (ed.). Oxford: Basic Books, Inc. Originally published 1895, Studien über Hysterie.Google Scholar

Bridgman, P. (1959). The way things are. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brightman, E. S. (1943). Personality as a metaphysical principle. In Brightman, E. S. (ed.), Personalism in theology (pp. 40–63). Boston: Boston University Press.Google Scholar

Brockmeier, J. (2009). Reaching for meaning: Human agency and the narrative imagination. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 213–233.Google Scholar

Bronowski, J. (1961). Science and human values. New York: Harper & Row. Originally published 1956.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1973. The conditions of creativity. In Bruner (ed.), J., Beyond the information given (pp. 208–217). New York: Norton & Co. Originally published 1962.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. In Bruner (ed.), J., Beyond the information given (pp. 218–238). New York: Norton & Co. Originally published 1957.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Buford, T. (2006). Persons in the tradition of Boston Personalism. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 20(3), 214–218.Google Scholar

Burrow, R. (1999). Personalism: A critical introduction. St. Louis: Chalice Press.Google Scholar

Byford, J., & Tileagă, C. (2014). Social psychology, history, and the study of the Holocaust: The perils of interdisciplinary “borrowing”. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,  20(4), 349.Google Scholar

Camp, E. (2009). Two varieties of literary imagination: Metaphor, fiction, and thought experiments. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 33(1), 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cartwright, N. (1997). Models: The blueprints for laws. Philosophy of Science, 64, S292–S303.Google Scholar

Chalmers, A. (1999). What is this thing called science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett. Originally published 1976.Google Scholar

Chalmers, A. (2013). What is this thing called science? 4th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett. Originally published 1976.Google Scholar

Ciarrochi, J., Morin, A. J. S., Sahdra, B. K., Litalien, D., & Parker, P. D. (2017). A longitudinal person-centered perspective on youth social support: Relations with psychological wellbeing. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1154–1169.Google Scholar

Cokely, E. T., & Feltz, A. (2014). Expert intuition. In Osbeck, L. & Held, B. (eds.), Rational intuition (pp. 213–238). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comte, A. (1957). A general view of positivism. J. H. Bridges, trans. New York: Speller. Original work published 1849.Google Scholar

Coplan, A., & Goldie, P. (eds.). (2011). Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum: special issue, Feminism in the Law: Theory, Practice, and Criticism, University of Chicago Law School, 139–168.Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Danziger, K. (2013). Historical psychology of persons: Categories and practice. In Martin, J. & Bickhard, M. (eds.), The psychology of personhood: Philosophical, historical, social-developmental, and narrative perspectives (pp. 51–80). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dashiell, J. F. (1929). Note on use of term “observer.” Psychological Review, 36, 550–551.Google Scholar

Daston, L. (1998). Fear and loathing of the imagination in science. Daedalus, 127(1), 73–95.Google Scholar

Daston, L. (2011). The empire of observation. In Daston, L. & Lunbeck, E. (eds.), Histories of scientific observation (pp. 81–114). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Date, G., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2017): Beyond efficiency: Engineering for sustainability requires solving for pattern. Engineering Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2017.1410160Google Scholar

De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Derry, S., & Schunn, C. (2014). Interdisciplinarity: A beautiful but dangerous beast. In Derry, S., Schunn, C., & Gernsbacher, M. (eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. xiii–xx). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Derry, S., Schunn, C., & Gernsbacher, M. (eds.). (2014). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York: Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (2008). Experience and nature. In Boydston, J. A. (ed.), The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 1. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1949). The knower and the known. The Later Works of John Dewey, 16. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar

Dilthey, W. (1977). Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytic psychology. In R. Zaner & K. Heiges (trans.), Descriptive psychology and historical understanding (pp. 21–120). Dordrecht: Springer. Originally published 1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donoghue, D. (2014). Metaphor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Elgin, C. Z. (2014). Fiction as thought experiment. Perspectives on Science, 22(2), 221–241.Google Scholar

Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30(10), 967–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 352–368). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M., & Goldberg, C. A. (2005). Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and collective emotions in contentious politics. Theory and Society, 34(5), 469–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2008). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. Scranton: Verso.Google Scholar

Fisher, H. (2017) Person, psychologist, and psychology suspended in a phase 1 science. Theory & Psychology, 27(4), 524–549.Google Scholar

Flanagan, O. J. (1981). Psychology, progress, and the problem of reflexivity: A study in the epistemological foundations of psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 375–386.Google Scholar

Fox Keller, E. (1995). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Frappier, M., Meynell, L., & Brown, J. R. (eds.). (2012). Thought experiments in philosophy, science, and the arts (Vol. 11). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Freeman, M. (2014). The priority of the other: Thinking and living beyond the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frigg, R., & Hunter, M. (eds.). (2010). Beyond mimesis and convention: Representation in art and science (Vol. 262). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Gendler, T. S. (2004). Thought experiments rethought – and reperceived. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1152–1163.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure‐mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar

Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309–320.Google Scholar

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275.Google Scholar

Gergen, K. J. (1990). Metaphor, metatheory, and the social world. In Leary, D. (ed.), Metaphor in the history of psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gergen, K. J. (2001). Preface. In Gergen, K. (ed.), Social construction in context (pp. ix–x). London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Gesn, P. R., & Ickes, W. (1999). The development of meaning contexts for empathic accuracy: Channel and sequence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 746–761.Google Scholar

Giere, R. N. (1999). >Using models to represent reality. In Magnani, L., Nersessian, N., & Thagard, P. (eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41–57). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Giere, R. N. (2010). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science: A phenomenologically based approach. Oxford: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Goertzen, J. R. (2008). On the possibility of unification: The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(6), 829–852.Google Scholar

Gooding, D. (1990). Experiment and the making of meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Gorman, S., & Gorman, J. (2017). Denying to the grave: Why we ignore the facts that will save us. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gould, S. (ed.). (2001). The value of science: Essential writings of Henri Poincaré. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar

Greenwood, J. D. (2015). A conceptual history of psychology: Exploring the tangled web. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grice, J., Barrett, P., Cota, L., Felix, C., Taylor, Z., Garner, S., & Vest, A. (2017). Four bad habits of modern psychologists. Behavioral Sciences, 7(3), 53.Google Scholar

Gruber, H. (1974). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar

Guba, E. G. (ed.). (1990a). The paradigm dialog. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar

Guba, E. G. (1990b). The alternative paradigm dialog. In Guba, E. G. (ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–30). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hadamard, J. (1945). The mathematician's mind: The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Haig, B. D. (2014). Investigating the psychological world: Scientific method in the behavioral sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies,  14(3), 575–599.Google Scholar

Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Harding, S. G. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Harré, R. (1992). What is real in psychology: A plea for persons. Theory & Psychology, 2(2), 153–158.Google Scholar

Harré, R. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In Valsiner, J. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 196–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harré, R., & Krausz, M. (1995). Varieties of relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hartley, D. (2013). Observations on man: His frame, his duty, and his expectations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published 1749.Google Scholar

Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven psychologies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Henriques, G. (2003). The tree of knowledge system and the theoretical unification of psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182.Google Scholar

Hesse, M. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar

Higgins, A. (1991).The just community approach to moral education: Evolution of the idea and recent findings. In Kurtines, W. M. & Gewirtz, J. L. (eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Vol.3 (pp. 111–141). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hockney, D. (1975). The bifurcation of scientific theories and indeterminacy of translation. Philosophy of Science, 42(4), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hoffman, R. (1980). Metaphor in science. In Honeck, R. P. & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), Cognitive psychology and figurative language. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hoffman, E., Myerberg, N. R., & Morawski, J. G. (2015). Acting otherwise: Resistance, agency, and subjectivities in Milgram’s studies of obedience. Theory & Psychology,  25(5), 670–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofstadter, D. (1995). A review of Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. AI Magazine, 16(3), 75.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. 2014. Seeing things: The philosophy of reliable observation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2017). Evolving enactivism: Basic minds meet content. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Isaacson, W. (2017). Leonardo Da Vinci. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

James, H. (1934). The art of the novel. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons. Originally published 1909.Google Scholar

James, H. (2000). The Bostonians. London: Penguin Books. Originally published 1886, Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar

James, H. (2009). The golden bowl. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally published 1904; author’s preface published 1909.Google Scholar

James, H. (2010). What Maisie knew. London: Penguin Classics. Originally published 1897.Google Scholar

James, H. (2016). A small boy and others. In Horne, P. (ed.), Henry James: Autobiographies (pp. 1–250). New York: Library of America.Google Scholar

James, W. (1878). Remarks on Spencer’s definition of mind as correspondence. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, XII (1), 1–18.Google Scholar

James, W. (1879). The sentiment of rationality. Mind, 4(15), 317–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, Vols. 1 & 2. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

James, W. (1892). Psychology, the briefer course. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

James, W. (1987). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902. In William, James, Writings 1902–1910, pp. 1–478. New York: Library of America. Originally published 1902.Google Scholar

James, W. (2003). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Vescio, B. (ed.). New York: Barnes & Noble. Originally published 1907.Google Scholar

James, W. (2007). The principles of psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Cosimo Classics. Originally published 1890.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness (No. 6). Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Josselson, R., & Hopkins, B. (2015). Narrative psychology and life stories. In Martin, J., Sugarman, J., & Slaney, K. (eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology (pp. 219–233). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Kant, I. (1960). Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime. J. Goldthwait (trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Originally published 1764.Google Scholar

Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (eds.). (2006). Scientific pluralism [electronic resource] (Vol. 19). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Volume 1: A theory of personality. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Kim, U. (1990). Indigenous psychology: Science and applications. In Brislin, R. W. (ed.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 14. Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 142–160). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Kind, A. (ed.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kirschner, S. R. (2006). Psychology and pluralism: Toward the psychological studies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1–2), 1–17.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (2013). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Koch, S. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science.” American Psychologist, 36(3), 257–269.Google Scholar

Koch, S. (1993). “Psychology” or “the psychological studies”? American Psychologist, 48(8), 902–904.Google Scholar

Köhler, W. (1938). The place of value in a world of facts. Oxford: Liveright.Google Scholar

Köhler, W. (1973). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published 1925.Google Scholar

Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). The eureka factor: Aha moments, creative insight, and the brain. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Kraus, M. (2017). Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy. American Psychologist, 72(7), 644–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kuhn, T. (1962). Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lacey, H. (1999a). Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lacey, H. (1999b). On cognitive and social values: A reply to my critics. Science & Education, 8(1), 89–103.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lamiell, J. T. (2009). Reviving person-centered inquiry in psychology: Why it’s erstwhile dormancy? In Valsiner, J., Molenaar, P. C. M., Lyra, M. C. D. P., & Chaudhary, N. (eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 31–44). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lauden, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Leary, D. E. (1990). Psyche’s muse: The role of metaphor in the history of psychology. In Leary, D. E. (ed.), Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 1–78). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leary, D. E. (1992). William, James and the art of human understanding. American Psychologist, 47(2), 152–160.Google Scholar

Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology,  4(1), 2–22.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1946). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. Reprinted in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected papers by Kurt Lewin (pp. 238–303). New York: Harper Torch Books, 1951.Google Scholar

Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past. In Guba, E. (ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 46–66). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1983). Beyond “bad science”: Skeptical reflections on the value-freedom of scientific inquiry. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 8(1), 7–17.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Value and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Hankinson, L. & Nelson, J. (eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. (2004). How values can be good for science. In Machamer, P. K. & Wolters, G. (eds.), Science, values, and objectivity (pp. 127–142).  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Mach, E. (1976). Knowledge and error: Sketches on the psychology of enquiry. T. J. McCormack & P. Filches, trans. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Original work published 1905.Google Scholar

Machamer, P., & Osbeck, L. (2004). The social in the epistemic. In Machamer, P. & Wolters, G. (eds.), Science, values, and objectivity (pp. 1–13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Machamer, P., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction. In Machamer, P. & Wolters, G. (eds.), Science, values, and objectivity (pp. 78–89). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Modeling systems-level dynamics: Understanding without mechanistic explanation in integrative systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 49, 1–11.Google Scholar

Magnani, L., Nersessian, N., & Thagard, P. (eds.). (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. (2004). Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Cambridge: Ballinger. Originally published 1976.Google Scholar

Malone, K., & Barbarino, G. (2009). Narrations of race in STEM settings: Identity formation and its discontents. Science Education, 93(3), 485–510.Google Scholar

Martin, J. (2017). Studying persons in context: Taking social psychological reality seriously. New Ideas in Psychology, 44: 28–33.Google Scholar

Martin, J., & Bickhard, M. (2013). Introducing persons and the psychology of personhood. In Martin, J. & Bickhard, M. (eds.), The psychology of personhood: Philosophical, historical, social-developmental, and narrative perspectives (pp. 1–17). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Martin, J., Sugarman, J., & Hickenbottom, S. (eds.). (2010). Persons: Understanding psychological selfhood and agency. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–89). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matravers, D. (2010). Why we should give up on the imagination. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 34(1), 190–199.Google Scholar

Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498.Google Scholar

McAdams, D. P. (2014). The life narrative at midlife. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2014 (145), 57–69.Google Scholar

McAllister, J. (2012). Thought experiment and the exercise of imagination in science. In Frappier, M., Meynell, L., & Brown, J. R. (eds.), Thought experiments in philosophy, science, and the arts (pp. 11–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

McDaniel, K. (2014). Edith Stein: On the problem of empathy. In Schliesser, E. (ed.), Ten neglected philosophical classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). Imitation as a mechanism of social cognition: Origins of empathy, theory of mind, and the representation of action. In Goswami, U. (ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 6–25). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1882). August Comte and positivism, 3rd ed. London: Trübner.Google Scholar

Miller, R. B. (2004). Facing human suffering: Psychology and psychotherapy as moral engagement. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Mills, J. A. (2010). Incorporating realist fiction into dialogical theories of the self. Theory & Psychology, 20(5), 621–640.Google Scholar

Mitchell, S. D. (2002). Integrative pluralism. Biology and Philosophy, 17(1), 55–70.Google Scholar

Mitroff, I. (1974). The subjective side of science: Philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo Moon Scientists. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Moghaddam, F.M. (2004). From “psychology in literature” to “psychology is literature.” Theory & Psychology, 14(4), 505–525.Google Scholar

Morawski, J. G. (1988). The rise of experimentation in American psychology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Morawski, J. G. (2005). Reflexivity and the psychologist. History of the Human Sciences, 18(4), 77–105.Google Scholar

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.Google Scholar

Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor analysis in psychology – Method, theory, and fields of application. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art 21.Google Scholar

Muelder, W. G. (1998). Foreword. In Burrow, R., Personalism: A critical introduction (pp. x–xiii). St. Louis: Chalice Press.Google Scholar

Nemetz, A. (1958). Metaphor: The Daedalus of discourse. Thought, 33(3), 417–442.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff/Kluwer.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. Cognitive Models of Science, 15, 3–44.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In Magnani, L., Nersessian, N., & Thagard, P. (eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In Carruthers, P., Stitch, S., & Siegal, M. (eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In Gorman, M. E., Tweney, R. D., Gooding, D. C., & Kincannon, A. P. (eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2012). Engineering concepts: The interplay between concept formation and modeling practices in bioengineering sciences. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 222–239.Google Scholar

Ortner, S. (1995). Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 37(1), 173–193.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M. (1993). Social constructionism and the pragmatic standard. Theory & Psychology, 3(3), 337–349.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M. (1995). Social constructionism and the pragmatic standard revisited: A reply to Botschner. Theory & Psychology, 5(1), 153–157.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M. (2005). Method and theoretical psychology. Theory & Psychology, 15(1), 5–26.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Held, B. S. (eds.). (2014). Rational intuition: Philosophical roots, scientific investigations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The Distribution of Representation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(2), 141–160.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2010). Forms of positioning in interdisciplinary science practice and their epistemic effects. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(2), 136–161.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2012). The acting person in scientific practice. In Proctor, R. & Capaldi, J. (eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit reasoning (pp. 89–111). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013). Beyond motivation and metaphor: “Scientific passions” and anthropomorphism. In EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science (pp. 455–466). Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Prolegomena to an empirical philosophy of science. In Wagenknecht, S., Nersessian, N. J., & Andersen, H. (eds.), Empirical philosophy of science: Introducing qualitative methods into philosophy of science (pp. 13–35). Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2017). Epistemic identities in interdisciplinary science. Perspectives on Science, 25(2), 226–260.Google Scholar

Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J., Malone, K. R., & Newstetter, W. C. (2011). Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pandit, G. L., & Dosch, H. G. (2013). The frontiers of theory development in physics: A methodological study in its dynamical complexity. Los Angeles: Trebol Press.Google Scholar

Park, K. (2011). Observation in the margins, 500–1500. In Daston, L. & Lunbeck, E. (eds.), Histories of scientific observation (pp. 15–44). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Parker, I. (2015). Critical discursive psychology, 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1868). Questions concerning certain faculties claimed for man. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2(2), 103–114.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in children. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Plotkin, H. C. (2002). The imagined world made real: Towards a natural science of culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Poincaré, H. (2001a). The value of science. In Gould, S. J. (ed.), The value of science: Essential writings of Henri Poincaré (pp. 181–337). New York: Modern Library. Originally published 1913.Google Scholar

Poincaré, H. (2001b). Science and method. In Gould, S. J. (ed.), The value of science: Essential writings of Henri Poincaré (pp. 357–558). New York: Modern Library. Originally published 1914.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1964). Science, faith, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published 1946.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published 1958.Google Scholar

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Pomata, G. (2011). Observation rising: Birth of an epistemic genre, 1500–1650. In Daston, L. & Lunbeck, E. (eds.), Histories of scientific observation (pp. 45–80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ponterotto, Joseph G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52( 2), 126–136.Google Scholar

Power, C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education: A study of three democratic high schools. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Pribram, K. H. (1990). From metaphors to models: The use of analogy in neuropsychology. In Leary, David E. (ed.), Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 79–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Price, D. D., & Barrell, J. J. (2012). Inner experience and neuroscience: Merging both perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Proctor, R. (1991). Value-free science? Purity and power in modern knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2006). Why science matters: Understanding the methods of psychological research. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rabinow, P., & Bennett, G. (2012). Designing human practices: An experiment with synthetic biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rabinow, P., & Stavrianakis, A. (2013). Demands of the day: On the logic of anthropological inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, D. N. (2014). Science, scientism, and explanation. In Williams, D. & Robinson, D. N., Scientism: The new orthodoxy (pp. 23–40). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Rogers, C. R. (1963). Toward a science of the person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 3(2), 72–92.Google Scholar

Ross, W. D. (1928). Complete works of Aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Sarbin, T. R. (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. Westport: Praeger/Greenwood.Google Scholar

Sarbin, T. R. (1993). The narrative as the root metaphor for contextualism. In Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., Reese, H. W., & Sarbin, T. R. (eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 51–65). Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. London: Pearson.Google Scholar

Schön, D. (1963). Displacement of concepts. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar

Scudder, H. E. (1886). The Bostonians, by Henry James. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/classrev/thebosto.htmGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. (1982). The concept of observation in science and philosophy. Philosophy of Science, 49(4), 485–525.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Smith, L. D. (1990). Metaphors of knowledge and behavior in the behaviorist tradition. In Leary, D. (ed.), Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 239–265). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smythe, W. E. (ed.). (1998). Toward a psychology of persons. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Staats, A. W. (1991). Unified positivism and unification psychology: Fad or new field? American Psychologist, 46(9), 899–912.Google Scholar

Staats, A. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3, 3–13.Google Scholar

Stafford, B. M. (2001). Visual analogy: Consciousness as the art of connecting. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stam, H. (1998). The dispersal of subjectivity and the problem of persons in psychology. In Smythe, W. (ed.), Toward a psychology of persons (pp. 221–244). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Stein, E. (1964). On the problem of empathy. W. Stein, trans. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business. Originally published 1917.Google Scholar

Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71.Google Scholar

Stuart, M. (2018). How thought experiments increase understanding. In Stuart, Michael T., Yiftach, J. H. Fehige, & Brown, James Robert (eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 526–544). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sundararajan, L. (2015). Indigenous psychology: Grounding science in culture, why and how? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(1), 64–81.Google Scholar

Teo, T. (2015). Critical psychology: A geography of intellectual engagement and resistance. American Psychologist, 70(3), 243–254.Google Scholar

Teo, T. (2017a). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 281–291.Google Scholar

Teo, T. (2017b, March). The epistemic, practical, and emancipatory interests of the psychological humanities in theoretical refection. In T. Teo (Chair), Reenvisioning theoretical psychology: Rebels with(out) a cause? Symposium (Presidential Forum) conducted at the Midwinter Meeting of the Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, Richmond, VA.Google Scholar

Teo, T. (2018).The role of values, power, and money in the psydisciplines. In Outline of theoretical psychology: Palgrave studies in the theory and history of psychology (pp. 179–199). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Thagard, P. (2014). Creative intuition: How EUREKA results from three neural mechanisms. In Osbeck, L. & Held, B. (eds.), Rational intuition: Philosophical roots, scientific investigations (pp. 287–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1969). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Tissaw, M. A., & Osbeck, L. M. (2007). On critical engagement with the mainstream: Introduction. Theory & Psychology, 17(2), 155–168.Google Scholar

Titchener, E. B. (1899). Structural and functional psychology. Philosophical Review, 8, 290–299.Google Scholar

Titchener, E. B. (1912). The schema of introspection. American Journal of Psychology, 23, 485–508.Google Scholar

Tjeltveit, A. (1999). Ethics and values in psychotherapy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.Google Scholar

Toon, A. (2012). Models as make-believe: Imagination, fiction and scientific representation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D. (1985). Faraday’s discovery of induction: A cognitive approach. In Gooding, D. (ed.), Faraday rediscovered (pp. 189–209). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2017). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press. Originally published 1991.Google Scholar

Vescio, B. (2003). Introduction. In James, W., Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking (pp. ix–xiiii) New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar

Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (eds.). (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. M. Cole, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wagenknecht, S., Nersessian, N. J., & Andersen, H. (eds.). (2015). Empirical philosophy of science: Introducing qualitative methods into philosophy of science. Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177.Google Scholar

Weber, M. (1946). In Gerth, H. H. & Wright Mills, C. (trans. and ed.), Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 129–156). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar

Weinfurt, K. (2003). Book review: Experience, grammar, and the stuff of persons. Theory & Psychology, 15(3), 407–409.Google Scholar

Wertheimer, M. (1981). Einstein: The thinking that led to the theory of relativity. In Tweney, R., Doherty, M., & Mynatt, C. (eds.), On scientific thinking (pp. 192–211). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Wertz, F. J. (2014). Qualitative inquiry in the history of psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 4–16.Google Scholar

Wertz, F. J. (2016). Outline of the relationship among transcendental phenomenology, phenomenological psychology, and the sciences of persons. Schutzian Research: A Yearbook in Lifeworldly Phenomenology and Qualitative Social Sciences, 8, 139–162.Google Scholar

Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Wheelwright, P. (1962). Metaphor and reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Whewell, W. (1844). The philosophy of the inductive sciences (2 vols., 2nd ed.). London: J. W. Parker.Google Scholar

Williams, R., & Robinson, D. (2015). Scientism: The new orthodoxy. Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. G. E. M. Anscombe, trans. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Woolhouse, C. (2017). Multimodal life history narrative. Narrative Inquiry, 27(1), 109–131.Google Scholar

Wundt, W. (1882). Die Aufgaben der experimentellen psychologie. Unsere Zeit, 18, 389–406.Google Scholar

Zachar, P. (2014). A metaphysics of psychopathology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar