FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
THE PERSONALITY RESEARCH METHOD
S.D. Maksymenko
Full member (academician) of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of
Ukraine, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor
Maksymenko S.D. THE PERSONALITY RESEARCH METHOD // ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНЫЕ И
ПРИКЛАДНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ В ПРАКТИКАХ ВЕДУЩИХ НАУЧНЫХ ШКОЛ. – 2014. – № 6;
URL: fund-issled-intern.esrae.ru/6-79
The article is devoted to the research of the fundamental problem of modern science –
personality psychology. The actual realization of a new methodological position (to understand a
personality as an existing and self-developing unit), application of the genetic-modelling method
of the research, the substantial analysis of the personality theories and empirical data allow to
open essentially new aspects of the consideration of the personality as an object of the scientific
study.
The questions, traditional for the personality psychology, of its structure and formation
are examined in the book in the context of the leading methodological paradigm; they open new
ideas and patterns.
Statement of the problem
The scientific research of the personality psychology as a real (and not just imagined)
subject of study, as a unique and complete system, represents a great problem. The matter is
that the modern science has no main thing - a method, which would be adequate to this
subject. The method is the central part of the whole problem of the personality psychology as
it is not just the instrument of acquiring scientific empirical facts. The method is also a way of
realization of scientific knowledge, a way of its existence and saving.
In the wide generalized meaning we consider a method as theoretically arranged means
and at the same time as the result of specific materializing of researcher’s ideas about the
subject of study. Dismaterializing occurs already after the researcher receives and realizes the
scientific information by means of this method.
The given conceptual understanding of the method allows to imagine a logically
consecutive plan of the research: the researcher’s ideas about the psychological personality
nature, which have arisen on the basis of everyday facts, acquired theoretical knowledge and
perception of own everyday experience, meeting the new facts and new experience generate a
problem. Its solving requires new scientific empirical facts, and the method appears on the one
3
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
hand as materializing of ideas, on the other hand - as the reflection of the problem, and what is
more - as the ideal technology adequate in its key parameters to that of the studied system - in
this case the personality.
Scientific facts (but not that of life) received during the use of such method are
theoretically summarized by the researcher, are compared to the previous conceptions and
research results of other authors; and after that the new conceptions and new problems
appear. This logic scheme, which precisely displays the concept of the method as such, is
almost not realized in the investigation of the personality. We have breaks and discrepancies in
each part of the scheme. So the personality integrity and uniqueness are recognized as its
intrinsic (attributive) features practically by all serious researchers. But this conception is
strangely materialized exactly in partial, a narrow-concrete technique of the investigation of
separate (and at the same time artificially isolated) elements, and the classical thesis that the
sum of separate parts is never equal to the integrity is not considered at all.
Generally accepted is such attributive feature of the person as activity, which, contrary
to reactivity, determines the personality possibility to exist, basing on his own purposes and
ideals, and not just to react to irritation. But why is this knowledge “materialized” exclusively in
stimulus-reactive methods and techniques, which tests, experiments, and different forms of
inquiries should be referred to? The same problem is observed in the research of the
development. And again initial conceptions of the complex process of self-development and
heterogeneity of its mechanisms are embodied in exclusively “sectional” methodical
procedures, which only establish the features of the given concrete moment and do not
anyhow reveal the mechanisms.
The absence of the method adequate to the initial conceptions and the object of the
investigation, generates scepticism and disappointment and forces the researcher to complete
the initial positions by himself, that is to search answers to the particular questions not in the
object of the research, but in books and own experience. Obviously it is very far from the
scientific cognition.
Very typical and vivid example is presented by Gordon Allport [206; 207] in his work on
the creation of the personality theory. Allport belongs to those few personologists who really
understood the key value of the problem of the method in theorization concerning the
personality nature and realized the existence of the impressing discrepancy between
theoretical conceptions and the way of collecting the empirical facts, and hence their real
value. He precisely and brightly believes the integrity and the uniqueness to be the important
personality features, and takes a necessary step to the development of the methods adequate
to these attributive features.
In Allport’s works we meet the distribution of all existing methods of the personality
investigation into two polar groups: nomothetic and ideographic. As the author proves, this
distribution is so important that two different theoretical approaches of the personality
studying receive the same names. Ideographic (morphogenetic) approach consists in the
attempt to investigate the personality as a unique integrity and provides the use of
corresponding methods and methodical procedures.
Actually, the nomothetic approach is a traditionally existing direction - when the
personality is artificially divided into the constituent parts and elements, and the generalization
is received only by the means of a set of numerous results, so that they become statistically
reliable. Allport understood everything right, but in his real empirical research he used the last
one – the nomothetic method and consequently his scientific texts are read as a drama piece:
we feel how it is difficult for him to be on the same way which he criticizes - to receive
generalization not from the empirical data, but owing to his thoughts.
4
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
G. Allport didn’t manage to create the method, which would have materialized his initial
conceptions, and that is the matter. However, it is the common problem for the personality
psychology. The majority of scientists find its solution in reductionism: as the personality is a
rather “big” object, some parts should be theoretically separated, but these parts should be
substantial, i.e. such the investigation of which will be adequate to study of the whole
personality [207].
This reference to the so-called constituent source of the personality was certainly a step
forward. But the strange thing appeared very soon - each investigator singled out a different
constituent source. If to speak about the home psychology, orientation (L. Bozhovich), attitude
(V. Myasishchev), communication (A. Bodalev), hierarchy of activities and motives
(A. Leontyev), selectivity (M. Dobrynin), purpose (D. Uznadze), and emotional orientation
(B. Dodonov) were consistent as such initial instance. We observe the same process in foreign
psychology. Z. Freud alone was perfectly consecutive. Certainly, his approach is also a
reduction, though it is still not analysed. But we are interested in the following here: Freud (and
so far he alone) managed to embody his conceptions in a method, to use this method, to
receive results and to construct the personality theory on their basis.
It's quite another matter, that Freud, actually, ignored the attributive features of the
personality: both integrity, and activity, and uniqueness. Therefore the destiny of his theory
does not differ from all others – the partial conception constructed on the analysis of arbitrarily
selected structure cannot give anything else but what it has generated. And if it claims to
universality, there will only be misunderstanding.
Can the modern personality psychology overcome the crisis of the research method? It
seems to us that there are all grounds for this.
L. Vygotsky’s “The Nonclassical Psychology” (the cultural and historical theory) contains
important initial methodologies, the further development and understanding of which closely
bring us to the creation of an adequate investigation method of the personality. From the point
of view of this theory, the culture is an ideal representation of real human abilities, and the
person’s mentality is a social and cultural and semiotics formation, which develops in situations
of communication. As F. Mikhaylov considers, this thesis for psychology turns out to be a real
definition of its own research object: “1) the formation in ontogenesis of the system-formative
initial ability of the purposeful attitude to life, the world of its objective conditions; 2) the
development of this ability in the number of its displays (in thinking, emotions, will, attention,
etc.); 3) their transformation into the integrity (unity) of the whole subjective world of the
individual” [193, p. 59]. Thus, it is a question of the initial (key) ability of the person, the ability
which develops under own laws and on this grounds unites all the mental phenomena into a
single and unique whole - the personality.
We see the essential moment in these considerations concerning the investigation way
– the integrity may be investigated adequately if the process of its appearance and formation,
instead of the certain result (postfaktum), is really studied. Thus, the initial scientific problem of
the psychological research here changes essentially – the problem is not the personality
integrity as the fact, but the process of its appearance. In other words, the psychology of the
personality should begin not with the ascertaining of the available mental structures and
search of means for their further analysis, but from the “problem of human subjectivity
formation, the problem of bases of the transformation process of objective human life
conditions into the internal world, which is subjectively emotionally experienced, mediates,
directs and motivates life activity” [193, p.76].
Thus there is another essential methodological aspect - the higher mental functions of
the person (that is of the personality, as we have defined it as the form of existence of human
mentality as a whole) in general are not given, but are set. They cannot be investigated without
5
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
setting for the individual the means of their construction. As a whole, it is a question of the
investigation of the development and the investigation in the development. P. Galperin noted:
“Only in the genesis the true structure of mental functions is revealed: when they are
completely formed, their structure cannot be distinguished; moreover they move “in the
depth” and are concealed by “the phenomenon” of absolutely different kind, nature and
structure” [75, p. 73].
The authors of the cultural and historical theory in a special research method –
experimental and genetic, realized the stated methodological theses. The sense of this method
is in that the materiality of activity and the corresponding intermental form is organized and
built by the experimenter, taking into account the known mechanisms and theoretical
conceptions. The investigator does not create any stimuli and does not fix the reaction - he
organizes the development of the certain mental process, he is nearby, not “opposite”, taking
into consideration what L. Vygotsky accentuated: there is not only the object for the
researcher, but also the researcher for the object. Such common movement, co-distributed
activity really enables to investigate how this or that higher mental function arises and
develops, and how it is arranged. It is important to state and emphasize: the position of the
investigator here is unique: he is not “in front of”, but “nearby”. With its structurally schematic
parameters this position has a bent for the position of a psychotherapist (especially in
psychoanalytic and humanistic directions). But there is an essential difference - the
experimental-genetic method is called upon to form and research, not to solve problems,
though the latter also occurs but uncontrollably, as if involuntarily.
The logic of this method provides not simple fixation of these or those empirical forms
of mentality display, but their active modelling and reproduction under the special conditions.
It also enables us to reveal their essence that is the laws of the appearance and formation of
certain psychological functions in ontogenesis. Therefore the specific realization of the
experimental and genetic method in the researches of age and pedagogical psychology
includes the forming experiment as a necessary component.
The theoretical level of studying of mental processes in the experimental and genetic
method, unlike other methods, is specially set to the researcher through the designing of the
substantial and operational sides of the objective activity. And the specific feature of such
designing is that the model created by the researcher with the purpose of cognition,
corresponds to the real internal structure of the mental process.
The generic mental process, or the way of thinking or memory, is recreated by a single
individual with those social and cultural standards, which have made this process the
achievement of the spiritual culture of the society. According to F. Engels the experimental and
genetic method, fixing the “objective dialectics of things” by its own organization, generates
the “subjective dialectics of ideas”, the complex dialectics of the mental world of the
individual, which develops under the laws of the reality reflection. These laws are expressed
not in the general abstract form, but as substantial-postoperative system of certain activity.
Only as such they become a basis of those communications and relations, which form the
developing mental process. Thus, the substantial and postoperative system of the
experimental and genetic method is the psychological centre of investigation.
It means, that the investigated mental process or function is at first designed in the
form of the certain activity model, and then actualized through the mediation of the special
ways of the subject activity organization. In the pedagogical psychology such universal way of
the subject activity organization is the problem, solving of which provides the functioning of
corresponding mental process. The criterion of psychological estimation of the done research
becomes a degree of conformity of the really carried out process of the problem solving with
its model.
6
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
The educational problem in the experimental and genetic research serves as an artificial
instrument of causing and development of mental processes, as their specific model. Certainly,
there is no full identity between the model as the objective and the mental as the subjective
produced on its basis; but there are relations of adequacy. During interiorization (adoption) the
external social samples at first become the means of the psychological organization of the
subject activity regulation, and then they pass onto the internal plan, getting forms of mental
processes. They do not remain constant and enrich themselves during the functioning, getting
necessary liability.
Thus the experimental and genetic method directly has the ways of construction of the
higher mental functions, which are adopted by the subject in the process of reorganization of
certain contents. At the same time the reorganization unites in itself the genetic and
structurally functional moments of the objective reality and in this way sets similar structures
(in the form of ways of the analysis) to the mental proper.
Interiorizing, the ways of reorganization act as psychological mechanisms of the
objective activity of the subject. Such understanding of mental processes as the individual
activity and behaviour regulators forces to interpret the mechanisms of mental development
as the necessary and logic consequence of the particular line of formation process specified by
the experimental-genetic method.
Realization of the experimental-genetic method in the age and pedagogical psychology
is carried out in the form of designing school programs that enables experimentally to bring
together the age and pedagogical psychology into one integral unit, to show the illegitimacy of
contrasting, the separation of education and development. It is a method of study of formation
process mechanisms of new cognitive activity kinds. Therefore the topical problem is: to pick
out the construction principles of this research method and to find out the optimum conditions
of its realization.
The theoretical understanding of the experimental training experience which has been
carried out in the course of the above mentioned approach, leads to the necessity of picking
out the system of principles of the experimental and genetic research construction, and also
revealing of the succession of the basic logical and operational structures realizing it.
The main principles are:
1) a principle of analysis by units (picking out the initial contradicting relation, which
generates a class of the phenomena as a whole);
2) a principle of historical method (a principle of genetic and experimental lines unity in
the research);
3) a principle of system (a principle of integral consideration of mental formations);
4) a principle of designing (a principle of active modelling, reproduction of the mentality
forms under special conditions).
Principle of analysis by units. The construction and the use of the experimental and
genetic method of the psychological investigation provide revealing causal (causal and
dynamic) relationship, which underlie complex mental processes. The instrument of solving
this problem is the analysis “by units”.
The analysis “by units" is aimed at picking out the initial relation (it always exists in the
form of certain contradiction in the reality) that generates a class of the phenomena as a
whole.
Separated psychological unit – “a cell” - holds properties of the whole. This kind of
analysis enables to single out a certain moment in each psychological whole; a moment, which
holds the basic properties of the whole. It is necessary to emphasize, that a unit holds
properties of the whole in a potentiality, as the capability of their appearance during their own
7
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
development. These properties are the variety of forms, specific features, in which a unit is
shown as the essence of variety.
That is the essence of the complete analysis. Its primary objective is not to decompose
the psychological whole into constituent parts or even pieces, but to pick out certain features
and moments in each psychological whole, which would hold a primacy of the whole; the use is
connected with a natural explanation of mental processes.
The analysis by units enables to find out and interpret real connections and relations
that form the particular phenomenon. Such analysis should explain the appearance and the
origin of the external features of mental process. It is possible at full dynamic expansion of all
moments of the mental process, which always requires a certain delay in processes transition
and is achieved better when their transition is complicated.
“The analysis by units” in the experimental and genetic method has united with the
genetic way of scientific investigation and as a result the given analysis has received the status
of a scientific basing of mental processes development. Such approach to the research has
resulted in that all the mental formations as something permanent started to be considered
processes.
The basic methodological requirement to the studying of the mental is the
transformation of the “thing in the process”. Within the limits of such research purpose, the
primary goal of consideration is naturally a genetic reproduction of all development moments
of the given process. The natural experimental-genetic investigation of mental processes has
caused the demand of introduction of the concepts of “the dynamic system” and “the moment
of development into psychology”.
The first concept – “the dynamic system” - characterizes the existence features of
mental processes as their quantitative and qualitative change. There is a complex interaction
between the parts of the psychological whole; it leads to the formation of new properties, new
types of interaction and interrelations. As a result of this, mental formations as dynamic
systems change quantitatively and qualitatively.
The concept “the development moment” is introduced to characterize a stage of
mental process development. The observation of connections between the development
stages enables to describe the genesis, the transition of the particular process. The analysis
establishing this interdependence between the stages is the dynamic analysis, i.e. such an
analysis, which is brought to the dynamic expansion of the main moments that form a historical
course of the given process.
Thus, the main result of the experimental and genetic research is a historical
explanation of what form of behaviour is it; it means to find the origin of the process, the
history of its development and what has led to the present moment.
Principle of historical method. This principle is implemented as a logic expansion of the
previous principle (the analysis by units). The matter is that a singled out unit as an inconsistent
initial relation, starting from the requirements of dialectical logic, is considered to be the
process, which has its historical beginning and end. The historical method demands
observation of all development moments and mechanisms of their connection and transition.
Using the principle of the historical method concerning mental formations, it is necessary to
consider its certain adequacy of the state of the person under study, but in no circumstances
its identity to the phylogenetic and ontogenetic development aspects.
The task of the research under these conditions is a genetic study of the structural
components of mental process, which is being expanded. To cover in the research the
development of some thing in all its phases and changes - from the moment of appearance up
to destruction - means to open its nature, to get to know its essence as its presence is traced
only in movement.
8
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
The requirement of the historical approach to designing and using of the experimental
and genetic method is a specific expression of social primacy in the mentality formation.
Contrary to the traditional analysis of the mentality is the historical approach, which is
the most strongly expressed in the idea of mediating the higher mental functions.
Understanding of the mentality as a historical product determined the necessity of the creation
of adequate - historical method of its study. The instrumental method became the one, which is
also defined as the historical and genetic one.
The instrumental method is not composed similarly to traditional psychological methods
such as observation or experiment: as a matter of fact, it represents a special approach to the
study of the mental, that arises from the very understanding of the nature and the essence of
the subject of study; first of all it is a methodological principle and a way of psychological study
of the child; this method can use any technique, that is an investigation technique: experiment,
observation, test, etc.
It is impossible to state, that L. Vygotsky was the first and the only psychologist to
suggest studying the mentality in its development. Nevertheless, before and after L. Vygotsky
the study of mentality development was carried out by the method of transverse sections - at
different age the development and behaviour level of the child, and the condition of single
mental functions are measured, and then by results of separate measurements, which give the
discrete points on the age axis, the general development picture is recreated.
On the one hand, the hypothesis of the mentality mediation by psychological
instruments allowed overcoming the lack of this method; on the basis of this hypothesis the
experimental and genetic method was elaborated. On the other hand, only such a method can
have an explanation ability, which allows modelling (as if duplicate) the development process,
recreating it, showing the genesis of a certain phenomenon. The appearance of this method
became possible as a result of mutual assimilation of two important for psychology theoretical
ideas - the development principle and the principle of the objectively experimental studying of
the mentality.
The principle of development becomes initial for the explanation of the process as a
whole, and the objectivity key to understanding of the real development process is the
experiment, which allows finding out the essence of the genetic process in the abstract form of
mechanism.
Between the true, real development and the investigated development (by the means
of reproduction) there is the same relation, as between the logical and the historical: the
logical is the historical, freed from its separate, partial form and accidents breaking the
structure, and consequently only it enables to study any development moment in its classical
form.
Thus, the only methodologically correct way of the mental development study is its
experimental-genetic studying, and the main task of the educational psychology is the task of
rapprochement of the morphological, experimental and genetic analysis.
The instrumental method, which is understood as a methodological principle has the
meaning far beyond the scope of any specific psychology field. On its essence it forms the basis
of so-called “general psychology” - middle, “mediated” part between philosophy and a
separate area of psychology. Owing to this function it is put at the heart of the educational
psychology research.
Principle of system. Primarily important value for the receiving objective data about the
impulsive forces and mechanisms of mental development is the choice of the system in which it
(development) is considered.
In the history of psychology there are many examples, when such a complex
phenomenon as the person’s mentality was decomposed into more simple components.
9
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
Properties, formation ways and modification of these components were studied and described;
obtained data were summed up and, thus, all necessary knowledge of the initial and complex
phenomenon of mentality was “acquired”. Such approach which realizes the principle of the
mechanism, was historically determined by fast development and impressing success of
classical mechanics and physics. The cognition methods developed in these disciplines enabled
to answer some questions, which could not be solved before.
Nevertheless, in the course of time new scientific facts were accumulated testifying that
at the study of complex mentality phenomena a similar research method is not effective
enough. From such a consideration it was not possible to find out the essence of mental
phenomena, to find out the dynamics of their development.
The new approach based on the so-called principle of system, was aimed at the display
of the basic appearance and development mechanisms of the mentality as a single whole.
K. Marx and F. Engels pioneered the use of this principle at the description of public processes.
Eventually the corresponding method of analysis, overcoming difficulties, received the
appropriate place in the science of human mental life. Then the cultural and historical theory of
the person mentality development became the result of using this method. And in its
development the specified principle was realized the most strictly and consistently.
The cultural and historical concept of mentality development not simply declared its
social genesis, although this fact alone already has the big theoretical value, but social
determination itself was subjected to the dialectical and logical analysis. Considering the social
as a process, it was necessary to pick out the internal and inconsistent moments, to trace their
ties and dependence.
The solution of such task is inseparably linked with the introduction of the principle of
the system. Contrary to the formal and logical concept of the system, the experimental and
genetic method (EGM) consolidates the developing system, genetic basis of which is “a cell” as
the initial inconsistent relation, which includes all components of the developed whole. At the
same time EGM by its substantial-postoperative side fixes all the necessary transitions in
dialectic expansion of the isolated initial relation. The transition from a less developed concept
to a more developed one is caused by the principle of the system.
The set system of the concept, which is developing, demands also the setting of
adequate system of object and converting actions the performance of which finally forms the
corresponding system of psychological new formations at the individual.
In real functioning of EGM the principle of the system is a specific mechanism of the
ascent from the abstract to the specific, connecting knowledge, which is developed, and object
and converting activity, which is generated by this knowledge. Being a socially objective basis
of the mental development of the subject, this activity is freed from historically developed
conditions and has only a logically well arranged form, which enables scientifically to prove and
organize the controlled process of the mental development.
The principle of the system embodies genetical modelling method in the educational
process and acts as a necessary logical step at the designing the contents of teaching material.
It anticipates the realization of the logically mental analysis of scientific knowledge and its
projecting into the system of educational contents. In EGM the principle of system is a
derivative from the principle of the analysis by the units and the principle of historical method,
and it characterizes the historical expansion of the analysis by units.
Principle of designing and modelling of forms of mentality. The principle of designing in
the theory of the experimental and genetic method reveals its qualitative difference from the
corresponding structural components of other psychological methods. The experimental and
genetic method is aimed at artificial creation of such mental processes, which are still not
present in the internal world of the individual.
10
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
This circumstance dictates the necessity of designing the experimental model of their
genesis and development, finding-out the mechanisms of this process. Similar experimental
models of these or those mental functions, these or those abilities (or processes) are created
with the cognitive purpose, but they are the prototype of really functioning processes.
Certainly, the designing of psychological models does not result from the intuition of the
researcher. It arises during complex logic processing of the cognition results, which make the
essence of human culture.
The experimental and genetic (genetical and modelling) method consists of the theory
within the limits of which it has arisen; designing (modelling); reformatory (forming)
experiment and diagnostics (fixing) both the intermediate and to a certain extent final
psychological new formations of the developing personality.
The correspondence of the experimental and genetic method to the study of mental
functions is directly determined by dialectic concepts of social genesis of individual’s
consciousness, of mental development as adoption of society cultural properties by the
subject. Therefore it is the most adequate research way of the problems of education and the
personality mental development.
The experimental and genetic method was not used and cannot be used for the
investigation of the personality proper. But those real empirical results, received owing to its
use, theoretical generalizations, carried out in the context of the theory of developing
education, allow considering it as a conceptual basis for the creation of the study method of
the personality.
By means of the experimental and genetic method mechanisms of appearance and
development of separate higher mental functions were investigated: the individual using
(creating) special means adopts universal abilities, which exist in the social environment in the
form of materialized displays of other individuals, and transforms them into own abilities (the
higher mental functions). The psychological mechanism of this phenomenon - the
interiorization - is determined. It is also determined, that later on in such a way the adopted
abilities, already as intrapsychic structures form “around themselves” the so-called
“interfunctional psychological systems”, and determine the further processes of “growing” of
the individual in culture, mediating them from inside (the phenomenon of double mediation).
These data allowed approaching closely the analysis of the person. But the particular
method cannot cover the personality as the integrity representing not the sum of separate
parts, but their special organization and active interosculation. The integrity, present at the
whole personality and each in particular, is specified each time according to the definite aspect,
remaining at the same time equal to itself. In this sense the experimental and genetic method
is “typically” nomothetic way of the investigation of the personality. Though it is also directed
to determining, how this unique spontaneous system creates its own integrity, the integrity
itself again remains “behind brackets” - the investigator can complete it in his own mind,
reasoning from concrete and partial results.
Distinction between the objects of studying and the real research purposes
predetermines different logic of expansion and technology of using the experimental and
genetic, and the genetical and modelling methods.
The experimental and genetic psychological investigation provides allocation of
substantial unit of the analysis in the space of scientific discipline as the phenomenon, resulting
from subjectivizing the higher mental functions of many people on the historical scale. Then
there is “a transfer” of the particular material in the form of a subject and its assignment in the
form of an educational task as the instrument of solution of a definite educational problem.
The result of such assignment is the appearance of a new mental structure of the highest level
(unit of consciousness).
11
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
The genetical and modelling method aims at the study of an integral personality in the
development. In this connection there was a necessity of search of absolutely different kind of
“units”, and it was ascertained that was the need as an inconsistent initial unity of the
biological and the social, predetermining the personality existence. The principles of the
method construction reflect the nature of the existence of the studied object. The technology
of the method (a principle of unity of genetic and experimental lines of the development)
provides executing the research under the most “natural” conditions of the personality
existence and creation of actual realization space of numerous opportunities of modelling
personality development and existence.
There is another moment. Assignment of cultural and historical experience in the form
of instruments and signs that begins at a certain (not initial!) ontogenetic stage occurs in the
own activity of the individual directed to meeting the existing needs. It is the ABC of the
cultural and historical theory. But here there are, at least, two cardinal questions. How does
this stage appear? What was there before its appearance and what has led to its appearance?
The second group of questions concerns actually the needs. In fact the individual never
emotionally experiences the need for the assignment of ability. What does the phrase that this
assignment is carried out during the realization of needs mean? And why is the individual (as
our experimental results show) at any of early ontogenetic stages appeared to be ready for
ineriorization? This is in the first place. And in the second place, where do human needs appear
from, what generates them?
The answer to these fundamental questions demands the creation of a new
methodology as the method of theoretical analysis of the personality.
The living being which begins in a parent bosom, is initially the “flesh of one’s flesh”, a
product of two human beings. The social (the whole immense experience of generations
assigned and concentrated in two loving beings - parents) is subjectivized and embodied in a
strange creation - a new biological being, but not only biological, namely - biosocial. The need
of two, biosocial one by the nature, their need in each other and need in own continuation –
the creation, generates this creation and proceeds in it, being realized in different needs, and
provides what is referred to as “growing into culture”. The need acts also as the carrier of the
eternal human experience (both as a biological and social being) and, at the same time, it is a
source of personal activity - the activator energy of which never goes out as it is embodied and
restored in a new life.
If we observe (investigate) a human child during the first period of its existence after a
physical birth, our sensible experience (or experiment) gives the information of separate parts,
their interrelation, and functioning. At the same time something main, very essential remains
outside our sensible experience, but we know about this. We know, that this is alive human
being in which the basis of existence is the influence of biosocial need, that this being is already
now an embodiment of all natural and cultural experience and in concrete - of its parents, that
it is ready to become the personality, and we can imagine, what it actually becomes (both
biologically, and socially). This knowledge is not less real than that received in the sensible plan;
it is simply of another kind. Long time ago I. Goethe named very successfully this knowledge
“an exact imagination” [80]: i.e. this is our free construction, but it is “not absolutely” free, as
at the same time it is exact for being based on reliable empirical data. This is a designing of a
complete object of study. But this “exact imagination” is not covered by the investigation
procedures existing in psychology. It is either “meant”, or is substituted for any partial
concepts-conjectures, which, in general, are not related to the object of study. It is a
phenomenon before which the psychology in all its trends and displays always stopped, and
declared, that not everything can be given in the experience.
12
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
We consider differently. If sensitive experience appears insufficient in the explanation of
the phenomenon of the personality, there is no sense either to stop, or to accustom the idea
to speculative cobwebs. It is necessary to overcome their lack by expansion and qualitative
change of experience. We shall emphasize: it is a question not only of the expansion (no matter
how many new methodologies and techniques we apply. If they are guided by existing
paradigms, they won’t help). That is qualitative change, i.e. absolutely different and new
experience, which would meet the main point of the studied phenomenon.
In this case the following unity is essential: the nature is humanized; the human is
naturalized. Certainly, this phrase gives nothing in cognition, but without it we can’t go further,
it is a reference point. In fact the humanized nature and naturalized human is a phenomenon
(not just ascertaining) and as that it has different forms of existence. One of them is a
biosphere as a unity, and another is a human being as a unity. This unity is caused and kept by
the need, biosocial unit in the essence.
Finding of qualitatively new experience requires a new research method adequate both
to the object, and initial positions. It can’t be an analytical method because the need as the
initial inconsistent unity of the biological and the social does not decompose into constituent
parts but creates, integrates the complete personality during its ontogenesis. So, it should be
the method, which would model the personality genesis. We shall name it genetical and
modelling, as this name corresponds to its essence to the maximum. (It is necessary to say,
that in the theory of the developing training the genetical and modelling method is referred to
as genetical and modelling experiment and is identified with the forming educational
experiment. It seems to us, that such identification is simply misunderstanding).
The person is a complex self-developing system, i.e. it models and realizes own genesis.
To investigate this process scientifically, that is to investigate the personality, we should create
such ways and forms of study, which would not interrupt or stop the development artificially,
but would cause it, coexist with it. Theoretically it is the coexistence on the principle of
coupling (G. Kostyuk): we should enable the personality (the object of investigation) to
function freely and develop under its own laws, but at the same time to give it such
opportunities (natural and social) which are subject to empirical fixing and verification.
As it was already told, the genetical and modelling method is not actually the analysis.
At the same time, as well as any scientific method it necessarily has an analytical component.
Not solely on the basis of the data of sensitive experience, and not solely on the basis of
empirical thinking, but as the result of integration of these two components with the third one
– “exact imagination” (or creativity), we should single out in the complete personality such
substantial units which would be independent and self-sufficient, which would have all integrity
and would provide in the whole the self-development and functioning of this integrity. The last
main and essential point: the “unit” of the self-developing and self-regulating system
essentially differs from the “units” determined in the experimental and genetic method.
Figuratively and at the same time absolutely precisely speaking it should be living. Observance
of this will also mean a retreat from reduction.
One should not also forget that the personality is a real “unit” of existence and human
mentality development. And here it is not decomposed further in its constituent parts. The
mentality of the person is personal, and this expression means that any research of any partial
process or phenomenon will be adequate only when the latter is considered a substantial
branching of the personality, and only then it becomes clear (we shall notice, that it is not
considered in psychology and it is just declaration).
How should the substantial “units” of the personality be determined in the analysis? We
shall again refer to the “exact imagination”: a special and unique biosocial force – the need,
provides genesis, existence, formation, and self-development of the personality. The need acts
13
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
as an inconsistent, mobile and power unity of the biological and the social essence, as
embodiment and opportunity of the further infinite embodiment of the human into the human,
as that modelling and realizing the personality movement, and is which an initial general unit the carrier of the personality nature of the person’s mentality. In its “expansion” the need
“meets” social and biological factors of the personal environment and sets the substantial
points - units of the personality thesaurus. These units are knots of the structure, and at the
same time – the lines of the development of the personality.
The existence (functioning, development) of separate lines of the personality
development (substantial “knots” of its structure) has a rather rigid double conditionalitydeterminacy.
The general course of the human need “meets” the factors of the environment
(biological, social). There are branching of the need – the necessities, which being realized,
form certain interfunctional systems, which specialize, remaining at the same time parts and
carriers of integrity (analogy to tissues and organs of a human body). So the differentiation of
the integrated unity of the personality appears.
Thus, the analytical component of the genetic-modelling method is directed to the
separation of substantial mobile units of genesis and self-modelling. And though it essentially
differs from the determining of units within the experimental and genetic limits, we leave the
name of the first principle of our method unchanged - the principle of the analysis by units.
According to our methodological paradigm, the application of the genetical and
modelling method eventually will allow “to return the person into psychology”, as the method
enables to analyse and at the same time to integrate that initial backbone basis of the
personality, that is the need as a unique unity of the biological and the social and their
activator. Development of the method is consequently the prior and most actual problem. At
the given stage we developed the main principles of its construction and application (the first
of them – “the analysis by units” - is stated here).
Other important principle of the genetical and modelling method of the personality
investigation reflects its primary nature. It is the principle of the unity of the biological and the
social elements. The status of the scientific method principle does not allow declaring only the
given unity as in this case it will cease to be a principle. It is necessary to realize precisely what
is exactly meant, what is understood as a unity?
In his time V. Stern, closely considering the problem of the interaction of the biological
and the social units in the personality, formulated the “principle of convergence”. Its main
point is that it is impossible to tell neither about any function of the personality, nor about any
its property, whether they appear from the outside or inside. It is necessary to understand,
what in them appears from the outside, and what from the inside as both take part - but
unequal - in its realization [314]. However, the question is much more difficult. We suppose that
it is reasonable to consider the complex inconsistent interaction of the biological and the social
elements in two levels - as factors influencing the personality and the factors forming the
personality and providing its existence and development “from within”. The first level of the
analysis represents the interaction “personality – environment”. It’s really possible to define in
it to a certain extent the biological (natural) and the social factors.
Though the latter ones actually are never merely and exclusively social, all of them
represent a product of the person (mankind), in which not only the social, but also biological
system of that complete biosocial being who created them is in some way realized. If to
consider the biological and the social as the internal, the personal, it is necessary to admit, that
in this case we never have each taken separately. We go back on the traditional consideration
of the biological element as the hereditary and the corporal: biological and social factors do not
exist separately “inside” the personality; each of them represents different existence of
14
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
another one. Any thought, image, idea, need is impossible outside the biological structures and
functions of the organism. The opposite is also true - each corporal structure, each biological
function of the person is a manifestation of the human nature, i.e. this is what both the
biological and the social embodiment initially have, and psychosomatic phenomena, being
intensively investigated by modern science, are the best confirmation of this.
The principle of unity of the biological and the social structures reveals the real intrinsic
nature of the sources of the personality activity. When the psychology states, that needs are
such sources; it is mistaken. In fact there are very simple and well-timed questions: where do
these needs appear from? Besides it is impossible to explain self-movement, self-development
of that complex open system such as the personality by the influence of the need. So there
appears the notion of spirit as the primary source of activity, but it in fact can’t be investigated
within the limits of modern science. Again the most interesting and important disappears from
psychology (by the way the term “soul” in Ancient Greece meant a source of activity).
We insist that such initial primary source of the activity of the personality actually exists,
and it is entirely subject to scientific investigation. And this is the need. V. Davydov notes: “The
need forms a deep basis of the necessity... The problem is how this need turns to the
corresponding necessity” [92, с.44]. It is noted further that no one in psychology has studied it
yet, and it’s true. V. Davydov considers the need in the context of the activity (not of the
personality) as its important component, and does not try to analyse at all its psychological
contents noting that it is a “very difficult future conversation...” [92, p. 44].
We base on that need is the personality initial power basis, biosocial by its nature. The
ontogenesis of the personality begins much earlier, than it is born physically. Its basis –
subjectivizing – is the realization of the needs of two people loving each other. There is a new
form of existence of the need; the latter simply can’t exist without the material carrier (at least,
modern science has no other way of existence of the biosocial need, except for its existence as
sociobiological power basis of the human personality).
Observance of the principle of unity of the biological and the social elements within the
genetic-modelling method means the study of the ontogenesis from its real beginning, the
research of the mechanisms of the appearance of the necessities from the need. As a whole, it
means consideration in any definite psychological investigation of the personality existence as
the initial biosocial unity capable of self-development.
The following important principle of construction of the genetic-modelling method is
the principle of creativity. Combining the need with numerous and various objects and
phenomena not simply generates the necessities; it predetermines the targeting and
development of own and unique instruments of aims achievement. It is, actually, creativity.
In this very sense we use the term “creativity”. So, it is the question of creative
uniqueness of the personality, which penetrates all its life. Already the beginning of a new
person is nothing else than the result of creative act of subjectivizing the need of two loving
beings. Person in itself is both the result and product of creativity. And the need, realized in it,
has huge creative potential, which is found out in uniqueness, heterogeneity, selfconsciousness, and self-sufficiency as a whole. Real mystery and mysterious uniqueness of
human consciousness consists in its ability for modelling and self-modelling. It leads, in
particular, to absolutely original correlation of the past, present and future in consciousness.
The consciousness self-models, assigning the ability, and models the further existence of the
person.
The creativity is a deep, primary and absolutely “natural” feature of the personality, - it
is the higher form of the activity. The activity, creating and leaving the trace, is embodied. On
the other hand, the creativity means the aspiration to express the internal world. When
A. Losev names the expression one of the attributive features of personality, he precisely
15
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
defines, that it is an expression, and in fact, at the same time it is also the act of creation of this
world.
To observe the principle of creativity in the personality analysis (and research) means
“to take” its existence as a whole, in its unique purposeful unity in which it merely exists. It
means really to consider a multiple meaning, unexpectedness and unpredictability of the
personality. On the other hand, it means to realize that not everything is simple and
predictable. Everything we try to receive in modern experiments is actually not even a definite
case, but a true artefact. And this is the main lack of the researches in the field of the
personality psychology. We consider the latter to be very significant, first of all methodically,
and consequently we formulate the following principle of reflective relativity, which fixes basic
impossibility to determine the exact measures and ultimately to fix higher unique and creative
manifestations of the personality.
In fact self-determination through own need gives the person essentially nonsaturable
and unlimited opportunity of the variety of literally all displays and properties. The presence of
reflection, as one of the most interesting and mysterious consequences combining the need
and human life, makes this life original without limits, opens for the person real infinity of
resources of self-change in each moment.
As a whole this phenomenon is well known: recollect even the assertive statement of
F. Dostoyevsky about the immense depth and unpredictability of the “real, sound personality”
of each person. At the same time, the tendency of positive science to pragmatical schematizing
leads to very simplified images concerning the personality. The principle of relativity warns
against sketchiness and shallow forecasts - our knowledge is limited and will always be such:
we surely know only about presence of reflexive - creative potential of the person and
boundlessness of its manifestations. As a result of this real limitation and lightness of attempts
of schematizing or personality modelling appears. As a result of this a real depth of sufferings
of the person manipulating or being manipulated opens.
At the same time, creativity and relativity principles open the real contents of the
phenomenon of subjectness: the need of ontogenesis is similar to branching. The part of it
exists and functions as in the early childhood, as it was in the beginning: without the person
knowing it his viability and life as a whole is supported. Other “branch” of the need aims
exclusively at meeting with the social world. These meetings generate the higher mental
functions, forming targeting, partiality of the internal world, and creativity. So the subject is
born.
The last principle of genetical and modelling investigation method of the personality
study is the unity of experimental and genetic lines of development. In our opinion, it is a very
essential moment of the characteristic not only of our method, but also of the general state of
affairs in the psychology of personality. Studying the development by the means of forming
experiment, we form and then study the formed. And how is it actually, without our
interference? Many scientists unfortunately didn’t notice the acuteness of this question. And in
vain: psychology became “forming”, the forming experiment is still a necessary attribute of
theses. But let’s remember, the science should study the object in its own logic, instead of the
researcher’s logic in the object. The question lacks attention, and how will it become more
acute, if “the person returns to psychology”? In fact the main thing will become that, what now
simply nobody pays attention to: if at a child it is artificially formed (and studied), let’s say,
mediated remembering by the way of “growing and assignment”, but the child at the same
time exists and develops as the integrity. We study the discrete moment - how it grows, how it
is assigned. And what happens at the same time to the child, to its other functions and
phenomena? There is a question at issue: how it happens at other children, at whom nothing is
formed specially?
16
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCHES IN PRACTICE OF LEADING SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS, 2014 (6)
This complete personality is brought to the forefront in the genetical and modelling
investigation. And we easily tend to the phenomenological direction when we realize, that it is
impossible “to simulate” anything here (see the principle of creativity), without breaking
filigree the thin process of self-modelling and self-development. So, is there only the description
left? No, we are sure that joining this “naturally” genetic line of development with the
experimental one is possible, but not by formation, assignment of abilities, but by creation in
the experiment of special conditions of expansion and “delay” of the formation of complete
units of the analysis. It can happen on the background of various (but fixed) opportunities for
self-modelling.
Let’s turn back again to L. Vygotsky, who confirmed (and absolutely fairly), that the new
conceptual approach demands new, adequate investigation way [68]. We consider, that the
genetic-modelling method (in our understanding) reflects those intrinsic ideas necessary to be
realized in the investigation of the personality as the integrity. The self-developing integrity,
owing to the biosocial basis – the need, is objectivized in the particular personality.
References:
All references are relevant to bibliography of monograph
Maksymenko S.D. Psychological nature of the personality / S.D. Maksymenko– Kyiv:
КММ, 2007, – 216 p.
17