Critique and metacritique in psychology: Whence and Whither.

Abstract

Do mainstream psychologists think critically? And are the many critiques of the mainstream made by its (theoretical and philosophical psychology) critics “on target”? Answering both questions (critical and metacritical, respectively) requires consensus about what critical thinking consists in, and there seems to be little consensus in sight. I begin by accepting Slife, Yanchar, and Reber’s (2005) claim that “rigorous thinking” itself is insufficient for critical thinking in and about psychology, and I then consider various suggestions made by critics of the mainstream about thematic assumptions (or content categories) that should be included in critical thinking about the mainstream. After identifying three areas of mainstream research in which some of these assumptions seem to have been challenged from within the mainstream, I conclude by considering how both critique and metacritique may be combined, repositioned, and/or recontextualized, to advance the important cause of (meta) critical thinking in and about psychology.