Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T14:04:13.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

Saulo de Freitas Araujo  and
Lisa M. Osbeck
Saulo de Freitas Araujo
Affiliation:
Federal University of Juiz de Fora
Lisa M. Osbeck
Affiliation:
University of West Georgia
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Ever Not Quite
Pluralism(s) in William James and Contemporary Psychology
 , pp. 151 - 169
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adjei, S. B. (2019). Conceptualising personhood, agency, and morality for African psychology. Theory & Psychology, 29(4), 484–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319857473Google Scholar
Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2015). Reply to Joshua Anderson. The Pluralist, 10(3), 335–343.Google Scholar
Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2016). Pragmatism and pluralism revisited. Political Studies Review, 14(1), 17–26.Google Scholar
Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2018). Pragmatism and “existential” pluralism: A reply to Hackett. Contemporary Pragmatism, 15, 502–514.Google Scholar
Allen, B. (2013). The use of useless knowledge: Bergson against the pragmatists. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(1), 37–59.Google Scholar
Allen, G. W. (1967). William James: A biography. Viking Press.Google Scholar
Al-Roubaiy, N. S., Owen-Pugh, V., & Wheeler, S. (2017). Iraqi refugee men’s experiences of psychotherapy: Clinical implications and the proposal of a pluralistic model. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45(5), 463–472.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (APA) (2021a). Resolution adopted by the APA Council of Representatives on October 29, 2021. www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apologyGoogle Scholar
American Psychological Association (APA) (2021b). Timeline of APA policies & actions related to detainee welfare and professional ethics in the context of interrogation and national security. www.apa.org/news/press/statements/interrogationsGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. (2009). Old pragmatisms, new histories. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47(4), 489–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (2015). A critique of Talisse and Aikin’s “Why pragmatists cannot be pluralists.” The Pluralist, 10(1), 107–113.Google Scholar
Andrews, K. (2015). Pluralistic folk psychology and varieties of self-knowledge: An exploration. Philosophical Explorations, 18(2), 282–296.Google Scholar
Andrews, K., Spaulding, S., & Westra, E. (2021). Introduction to folk psychology: Pluralistic approaches. Synthese, 199(1), 1685–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, P., Cooper, M., Tempier, A., & Holliday, C. (2017). Helpful aspects of pluralistic therapy for depression. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 17(2), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apfel, L. J. (2011). The advent of pluralism: Diversity and conflict in the age of Sophocles. Oxford University Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Araujo, S. F. (2022). Truth, half-truth, and post-truth: Lessons from William James. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 35(2), 478–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araujo, S. F., & Osbeck, L. M. (2022). William James and the role of psychology in philosophy. In Pickren, W. (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of the history of modern psychology. http://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780190849832.001.0001Google Scholar
Araujo, S. F., Pereira, T. C. R., & Sturm, T. (Eds.). (2021). The force of an idea: New essays on Christian Wolff’s psychology. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balabanovic, J., & Hayton, P. (2020). Engaging patients with “medically unexplained symptoms” in psychological therapy: An integrative and transdiagnostic approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 93(2), 347–366.Google Scholar
Banks, E. C. (2013). William James’s direct realism: A reconstruction. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 30(3), 271–291.Google Scholar
Bella, M. (2019). Novelty and causality in William James’s pluralistic universe. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 11(2). http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1668Google Scholar
Bennett, J. O. (1982). Peirce and the logic of fallibilism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 18(4), 353–366.Google Scholar
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.Google Scholar
Bergson, H. (1944). Creative evolution. The Modern Library. (Original work published 1907.)Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (2013). The crooked timber of humanity. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. (1977). Introduction. In James, W. (Ed.), A pluralistic universe (pp. xi–xxix). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2012). Modern pluralism: Anglo-American debates since 1880. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, M. S., & Reber, J. S. (1998). The illusion of intimacy: A Levinasian critique of evolutionary psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 18(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091184Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. Verso.Google Scholar
Bjork, D. (1997). William James: The center of his vision. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Boex-Borel, J.-H. (1909). Le pluralisme. Essai sur la discontinuité et l’hétérogénéité des phénomènes. F. Alcan.Google Scholar
Boncompagni, A. (2021). Sense and common sense in William James. In Marchetti, S. (Ed.), The Jamesian mind (pp. 292–301). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordogna, F. (2007). Inner division and uncertain contours: William James and the politics of the modern self. The British Journal for the History of Science, 40(4), 505–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087407009880Google Scholar
Bordogna, F. (2008). William James at the boundaries: Philosophy, science, and the geography of knowledge. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1975). The text of Pragmatism: I. The documents. In James, W. (Ed.), Pragmatism (pp. 185–197). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1977). The text of A pluralistic universe: I. The history. In James, W. (Ed.), A pluralistic universe (pp. 213–227). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1979). The text of Some problems of philosophy: I. The history. In James, W. (Ed.), Some problems of philosophy (pp. 198–207). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1983). The text of Talks to teachers on psychology: I. The history. In James, W. (Ed.), Talks to teachers on psychology (pp. 234–266). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1985). The text of The varieties of religious experience: I. The history. In James, W. (Ed.), The varieties of religious experience (pp. 520–555). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, L. J., & Darlaston‐Jones, D. (2010). Moving beyond the enduring dominance of positivism in psychological research: Implications for psychology in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 45(1), 67–76.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (2014). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. Routledge. (Original work published 1874.)Google Scholar
Browning, D. S. (1980). Pluralism and personality: William James and some contemporary cultures of psychology. Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 1(54), 11–32.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Buller, D. J. (2006). Evolutionary psychology: A critique. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bush, S. S. (2015). Religion against domination: The politics of William James’s individualism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 83(3), 750–779.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Pearson.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2005). The murderer next Door: Why the mind is designed to kill. Penguin.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2009). The great struggles of life: Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calcaterra, R. M. (2011). Varieties of synechism: Peirce and James on mind–world continuity. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 25(4), 412–424.Google Scholar
Callaway, H. G. (2008). Introduction: The meaning of pluralism. In James, W, A pluralistic universe (pp. xi–l). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S., Zárate, M. A., & Garza, A. A. (2007). Cultural pluralism and prejudice reduction. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.2.83Google Scholar
Carreno, D. F., & Pérez-Escobar, J. A. (2019). Addiction in existential positive psychology: From a critique of the brain disease model towards a meaning-centered approach. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 32(3–4), 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2019.1604494Google Scholar
Carroll, B. E. (1995). Spiritualism in antebellum America. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, K., Cain, T., Sheridan, J., & Dupuis, A. (2011). Pluralisms in qualitative research: From multiple methods to integrated methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
Clack, S., & Ward, T. (2020). Modeling the symptoms of psychopathology: A pluralistic approach. New Ideas in Psychology, 59, 100799.Google Scholar
Claman, R. (2013). Is theological pluralism possible? Conservative Judaism, 64(4), 49–70.Google Scholar
Clarke, N. J., Willis, M. E., Barnes, J. S., Caddick, N., Cromby, J., McDermott, H., & Wiltshire, G. (2015). Analytical pluralism in qualitative research: A meta-study. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2), 182–201.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. L. K. (2004). Multicultural counselling competencies in a pluralistic society. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coliva, A., Lee, N. J., & Pedersen, N. (Eds.) (2017). Epistemic pluralism. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Combs, G. M. (2002). Meeting the leadership challenge of a diverse and pluralistic workplace: Implications of self-efficacy for diversity training. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
Cook, D. (1977). James’s “ether mysticism” and Hegel. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 15(3), 309–319.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. (1999). If you can’t be Jekyll be Hyde: An existential-phenomenological exploration on lived-plurality. In Rowan, J. & Cooper, M. (Eds.), The plural self: Multiplicity in everyday life (pp. 51–70). Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, M., & McLeod, J. (2007). A pluralistic framework for counselling and psychotherapy: Implications for research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7(3), 135–143.Google Scholar
Cooper, M., & McLeod, J. (2010). Pluralism: Towards a new paradigm for therapy. Therapy Today, 21(9), 10–14.Google Scholar
Cooper, M., & McLeod, J. (2011). Person-centered therapy: A pluralistic perspective. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 10(3), 210–223. https://doi.org/1080/14779757.2011.599517Google Scholar
Cox, R. S. (2003). Body and soul: A sympathetic history of American spiritualism. University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Coyle, A. (2010). Qualitative research and anomalous experience: A call for interpretative pluralism. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903304600Google Scholar
Croce, P. J. (1995). Science and religion in the era of William James. The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Croce, P. J. (2010). Reaching beyond Uncle William: A century of William James in theory and in life. History of Psychology, 13(4), 351–377.Google Scholar
Croce, P. J. (2018). Young William James thinking. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Curd, P. (2020). Presocratic philosophy. In Zalta, E. (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/presocratics/.Google Scholar
Dale, R., Dietrich, E., & Chemero, A. (2009). Explanatory pluralism in cognitive science. Cognitive science, 33(5), 739–742.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray.Google Scholar
Davis, J. (2009). Complementary research methods in humanistic and transpersonal psychology: A case for methodological pluralism. The Humanistic Psychologist, 37(1), 4–23.Google Scholar
Davis, P. (2005). William James and a new way of thinking about logic. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 43, 337–354.Google Scholar
de Jong, H. L. (2001). Introduction: A symposium on explanatory pluralism. Theory & Psychology, 11(6), 731–735.Google Scholar
Denson, N., & Ing, M. (2014). Latent class analysis in higher education: An illustrative example of pluralistic orientation. Research in Higher Education, 55(5), 508–526.Google Scholar
DeRobertis, E. M. (2016). On framing the future of humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 44(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000014Google Scholar
De Souza, L., & Schmader, T. (2021). The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000362Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1902). Pluralism. In Baldwin, J. M. (Ed.), Dictionary of philosophy and psychology (Vol. II, p. 306). Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dilthey, W. (1977). Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytic psychology. In Zanner, R. M. & Heiges, K. L. (Eds.), Descriptive psychology and historical understanding (pp. 21–120). Springer. (Original work published 1894.)Google Scholar
Dryden, W. (2012). Pluralism in counselling and psychotherapy: Personal reflections on an important development. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 14(1), 103–111.Google Scholar
Dunham, J. (2021). Bergson and William James. In Sinclair, M. & Wolf, Y.. (Eds.), The Bergsonian mind (pp. 295–304). Routledge.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (2008). Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 419–429.Google Scholar
Eisler, R. (1910). Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe (Vol. 3). Mittler und Sohn.Google Scholar
Embree, L. (1986). The project of a metaphysics of psychology in William James’s “Principles of Psychology.” In DeArmey, M. & Skousgaard, S. (Eds.), The philosophical psychology of William James (pp. 41–56). Center of Advanced Studies in Phenomenology & University Press of America.Google Scholar
Endicott, R. P. (2007). Reinforcing the three R’s: Reduction, reception, and replacement. In Schouten, M. & de Jong, H. L. (Eds.), The matter of the mind: Philosophical essays on psychology, neuroscience and reduction (pp. 146–171). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eronen, M. I. (2009). Reductionist challenges to explanatory pluralism: Comment on McCauley. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 637–646.Google Scholar
Evans, R. (1981). Introduction: The historical context. In James, W., The Principles of Psychology (pp. xli–lxviii). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fabry, R. E. (2017). Transcending the evidentiary boundary: Prediction error minimization, embodied interaction, and explanatory pluralism. Philosophical Psychology, 30(4), 395–414.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. (2007). William James: Politics in the pluriverse. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. Verso.Google Scholar
Fiebich, A. (2017). Pluralism, social cognition, and interaction in autism. Philosophical Psychology, 30(1–2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2016.1261394Google Scholar
Fierro, C. (2018). Pluralism and heterogeneity as criticism: Undergraduate history and systems of psychology courses in Argentinian psychology education (1983–2017). History of Psychology, 21(2), 126–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000085Google Scholar
Flathman, R. E. (2005). The bases, limits, and values of pluralism: An engagement with William James. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149(2), 159–198.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. (2015). Narrative as a mode of understanding. In De Fina, A. & Georgakopoulou, A (Eds.) The handbook of narrative analysis (pp. 19–37). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Frosch, J. P. (2007). E Uno Plurus: Psychoanalytic psychotherapy in the age of pluralism. Harvard review of psychiatry, 15(6), 270–277.Google Scholar
Frost, N. A. (2009). Do you know what I mean?’: the use of a pluralistic narrative analysis approach in the interpretation of an interview. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 9–29.Google Scholar
Frost, N. A., Holt, A., Shinebourne, P., Esin, C., Nolas, S. M., Mehdizadeh, L., & Brooks-Gordon, B. (2011). Collective findings, individual interpretations: An illustration of a pluralistic approach to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(1), 93–113.Google Scholar
Frost, N. A., & Nolas, S. M. (2011). Editorial: Exploring and expanding on pluralism in qualitative research in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(2), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2011.572728Google Scholar
Frost, N. A., Nolas, S. M., Brooks-Gordon, B., Esin, C., Holt, A., Mehdizadeh, L., & Shinebourne, P. (2010). Pluralism in qualitative research: The impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative research, 10(4), 441–460.Google Scholar
Gannon, L. (2002). A critique of evolutionary psychology. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 4(2), 173–218.Google Scholar
Gantt, E. E., & Melling, B. S. (2009). Science, psychology, and religion: An invitation to Jamesian pluralism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 149–164.Google Scholar
Gay, G. (1975). Organizing and designing culturally pluralistic curriculum. Educational Leadership, 33, 176–183.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The Social Constructionism movement in psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2014). Pursuing excellence in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 9–60.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2018). Qualitative psychology and the new pluralism. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergen, K. J., Josselson, R., & Freeman, M. (2015). The promises of qualitative inquiry. American Psychologist, 70(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038597Google Scholar
Gibson, A., Cooper, M., Rae, J., & Hayes, J. (2020). Clients’ experiences of shared decision making in an integrative psychotherapy for depression. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(2), 559–568.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science: A phenomenologically based approach. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Girel, M. (2003). The metaphysics and logic of psychology: Peirce’s reading of James’s “Principles.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 39(2), 163–203.Google Scholar
Goertzen, J. R. (2010). Dialectical pluralism: A theoretical conceptualization of pluralism in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 201–209.Google Scholar
Goertzen, J. R., & Smythe, W. E. (2010). Theorizing pluralism: An introduction [Editorial]. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 199–00. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.012Google Scholar
Goetzmann, W. H. (Ed.) (1973). The American Hegelians: An intellectual episode in the history of Western America. Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Goldman, L. (2020). William James, energy, and the pluralist ethic of receptivity. Theory & Event, 23(3), 706–733.Google Scholar
Goodman, R. B. (2012). William James’s pluralisms. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 260, 155–176.Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2008). The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106(3), 1339–1366.Google Scholar
Graham, D. W. (Ed.). (2010). The texts of early Greek philosophy: The complete fragments and selected testimonies of the major Presocratics (Part I). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, C. (2015). Why psychology isn’t unified, and probably never will be. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 207–214.Google Scholar
Green, C. (2019). Psychology and its cities: A new history of early American psychology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gülerce, A. (2010). Self-reflective transformational-transformative co-ordinations of the psychological. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 210–218.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, C. (2009). Plato’s ghost: Spiritualism in the American Renassaince. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gizycki, G. von (1888). Determinism versus indeterminism: An answer to William James. The Open Court, 1, 729–734; 758–762.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2010). The differences that make a difference. William James on the importance of individuals. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.929Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Beacon.Google Scholar
Hackett, J. E. (2017). Why James can be an existential pluralist: A response to Talisse and Aikin. Contemporary Pragmatism, 14, 506–527.Google Scholar
Hackett, J. E. (2020). Engaging in an accurate assessment of pluralism in William James. Contemporary Pragmatism, 17, 85–99.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In Galison, P. & Stump, D. (Eds.), The disunity of science (pp. 37–74). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haller, J. S. (2012). The history of new thought. Swedenborg Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harré, R., & Krausz, M. (1996). Varieties of relativism. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harrington, A. (2008). The cure within: A history of the mind-body medicine. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Harris, K. R. (2018). Educational psychology: A future retrospective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000267Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. (2015). Radical empiricism, critical realism, and American functionalism: James and Sellars. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1086/680373Google Scholar
Havenel, J. (2008). Peirce’s clarifications of continuity. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 44(1), 86–133.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S. (2011). William James, Gustav Fechner, and early psychophysics. Frontiers in Physiology, 2, 68. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2011.00068Google Scholar
Healy, P. (2012). Toward an integrative, pluralistic psychology: On the hermeneutico-dialogical conditions of the possibility for overcoming fragmentation. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(3), 271–280.Google Scholar
Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven psychologies. Century/Random House.Google Scholar
Hick, J. H. (1985). Problems of religious pluralism. Springer.Google Scholar
Hick, J. (2010). Religious pluralism. In Meister, C. & Copan, P. (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy of religion (pp. 238–247). Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffman, L., & Thelen, M. (2010). William James and the fight for science. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 50(4), 430–439.Google Scholar
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (Eds.) (2012). Varieties of narrative analysis. Sage.Google Scholar
Hookway, C. (2004). The principle of pragmatism: Peirce’s formulations and examples. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 28, 119–136.Google Scholar
Howard, G. S. (1985). The role of values in the science of psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3):255–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.255Google Scholar
Howard, G. S., & Christopherson, C. D. (2009). Pluralism: An antidote for fanaticism, the delusion of our age. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 139–147.Google Scholar
Huo, Y. J., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model of diversity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(3), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E. (2001). Logical investigations (Vol. 2). Routledge. (Original work published 1901.)Google Scholar
Inazu, J. D. (2016). Confident pluralism: Surviving and thriving through deep difference. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jaiswal, R. (2021). A Gandhian solution to the problem of religious intolerance. In Puri, B. & Kumar, A. (Eds.), Re-thinking religious pluralism (pp. 111–119). Springer.Google Scholar
Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.) (1993). The narrative study of lives. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kaag, J., & Jensen, K. (2017). The American reception of Hegel (1830–1930). In Moyar, D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Hegel. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199355228.013.32Google Scholar
Kallen, H. M. (1914). William James and Henri Bergson. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2009). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. In Zöller, G. & Louden, R. (Eds.), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (Anthropology, History, and Education, pp. 227–429). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1798.)Google Scholar
Katzko, M. (2002). The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 262–270.Google Scholar
Kellert, S., Longino, H., & Waters, C. K. (2006). The pluralist stance. In Kellert, S., Longino, H., & Waters, C. K. (Eds.). Scientific pluralism (pp. vii–xxix). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (2 vols). W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Kendler, H. H. (1999). The role of value in the world of psychology. American Psychologist, 54(10), 828–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.828Google Scholar
Kerber, W. (1989). Pluralismus. In Ritter, J. & Gründer, K. (Eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (Vol. 7, pp. 988–993). Schwabe & Co.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., & Schofield, M. (Eds.) (2013). The Presocratic philosophers: A critical history with a selection of texts (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirschner, S. R. (2006). Psychology and pluralism: Toward the psychological studies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1–2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091264Google Scholar
Kirschner, S. R. (2020). Challenges for a psychological humanities. In Sugarman, J. & Martin, J. (Eds.), A humanities approach to the psychology of personhood (pp. 101–118). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of science, 48(4), 507–531.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, M. J., & Elliott, R. (2006). Client accounts of personal change in process–experiential psychotherapy: A methodologically pluralistic approach. Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 91–105.Google Scholar
Koch, S. (1993). “Psychology” or “the psychological studies”? American Psychologist, 48(8), 902–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.8.902Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1938). The place of value in a world of facts. Liveright.Google Scholar
Krug, W. T. (1833). Allgemeines Handwörterbuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J. (2009). Evolutionary psychology and the evolution of psychology. American Psychological Association (2009, May), Evolutionary theory and psychology. Psychological Science Agenda. www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/05/sci-brief.html.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kumar, A. (2021). Religious pluralism and ethics. In Puri, B. & Kumar, A. (Eds.), Re-thinking religious pluralism (pp. 55–60). Springer.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. (2020). Relativism in the philosophy of science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laborde, C. (2000). Pluralist thought and the state in Britain and France, 1900–25. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lamberth, D. C. (1997). Interpreting the universe after a social analogy: Intimacy, panpsychism, and a finite god in a pluralistic universe. In Putnam, R. A. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to William James (pp. 237–259). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lamberth, D. C. (1999). William James and the metaphysics of experience. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lamberth, D. C. (2014). A Pluralistic Universe a century later: Rationality, pluralism, and religion. In Halliwell, M. & Rasmussen, J. D. S. (Eds.), William James and the transatlantic conversation (pp. 133–149). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laner, P. (1905). Plurismus oder Monismus: eine naturwissenschaftlich-philosophische Studie. Albert Kohler.Google Scholar
Leary, D. E. (2009). Visions and values: Ethical reflections in a Jamesian key. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 121–138.Google Scholar
Leary, D. (2018). The Routledge Guidebook to James’s Principles of Psychology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. (2005). Pluralism and normativity in interdisciplinary research. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 2(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Levinson, H. S. (1981). The religious investigations of William James. The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 357.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. W. B. (1991). The Jameses: A family narrative. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A. N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J. and Ostrom, E. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), pp. 1513–1516.Google Scholar
Logue, W. (1993). Charles Renouvier: Philosopher of liberty. Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., & Ruphy, S. (2021). Scientific pluralism. In Zalta, E. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/scientific-pluralism/.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009). Psychology’s best discovery heuristic. American Psychological Association (2009, May), Evolutionary theory and psychology. Psychological Science Agenda. www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/05/sci-brief.html.Google Scholar
Madelrieux, S. (Ed.) (2011). Bergson et James: Cent ans aprés. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Mahalik, J. R. (2014). Both/and, not either/or: A call for methodological pluralism in research on masculinity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 365–368.Google Scholar
Malachowski, A. (Ed.) (2013). The Cambridge companion to pragmatism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mander, W. J. (2011). British Idealism: A history. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marrati, P. (2012). James, Bergson, and an open universe. In Lefebvre, A. & White, M. (Eds.), Bergson, politics, and religion (pp. 299–312). Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2010). The psychology of personhood: Conditions for a viable, neo-meadian pluralism. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 219–226.Google Scholar
Mason, E. (2018). Value pluralism. In Zalta, E. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/value-pluralism/Google Scholar
May, E. M., Hunter, B. A., & Jason, L. A. (2017). Methodological pluralism and mixed methodology to strengthen community psychology research: An example from Oxford House. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21838Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P., & Guo, J. (2015). Narrating the generative life. Psychological Science, 26(4), 475–483.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P., Josselson, R. E., & Lieblich, A. E. (2006). Identity and story: Creating self in narrative. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
McCauley, R. N. (2009). Time is of the essence: Explanatory pluralism and accommodating theories about long-term processes. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 611–635.Google Scholar
McCauley, R. N., & Bechtel, W. (2001). Explanatory pluralism and heuristic identity theory. Theory & Psychology, 11(6), 736–760.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (1986). Introduction. In James, W., Essays in psychical research (pp. xiii–xxxvi). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McGrath, L. (2013). Bergson comes to America. Journal of the History of Ideas, 74(4), 599–620.Google Scholar
McGraw, B. A., & Formicola, J. R. (Eds.) (2005). Taking religious pluralism seriously: Spiritual politics on America’s sacred ground. Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
McLeod, J. (2017). Pluralistic therapy: Distinctive features. Routledge.Google Scholar
Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. (1980). The positive thinkers. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Miller, R. (2004). Facing human suffering: psychology and psychotherapy as moral engagement. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., ChapinIII, F., & Redman, C. L.(2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2): 46. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art46Google Scholar
Miller, E., & Willig, C. (2012). Pluralistic counselling and HIV-positive clients: The importance of shared understanding. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 14(1), 33–45.Google Scholar
Misak, C. (2005). Pragmatism and pluralism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 41(1), 129–135.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morse, D. (2005). William James’s neglected critique of Hegel. Idealistic Studies, 35(2–3), 199–214.Google Scholar
Mosley, G. R. (2006). New thought, ancient wisdom: The history and future of the New Thought movement. Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Munsch, C. L., Weaver, J. R., Bosson, J. K., & O’Connor, L. T. (2018). Everybody but me: Pluralistic ignorance and the masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 551–578.Google Scholar
Myers, G. E. (1986). William James, his life and thought. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, R. R. (1997). William James on religious experience. In Putnam, R. A. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to William James (pp. 214–236). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novis-Deutsch, N. S. (2018). The one and the many: Both/and reasoning and the embracement of pluralism. Theory & Psychology, 28(4), 429–450.Google Scholar
Novis-Deutsch, N. (2020). Pluralism as an antidote to epistemic violence in psychological research. Theory & Psychology, 30(3), 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320928116Google Scholar
Nyein, K. P., Caylor, J. R., Duong, N. S., Fry, T. N., & Wildman, J. L. (2020). Beyond positivism: Toward a pluralistic approach to studying “real” teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(2), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620915593Google Scholar
Osbeck, L. M. (2005). Method and theoretical psychology. Theory & Psychology, 15(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Osbeck, L. M. (2021). Values and persons: The persistent problem of values in science and psychology. In McCallum, D. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of the history of human sciences. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4106-3_87–1Google Scholar
Osborne, J. W. (1982). The hegemony of natural scientific conceptions of learning. American Psychologist, 37, 330–332.Google Scholar
Parsons, A., Omylinska-Thurston, J., Karkou, V., Harlow, J., Haslam, S., Hobson, J., Nair, K., Dubrow-Marshall, L., Thurston, S., & Griffin, J. (2020). Arts for the blues – A new creative psychological therapy for depression. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 48(1), 5–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2019.1633459Google Scholar
Pascal, B. (1910). Thoughts, letters, and minor works. P. F. Collier & Son.Google Scholar
Pawelski, J. O. (2007). The dynamic individualism of William James. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, T. (2020). Pragmatism’s evolution: Organism and evironment in American philosophy. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1892). The law of the mind. The Monist, 2(4), 533–559.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1893). Evolutionary love. The Monist, 3(2), 176–200.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1902). Synechism. In Baldwin, J. M. (Ed.), Dictionary of philosophy and psychology (Vol. II, p. 657). Macmillan.Google Scholar
Perry, R. B. (1912). Present philosophical tendencies, a critical survey of naturalism, idealism, pragmatism, and realism together with a synopsis of the philosophy of William James. Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Perry, R. B. (1913). Realism and pragmatism. Mind, N. S., 22(88), 544–548.Google Scholar
Perry, R. B. (1915). Dr. Schiller on William James and on realism. Mind, N. S., 24(94), 240–249.Google Scholar
Perry, R. B. (1935). The thought and character of William James (2 Vols.). Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Pihlström, S. (Ed.) (2011). The Continuum companion to pragmatism. Continuum.Google Scholar
Ponterotto, J. 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
Puri, B. (2021). Introduction. In Puri, B. & Kumar, A. (Eds.), Re-thinking religious pluralism (pp. vii–xiv). Springer.Google Scholar
Putnam, H., & Putnam, R. A. (2017). What the spilled beans can spell: The difficult and deep realism of William James. In Putnam, H. & Putnam, R. A., Pragmatism as way of life: The lasting legacy of William James and John Dewey (pp. 159–166). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, T. (1986). Bergson in America. Prospects, 11, 453–490.Google Scholar
Ramsey, B. (1993). Submitting to freedom. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.205Google Scholar
Renouvier, C. (1859). Essais de critique générale. Deuxième essai. L’Homme: la raison, la passion, la liberté. La certitude, la probabilité morale. Ladrange.Google Scholar
Renouvier, C. (1892). Les principes de la nature (2 Vols.). Alcan.Google Scholar
Richardson, F. C. (2000). Overcoming fragmentation in psychology: A hermeneutic approach. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 21(3), 289–304.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. (2007). William James: In the maelstrom of American modernism. Mariner Books.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. N. (1982). Toward a science of human nature: Essays on the psychologies of Mill, Hegel, Wundt and James. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Royce, J. R. (1985). The problem of theoretical pluralism in psychology. In Annals of theoretical psychology (pp. 297–315). Springer.Google Scholar
Royce, J. R. (1987). A strategy for developing unifying theory in psychology. In Annals of Theoretical Psychology (pp. 275–285). Springer.Google Scholar
Ruetenik, T. (2005). Social meliorism in the religious pragmatism of William James. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 19(3), 238–249.Google Scholar
Runciman, D. (2005). Pluralism and the personality of the state. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarantakis, N. P. (2020). Rediscovering meaning when entering “older age”: A counseling case study based on a lifespan development and a pluralistic approach. Practice Innovations, 5(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Sargent, R. H., & Newman, L. S. (2021). Pluralistic ignorance research in psychology: A scoping review of topic and method variation and directions for future research. Review of General Psychology, 25(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021995168Google Scholar
Savranski, M. (2021). The pluralistic problematic: William James and the pragmatics of the pluriverse. Theory, Culture & Society, 38(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
Schachner, M. K. (2019). From equality and inclusion to cultural pluralism–Evolution and effects of cultural diversity perspectives in schools. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Schiller, F. C. S. (1913). Present Philosophical Tendencies: a Critical Survey of Naturalism, Idealism, Pragmatism and Realism, together with a Synopsis of the Philosophy of William James. Mind, N. S., 22(86), 280–284.Google Scholar
Schiller, F. C. S. (1914). Prof. Perry’s realism. Mind, N. S., 23(91), 386–395.Google Scholar
Schiller, F. C. S. (1915). Realism, pragmatism, and William James. Mind, N. S., 24(96), 516–524.Google Scholar
Schultz, L. C. (2015). Pluralism and dialectic: On James’s relation to Hegel. Hegel Bulletin, 36(2), 202–224.Google Scholar
Schwarzenthal, M., Schachner, M. K., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Juang, L. P. (2018). Equal but different: Effects of equality/inclusion and cultural pluralism on intergroup outcomes in multiethnic classrooms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(2), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000173Google Scholar
Sechrest, L., & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 77–87.Google Scholar
Seigfried, C. H. (1981). James’s reconstruction of ordinary experience. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 19(4), 499–515.Google Scholar
Seigfried, C. H. (1986). On the metaphysical foundations of psychology. In DeArmey, M. & Skousgaard, S. (Eds.), The philosophical psychology of William James (pp. 57–72). Center of Advanced Studies in Phenomenology & University Press of America.Google Scholar
Seigfried, C. H. (2013). Anti-dogmatism as a defense of religious belief. In Rydenfelt, H. & Pihlström, S. (Eds.), William James on religion (pp. 30–55). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sewell, D. K., Little, D. R., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011). Bayesian computation and mechanism: Theoretical pluralism drives scientific emergence. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34, 212–213.Google Scholar
Sfendoni-Mentzou, D. (1997). Peirce on continuity and laws of nature. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(3), 646–678.Google Scholar
Shamdasani, S. (2005). Psychologies as ontology-making practices: William James and the pluralities of psychological experience. In Carrette, J. (Ed.), William James and the varieties of religious experience (pp. 27–44). Routledge.Google Scholar
Sheehey, B. (2019a). Pragmatism without progress: Affect and temporality in William James’s philosophy of hope. Contemporary Pragmatism, 16, 40–64.Google Scholar
Sheehey, B. (2019b). To bear the past as a living wound: William James and the philosophy of history. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 13(3), 325–342.Google Scholar
Shook, J., & Margolis, J. (Eds.) (2006). A companion to pragmatism. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. (2001). A polytheistic conception of the sciences and the virtues of deep variety. In Damasio, A. et al. (Eds.), Unity of knowledge: The convergence of natural and human science (pp. 217–232). New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., & Power, S. A. (2013). Robust cultural pluralism: An interview with Professor Richard A. Shweder. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 671–686.Google Scholar
Sikka, S. (2021). Pluralism about what? Religion as belief and identity. In Puri, B. & Kumar, A. (Eds.), Re-thinking religious pluralism (pp. 3–19). Springer.Google Scholar
Simon, L. (1998). Genuine reality: A life of William James. Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
Sinclair, M. (2020). Bergson. Routledge.Google Scholar
Skillen, A. (1996). William James, ‘A Certain Blindness’ and an uncertain pluralism. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 40, 33–45.Google Scholar
Skrupskelis, I. (1988). Introduction. In James, W., Manuscript lectures (pp. Xvii–lxiii). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Slater, M. R. (2008). Pragmatism, realism, religion. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 36(4), 653–681.Google Scholar
Slater, M. R. (2011). William James’s pluralism. The Review of Metaphysics, 65(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
Slife, B. D. (2009). A primer of the values implicit in counseling research methods. Counseling and Values, 53(1):8–21.Google Scholar
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2021). Against methodological confinement: Toward a pluralism of methods and interpretations. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 13(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000274Google Scholar
Slife, B. D., & Wendt, D. C. (2009). Editors’ introduction: The modern legacy of William James’s a” pluralistic universe”. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 103–105.Google Scholar
Smith, B., & Monforte, J. (2020). Stories, new materialism and pluralism: Understanding, practising and pushing the boundaries of narrative analysis, Methods in Psychology, 2, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100016Google Scholar
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32, 752–760.Google Scholar
Smythe, W., & McKenzie, S. (2010). A vision of dialogical pluralism in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 227–234.Google Scholar
Sommer, A. (2020). James and psychical research in context. In Klein, A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of William James. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395699.013.37Google Scholar
Spector-Mersel, G. (2014). Editor’s introduction: Multiplicity and commonality in narrative interpretation. Narrative Works: Issues, Investigations, & Interventions 4(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Spiegelberg, H. (1972). Phenomenology in psychology and psychiatry: A historical introduction. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Staats, A. J. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of unity. Praeger.Google Scholar
Staats, A. (1991). Unified positivism and unification psychology: Fad or new field? American Psychologist, 46(9), 899–912.Google Scholar
Stam, H. J. (2004). Unifying psychology: Epistemological act or disciplinary maneuver?. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1259–1262.Google Scholar
Stern, R., & William, R. (2019). James and Hegel: Looking for a home. In Klein, A. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of William James. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395699.013.20Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Unifying the field of psychology. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? (pp. 3–14). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10847-001Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069–1079.Google Scholar
Stirling, J. H. (1865). The secret of Hegel: Being the Hegelian system in origin, principle, form, and matter. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1978). The plurality of science. In Asquith, P. D. & Hacking, I. (Eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 2, pp. 3–16). Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Sutton, E. K. (2012). Interpreting “mind-cure”: William James and the “chief task … of the science of human nature.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 48(2), 115–133.Google Scholar
Talisse, R. B. (2019). Pluralism and toleration in James’s social philosophy. In Klein, A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of William James. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395699.013.8Google Scholar
Talisse, R. B., & Aikin, S. F. (2005). Why pragmatists cannot be pluralists. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 41(1), 101–118.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (Ed.) (1984). William James on exceptional mental states: the 1896 Lowell lectures. The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (1991). William James and the humanistic tradition. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31(1), 56–74.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (1992). The case for a uniquely American Jamesian tradition in psychology. In Donnelly, M. E. (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 3–28). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (1996). William James on consciousness beyond the margin. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (1998). William James on the demise of positivism in American psychology. In Rieber, R. W. & Salzinger, K. (Eds.), Psychology: Theoretical-historical perspectives (pp. 101–132). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (1999). On psychology as a person-centered science: William James and his relation to the humanistic tradition. In Moss, D. (Ed.), Humanistic and transpersonal psychology (pp. 301–313). Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (2002). William James and depth psychology. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(9–10), 11–36.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (2010a). William James and the humanistic implications of the neuroscience revolution: An outrageous hypothesis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 50(4) 410–429.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (2010b). William James on a phenomenological psychology of immediate experience: The true foundation for a science of consciousness. History of the Human Sciences, 23(3), 119–130.Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2010a). Ontology and scientific explanation: Pluralism as an a priori condition of psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 235–243.Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2010b). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences?. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295–303.Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2015). Critical psychology: A geography of intellectual engagement and resistance. American Psychologist, 70(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038727Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 281–291.Google Scholar
Thayer, H. S. (1975). Introduction. In James, W., Pragmatism (pp. xi–xxxviii). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, A., & Cooper, M. (2012). Therapists’ experiences of pluralistic practice. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 14(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
Thompson, A., Cooper, M., & Pauli, R. (2017). Development of a therapists’ self-report measure of pluralistic thought and practice: the Therapy Pluralism Inventory. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45(5), 489–499.Google Scholar
Tilley, E., McLeod, J., & McLeod, J. (2015). An exploratory qualitative study of values issues associated with training and practice in pluralistic counselling. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 15(3), 180–187.Google Scholar
Tjeltveit, A. (1999). Ethics and values in psychotherapy. Routledge.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Trollope, A. (1875). The way we live now. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Ussher, J. M. (1999). Eclecticism and methodological pluralism: The way forward for feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 41–46.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P., & Sullivan, M. (2021). Metaphysics. In Zalta, E. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/metaphysics/.Google Scholar
Viney, W. (2004). Pluralism in the sciences is not easily dismissed. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1275–1278.Google Scholar
Viney, W. (2022). William James’s pluralism: An antidote for contemporary extremism and absolutism. Routledge.Google Scholar
Viney, W., King, C., & King, D. B. (1992). William James on the advantages of a pluralistic psychology. In Donnelly, M. E. (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 91–100). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Viney, W., & Mullen, M. (2017). Tempering the foolish faiths: William James and ecology. Ecopsychology, 9(1), 26–32.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1934.)Google Scholar
Wahl, J. (1925). The pluralist philosophies of England and America. Open Court.Google Scholar
Walsh-Bowers, R. (2010). Some social-historical issues underlying psychology’s fragmentation. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 244–252.Google Scholar
Ward, J. (1911). The realm of ends or pluralism and theism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, T. (2020). Why theory matters in correctional psychology. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 14(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757–019-00578-9Google Scholar
Ward, T., & Hogan, K. (2015). Using client-centered psychotherapy embedded within a pluralistic integrative approach to help a client with executive dysfunction: The case of” Judith”. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 11(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Wardy, R. B. B. (1988). Eleatic pluralism. Archiv für Gegschichte der Philosophie, 70, 125–146.Google Scholar
Watanabe, T. (2010). Metascientific foundations for pluralism in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 253–262.Google Scholar
Watson, D. (1982). Hegelianism in the United States. Hegel Bulletin, 3(2), 18–28.Google Scholar
Wendt, D. C., & Slife, B. D. (2009). Recent calls for Jamesian pluralism in the natural and social sciences: Will psychology heed the call?. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3),185–204.Google Scholar
Wertz, F. J. (1999). Multiple methods in psychology: Epistemological grounding and the possibility of unity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 19(2), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091173Google Scholar
Wertz, F. J. (2011). The qualitative revolution and psychology: Science, politics, and ethics. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39(2), 77.Google Scholar
Wertz, F. J. (2018). Qualitative methods as fundamental tools: Autonomy and integration in mixed methods research. In Schiff, B. (Ed.), Situating qualitative methods in psychological science (pp. 55–72). Routledge.Google Scholar
Westra, E. (2021). Folk personality psychology: Mindreading and mindshaping in trait attribution. Synthese, 198(9), 8213–8232.Google Scholar
Wiggins, B. J. (2009). William James and methodological pluralism: Bridging the qualitative and quantitative divide. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 165–183.Google Scholar
Wiggins, B. J., Wendt, D. C., & Ostenson, J. A. (2014). A pluralistic ecopsychology: Embracing the tension between traditions and trends. Ecopsychology, 6(1), 5–7.Google Scholar
Wilk, K. (2014). Using a pluralistic approach in counselling psychology and psychotherapy practice with diverse clients: Explorations into cultural and religious responsiveness within a Western paradigm. Counselling Psychology Review, 29(1), 16–28.Google Scholar
Witherington, D. C., & Lickliter, R. (2016). Integrating development and evolution in psychological science: Evolutionary developmental psychology, developmental systems, and explanatory pluralism. Human Development, 59(4), 200–234.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolff, C. (1722). Vernünfftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt, und der Seele des Menschen (2 ed.). Renger.Google Scholar
Woody, W. D., & Viney, W. (2009). A pluralistic universe: An overview and implications for psychology. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 107–119.Google Scholar
Woody, W. D., Gretz, D., LaFary, K., & Rosenblum, C. (2022). (Un)ethical consequences: How psychology’s cold war defense of military personnel led to enhanced interrogation techniques in the war on terror. American Psychologist, 77(2), 221–233.Google Scholar
Wright, J. C., Grandjean, P. T., & McWhite, C. B. (2013). The meta-ethical grounding of our moral beliefs: Evidence for meta-ethical pluralism. Philosophical Psychology, 26(3), 336–361.Google Scholar
Yanchar, S. C. (1997). William James and the challenge of methodological pluralism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 18(4), 425–442.Google Scholar
Yanchar, S. C., & Slife, B. D. (1997). Pursuing unity in a fragmented psychology: problems and prospects. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 235–255.Google Scholar
Yumatle, C. (2015). Pluralism. In Gibbons, M. T. (Ed.). The encyclopedia of political thought. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0771Google Scholar
Zagaria, A., Ando’, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 521–562.Google Scholar
Zahavi, D. (Ed.) (2000). Exploring the self. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Zahavi, D. (2014). Self and other. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zedler, J. H. (1741). Großes vollständiges Universal-Lexicon (Vol. 28). J. H. Zedler.Google Scholar