Difference between revisions of "Wetherell2015"
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) (BibTeX auto import 2016-09-16 11:23:38) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| − | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| − | | | + | |Author(s)=Margaret Wetherell; Jonathan Potter; |
|Title=Discourse and Social Psychology, postmodernism, and capitalist collusion: an argument for more complex historiographies of psychology | |Title=Discourse and Social Psychology, postmodernism, and capitalist collusion: an argument for more complex historiographies of psychology | ||
| − | |||
|Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology | |Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology | ||
| − | | | + | |Key=Wetherell2015 |
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| − | | | + | |Language=English |
|Journal=Theory & Psychology | |Journal=Theory & Psychology | ||
|Volume=25 | |Volume=25 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
|Pages=388–395 | |Pages=388–395 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354314552009 |
|DOI=10.1177/0959354314552009 | |DOI=10.1177/0959354314552009 | ||
|Abstract=Hayter and Hegarty argue that Discourse and Social Psychology (DSP) is a text sustaining late capitalism as surely as Taylorism sustained the Fordist capitalist epoch. In response, we first situate DSP in its intellectual context; second, highlight limitations in Hayter and Hegarty's use of Harvey's work on the history of capitalism; third, note the importance of analysing contexts and effects in genealogical research on psychology; fourth, show how the argument fails to clearly explicate different senses of reflexivity in DSP and; finally, consider the platform DSP built for the study of ideology and the implications for Hayter and Hegarty's own project. All of this highlights a need for psychologists to be more sophisticated in their historiography. | |Abstract=Hayter and Hegarty argue that Discourse and Social Psychology (DSP) is a text sustaining late capitalism as surely as Taylorism sustained the Fordist capitalist epoch. In response, we first situate DSP in its intellectual context; second, highlight limitations in Hayter and Hegarty's use of Harvey's work on the history of capitalism; third, note the importance of analysing contexts and effects in genealogical research on psychology; fourth, show how the argument fails to clearly explicate different senses of reflexivity in DSP and; finally, consider the platform DSP built for the study of ideology and the implications for Hayter and Hegarty's own project. All of this highlights a need for psychologists to be more sophisticated in their historiography. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:25, 12 December 2019
| Wetherell2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Wetherell2015 |
| Author(s) | Margaret Wetherell, Jonathan Potter |
| Title | Discourse and Social Psychology, postmodernism, and capitalist collusion: an argument for more complex historiographies of psychology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Discursive Psychology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Theory & Psychology |
| Volume | 25 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 388–395 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0959354314552009 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Hayter and Hegarty argue that Discourse and Social Psychology (DSP) is a text sustaining late capitalism as surely as Taylorism sustained the Fordist capitalist epoch. In response, we first situate DSP in its intellectual context; second, highlight limitations in Hayter and Hegarty's use of Harvey's work on the history of capitalism; third, note the importance of analysing contexts and effects in genealogical research on psychology; fourth, show how the argument fails to clearly explicate different senses of reflexivity in DSP and; finally, consider the platform DSP built for the study of ideology and the implications for Hayter and Hegarty's own project. All of this highlights a need for psychologists to be more sophisticated in their historiography.
Notes
