Abstract
AbstractTheories in motivation science, and in psychological science more generally, are in a state of fragmentation that impedes development of a robust body of knowledge. Furthermore, fragmentation hinders communication among scientists, with practitioners, and with policymakers and the public. Theoretical integration is needed to overcome this situation. In this commentary, I first provide an overview of the integrative frameworks presented in this collection of articles. Based on this overview, I discuss if and when we should integrate theories. Several non-trivial conditions need to be met for integration, including convergence of phenomena, constructs, and theoretical propositions. Next, I address strategies for integration, including rules for merging constructs and ways to integrate propositions. I also discuss how the generation of integrative frameworks, if not successfully enacted, can paradoxically lead to further proliferation rather than a reduction of theories. In contrast, successful integration reduces redundancy and simplifies the conceptual space used to describe, explain, or predict a set of phenomena. Successful integration may require not only theoretical work but also empirical validation, strategic efforts in the scientific community, and change of institutional policies. In conclusion, I argue that within-discipline integration alone is not sufficient to overcome the current theoretical stagnation in the field. Attention to advances in neighboring disciplines, formalization of models of motivation, and theoretical differentiation to consider the specificity of constructs, populations, and contexts are needed as well.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference86 articles.
1. Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010
2. Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). JAI Press.
3. Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864
4. Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. John Wiley.
5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献