1. DD307 TMA 06
2017

2. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Johanna Motzkau online commentary
Emphasises “productive scepticism” (ie which goes beyond just negativity)
Such scepticism should involve all perspectives and all research findings
Advocates three modes of critical evaluation, which overlap
The four interrogative themes are also intended to help here

3. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Aim to produce an appreciative, balanced and contextualised inquiry into the merits, relevance and problems of Social Psychology
Notes should not be confused with the debate between “mainstream” (cognitive social) and “critical” (other three perspectives)
Not necessarily “paradigm shift” but can be complementary / competing / coexist / and may be incompatible (but change over time)
“Convincing” may also be of importance here

4. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Perspectives change over time; merges and combinations may occur
There are other perspectives besides the DD307 ones (eg feminist) and other aspects - eg
Wetherell critical discourse, Edwards discursive psychology approach, Gibson rhetorical psychology in course all differ
Parker on discourse not covered in the course (greater emphasis on the researcher / researched)

5. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Critical Mode 1 : Within Perspective
Evaluation based on a single perspective’s aims, definitions, assumptions, methods, ontology, epistemology, etc
Emphasis on looking at a perspective in its own right and within its own claims
So (eg) cognitive social on the basis of experimental flaws, sampling, researcher and participant expectation effects
Real world relevance of studies (ecological validity)

6. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Critical Mode 2 : Between Perspectives
Critically evaluating one perspective from the position of another perspective (one could but need not assume a personal position here)
Relative strengths and weaknesses, weigh up comparisons (again applications?)
Example of attitudes – do they “exist” versus discourses debate [DD307 topics are structured around similar contrasts to some extent]

7. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Critical Mode 3 : Meta-Perspective
Stepping back and assessing all perspectives (but can advocate a particular perspective)
The interrogative themes can be useful here
Evaluate overall the implications and effects of the way different perspectives -
Define their topics
Choose their methods
Interpret their findings

8. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
May be more convinced with one perspective than another
Relates to the questions thought to be important to pose, answer and research
Ultimate question of what “Social Psychology” is seen as being about / for
Examples such as “Riots”, “Hate” and “Love” case studies

9. Criticality: Block 6 Commentary
Reminder of the emphasis here on possibly being more convinced with one perspective than another (NB need not agree!)
Question of whether and to what extent perspectives could be compatible
Whether they can be complementary
Or whether they are completely contradictory and incompatible
What might you be hoping to achieve?
Emphasis again on the what is “Social Psychology” question

10. Three perspectives of ‘Love’
To make search more specific a close definition of the term ‘love’ was applied. I.e.‘romantic love’ or ‘intimate love’.
Research is describe in terms of
• phenomenon and how it is defined,
• method used (and the findings),
• aim of the research and what their project
is.

11. DD307 and perspectives
[Group Processes : cognitive social v discourse]
[Individual Differences : cognitive social v phenomenology]
Part 1 : Individual and Social Selves
Families : discursive v social psychoanalytical
Close Relationships : cognitive social v social psychoanalytical
Self : phenomenological v social psychoanalytical

12. DD307 and perspectives Part 2 : Emotion and Social Judgement
Emotion : cognitive social v discourse
Attitudes : cognitive social v discourse
Fundamental Attribution Error : cognitive social v phenomenological

13. DD307 and perspectives Part 3 : Group Processes and Social Influence
Prejudice, Conflict and Conflict Reduction : cognitive social v discourse
Group Processes (Social Identity Theory) : cognitive social v discourse
Obedience : cognitive social v discourse

14. DD307 and perspectives Part 4 : Production of Knowledge
Embodiment : discourse v phenomenology
Bystander Intervention : cognitive social v discourse (feminist)
[nb for Exam could be linked to interrogative themes / Block 6 online Commentary]

15. TMA 06
TMA06 Choose ONE from; Option A: In what ways are power relations involved in the production of social psychological knowledge? Discuss with reference to at least two topics of research in DD307. Option B ‘The discursive psychological perspective and the social cognitive perspective in social psychology are incompatible.’ Discuss with reference to at least two topics of research in DD307. The word limit for this assignment is 2000 words.

16. Don’t forget Part 2
Part 2 Reflexive comment: For Part 2 of TMA 06 you should think back to the reflexive comment you wrote as part of TMA 01 and offer a brief reflexive comment reflecting on what you think social psychology is about now that you have almost come to the end of your study of DD307.
Include any comments on how your expectations of the module have changed, been fulfilled or otherwise. (200–300 words)
NB: This part of the assignment will not be formally assessed but you are required to submit it. Failure to do so will result in 5 marks being deducted from the overall grade awarded by your tutor for this assignment.

17. To ‘sum up’ the two essay options;
•Option A is all about the interrogative themes (in this case Power Relations)
•Option B is all about the perspectives (in this case whether the discursive psychological perspective and the social cognitive perspective in social psychology are incompatible

18. Go for the option that “interests YOU” (that’s the way to get the best mark)
•If during DD307 you’ve enjoyed ‘playing’ with the interrogative themes, then option A is for you
•If during DD307 you’ve enjoyed critically evaluating the different ‘approaches’ of the perspectives, then option B is for you

19. Option A: “In what ways are power relations involved in the production of social psychological knowledge? Discuss with reference to at least two topics of research in DD307.
This is about POWER RELATIONS so that is the focus
•Other interrogative themes ‘may’ be relevant but should be used sparsely –don’t detract from the question
•The theme of power relations could feature as a ‘link’ with situated knowledge (see the TMA notes for more detail)

20. Materials: Chapters 2, 3 and 9 of Book 1, Motzkau’s online commentary
DVD1.

21. The module discusses power relations in terms of power operating within particular research contexts
and also
the wider historical and cultural contexts which provide the dominant assumptions behind the definitions of social phenomena to be investigated and of the methods used.
Therefore, the issue of power relations is a tool but also a ground theme of all social psychological research discussed in DD307
See:
Motzkau’s online commentary chapter who discusses this further, but also situated knowledges with power relations, suggesting that historical situatedness creates particular relations of power, which have effects, positive or negative.
This chapter will also help you to link power relations to critical
evaluation.
Hollway’s chapters (Chapters 2, 3 and 9 of Book 1), in which also discusses the link between power relations and situated knowledges.

22. The question asks that you make reference to at least two topics of research in DD307, so you may draw on different module materials to answer this question.
You will need to decide on your argument up front and draw relevant module materials to support this argument.
You will need to make sure you explain what is meant by power relations and use illustrative references in a way that demonstrates the centrality of power relations in the production of social psychological knowledge.

23. Option B: ‘The discursive psychological perspective and the social cognitive perspective in social psychology are incompatible.’ Discuss with reference to at least two topics of research in DD307. .
This is a ‘perspective’ question and should critically discuss the compatibility between the COGNITIVE SOCIAL perspective AND the DISCURSIVE
•This discussion of compatibility is at the heart of this question as this question calls for a discussion of the discursive psychological perspective and the social cognitive perspective and a consideration of the degree of compatibility (or not) between them
•Again, the TMA notes with this question gives many suggestions about the different ways you could answer this question as well as the appropriate resources to draw on

24. Materials:
Book 1, Chapters 2, 3 and 9,
Block 6 online commentary chapter (Motzkau)
DVD 1, especially the section on the social psychological perspectives.

25. To address the question, you will need to outline the two perspectives, paying attention to their key ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. This might involve a consideration of the implications of these assumptions for how researchers define and treat social psychological phenomena (their objects of enquiry) and thus shape the research carried out within a given perspective. E.G. how do these assumptions affect the type of research questions asked, the methods used and the analytical process. N.B. Table 3.1 (Approaches to social psychology) in Hollway’s Chapter 3 of Book 1 will help you here.

26. Having outlined the two perspectives and their epistemological, ontological and methodological approaches to psychological phenomena, you will need to consider the issue of compatibility. This will involve some explanation of what is meant by compatibility. You will need to be clear about what you by compatibility before you start planning your essay as this will help you to develop a more nuanced argument, rather than simply comparing the two perspectives.

27. You will need to think about the link between the assumptions embedded in a given perspective, the knowledge it produces and how this knowledge, and its methods of production, sits with other perspectives approaches, i.e. their degree of compatibility.
Motzkau is helpful in this regard, but also worth looking back at the discussion of Hate in Book 1, Chapter 3.
NB: You are required to anchor their answer in at least two topics of research in DD307.
These will serve to illustrate you arguments about the compatibility between the social cognitive perspective and the discursive psychological perspective.

28. What these two options have in common;
•Whilst these 2 essays look very different, in fact they are exploring the exact same skills
•Both of these options are very “open” questions
•There in no one right way (in fact, I’d expect all of these essays to be quite different)
•Because these questions are SO open –you really need to put aside TIME to “think” about them
•The key to a good TMA06 really is time (lots of planning) and forcing yourself to ‘slow down’ to really THINK about your argument and whether it’s making sense to a reader
cut-off date of Thurs 11th May – no extensions!

29. Exercise Working with themes
Critically discuss the understandings of individual differences produced by trait theory and personal construct theory. Interrogate these different understandings by reference to the theme of power relations.

30. Don’t ignore it and hope that your reader won’t notice!
Decide up front which themes you are going to use if you are given a choice.
Otherwise be specific in your introduction that you are aware that this is what is asked of you and this is how you plan to tackle this aspect of your answer e.g…..

31. “The apparent and enduring differences between individuals have intrigued psychologists for over a century. The psychology of individual differences, or theories of personality, has been approached in a variety of ways and considered below are trait theory and personal construct theory, examples embedded within the psychometric and clinical psychology traditions respectively. The interrogative theme of power relations is employed in order to evaluate and compare their contribution to the study of individual differences. Power relations are understood to be pervasive throughout society and to have reciprocal and dynamic influences on all relationships, practices and understandings. It is argued below that rather than representing an underlying ‘truth’ the contributions of both trait theory and personal construct theory are contrived from complex interactions between power, historical situatedness and cultural influences.”

32. Don’t just tag a theme onto the end of another point e.g.
“…this is an example of power relations.”

33. Don’t just throw a passing theme in and hope that this is enough to get you the marks e.g
“It can be noticed that a power relation exists in this case, with researcher having power over defining what the traits are and which traits are grouped together, and the participants reporting within the specified structure.”

34. Try to develop your theme in more depth
Think about your topic and what the chosen theme brings to the party e.g…

35. “In terms of power Foucault 1970 (as cited in Hollway 2007) advocated that power is not something that is owned by certain individuals it is instead something that is dynamically present and available to everyone, and it’s found in all knowledge’s and practices. Power can be a positive factor within psychology e.g challenging false assumptions. It can also be a negative factor within psychology, e.g researcher demand characteristics. Either way power will shape the production of knowledge and will tint the truths (if any) that are found. So long as the power relations and dynamics are made explicit, then knowledge that’s produced can be evaluated.”

36. If you are specifically asked to bring in a theme you could use it to structure your answer e.g. …

37. “Foucault (cited in Hollway, 2007) believed that scientific knowledge was intertwined with power. This essay considers the power relations within two theories of individual differences: trait theory, which considers stable, measurable aspects of personality; and personal construct theory (PCT), which considers the theories people have about themselves and others (Butt, 2007). After describing Foucault’s concept of power relations, this essay will debate the differing ontologies, epistemologies and resulting methodologies of each theory, and how this impacts the power relations implicit in both. It will also consider the theories in social and historical context, focussing on the history of trait theory, including the related field of psychometrics, and the history and recent applications of PCT. Throughout, it will be argued that trait theory shows a clear imbalance of power, while PCT, although aiming at empowerment, has implications of power in its focus on individuals.”

38. However There is no right or wrong answer to these questions
However There is no right or wrong answer to these questions. How you use these themes will depend on the question itself, but also on your argument. With both questions for this assignment you will need to be very clear up front what your argument is going to be. Once you have decided that you can then search for the evidence (research) to support your argument