| Title |
Theories and Theorizers: A Contextual Approach to Theories of Cognition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12124-011-9156-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joaquín Barutta, Carlos Cornejo, Agustín Ibáñez |
| Abstract |
An undisputable characteristic of cognitive science is its enormous diversity of theories. Not surprisingly, these often belong to different paradigms that focus on different processes and levels of analysis. A related problem is that researchers of cognition frequently seem to ascribe to incompatible approaches to research, creating a Tower of Babel of cognitive knowledge. This text presents a pragmatic model of meta-theoretical analysis, a theory conceived of to examine other theories, which allows cognitive theories to be described, integrated and compared. After a brief introduction to meta-theoretical analysis in cognitive science, the dynamic and structural components of a theory are described. The analysis of conceptual mappings between components and explanation strategies is also described, as well as the processes of intra-theory generalization and inter-theory comparison. The various components of the meta-theoretical model are presented with examples of different cognitive theories, mainly focusing on two current approaches to research: The dynamical approach to cognition and the computer metaphor of mind. Finally, two potential counter arguments to the model are presented and discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 38 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 51% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2013.
All research outputs
#16,272,032
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
#208
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,670
of 109,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.