Martin Mercado Vásquez

In recent decades, attention to the phenomenological method in the field of qualitative research has increased. This article addresses the relationship between phenomenology and psychology and how methodology and subjectivity are interconnected in the foundations of scientific research. The first part of the article discusses the possibility of applying phenomenology in qualitative research, the lack of uniformity in the interpretations of phenomenological contributions to science, and the risk of incompatibility with the objective dimension of experimental science. The second part examines the relationship between phenomenology and psychology, specifically the difference between phenomenological psychology and transcendental phenomenology, as well as the importance of the Amsterdam lectures for understanding Husserl’s philosophy. The third part delves into Husserl’s epistemological critique and how this led to the development of phenomenological psychology as a science based on subjective apriori. The noetic and noematic components of experience, including the embodied self as the ego pole of every intentional phenomenon, are discussed, as well as how phenomenological psychology can serve as a basis for building a rigorously scientific psychology. In summary, this article addresses the complexity of the relationship between phenomenology and psychology, as well as the need for a careful understanding of methodology and subjectivity in phenomenological research.

The relationship between phenomenology and the sciences is of complex nature. In particular, the transcendental phenomenological position seems to promote skeptical reservations about the scientific attitude. Phenomenological anthropology and psychology, however, are an exception. The work of the Spanish philosopher Javier San Martin addresses the relationship of Husserlian phenomenology to these two particular sciences. In this paper, the work of Navarrese will be revisited as an occasion to reflect on the relationship between phenomenology and the sciences. In the first part, San Martin’s philosophical approach is presented and put in relation to its counterpart, namely ratiovitalism, which has dominated phenomenological research in the Spanish-speaking world throughout the last decades. The second part is devoted to the question of whether phenomenological transcendentalism is compatible with anthropological research. It also describes San Martin’s contribution to cultural philosophy. The relationship between phenomenology and psychology is discussed in the third part. San Martin develops a critical account of empiricist psychology which he confronts with his proposal for a ’posttranscendental’ psychology that is based on the critique of psychologism and representationalism. The last section compares San Martin’s idea of anthropological and psychological science with other forms of scientific theory which contribute to phenomenological methodology in empirical research.