Psychology’s current crisis attends most visibly to perceived problems with statistical models, methods, publication practices, and career incentives. Rarely is close attention given to the objects of inquiry—to ontological matters—yet the crisis-related literature does features statements about the nature of psychology’s objects. Close analysis of the ontological claims reveals discrepant understandings: some researchers assume objects to be stable and singular while others posit them to be dynamic and complex. Nevertheless, both views presume the objects under scrutiny to be real. The analysis also finds each of these ontological claims to be associated not only with particular method prescriptions but also with distinct notions of the scientific self. Though both take the scientific self to be objective, one figures the scientist as not always a rational actor and, therefore, requiring some behavior regulation, while the other sees the scientist as largely capable of self-governing sustained through painstakingly acquired expertise and self-control. The fate of these prevalent assemblages of object, method, and scientific self remains to be determined, yet as conditions of possibility they portend quite different futures. Following description of the assemblages, the article ventures a futuristic portrayal of the scientific practices they each might engender.

心理学当前的危机最明显地与统计模型、方法、出版实践和职业激励方面的感知问题有关。很少有人密切关注探究的对象——本体论问题——但与危机相关的文献确实以关于心理学对象性质的陈述为特色。对本体论主张的仔细分析揭示了不一致的理解：一些研究人员假设对象是稳定和单一的，而其他人则假设它们是动态和复杂的。然而，这两种观点都假定被审查的对象是真实的。分析还发现，这些本体论主张中的每一个不仅与特定的方法规定有关，而且与科学自我的不同概念有关。虽然两者都以科学自我为客观，一种认为科学家并不总是理性的行为者，因此需要一些行为规范，而另一种认为科学家在很大程度上能够通过艰苦获得的专业知识和自我控制来维持自治。这些普遍存在的对象、方法和科学自我组合的命运仍有待确定，但作为可能性的条件，它们预示着完全不同的未来。在对这些组合的描述之后，文章对它们各自可能产生的科学实践进行了未来主义的描绘。和科学自我仍有待确定，但作为可能性的条件，它们预示着完全不同的未来。在对这些组合的描述之后，文章对它们各自可能产生的科学实践进行了未来主义的描绘。和科学自我仍有待确定，但作为可能性的条件，它们预示着完全不同的未来。在对这些组合的描述之后，文章对它们各自可能产生的科学实践进行了未来主义的描绘。