Abstract

For nearly thirty years, the theory and science of Psychological Jurisprudence (PJ) have been used to address a range of complex and controversial issues in crime, law, and justice. As a matter of epistemological and ontological commitments, PJ’s research agenda is sourced in an Aristotelian-derived virtue ethic. This ethic advances eudemonic existence. This existence extolls human flourishing and excellence and it recognizes that these eudemonic possibilities (i.e., flourishing and excellence) emerge from within relational habits of evolving character. Evidence of these habits is found within a society’s expressions of culture. These expressions include the symbols of shared consciousness, the discourses of inter-subjectivity, and the institutional and communal practices of mutual power. However, what has yet to be specified in the academic literature, is how PJ’s method of inquiry functions as a useful approach for undertaking qualitative research. In Section one, we summarize the philosophy of science (i.e., the science of being/becoming) that informs PJ’s methodology and we identify the hermeneutical process (i.e., critical textual analysis, CTA) that operationalizes this science. In Section two, we delineate the elements of PJ’s virtue-based deconstructionist method of inquiry, and we explain how these elements form a design for undertaking replicable aretaic research. In Section three, we provisionally discuss the type of findings that PJ-as-method produces, and we suggestively explain how these findings are relevant to existing debates about crime control and justice policy research, education, and training.

摘要

近三十年来，心理法学 (PJ) 的理论和科学一直被用来解决犯罪、法律和司法领域的一系列复杂和有争议的问题。作为认识论和本体论承诺的问题，PJ 的研究议程源自亚里士多德派生的美德伦理。这种伦理促进了美好的存在。这种存在颂扬了人类的繁荣和卓越，它承认这些幸福的可能性（即繁荣和卓越）来自不断发展的性格的关系习惯。这些习惯的证据可以在一个社会的文化表达中找到。这些表达包括共享意识的象征、主体间性的话语以及相互权力的制度和公共实践。然而，学术文献中尚未具体说明的是，PJ 的探究方法如何作为进行定性研究的有用方法。在第一节中，我们总结了指导 PJ 方法论的科学哲学（即存在/成为的科学），并确定了使这门科学可操作的解释学过程（即批判性文本分析，CTA）。在第二节中，我们描述了 PJ 以美德为基础的解构主义探究方法的要素，并解释了这些要素如何构成进行可复制研究的设计。在第三部分，我们暂时讨论 PJ 方法产生的结果类型，并建议性地解释这些结果与现有关于犯罪控制和司法政策研究、教育和培训的辩论有何关联。