Towards a Philosophy of Science in Transpersonal Psychology

The Philosophy of Qualitative Scientific Methodology in (Transpersonal) Psychology
or
Towards the Articulation of and/or a Unified (Emergent/Participatory) Philosophy of Science in Transpersonal Psychology: The Integration of Intersubjectivity

The above title(s) are a reflection of the current state of my dissertation topics. I have narrowed my list down to but a mere few (as opposed to the many that I started with) and this is at the top of my list.

There is simply way too much to say here about this but here are few tidbits that I’ve been mulling-over and chewing on:Description of key ideas and inspirations:

Key inspirations are Wilber, Ferrer, Gebser, and Rothberg. The Western philosophical tradition that my thinking comes out of is Hegelian (Heidegger & Husserl) or the Continental Philosophy of Science. Constructivist, Postmodern, Integral, Feminist, Empirical, quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and other such ideas are central topics. Here I am asking questions such as: What do the great thinkers in TP have to say about the philosophy of science in TP? Where do they think it needs to go? How can we develop a research methodology that takes into account beyond-ego in community for the sake of social transformation? It assumes that the construction of an internal reality is no longer enough. 1st person (phenomenology/qualitiative) , 3rd person (quantitative/empirical), and inter/intrasubjective accounts are explored and integrated.
Here, one of the topics I am concerned with how transpersonal psychologists in particular, and psychologists in general go about translating good/sound theory into good/sound practice or application. I am peripherally interested in methodology as the place where the two intersect. Meta-theory, meta-shemas, and meta-science are all different ways of approaching the subject. One particular chapter would be the inclusion of my discussion of these issues critiquing Wilber’s Integral Methodological Pluralism. I am asking: What is the next step in TP and how do we get there? Where should we be placing our efforts? My understanding is that TP lack a coherent scientific injunction. Articulating a philosophy of science in TP has yet to be done. My hypothesis is that this is a crucial step in the right direction for the future of the field as a whole.

•    Financial Support:
•    Interest to Me: I find this topic incredibly interesting.
•    Extendability After Completion: Infinite
•    Controversy: Slightly controversial in the sense that qualitative and mixed methods are still gaining acceptance and visibility.
•    Time to Completion:
•    “Hotness”: As far as I can tell this is a very hot area in the field. Wilber, Ferrer, Hartelius, Braud and Anderson, and others have all pointed toward a complete philosophy of science in the field
•    Advisor’s Enthusiasm for Topic:
•    Closeness to Advisors Research:
•    Duplication or Uniqueness: Preliminary investigation has only lead to Ferrer’s work, which is theoretical.
•    Narrow Focus: The focus is very broad/needs to narrowed to a point of manageability
•    Tractability: