Definition of the Methodological Basis of Crisis Psychology

<p>The article examines the state and place of crisis psychology among other areas of psychology and provides its definition. The article puts forward the proposition about the “loss” of a person in modern psychology, analyzes the reasons for the change of dialogue to monologue and the replacement of the soul with the concept of “psyche”. It is noted that domestic academic psychology still does not sufficiently interfere with real life, studying not real people, but some schemes, replacing living reality with abstract definitions and conditional operational “equivalents”. Everyday psychology is proposed as a possible theoretical basis for crisis psychology. The following provisions are highlighted that can serve as a theoretical basis for crisis psychology: 1) dialogue should be taken as the basis for the methodological tools, since it allows a person to remain a subject during its study; 2) the psychobiographical approach should be considered as the main one for studying a personality in a crisis situation (as is done in everyday psychology); 3) reality, which has subjective significance and subjective interpretation of this reality, should be put at the head of the study; 4) it is necessary to control the research from the standpoint of whether the person will remain in the process of the research behind the columns of numbers and formulas; whether the life world of the person has been replaced by the subjective representation of the researcher. The position is substantiated that along with the psychology of everyday life, the ideas of phenomenology, constructivism, ethnomethodology, and interpretive anthropology come to crisis psychology. Conclusion: for crisis psychology, it is better to use qualitative research methods: observation (including participant observation), study of biographies, interviews, interpretation of symbolic forms, focus groups, etc.</p>