Field-Based Psychology: Registers of Inquiry in Consciousness Studies

This concept note presents a provisional register-based framework for field-based psychology within consciousness studies. It begins from the observation that discussions of mind and consciousness often become confused when different kinds of claim are collapsed into one another. In particular, phenomenological description, mechanistic explanation, ontological commitment, epistemic justification, axiological orientation, practical application, relational context, and systemic context are often treated as though they were interchangeable. The note proposes that these are better understood as related but non-equivalent registers of inquiry, each with its own role, limits, and standards of assessment. Its aim is not to settle every dispute in consciousness studies, but to clarify the terms under which such disputes are conducted. By distinguishing registers more explicitly, the framework seeks to reduce category confusion, improve interdisciplinary dialogue, and support more coherent relationships between lived experience, explanatory modelling, philosophical interpretation, value, relation, system, and practice. This record functions as a public research note and citable reference point for an ongoing body of work. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-03-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19135441
Primary Topic
Social Representations and Identity
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Field-Based Psychology: Registers of Inquiry in Consciousness Studies

Carl Langley
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Social Representations and Identity
article

Field-Based Psychology: Registers of Inquiry in Consciousness Studies

Carl Langley
article en

Abstract

This concept note presents a provisional register-based framework for field-based psychology within consciousness studies. It begins from the observation that discussions of mind and consciousness often become confused when different kinds of claim are collapsed into one another. In particular, phenomenological description, mechanistic explanation, ontological commitment, epistemic justification, axiological orientation, practical application, relational context, and systemic context are often treated as though they were interchangeable. The note proposes that these are better understood as related but non-equivalent registers of inquiry, each with its own role, limits, and standards of assessment. Its aim is not to settle every dispute in consciousness studies, but to clarify the terms under which such disputes are conducted. By distinguishing registers more explicitly, the framework seeks to reduce category confusion, improve interdisciplinary dialogue, and support more coherent relationships between lived experience, explanatory modelling, philosophical interpretation, value, relation, system, and practice. This record functions as a public research note and citable reference point for an ongoing body of work. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Social Representations and Identity
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.