Abstract

The author focuses on a historical analysis of the conflicting links between what is called “applications” or “practices” on the one hand and “theoretical research” or “experimental research” or “fundamental research” on the other, by following trends and cultures. Despite numerous declarations of intent advocating the need to link practices and theories, the fact remains that both types of psychology tend to move further and further away from this aim, since the birth of psychology. This growing gap questions the possibility of a total division between “applied psychology” and “fundamental psychology”. First, the author discusses the complexity of the terms used by the different authors, such as “applied psychology”, “practical psychology” and “concrete psychology”, compared to other terms such as “academic”, “experimental”, “theoretical”, “fundamental psychology”, etc. These different names are considered as an indicator of the fluctuations in the relationship between applications and theories. Second, the author shows that the field categories in psychology were built upon different foundations in France and underlines the consequences of this process. This viewpoint will be illustrated by a French case: that of the creation and dissemination of a new psychological discipline at the end of the 80s. The interest of this example is that it shows the disparities between the academic theories and practical developments. In addition, it allows us to highlight its tension lines, with considerable consequences for students and practitioners. The discussion shows the need to implement a real space that enables the analysis of concrete practices by psychologists considered as producers of new knowledge, and in this way to make the construction of new psychology models possible.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.