Wilber's Research Methodology
Discussion
Jennifer Gidley:
"Wilber refers to his main methodology as orienting generalizations which he describes in thefollowing way: “If we look at the various fields of human knowledge—from physics to biologyto psychology, sociology, theology and religion—certain broad, general themes emerge, aboutwhich there is very little disagreement” (Wilber, 1996a, p. 17). Expanding on his methods forconstructing his theory, Wilber (1996) continues:If we take these types of largely-agreed-upon orienting generalizations from the various branches of knowledge . . . and if we string these orienting generalizations together, wewill arrive at some astonishing and often profound conclusions, conclusions that, asextraordinary as they might be, nonetheless embody nothing more than our already-agreed-upon knowledge. . . . In working with broad orienting generalizations, we can suggest a broad orienting map of the place of men and women in relation to Universe, Life andSpirit. (p. 18)
Wilber’s overall ‘integrative method’ is further detailed by Jack Crittenden in the Forward toWilber’s The Eye of Spirit , (2000d) and described as having three steps. I have summarizedCrittenden’s description of these three steps as follows:
• Wilber develops the orienting generalizations within each field of study—“a type of phenomenology of all human knowledge conducted at the level of orientinggeneralizations.”
• “Wilber then arranges these truths into chains or networks of interlocking conclusions.At this point Wilber veers sharply from a method of mere eclecticism and into systematicvision.” Crittenden claims that at this point Wilber asks himself: “What coherent systemwould in fact incorporate the greatest number of these truths?”
• “The third step in Wilber’s overall approach is the development of a new type of criticaltheory.” Crittenden explains that once Wilber has developed his optimum schema (egAQAL) he then critiques the partiality of the narrower approaches. “He criticizes nottheir truths, but their partial nature” (pp. xiii-xiv).In regard to his own truth claims, Wilber gives mixed messages. In a discussion of what hecalls broad science —or even spiritual science —he claims that all “truth claims [can be] guided by the three strands of valid knowledge (injunction, apprehension, confirmation; or exemplars,data, falsification) applied at every level (sensory, mental, spiritual)” (Wilber, 1998, p. 174). Inother contexts he honors the role of pluralism and relativism in truth claims. Yet he positions hisintegral theory above other theories, suggesting that his tacit bias may be to believe that histheory is more “true” than others.In the foreword to the second edition of Up from Eden, Wilber tackled head-on what he seesas the major critiques against evolution theory that still hampered the appropriate development ofthe evolution of consciousness theory at the time he was writing. Wilber (1996c) claims thatthere has been considerable opposition to the notion of cultural and consciousness evolution— from the traditionalists, because evil is still happening; the Romantics, who hark back to the past;and from the liberal social theorists, reacting to the horrors of Social Darwinism. He then putsforward several arguments for cultural evolution, particularly drawing on Habermas’ notion ofthe dialectic of progress. He also points to the “distinction between differentiation anddissociation,” “the difference between transcendence and repression,” “the difference betweennatural hierarchy and pathological hierarchy,” and how “higher structures can be hijacked bylower impulses” (pp. xi-xiv). These are important theoretical contributions to the discourse."