Ontological Modelling as a Means of Modernizing the Scientific Apparatus of Psychology

Authors

  • Oleg Khairulin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2026.01.066

Keywords:

methodology, psychology, rationalism

Abstract

In modern world, where information structures and influences dominate – a trend amplified by the characteristics of postmodern culture – psychology, as a science, is emerging as the primary source of guiding principles and frameworks for the harmonious organization of the individual and society. Therefore, the methodological framework of Ukrainian psychology must be as responsive as possible to the challenges of postmodernism and take into account all the characteristics of contemporary scientific discourse. These characteristics stem primarily from the need to modernize scientific psychology by achieving the greatest possible harmony between the naturalistic-experimental and rational-intellectual programs for verifying knowledge about complex psychological phenomena. This modernization is made possible by the use of ontological modeling (also known as formal ontologization or ontological engineering) as a promising tool in psychology. Ontological modeling is justified as a) a modern method of descriptive reconstruction of psychological knowledge; b) a cutting-edge tool for designing research programs, organizing the research process, and synthesizing and verifying the results of psychological research; c) a way of thinking characteristic of contemporary researchers in the social sciences and humanities. The theoretical foundation of ontological modeling as a means of modernizing the scientific apparatus of psychology is provided by the theories of representationism and logical empiricism (logical positivism). In accordance with the principles of these approaches, psychological theory must 1) possess clear explanatory power and the empirical adequacy of scientific models; 2) be characterized by the existential force of ontological commitments; and 3) demonstrate the structural equivalence of models with respect to descriptions of reality. Ontological modeling can ensure the implementation of these aspects in scientific psychology. The following definition is proposed: ontological modeling is a psychological method and process for creating a conceptual model of a specific domain of psychology, which provides a reasoned description of that domain as a set of concepts and the relationships between them based on n-order predicate logic, and which ranges from concrete empirical facts to universal, as of the time of the study, conceptual representations of psychological knowledge. The formulation and generalization of psychological research findings as subject-predicate structures and the representation of empirical phenomena through n-order predicates should be regarded as a strict methodological standard. It is proposed that a universal categorical matrix (developed by A.V. Furman) be adopted as the conceptual foundation for the application of ontological modeling within the theoretical framework of Ukrainian psychology. According to the matrix presented above, the formal-ontological structure of psychological research consists of five levels of scientific conceptualization: 1) the recording of ontic phenomena, facts hic et nunc (instances); 2) the primary ontological conceptualization of the phenomenon under study; 3) a specific ontological conceptualization of the phenomenon in its invariants, depending on various ontogenetic conditions; 4) a general ontological conceptualization of the phenomenon within the framework of a specific epistemological program; 5) a universal ontological conceptualization of the phenomenon, which is inherent in any fact, including imaginary, simulated, or probable ones. The structural foundation of psychological theory consists of the ontological signature and its core – the thesaurus of psychological research.

Author Biography

  • Oleg Khairulin

    Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Asso­ciate Professor, Associate Professor of the Institute of Strategic Communications of the National Defence University of Ukraine, member of the Editorial Board and regular contributor to the journal «Psychology and Society», Major-General (Reserve), Kyiv.

    oleg_hairulin@ukr.net

References

Basiuk, T. (2020). Movy opysu ontolohii [Ontology description languages]. Lviv : Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoi politekhniky [in Ukrainian].

Basiuk T. (2017). Ontolohichnyi inzhynirynh [Ontological engineering]. Lviv : Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoi politekhniky [in Ukrainian].

Baumeister A.O. (2015), Buttia i blaho: ontolohichni pidstavy praktychnoi normatyvnosti [Being and goodness: ontological foundations of practical normativity]. Doctor's thesis. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Baumeister, A. (2017). Vstup do filosofskykh studii, abo Intelektualni podorozhi do krainy filosofii [An introduction to the study of philosophy, or Intellectual journeys into the realm of philosophy]. K. : Instytut obdarovanoi dytyny NAPN Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].

Kvain Vilard van Orman. (2015). Dvi dohmy empiryzmu [The two dogmas of empiricism]. Sententiae.2 (XXXIII). 9-26. [in Ukrainian].

Korablova N. S. (2000). Bahatomirnist rolovoi realnosti: sotsialno-filosofskyi analiz. [The multidimensionality of role-based reality: a socio-philosophical analysis]. Doctor's thesis. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].

Novitnia filosofiia nauky [The latest philosophy of science]. (2009). Kyiv : Lohos [in Ukrainian].

Ontolohichnyi analiz u Web [Ontological analysis on the Web]. (2015). Rohushyna Yu. V., Hladun A. Ya., Osadchyi V. V., Pryima S. M. Melitopol : MDPU im. Bohdana Khmelnytskoho [in Ukrainian].

Rubanets O. O. (2015). Kohnityvni osoblyvosti vidtvorennia obiekta v znanni [Cognitive characteristics of the representation of an object in memory]. Multyversum. Filosofskyi almanakh. Vyp. 3-4. 128-138 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35423/2078-8142.2015.3-4.12

Semiotychnyi analiz yavyshch kultury [A semiotic analysis of cultural phenomena]. (2021). Kyiv : Instytut filosofii imeni H.S. Skovorody NAN Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].

Filosofskyi entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk [Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary]. (2020). Kyiv: «Abrys» [in Ukrainian].

Fuler S. (2008). Vidnaidennia mistsia dlia krytychnykh intelektualiv v universyteti: vidnovlennia pislia spustoshen postmodernoi doby [Finding a place for critical intellectuals in the university: recovering from the devastation of the postmodern era]. DUKh I LITERA, 19. 222-244. [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A.B. (2016). Ideia i zmist profesiinoho metodolohuvannia [The idea and content of professional methodology]. Ternopil : TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2022). Metodolohichna optyka yak instrument myslevchynennia [Methodological perspective as a tool for thinking-oriented action]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. № 2. P. 6-48 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.02.006 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.02.006

a. Furman A. V. Metodolohichne obgruntuvannia predmetnoho polia teoretychnoi psykholohii [Methodological foundations of the disciplinary field of theoretical psychology]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. 2019. № 3-4. S. 5-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2019.03.005 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2019.03.005

Khairulin, O. M. (2021). Diapazon rozvyvalnoho potentsialu hry yak subiektnoi prohramy [The range of developmental potential of the game as a subject program]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 82-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.01.082 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.01.082

Khairulin, O.M. (2023). Ontolohichne modeliuvannia psykholohichnoho polia hry [Ontological modeling of the games psychological field]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society. 2. 106-141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2023.02.106 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2023.02.106

Carnap, R. (1956). Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago [in English].

Carnap, R. Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago, 1956. 210 p. [in English].

Carnap Rudolf. Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4 (1950): 20-40. Reprinted in the Supplement to Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, enlarged edition/ University of Chicago Press [in English].

Carnap R. The Logical Structure of the World, and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Translated by Rolf A. George (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967, 60s.) Pp. xxvi+364 [in English].

Corea, C. & Delfmann, P. Detecting Compliance with Business Rules in Ontology-Based Process Modeling, in Leimeister, J.M.; Brenner, W. (Hrsg.). 2017. Proceedings der 13. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2017), St. Gallen. 226-240 [in English].

Fellmann, M.; Hogrebe, F.; Thomas, O.; Nьttgens, M. An ontology-driven approach to support semantic verification in business process modeling. In Proceedings of the Modellierung Betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2010), Modellgestьtztes Management, Dresden, Germany, 15-17 September 2010 [in English].

Fetzer, J.H. (1993) Philosophy of science. New York : Paragon House. 197 [in English].

Formal Ontology in Information Systems. (2008). IOS Press. 328 p. [in English].

Garanina, N., Anureev, I. & Borovicova, O. Verification Oriented Process Ontology. Modeling and Analysis of Information Systems. Vol. 25, No 6 (2018). 607-622 [in English].

https://doi.org/10.18255/1818-1015-2018-6-607-622

Guarino N. Formal Ontology and Information Systems. N. Guarino (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS'98, Trento, Italy, 6-8 June 1998. Amsterdam, IOS Press/ 3-15 [in English].

Haldane, J., Wright, C. (Ed.). (1993). Reality, Representation, and Projection. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195078787.001.0001

Reber A. S. The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. England, 1995. 880 p.

Sun J.; Wang, H.H. & Hu, T. Design Software Architecture Models using Ontology. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. Miami, FL, USA, 7-9 July 2011. 191-196 [in English].

Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon. The Role of Ontologies in the Verification and Validation of Knowledge Based Systems. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, VOL. 16. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2001. 377-390 [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-111X(200103)16:3<377::AID-INT1013>3.0.CO;2-5

Van Fraassen B. (1980).The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 235 р. [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001

Wartofsky, Marx, W., (1979). Models: Representa­tion and the Scientific Understanding. Dordrecht/Boston/London : D. Reidel. 390 p. [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9357-0

Downloads

Published

2026-03-30

How to Cite

Khairulin, Oleg. “Ontological Modelling As a Means of Modernizing the Scientific Apparatus of Psychology”. Psyhology & Society, vol. 93, no. 1, Mar. 2026, pp. 66-82, https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2026.01.066.