The research always involved helping people achieve. That brings the «human element» to the fore. I came to realize that we are all learners in the «school of life».
It became evident that the psycho-social things, elements of personal functioning, that are intrinsic to willed endeavour are both «psycho-» i.e. experiential and private, and «-social» i.e. inter-personal or communal and public.
The features of the «human element» that make it so intractable for conventional scientific methods emerge from the nature of inner felt experience and its interaction with the social and physical environment.
Artificial intelligence, the practical wing of computational views of brain functioning, also struggles with human experience: which it refers to as «bizarre»: see more here.
Consider the qualities of your «inner experiences»:
Fluid, changing, complex, subtle and irreducible.
Capable of endless further interpretation or elaboration.
Based in the first person, incorporating meaning, providing significance.
Noticeable only via a sufficient sensitivity of human observers.
Altered by investigation or articulation.
Not the same for the spontaneous participant as for an observer.
The taxonomic approach must be considered part of social science, broadly considered. Because academia divides up human functioning amongst discrete disciplines, presentation here is difficult. Psychology claims consciousness, but anthropology and sociology also deal with subjective experiences. Social science methods are extremely diverse and variable. See The Hub for a comparative account of methods.
Consciousness is So Different
The elements of personal functioning are so different from elements of the physical and technological world that many scientists can barely admit their existence. The uncontrollable psychosocial world, with its properties and relationships, is then ignored, devalued or ludicrously simplified—even by social scientists. If prepared to admit that a distinct realm exists, many researchers will insist that:
it cannot be studied scientifically (i.e. at all), &/or
existing scientific methods must be applied (i.e. even if inappropriate).
Anglo-Saxon philosophers have largely withdrawn their attention from human experience and social existence except in relation to specific foci (e.g. justice). When focusing on experience, they typically turn to the colour red (or sometimes green). Because the simplest sensation is so difficult to grasp and agree about, anything more complicated is ignored.
Continental philosophers, at least since Plato, have engaged more positively with life: think of Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard. In more recent times, many have been motivated by human problems which are viewed as societal e.g. the Frankfurt school («critical theory») explicitly seeks to liberate people and emancipate them from unnecessary domination.
One, mostly ignored, UK philosopher who has spent his life providing arguments to substantiate the present approach is Nicholas Maxwell. However, the school of philosophy that underpins the present scientific study is believed to be Wittgensteinian.
Investigators of brains claim to be on the brink of answering the mysteries of awareness and meaning. Such research is important and it deserves support. But the claim is misleading because it plays on different meanings of the word «answering». They are typically referring to knowledge of underlying mechanisms, that does not speak in any way to handling the experience of living.
A similar confusion exists when scientists and bloggers speak of the brain or its neurons or circuits as deciding or thinking or comparing or hypothesizing. No: only a person decides, thinks, compares, hypothesizes. The brain simply has cell networks that fire and form patterns, which may well underlie or correspond to or even stimulate a person in deciding, thinking &c. Note that no-one says that brains prosper or torture or are accountable — because that is more obviously silly.
Reading: A leading neuroscientist, M. Bennett, and philosopher, P. Hacker, have written extensively on this fallacy: see their Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, and History of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Neuroscience may well help us understand the Taxonomy, its operation and evolution. I personally believe it will, and I am working to that end. But such knowledge will never give answers to the everyday challenges, conflicts and confusions of our personal and social life. These are only meaningfully handled in an experience-drenched psychosocial way.
Differences between inquiries in academic disciplines and in the psychosocial realm have lead to a polarization that often manifests in social conflict and disparagement.
Click here to see a psychosocial analysis of differences which necessarily must extend beyond scientific method alone.
Inquiry into Psychosocial Reality
Conventional Scientific Inquiry
Investigator
Uses action research and participative or consulting methods that enable awareness, reflection and empathic identification.
Uses scientific methods with controls agreed as valid. Awareness of social implications is irrelevant except in regard to grant-funding.
Location of Inquirers
In special independent institutes, or as independent consultants.
In Universities and associated research institutes.
Career
Built around being useful to clients and creating a reputation in a domain within a particular society.
Requires a focus on the output of the disciplines, and depends on winning support of senior established colleagues.
Range
Domain-specific and cross-cultural.
Discipline-specific and cross-cultural.
Purpose
To solve problems raised by individuals, organizations, community associations or government.
To build knowledge and theory through solving discipline-generated problems. Application is secondary.
Objects of Study
Functioning and organization of human systems: a person, a family, an organization, a government.
Physico-chemical-biological systems, and non-intentional, non-committed aspects of persons and social systems.
Method
Oriented to seeing and valuing: based on the viability and effectiveness of models in practice. Discriminating is key.
Oriented to knowing and testing: based on repeatability and falsifiability of conjectures. Explaining is key.
Process
Knowledge is found during committed action, which must not be disrupted; and it is taken as true when used with good effect.
Knowledge is developed under controlled conditions. Its value outside those or in relation to human needs is unknown.
Output
Understandable and often common sense. Criticism from anyone is welcome i.e. inherently integrative.
Highly specialized and only shareable with qualified colleagues i.e. inherently divisive.
Difficulties
Requires willingness, responsibility, and awareness to be used properly.
Unable to recognize human needs or consider issues of implementation and management.
Theory and Practice
Fuses theory and practice: people act in accord with the ideas that they hold.
«Applied» means applying theories from the «pure» disciplinary science.
Ethics
Force for good: output can integrate spiritual and ethical dimensions as well as intellectual, emotional and practical aspects.
Mainly intellectual: ethically neutral and split off from spiritual and practical concerns, except speculatively.
Human Identity
Interacts directly with human identity and may foster personal growth.
Finds notions of personal identity, self-development and autonomy mysterious.
Inter-inquiry Relations
Can enable and support conventional scientific research.
Ignores, hinders or directly attacks non-disciplinary inquirers and their outputs.
are both «psycho-» i.e. experiential and private, and «-social» i.e. inter-personal or communal and public. 
(«critical theory») explicitly seeks to liberate people and emancipate them from unnecessary domination. 
Contribution from Neuroscience