DOES THE FUTURE HAVE A HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY? A Report ...

History of Psychology 2013, Vol. 17, No. 1, 000

© 2013 American Psychological Association 1093-4510/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035335

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DOES THE FUTURE HAVE A HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY? A Report on Teaching, Research, and Faculty Positions in Canadian Universities Marissa E. Barnes

Scott Greer

York University

University of Prince Edward Island

This article presents findings derived from 2 surveys inquiring about the role of the history of psychology course within undergraduate and graduate psychology departments in Canada. Conducted through the Chairs of Canadian Psychology Departments (CCPD) listserv, the results indicated that the history of psychology has a robust presence in psychology programs in Canadian universities, often serving as a requirement for an honors degree or graduation. Yet, many departments have reported having difficulties finding a consistent instructor for the course, with the majority of instructors not identifying as a “history specialist.” We reviewed the findings, have highlighted aspects of concern, and have argued for a solution that includes recognizing the value of historical research as part of psychology. Keywords: Canadian universities, pedagogy, teaching the history of psychology

Building on earlier research by Fuchs and Viney (2002) on the history of psychology course in American universities, this article inquired into the role of the history of psychology course, and the historian of psychology, within undergraduate and graduate psychology department curricula in Canada. Based on their research, Fuchs and Viney (2002) noted that the majority of history of psychology instructors are not history specialists and are largely selftaught, having their primary research focus in other areas. The history of psychology is thus largely a pedagogical endeavor for these instructors, with relatively few publishing in history of psychology journals. Fuchs and Viney (2002) pointed out that there are relatively few opportunities for a faculty position with the history of psychology as a primary research focus. Because the mean age of the American

Psychological Association’s (APA) Division 26 members (History of Psychology) in 1997 was nearly the age of what many would consider retirement (64.52 years), Fuchs and Viney (2002) concluded that there was “a possible cause for concern” about the future status of the history of psychology. We wondered whether the situation in Canada warranted a similar “possible cause for concern.” Who was teaching the history of psychology in Canadian universities, and how will it be taught in the future? More generally, we were also concerned with the recognition of the history of psychology as an area of research within the field. For the history of psychology to continue to exist, not to mention grow as a body of scholarship, it is important for historians of psychology to become more widely recognized as contributing to the field (outside of pedagogy). The present article addresses these questions and concerns through two surveys sent to chairs of Canadian psychology departments using the Chairs of Canadian Psychology Department (CCDP) listserv. Bhatt and Tonks (2002) provided the first “snapshot” of how the history of psychology is perceived within Canadian academies. In their article “What lies in the future of teaching the history of psychology?” they indicated that the

Marissa E. Barnes, Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada; and Scott Greer, Department of Psychology, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marissa E. Barnes, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 1

2

BARNES AND GREER


inspiration for their research was based on observations within the academy, specifically in relation to pedagogy: We noticed that the retired history of psychology positions were not being replaced. We noticed that the undergraduate courses on the history of psychology were “cut” or “reduced” or no longer “required.” We observed that the value of the history of psychology courses was being discounted. . . . We began to wonder if these were random happenings or an indication of a gloomy future for the teachers of psychology’s history. Are the undergraduate courses on the history of psychology a case of “here today, gone tomorrow”? (p. 2)

Bhatt and Tonks’ (2002) e-mail survey, sent to 44 Canadian universities, included a number of questions similar to those asked in the present surveys, and many of their observations are consistent with those we report.1 Method On November 7, 2006, Scott Greer emailed a brief survey to the CCPD listserv asking psychology department chairs specific and openended questions about the status of the history of psychology course in their departments. Four years later (November 3, 2010) and without knowledge of Greer’s earlier survey, Marissa Barnes emailed the CCDP listserv again with her own survey, similar to Greer’s, but with more open-ended questions. The CCDP listserv contains the email addresses of 60 psychology department chairs across Canada. Of these, 28 (47%) responded to Greer’s survey and 38 (63%) responded to Barnes’s survey. It is possible that the sample may have overestimated the presence of the history of psychology course and the historian of psychology, given that departments, so equipped, may have been more likely to respond. Greer presented the results of his survey at a 2007 symposium marking the 20th anniversary of the History and Philosophy of Psychology (HPP) section of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) (see Greer, 2007). Barnes presented the results of her survey in symposium hosted by the HPP section at the CPA convention in 2011 (see Barnes, 2011). Greer’s (2007) Survey of CCPD The survey by Greer was directed at department chairs, and was designed to better under-

stand the role and general perceptions of the history of psychology course in their departments. Greer’s survey was intentionally brief, with the hope that, first of all, chairs would respond, and it could act as a follow-up to the earlier survey by Bhatt and Tonks (2002). Despite its brevity, it revealed a portrait of the history of psychology course, and the historian of psychology, that largely supported the findings by Bhatt and Tonks (2002). Table 1 presents the questions and the responses, along with numbers and percentages, as well as some of the responses to the open-ended questions. Barnes’s (2011) Survey of CCPD The survey created by Barnes (with the help of Angelina Baydala) was prompted by a discussion that took place on the PsycCRITIQUES blog site. James Korn (one of the associate editors of PsycCRITIQUES) posted a commentary entitled “Should a course in the history of psychology be part of every psychologist’s education?” (Korn, 2010). The post was in response to Bruce Henderson’s (2010) review of Wade Pickren and Alexandra Rutherford’s (2010) textbook, A History of Modern Psychology in Context. In this review, Henderson (2010) referred to the fact that few teachers of the history of psychology are prepared to teach this course, stating that few have had formal training in the history or philosophy of psychology. In his post, Korn highlighted this and stated that there are two university programs where one can receive graduate training and specialization in the history of psychology.2 He suggested that graduates from these programs are unlikely to be hired based on this training. Korn proposed three options to remedy the reality of ill-trained instructors teaching the history of psychology: first, forget about it (stating that “other sciences do not require courses in their history yet produce competent graduates”); second, he suggested a 3- to 4-week training workshop to prepare teachers to teach 1 There were a number of comments following the Bhatt and Tonks (2002) article on the history of psychology course and how it is taught (see Brock, 2002; Greer, 2002; Nicholson, 2002; Rutherford, 2002). 2 Korn was referring to graduate training at the University of New Hampshire (which no longer has a history of psychology program) and to the history and theory of psychology graduate program at York University.

HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES

3

Table 1 Summary of Questions and Responses to Greer’s (2007) Survey of the Chairs of Canadian Psychology Departments Listserv


Question

Responses

1. Do you offer an undergraduate history of psychology course(s)?

Yes ⫽ 27 (96%) “Yes, but no one to teach it” (due to retirement) “Yes, but only offered by correspondence, not offered on campus” “Yes, but unclear who will teach it” No ⫽ 1 (4%) “No, was cut in 2003, no one to teach it”

2. Is it required?

Yes (for major) ⫽ 9 (33%) No ⫽ 18 (67%) No (but required for honors degree) ⫽ 9 (33%)

3. At what level (or year) is it offered?

Second year ⫽ 3 (11%) Third year ⫽ 8 (30%) Fourth year ⫽ 15 (56%)

4. Is the course taught by full-time faculty or a part-time/sessional?

Full time ⫽ 22 (85%) Part time ⫽ 4 (15%)

5. Is this person(s) trained in historical methods? If not, how is an instructor selected?

Had training ⫽ 13 (50%) Not trained ⫽ 13 (50%) Instructor selected according to: “interest in the area” “self-identified interest” “scholarly interest in historical issues” “has previous training in history of ideas” “amateur historian” “previous course work and research” “research interests in theoretical psychology” “tends to be older faculty member” “willingness to teach (didn’t scream as loud as other faculty)”

6a. Additional comments: Has it been recently cut, added, or modified?

“Retiring prof,” “changed course from 6 credits to two 3 credit courses” “Offered by correspondence only—no plans to teach due to lack of faculty” “Course available but not taught due to retirement” “Omitted entirely in 2003” “Moved from general history to applied history” “Added grad course for I/O program”

6b. Additional comments: Has the status of the course changed?

Yes ⫽ 18 (67%) No ⫽ 9 (33%)

6c. Additional comments: Has there been a consistent person teaching the course?

“Use grad students, part-time faculty” “Changes every year— keeps it fresh” “No replacement for retired prof”a

Other miscellaneous comments:

A number of comments on history of psychology as a capstone course, for example: “sums up and integrates previous material” Taught by senior faculty Registrations have been increasing despite optional nature of course

The responses to graduate course questions mirrored those of the undergraduate responses, with the following exceptions:

Eight of 23 (35%) graduate programs in the survey have at least one history of psychology course The history course was required in some but not all programs; those that required it included: four PhD clinical programs, two master’s programs, and one PhD in experimental and applied psychology

Note. N ⫽ 28. Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments are a summary of statements made by respondents. I/O ⫽ Industrial/Organizational Psychology. a This is a theme mentioned in four reports.


4

BARNES AND GREER

the history of psychology; or third, an online history course that universities could buy to “fill the gap” (wherein anyone, qualified or not, could lead the discussions and administer examinations). Apart from an interest in these opinions, Barnes noted that this discussion was happening within the United States and APA. What was the status of the history of psychology within the Canadian context? Were there (or should there be) similar debates occurring at home? What was the status of course offerings in the history of psychology in Canada? These questions prompted the creation of Barnes’s survey. The survey was distributed on the CCDP listserv by Richard MacLennan, chair of the department at the University of Regina, facilitated by Angelina Baydala. Responses were forwarded from MacLennan to Baydala and finally to Barnes. Barnes began surveying the literature shortly thereafter, and began analyzing the responses in late February 2011. Of the 38 respondents, all but three were the chair or the head of the departments on which they were reporting. Questions and responses to this survey are contained in Table 2. In many regards, Barnes’s findings are consistent with those reported by Greer (2007), Bhatt and Tonks (2002), and Fuchs and Viney (2002). Due to the breadth of Barnes’s survey, we have not discussed all questions and responses in detail. There were numerous areas where Barnes’s survey corroborated Greer’s (2007) findings, and these were the basis for the results and discussion detailed below. However, comments on unique findings from Barnes’s survey (i.e., Question 6, on whether the course was taught primarily as a “history” or a “systems” course and Question 7 on textbooks) can be found in footnotes 5 and 6. Results By combining the returns of these surveys, we were able clearly to see a number of significant themes emerge.3 First, the history of psychology course has, to a certain extent, retained its esteemed place in the curricula of undergraduate psychology: 96% of departments surveyed listed it as a course offering, and approximately two thirds of undergraduate programs listed it as a requirement for either a major or an honors

degree. Furthermore, a number of graduate programs required the history of psychology for admission. Nevertheless, similar to the findings in the United States by Fuchs and Viney (2002), the results from our surveys showed that the history of psychology course in Canada is currently in danger of being dropped in some departments for the lack of a qualified instructor; in some cases, it has already been cut. And although there are specialists out there, the number of courses taught and offered far outweighs the number of specialists. According to Barnes’s more recent survey, only about a third of history of psychology courses are taught by a person identified as having some “expertise,” being a “specialist,” or having “interest” in the field (only four were identified as an “historian of psychology”). Our findings also points to similar observations made by Fuchs and Viney (2002), as well as to anecdotal reports, that the history of psychology is often taught by senior faculty, who have perhaps developed an interest in history later in their career.4 However, our surveys also revealed that a third of the time the history of psychology course is without a consistent instructor. In Greer’s survey, four programs specifically identified that even though they listed a history of psychology course, due to a retirement, there was no one to teach it. The other departments without a professional historian of psychology would be left wondering the same thing, when the current “good departmental citizen” retires. Of course, nothing is certain, even in departments where a professional historian exists. In one case, the department had “an eminent 3 There was an institutional overlap in respondents for Greer (2007) and Barnes (2011). Of the Greer’s 28 respondents, 19 also responded to Barnes (2011); however, we did not look at whether there was a change in the person (the chair) reporting on behalf of the institution. 4 Although the history of psychology course has a substantial tradition in psychology departments, the historian as a specialist does not. Before the days of “historians of psychology,” the history course was typically taught by a senior faculty member, which still appears to be the case, according to our research and the age demographic from Fuchs and Viney (2002). As the history of psychology grew into a recognized area, the historian of psychology has emerged as a specialist, creating a new kind of faculty position.


5

Table 2 Summary of Questions and Responses to Barnes’s (2011) Survey of the Chairs of Canadian Psychology Departments Listserv


Questions

Responses

1. Is history of psychology a required course for an undergraduate degree?

Yes (for BA/BSc) ⫽ 14 (37%) Partial (required for honors) ⫽ 11 (30%) No (not required) ⫽ 13 (34%) Some degree of requiredness ⫽ 25 (67%)

2. How often is a course in the history of psychology offered?

At least once per academic year ⫽ 30 (79%) Once per academic year ⫽ 23 (60%) Twice per academic year ⫽ 7 (18%) Not offered ⫽ 6 (16%) Every other year at graduate level (n ⫽ 1); every other year at undergrad level (n ⫽ 1).

2a. If it is not offered each academic year . . . please specify [why]?a

“We have History of Psychology course on the books, but it hasn’t been offered in years. There is no one on faculty who is interested in this area; and when it was taught, it was done by someone who needed a course to meet teaching load requirements.” “I’ve been at . . . since 2004, and the . . . course they did have was discontinued before I arrived. I do not know why.” “We have a 4th year seminar on our books . . . taught every other year to approximately 15 4th year students (of 350). It hasn’t been taught since the faculty member who taught it retired (2 years).” “low enrollment” “lack of faculty who will teach”

3. Is the history of psychology offered as a half-year or full-year course?

Half-year (one term, 3.0) ⫽ 34 (89%) Full-year (two terms, 6.0) ⫽ 2 (5%) NA ⫽ 2 One respondent indicated that they offer two courses—one history and one theory—both 3.0.

4. Who teaches the history of psychology in the department (i.e., full-time faculty or part-time/sessional instructors)?

Full-time faculty ⫽ 31 (82%) Mix (part-time/full-time—rotates) ⫽ 3 (8%) Part-time or grad student ⫽ 2 (5%) NA ⫽ 2 Common responses: a teaching professor; a graduate student; a faculty member to meet teaching load; faculty member who has taken graduate courses in the history of psychology.

4a. What is their area of expertise, or how would they self identify (e.g., as a social psychologist, cognitive psychologist, clinical psychologist)?

Self-identify as expert/specialist in the history of psychology ⫽ 13 (34%): An historian of psychology (n ⫽ 4); as “specialist” in (n ⫽ 3); as area of “expertise” (n ⫽ 3); specific area of “interest” (n ⫽ 3). Identify as other ⫽ 25 (66%): Health psychologist (n ⫽ 2); cognitive psychologist (n ⫽ 5); social psychologist (n ⫽ 4); clinical psychologist (n ⫽ 4); neuroscientist (n ⫽ 3); developmental (n ⫽ 2); community psychologist (n ⫽ 1); psychologist of aging (n ⫽ 1); personality psychologist (n ⫽ 1); evolutionary interests (n ⫽ 1); forensic psychologist (n ⫽ 1). (table continues)

6

BARNES AND GREER

Table 2 (continued)


Questions

Responses

5. Upon what grounds are decisions made about who teaches the course (e.g., availability, expertise)?

List expertise first ⫽ 12 (32%) List availability and expertise ⫽ 8 (21%) List availability, interest, and volunteers ⫽ 15 (40%) “at least some degree of qualification” (n ⫽ 1) NA ⫽ 2 “Whomever is interested” “It is not a high priority course for us—likely will not be taught again unless one of our member’s expresses interest” “Willingness of a faculty member to teach. Faculty would rather teach stats or other unpopular courses than this one” “Both of course [expertise and availability] but we are fortunate to have the expertise” “Full-time faculty member whose specialty is History of Psychology [we’re one of the lucky departments in that regard!]” “We want graduate level training in the history of psychology”

6. Is the history of psychology course in your department taught as primarily a systems course or a history course?

History ⫽ 16 (42%) Systems ⫽ 6 (16%) Both ⫽ 13 (34%) but more history (n ⫽ 1); but major emphasis on systems (n ⫽ 2); we offer both a course in history and systems (n ⫽ 1); depends on instructor n ⫽ 2) NA ⫽ 3 “Mostly systems but the part-time instructors tend to teach it as a history course” “As a history course. So some people still follow so called systems?” “Our 3rd year course varies as to approach depending on who teaches it. . . .”

8. Are secondary readings, reading packets, or supplementary materials (i.e., archival sources) typically part of the curriculum for the course?

Part of the curriculum ⫽ 22 (58%) No ⫽ 4 (11%) Occasionally ⫽ 4 (11%) Encouraged ⫽ 3 (8%) NA ⫽ 5

Note. N ⫽ 38. This survey contained 10 open-ended questions. In some cases, not all questions were answered by a respondent and/or the response provided could not be classified as relating to the question asked. These instances are counted as not applicable (NA). All numerical values in parentheses after descriptive phrases refer to the number of relevant responses for that question. Questions and responses not reported in this table and/or report include: (Question 7) Please list some of the textbooks typically assigned to students by course directors; (Question 9) What forms of evaluation (e.g., tests, papers) are typically used?; (Question 10) What didactic approaches (lectures, seminar style, group discussions) are typically used in the classroom setting? Responses from Question 7 are listed in Table 3. Questions 9 and 10 did not yield noteworthy findings; most responses were standard (i.e., tests, papers, and presentations are used for evaluation; classes are structured with lectures and discussion, as is typical of most university courses). a Question 2a has been shortened for purposes of presentation.

historian of psychology,” but when he retired, the course was not picked up by anyone else nor was someone hired to replace that person. The course is now a correspondence course, and, according to the chair, it is not clear who will teach it. Another chair reported that the history specialist in their department was retiring soon, and the future of the course was unclear. Similarly, in other cases of retirements, history of psychology instructors are replaced on a “catch-as-catch-can” basis us-

ing various instructors, sometimes part-time faculty or graduate students, whose backgrounds and qualifications vary. So despite its importance to and near ubiquitous presence in undergraduate psychology, the history of psychology course in most departments is not attached to a designated faculty position, and this creates difficulties when the current instructor retires. Another quite pronounced theme from our surveys was that many departments continue



to see the history of psychology as a capstone course. Although many professional historians would critique teaching history in this capstone fashion as unabashedly presentist, as reflecting an outmoded “old history” view of historiography, and as having more to do with disciplinary codification than historical context, it is nevertheless true that the history of psychology is still widely perceived as important for this reason. Connected to its role as a capstone course, the issue of requiredness is another prominent theme that was prevalent in the returns from Greer (2007) and Barnes (2011). The history of psychology is offered, not because it is valued in and of itself, but because it is required. As reported by one respondent: History and Systems is required to be licensed in. . . . Thus, we highly recommend it to students who foresee staying in . . . to practice. It is also recommended to those intending to go to graduate school in any area of psychology. However, it is not required for a degree. It is a one-semester course taught by a sessional instructor who has a special interest in the area. We would not be broken hearted if it stopped being required by the . . . licensing board.

And as indicated by another respondent regarding the satisfaction of the “history requirement” necessary for accreditation from CPA: We also offer . . . in the MA/PhD program as an elective for students in the Psychological Science stream and as a required/elective in the Clinical Psychology stream (i.e., students must satisfy the CPA foundational area “Historical and Scientific Foundations of General Psychology” and thus must take the graduate course if they didn’t take a history of psychology course at their undergraduate institution).5

A number of respondents indicated that a course in the history of psychology is mandatory for advanced training in psychology (i.e., to receive an honors degree or go to graduate school). Some respondents specified that it is “required for Specialized Honors BA/BSc, [and] ’encouraged’ for all others.” Although others detailed that it is “no longer required at second year; however, we are considering moving it to fourth year to have as a required ‘capstone’ course.” Finally, another (perhaps related) theme emerging from the survey was the expressed view that the history of psychology is a course no one wants to teach or take. Some depart-

7

ments reported dipping into their existing ranks to find an instructor, which appears to be a practical, economic solution. However, this option is not always warmly received. Depicting a scene from a department meeting, one chair characterized the selection process for the next history of psychology instructor as a colleague who “showed a willingness to teach the course and/or didn’t scream as loud as other faculty.” Another respondent’s comment regarding this process: “willingness of a faculty member to teach. Faculty would rather teach stats or other unpopular courses than this one.” The challenge involved in teaching the history of psychology was pointedly pronounced by yet another respondent, who wrote: We had a discussion about removing this as a requirement. The reasons for removing it included: (1) Almost no faculty want to teach it; in particular, as we have no historians of psychology, faculty do not think themselves qualified to cover the breadth of material; (2) It is required only for some of our honors programs, not all; (3) It is an historically unpopular course, regardless

5 Barnes’s, Question 6 (Is the history of psychology course in your department taught as primarily a systems course or a history course?) relates to respondents comments about the history and systems requirement for program accreditation with APA and CPA. This question asks about how the course is taught, but after its inclusion, Barnes thought the phrasing and terminology was problematic. How would the terms “history” and “systems” and their distinction be interpreted? What do such designations mean regarding the way a history and/or a systems course is taught, and how does this reflect the historiographic perspective taken by the instructor? Despite these concerns, the results indicate that the history and systems connection holds strong; some programs have two separate courses, while others report that the history of psychology course is interchangeably history or systems in its approach. APA and CPA support the grouping of history and systems together (see American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation, 2009, p. 7; see also, MacIntosh, Cohen, Caputo, & Lavoie, 2011, p. 21, regarding program philosophy and curriculum for accreditation with the Canadian Psychological Association). Although CPA uses different phrasing (i.e., “historical and scientific foundations”), we can assume that there is an equivalency, given that, in 2012, both organizations signed the “First Street Accord,” which is a document that states there is mutual recognition of one another’s accreditation standards. What the connection of history and systems means regarding how the history of psychology is taught and construed is an important question that requires additional investigation; questions about one’s views on historical development, psychology as a science, etc., would need to be explored further before an interpretation could be made about what it means to teach the history of psychology as more of a history course or a systems course.

8

BARNES AND GREER


of the instructor; (4) It is viewed by many faculty as no longer relevant as psychology is too big to be covered appropriately except by an historian of psychology; (5) We did end up not removing this, as a second faculty member volunteered to teach it. (emphasis added)

On a positive note, where there is expertise in the history of psychology, department chairs’ responses were positive—most are happy and feel fortunate to have a history specialist among them. As one chair put it: “we’re one of the lucky departments in that regard!” Another department chair wrote that his department hired a professional historian to teach two required courses, the history of psychology and statistics; he then asked: “How many Psychology departments hired someone with expertise in History of Psychology so that such perspectives can be represented in the required courses for their undergraduates?”And another chair wrote, also with a professional historian of psychology on faculty: It [the undergrad history course] seems to have held steady as an elective in the undergraduate program and a required course across grad programs. We have asked that it be included as a requirement in a specialized Honors program that is being developed, and it looks like that will happen.

All of these points demonstrate the obvious importance of not only the history of psychology course, but also the historian of psychology. Clearly, the perspective this person provides makes the history course a much more rewarding experience. By contrast, the survey showed that, in departments without an historian, there were a number of significant concerns regarding the “consistency” of the history course, and who would teach the course in the future.6 Discussion Based on these themes, the main issue we wanted to address is that even though psychology has traditionally (and ostensibly) valued the history of psychology course, the historian and the history of psychology as an area of research has not been valued or accorded the same departmental positions as other areas of the field. We find this disconnect between pedagogy and research rather unique to the history area, and particularly disquieting given that it is a course that is often required and is in nearly every psychology department in Canada.

As our surveys, as well as those of Fuchs and Viney (2002) and Bhatt and Tonks (2002), make clear, difficulties surrounding the history of psychology course arise when the current course instructor retires or otherwise leaves, and a history specialist is not hired as a replacement. Many departments find themselves in this predicament because the retiree who was teaching the history course was not a professional historian, but a specialist in another area, and a departmental hiring is needed to fill that gap instead. Our data support this interpretation, given that Barnes’s (2011) survey indicated that 66% of history of psychology instructors were identified as “nonspecialists.” Our fear, then, is that if current hiring practices are maintained, when a current history of psychology instructor retires, that person will likely not be replaced by a history specialist. What future does the history of psychology have when the disconnect between pedagogy and research becomes increasingly pronounced? Would other areas in psychology tolerate the same situation? Moreover, in the current climate of budget crunches, many North American universities are trimming their departments down, and the history of psychology either languishes in the course calendar year after year, subject to inconsistent, inexperienced, and inadequate teaching, or it is simply cut from the curriculum entirely. We are left to speculate what it is that prevents history from being welcomed as a bona fide area of research in psychology? Psychology certainly appears to be an ecumenical establishment. One answer that has been suggested concerns the status of historical research itself within the academy. Danziger (1994) argued that research in the history of psychology is typically regarded by the discipline as a secondclass type of activity or category, primarily because historians do not follow the scientific method(s), nor do they appear to contribute to the scientific practices of the rest of the field. As such, the history of psychology is perceived to 6 Table 3 presents results from Barnes’s Question 7, which requested that respondents list some of the textbooks typically used by instructors. There is a diversity of textbooks used, but we would suggest that teaching approach and historiographic orientation says more about the content of the course than does the choice of text. Moreover, even with the aid of excellent textbooks, nonspecialists struggle with the course.


9

Table 3 List of Textbooks: Responses to Question 7 of Barnes’s (2011) Survey of the Chairs of Canadian Psychology Departments Listserv


7. Please list some of the textbooks typically assigned to students by course directors Textbooks

Frequencya

Benjafield, J. G. (2010). A history of psychology (3rd ed.). Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2007). A brief history of modern psychology. Benjamin, L. T. (Ed.). (2009). A history of psychology: Original sources & contemp. research (3rd ed.). Brennan, J. F. (1997). Readings in the history and systems of psychology (2nd ed.). Goodwin, C. J. (2008). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Goodwin, C. J. (2010). Annotated readings in the history of modern psychology. Greenwood, J. D. (2009). A conceptual history of psychology. Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An introduction to the history of psychology (6th ed.). Hergenhahn, B. R. (2007). Introduction a` l’histoire de la psychologie. Hothersall, D. (2004). History of psychology (4th ed.). King, D., Viney, W., & Woody, W. D. (2009). A history of psychology: Ideas & context. (Int’l & 4th ed.). Leahey, T. H. (2001). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Leahey, T. H. (2004). A history of psychology: Main currents in psychological thought (6th ed.). Murray, D. J. (1988). A history of Western psychology (2nd ed.). Pickren, W. E., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. Schultz, D. P., & Shultz, S. E. (2008). A history of modern psychology (9th ed.). Thorne, M. B., & Henley, T. (2005). Connections in the history and systems of psychology. Walsh-Bowers, R., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (in preparation). Toward a critical history and philosophy of psychology: Diversity of context, thought, and practice.

3 2 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 1 1

Otherb “Readings” as text used (which would be a course package consisting of articles selected by the course director) Only primary resources as the “textbook” used NA

5 1 9

Note. The list above does not constitute complete reference information (e.g., publisher and publishing location are missing); in most cases, full reference information was not reported by respondents. Authors, title, year, and edition of textbook, as indicated by respondents, are listed above. NA ⫽ not applicable. a Refers to the number of times the particular textbook or response was reported. b Refers to responses to Question 7 that could not be classified as “textbook.”

be a largely pedagogical enterprise—a conclusion our studies support, but one that is hardly surprising given the history of psychology’s own history within the discipline. This secondclass status, according to Danziger, is a major obstacle for tenure-track hires in the history of psychology. If this is the case, this view of historical research is an unfortunate, inaccurate, and somewhat parochial understanding of what constitutes a contribution to the field. Psychology, today, is a multimethod discipline; while valuing the traditional empiricist and experimentalist approaches, it does not limit itself to these approaches. In fact, many of the basic areas of psychology, such as clinical and social, deal with texts through methods such as content analysis, and may employ various other qualitative methods that (co)investigate a wide vari-

ety of psychological phenomena through grounded theory, narrative, and phenomenological approaches. In a similar way, historians of psychology generate an historical understanding of psychological concepts and practices (sometimes referred to as “historicity”) by studying these contextual features across time rather than across cultures. Social context, language, and the qualia of experience are the common ground and rationale for most of these methods. The past 20⫺25 years have seen some tremendous changes in historiography, a “new history” revolution one might say in the way we see the historical “construction of the subject” and situate and analyze “psychological objects” (see Danziger, 1990; Furumoto, 1989; Goodwin, 1997; Harris, 1997). The “new historian” studies historical context (largely) for its own sake, often revealing contemporary concepts


10

BARNES AND GREER

and practices in a new light, and illustrating the way psychological knowledge, and our praxis about that knowledge, is intimately connected to existing historical and social contingencies. The new historian, in this sense, does far more than chronicle the past, but contributes to psychological knowledge and understanding by revealing the way the identity and meaning of psychological objects are deeply historical in nature (see Danziger, 2003). Finally, we believe it is this increasing diversity and specialization in psychology, in its faculty positions, in its perspectives on knowledge, and what counts as research productivity, that are the most decisive arguments for including the history of psychology as an integral part of psychology itself. The history of psychology is a unique area in psychology because it is about all areas of psychology, the entire field, and in that sense it provides an “arm’s length” look at the “big picture,” and an important opportunity for the field, in effect, to critically dialogue with itself (see Brock, 2006). The same can be said of the history of psychology course: it is a kind of “metacourse,” one that provides students with a broader, historical perspective on the discipline as a whole. As discussed in VaughnBlount, Rutherford, Baker, & Johnson (2009), “The question professionals and students should be asking is not ‘Why does our department need a psychologist-historian?’ but rather “Why don’t we have one?’” (p. 123). One need not treat the history of psychology as a capstone course, or as a pedagogical prep for the GRE, to see that understanding history has an inherent value for the professor, researcher, and student alike. For students, in particular, there is the opportunity to reflect on the evolution of the field as one learns about it, in all of its myriad practices and ideas, and the various connections and disconnections between past and present. It is precisely this more global perspective in an era of hyperspecialization that makes the history of psychology so essential. History is not simply about the past and a pedantic chronology of what happened when—it is about identity (Smith, 2007). Conclusion Does the future have a history of psychology? Will we remember the past? In the introduction of this article, we suggested that the future of

the history of psychology and the historian of psychology lies in recognizing historical research as actual research; and the history of psychology has evolved from its beginnings as a purely pedagogical undertaking. In terms of disciplinary identity, departmental hiring, and academic budgetary considerations, the time for history has come: the study of psychology’s past is a part of psychology itself. It is, after all, only fitting for a field where researcher and participant are one and the same (Morawski, 2005). And whatever costs (economic and otherwise) are entailed by the recognition and future professional development of this area, we believe it can be agreed that forgetting the past is not a price we can afford to pay. For if we do, psychology will not only have lost its “soul” and its “mind,” as Alfred North Whitehead once quipped, but it will have lost its memory as well.

References American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation. (2009). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology [c/o Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation Education Directorate]. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/ about/policies/guiding-principles.pdf Barnes, M. E. (2011, June). Concerning the status of the history of psychology at Canadian universities: Mapping the terrain in departments of psychology. In M. E. Barnes (Chair.), The “who” “what” and “why” of teaching history of psychology: Exploring the landscape in Canadian universities. Symposium conducted at the 72nd Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Bhatt, G., & Tonks, R. G. (2002). What lies in the future of teaching the history of psychology? History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14, 2–9. Brock, A. C. (2002). Comment on Bhatt and Tonks: Reports of our death are greatly exaggerated. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14, 10 –16. Brock, A. C. (2006). Rediscovering the history of psychology: An interview with Kurt Danziger. History of Psychology, 9, 1–16. doi:10.1037/10934510.9.1.1 Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511524059



Danziger, K. (1994). Does the history of psychology have a future? Theory & Psychology, 4, 467– 484. doi:10.1177/0959354394044001 Danziger, K. (2003). Where history, theory, and philosophy meet: The biography of psychological objects. In D. B. Hill & M. J. Kral (Eds.), About psychology: Essays at the crossroads of history, theory, and philosophy (pp. 19 –33). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Fuchs, A. H., & Viney, W. (2002). The course in the history of psychology: Present status and future concerns. History of Psychology, 5, 3–15. doi: 10.1037/1093-4510.5.1.3 Furumoto, L. (1989). The new history of psychology. In I. S. Cohen (Ed.), The G. Stanley Hall lecture series (Vol. 9, pp. 9 –34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/ 10090-001 Goodwin, C. J. (1997). The vital role of psychology’s history in introductory courses: An interview with Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 218 –221. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2403_20 Greer, S. (2002). Comment on Bhatt and Tonks: An insider on the outside looking in: On the future of the history of psychology. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14, 20 –26. Greer, S. (2007, June). The history of psychology course in Canadian psychology departments: Its role in the curriculum and ideas on how to staff this position. In The history and philosophy of psychology section at twenty: Whither Canadian historiography. Symposium conducted at the 68th Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, Canada. Harris, B. (1997). Repoliticizing the history of psychology. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 21–33). London, England: Sage. Henderson, B. B. (2010). Psychology’s history for the postmodern student: A review of A History of

11

Modern Psychology in Context. PsycCRITIQUES, 55(37). doi:10.1037/a0020955 Korn, J. H. (2010, September, 28). Should a course in the history of psychology be part of every psychologist’s education? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://psyccritiquesblog.apa.org/2010/09/should-acourse-in-the-history-of-psychology-be-part-ofevery-psychologists-education.html MacIntosh, H. B., Cohen, K. R., Caputo, A., & Lavoie, D. (2011). Accreditation standards and procedures for doctoral programmes and internships in professional psychology (5th rev. ed.). [Prepared for and approved by the Accreditation Panel of the Canadian Psychological Association]. Retrieved from http://www.cpa.ca/docs/file/ Accreditation/Accreditation_2011.pdf Morawski, J. G. (2005). Reflexivity and the psychologist. History of the Human Sciences, 18, 77–105. doi:10.1177/0952695105058472 Nicholson, I. A. M. (2002). Comment on Bhatt and Tonks: Teaching the history of psychology: A personal view. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14, 27–29. Pickren, W. E., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rutherford, A. (2002). Comment on Bhatt and Tonks: Back to the classroom . . . and beyond. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17–19. Smith, R. (2007). Being human: Historical knowledge and the creation of human nature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Vaughn-Blount, K., Rutherford, A., Baker, D., & Johnson, D. (2009). History’s mysteries, demystified: Becoming a psychologist-historian. The American Journal of Psychology, 122, 117–129. Received April 8, 2013 Revision received August 30, 2013 Accepted October 21, 2013 䡲