Mike, You make a number of good historiographic points, but clearly this website is intended as the kind of celebratory history one often finds in forums of this sort. It was never intended to be a comprehensive scholarly history of the department, so I think you are criticizing it for not being what it was never intended to be is. (And the fact that it mentions at least some of the problems the department has had over the years, makes it better than most of its kind.)
As for the "weasel words," they are well-placed. No one but a historian wants to read the long version. As usual, the search for historical "firsts" comes down to arbitrary definitions and relatively empty terminology. Indeed, there were earlier mental philosophers who had the word "psychology" in their titles, but this kind of search often implicitly aims at finding the first professor of "experimental" or "scientific" psychology (even though those terms rarely appear in official titles). It turns out that Joseph Jastrow's Wisconsin position and G. S. Hall's at JHU have claims on being the "first" as well, so in order to avoid going through all of that irrelevant (to the history of the Penn dept.) material, Jonathan simply said "arguably." Here's NYU's history blurb: http://www.nyu.edu/about/history.html Does it strike you as being much better? The NYU psych dept doesn't seem to have an on-line history of its own, even though the lab there was founded by a fairly eminent psychologist: Charles H Judd, in 1900. Regards, Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= Mike Palij wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:53:50 -0700, Charles S . Harris > [snip] > >> Chris-- >> I was shocked to see an eminent historian of psychology reduce a >> department's history to simply a list of people! Here's one example >> of how much more there is to such an account: >> >> http://www.psych.upenn.edu/history/history.htm >> > > I understand that Jonathan Baron appears to be the author of > the website referred to above but my immediate impressions of > the website are: > > (a) it is pretty superficial and naive, at a level of an undergraduate's > knowledge of the history of the institution and the history of > psychology, > > and > > (b) I can't tell whether this is supposed to be advertising fluff for > the psychology department (the lack of detail about events, few > citations of relevant publications and documents, etc.) or a > "pre-publication" draft of a more serious document. > > Consider the following "blurb" from the website: > > |The beginning: James McKeen Cattell > |At the end of the 1880s, several American colleges and > |universities wanted to expand into the new field of psychology > |in various ways. Penn was among the first, along with > |Johns Hopkins and Indiana. Arguably, the first professor of > |psychology in the U.S. was James McKeen Cattell. Cattell > |began what is now the Department of Psychology, but left > |after a few years for Columbia. He had an interesting career. > > It probably would be useful to explicate why Cattell was > "arguably" the first professor of psychology. The use of > such "weasel" words tries to make one point ("we were > the first") while suppressing another ("people will disagree > with this position"). If there is an argument about the point, > what is it? I understand that such discussion might detract > from advertising copy which tries to provide a simple and > uncomplicated message but honest scholarship, I think, > demands it. > > Also, what is with the use of the word "Czar" for program head? > Was such a term actually used among the faculty and others? > What is one to make of using such a word? That program > heads saw themselves as heriditary rulers of their "fiefdom"? > If such an imperial and authoritarian perspective was maintained > by programs heads, wouldn't be useful to examine how and why > this occurred. I may be wrong but it appears that the only > way to deal with this situation was to eliminate the programs > which then concentrated power in the departmental chair > (was that person now referred to as Czar as well or was some > other colorful title used, such as "Head Authoritarian In Charge" > [HAIC]). > > A couple of other points: > > (1) At most universities with medical schools that have a department > of psychiatry, the amount of interaction between the psychology > and psychiatry depts tends to be limited. It depends upon the > individuals and the degree people are concerned about their "turf". > So, though I can understand why Penn's psychology dept would > like to claim that Ulrich (sic!) Neisser as one of their own, he is > listed > as being the department of psychiatry. This raises a number of > questions > such as why wasn't he in the psychology dept (especially since the > psychology dept is trying to get the Neisser rub). > > (2) It is interesting that Martin Orne is mentioned but not Aaron Beck, > one of the initiators of cognitive therapy, also at the medical school. > This is odd because I am aware that Marty Seligman had some sort > of relationship with Beck and students worked with both. > > (3) Although one can easily list the people who had been part of > a psychology department and identify what they did while there, this, > I think, is hardly serious scholarship because it ignore issues of what > was the prevailing intellectual and sociocultural context in the > department. > What was the intellectual environment, what was supported, and what > was denigrated? Then there is always the question of whether faculy > behaved badly (e.g., male facutly dating and marrying their > undergraduates). > > Perhaps coming up with a history of psychology department is not > such a good idea given the sensitive issues that might be uncovered > by asking too many questions about what and why certain things had > happened. Embarassing events may be uncovered that the department > might want to keep "quiet". > > Then again, perhaps a project such as developing a "National Enquirer" > view of the history of psychologists and psychology department might > be of tremendous interests to undergraduates. Last I heard, academic > psychologists were only human too. ;-) > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
