The Future of Psychology's History is not its Past: A Reply to Rappard

Theory & Psychology

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 107-111

  Danziger, Kurt ^a  

^a NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

historiography; history; psychology; science

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031540983     PISSN: 09593543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0959354397071009     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Ash, M.G.(1983). The self-presentation of a discipline: History of psychology in the United States between pedagogy and scholarship. In L. Graham, W. Lepenies, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Functions and uses of disciplinary histories (pp. 143-189). Dordrecht and Boston, MA: D. Reidel.
2. Boring, E.G.(1929). A history of experimental psychology. New York: Century.
3. Danziger, K.(1994). Does the history of psychology have a future? Theory & Psychology, 4, 467-484.
4. Forman, P.(1991). Independence, not transcendence, for the historian of science. Isis, 82, 71-86.
5. Markus, G.(1987). Why is there no hermeneutics of natural sciences? Some preliminary theses. Science in Context, 1, 5-51.
6. Rappard, J.F.H. van(1997). History of psychology turned inside(r) out: A comment on Danziger, Theory & Psychology, 7, 101-105.
7. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8. Smith, R.(1988). Does the history of psychology have a subject? History of the Human Sciences, 1, 147-177.
9. Young, R.M.(1966). Scholarship and the history of the behavioural sciences. History of Science, 5, 1-51.