The history specialist in psychology: From avocation to professionalization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the history of psychology as a core area in the field of psychology. Does the discipline recognize the contributions of historical research, or does the history of psychology only serve a pedagogical function in the discipline? Our concerns center on the relationship (or lack thereof) between pedagogy and research in the academy. This stems from the fact that historical research is not viewed as contributing to the advancement of the field both professionally and pedagogically. We summarize the pedagogical function that the history of psychology serves in the academic discipline, as well as its status for professionalism in psychology. Moving from the U.S. and Canadian context, we address the status of the history and philosophy of psychology within Britain and Ireland. This comparative analysis allows us to remark more broadly on the issue of professionalism for psychologists as it pertains to the requirement of the history of psychology for advancement in the field (from undergraduate student to practitioner in the field). We also discuss the issue of professionalism for historians of psychology. Specifically, what does it mean to identify as a historian of psychology, and what challenges emerge from specializing in this area? We conclude with remarks suggesting that strength in this area is derived from a combination of both teaching and research activities. We suggest that the development of a stronger community among historical researchers (despite epistemological differences) may be a way forward, and suggest where future work might head on these topics. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".