Search

Examines scientometrically the trends in and the recent situation of research on and the teaching of the history of psychology in the German-speaking countries and compares the findings with the situation in other countries (mainly the United States) by means of the psychology databases PSYNDEX and PsycINFO. Declines of publications on the history of psychology are described scientometrically for both research communities since the 1990s. Some impulses are suggested for the future of research on and the teaching of the history of psychology. These include (1) the necessity and significance of an intensified use of quantitative, unobtrusive scientometric methods in historiography in times of digital "big data", (2) the necessity and possibilities to integrate qualitative and quantitative methodologies in historical research and teaching, (3) the reasonableness of interdisciplinary cooperation of specialist historians, scientometricians, and psychologists, (4) the meaningfulness and necessity to explore, investigate, and teach more intensively the past and the problem history of psychology as well as the understanding of the subject matter of psychology in its historical development in cultural contexts. The outlook on the future of such a more up-to-date research on and teaching of the history of psychology is--with some caution--positive.

One of the most prevailing approaches in history education today is the use of historical sources as a tool to enhance historical thinking skills. At the same time, relevant research shows that history education is one of the areas of the curriculum that could benefit most from the use of computer games. In the present article, we examine the potential of a Greek educational computer game to enhance students’ historical skills such as reasoning and historical context evaluation in order to produce historical explanations, through a process of participatory negotiation of meanings. We specifically draw from the relevant research on historical sources as tools for the development of historical thinking skills, aiming at the creation of communities of practice among students who are encouraged to adopt practices such as those of professional historians, namely primary sources analysis and interpretation. Results of observation and questionnaire analysis indicate that primary school students (aged 11 years old) can use an educational computer game as a tool for conducting historical source analysis under specific conditions.

This special issue aims to bridge history and social psychology by bringing together historians and social psychologists in an exercise of reading and learning from each other’s work. This interdisciplinary exercise is not only timely but of great importance for both disciplines. Social psychologists can benefit from engaging with historical sources by being able to contextualise their findings and enrich their theoretical models. It is not only that all social and psychological phenomena have a history but this history is very much part of present-day and future developments. On the other hand historians can enhance their analysis of historical sources by drawing upon the conceptual tools developed in social psychology. They can “test” these tools and contribute to their validation and enrichment from completely different perspectives. Most important, as contributions to this special issue amply demonstrate, psychology’s “historical turn” has the potential to shed a new light on striking, yet underexplored, similarities between contemporary public spheres and their pre-modern counterparts. This issue thereby calls into question the dichotomy between traditional and de-traditionalized societies—a distinction that lies at the heart of many social psychology accounts of the world we live in. The present editorial will introduce and consider this act of bridging history and social psychology by focusing on three main questions: What is the bridge made of? How can the two disciplines be bridged? and Why we cross this interdisciplinary bridge? In the end a reflection on the future of this collaboration will be offered.

The article confronts methodological differences between (and among) social psychologists and historians about how far the social psychologist should be interested only in contemporary or very recent history and how far general conclusions can be drawn about human behaviour across time and space. The article suggests that social psychology need not be present-centric and might take different forms of a 'historical turn'. In turn, it is suggested, historians can benefit from approaches developed by social psychologists. Seven possible points of connection with the discipline of history are put forward in the hope of fostering future collaborations. These are: the nature of modernity; collective memory and the uses of the past; political discourse and ideologies; partisanship; the public sphere; stereotypes; and languages and images. Indeed, just as they can encourage closer collaboration between historians and social psychologists, these themes might also open a wider inter-disciplinary discussion with anthropologists, sociologists, literary scholars, art historians and scholars of political discourse.

Meso history is that branch of the history of sociology that focuses on social relations, that is, patterns of connection among groups, group members, and group meanings, as explanatory factors in the shaping of sociology. The methodology of meso history consists of strategies for discovering, documenting and patterning connections. This paper explores those strategies in terms of three moments generic to the research process in social science– moments of movement from intellectual curiosity to conceptualization, from research question to data collection and from data to presentation of findings–focusing on the distinctive permutations on this research process that occur in the practice of meso history.

The large-scale study of ship's logbooks for climatic data has revealed the wide and varied potential of this under-exploited resource for the study of the past. As well as being of utility to climatologists, the daily recording of shipboard information can help illuminate a number of themes of interest to maritime and naval historians. More than this, however, such studies can help inform both more general and other specialized historical studies. Logbooks contain both anecdotal and statistical data relevant to the studies of medical historians, the history of science and navigation, social history, economic history, warfare, imperial history and of course environmental history. Moreover, many of these themes can be studied in a multi-national context and furthermore, if studied in a multi-disciplinary context, can offer many useful insights.

The following contribution expands the current discussion on the status and function of the history of education at the methodological, or epistemological, level by introducing the perspective of a history of educational knowledge. This opens up a theoretical option for educational historiography that avoids the identification of history of education with history of a discipline, or the institutionalized knowledge of education and teaching. As a consequence, some history of education topoi – as the history of a discipline – can be called into question and practiced historically rather than educationally or morally.

Choosing the history of statistics and operations research as a casestudy, several ways of setting the development of 20th century appliedmathematics into a social context are discussed. It is shown that there isample common ground between these contextualizations and several recent research programs in general contemporary history. It is argued that a closer cooperation between general historians and historians ofmathematics might further the integration of the internalist andexternalist approaches within the historiography of mathematics.

Historical social research has developed with the availability of computer technology and has received increasing acceptance with the use of PCs. Methodological standards created by empirical social research are transferred to historical matters. Major contributors are: extension of the factual basis of history, correction of misjudgements, opening of whole groups of mass sources to historical research and bridging the gap between theory and empirical knowledge in the science of history. It complements a philosophical historiography without replacing it. In Germany historical social research has developed outside the traditional university institutes; the Zentrum fur Historische Sozialforschung and Quantum e.V. in Cologne are the major institutions in this context.

There have been few attempts, so far, to document the history of artificial intelligence. It is argued that the “historical sociology of scientific knowledge” can provide a broad historiographical approach for the history of AI, particularly as it has proved fruitful within the history of science in recent years. The article shows how the sociology of knowledge can inform and enrich four types of project within the history of AI; organizational history; AI viewed as technology; AI viewed as cognitive science and historical biography. In the latter area the historical treatments of Darwin and Turing are compared to warn against the pitfalls of “rational reconstructions” of the past.

Whoever is occupied with history?whatever that is?and defines it as social history obviously limits his or her theme. And the indi? vidual who narrows history to conceptual history obviously does the same thing. Nevertheless, with both determinations it is not the usual limitation of special histories which general history embraces within it. England's economic history, perhaps, or the history of diplomacy of early modernity or Western ecclesiastical history are special themes of this type which were materially, temporally and regionally present and worthy of investigation. Then it is a question of particular aspects of general history. It is otherwise for social and conceptual histories. From their theoretical self-foundation, there arises a general claim which can be extended and applied to all special histories. Because what his? tory has not in any case something to do with interpersonal relation? ships with social configurations of some type or with social strata, so that the characterization of history as social history involves an irrefutable?anthropological, so to speak?lasting claim that it is implicated in any form of history. And what history could there be which would not be conceived as such before it gels as history? The investigation of concepts and their linguistic transformation is so very much a minimal condition for cognizing a history as its defini? tion of having to do with human society.

In recent literature dealing with the study of science and history of science increasing attention has been given to quantitative research of science as a special social institution. Main objects of these studies are the dynamics of quantity and structure of scientists, as well as change in forms of their professional organization. The understanding of regularities in the development of the scientific community is essential for the formulation of reasonable scientific policies. However, the experience shows that tendencies of this kind cannot be revealed if the study of science is restricted to the last two or three decades. It is necessary to examine sufficiently long periods of history during which several generations of scientists changed, large variations occured both in the internal scientific situation and in the socio-economic and concrete historical conditions of the development of science.

THE USE of computers to assist research in the history of American society represents a major theme in the history writing of the 1960s and 70s. A small cadre of practitioners praising the computer in the 1950s has since grown to an awesome movement) On a scale unimaginable to earlier generations of historians mountains of data can now be centrally collected, processed, and organized by the computer working together with photoduplication and microfilm. A movement that began as a highly specialized and esoteric endeavor by a few renegades has since been absorbed into the mainstream of historical study. Yet at the same time that the computer has established itself in the historians' methodological toolbox, it has not penetrated all areas and periods of American history equally. An examination of early "state of the art" summaries of quantitative research clearly indicates that the computer was utilized initially in the areas of urban history, nineteenthcentury political behavior, nineteenth-century social history and, of course, econometrics. 2 One area that remained conspicuously aloof from computer-assisted research was the American Revolutionary era, roughly 1740 to 1780. The computer's lateness in attacking that problem and its eventual emergence as a satisfactory tool sometime around 1970 should suggest some of the implications of recent quantitative research for understanding this major step in our national history. To comprehend why the computer was a relative latecomer to studies of the Revolution it is necessary to grasp something of the intellectual context of history writing since the 1950s. The particular intellectual context or conceptual framework historians

increasing use of quantitative methods and materials in their research. Numerous quantitative studies have appeared in virtually all fields of history and quantification has become an accepted and increasingly valued weapon in the historian's research arsenal. In no field of history, however, has explicit use of quantification been more general or more effective than in economic history. Through the use of mathematical methods and reasoning, quantitative data, and economic theory, scholars in this area, often called cliometricians, have produced important new findings bearing upon the economic life and processes of the past.' In so doing, they have also produced a form of history quite unlike the history to which most readers are accustomed. Time on the Cross2 is, in part, an example of this form of history. The study also diverges from the carefully focused nature and the highly technical presentations that are more usual characteristics of cliometric studies. In these volumes, Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman have attempted a broad exploration and interpretation of the operation of the slave system and of the antebellum southern economy more generally based upon their own research and the work of other scholars. They have also attempted to present their findings in a manner useful to general readers and to technically skilled specialists alike. A first and primary volume presents the authors' basic findings and arguments in essentially non-technical form; a second volume provides references and the theoretical and methodological apparatus on which the study rests. Fogel and Engerman, moreover, make heavier use of impressionistic and fragmentary evidence to supplement more reliable systematic data than is usual among econometric historians, and they also venture further in judgmental and interpretive directions for which empirical support is not and, perhaps, cannot be provided. This is, in short, a work of interpretation and synthesis as well as original research, and it attempts to present the results of highly technical investigations in a manner that can be comprehended by non-specialists. The study has now been widely reviewed in publications ranging from the popular press to the most scholarly journals in the humanities and social sciences. Indeed, as a consequence of the excellence of the authors' work, the controversial nature of their findings, the promotional efforts of the publisher, or some combination of the three, the study has received remarkable attention in view of its scholarly character, the extensive evidence which it employs, and the technically complex methodology and theory on which it rests. The reviews have been mixed to say the least, for the study has raised the scholarly, moral and ideological hackles of some, provoked bemused uncertainty on the part of others, and moved still others to high praise. Commentary upon the conclusions reached by Fogel and Engerman would be misplaced here. A number of extended essays have already appeared that attempt to modify, challenge, and contest the research and conclusions presented in these volumes. There can be little doubt that these efforts will continue in the future, and a final and sound assessment of the study will depend on the commentary and continuing research of specialists. But however well or badly it stands the test of informed criticism, reanalysis, and continuing research, Time on the Cross must be seen as something of a historiographical landmark. Again, in recent years, historians have made extensive use of quantitative methods and materials. The quantitative methods employed in much of this work, however, have been relatively straightforward and, sometimes

Historians of science in Britain lack a firm institutional base. They are to be found scattered around in various departments in universities, polytechnics and museums. Their history over the last thirty-five years can be seen as a series of flirtations with those in more-established disciplines. Beginning with scientists, they then turned to philosophers, moving on to historians and then to sociologists: from each of these affairs something was learned, and the current interest determined which aspects of the history of science were seen as most interesting. At first it was settling who really discovered what; then an interest in concepts, methods and case-studies; then understanding the broader historical context of science; and after that seeing science in its social context, with special emphasis on institutions and professionalization. Where we shall go next is unclear: these vagaries may be no more than examples of intellectual fashion, but we may hope that they represent a zig-zag route towards deeper understanding.

In this farewell address, delivered on the occasion of his retirement from the chair of economic history in the University of Amsterdam, the author deals with the movement among economic historians in the United States, called New Economic History. This movement is characterised by the endeavours to introduce new methods in economic historiography by making use of economic theory and statistics. Although the author agrees that there is room for a critical attitude as to the way in which economic history has so far mainly been studied, he is of opinion that the importance of the said movement should not be exaggerated. He draws attention to the fact that there is only room for applying theoretical models and econometrics as far as modern periods of economic growth are concerned. He also points out that the economic historian should not confine his investigations to measuring economic growth. Economic historians have also to deal with a number ofimponderabilia: social, cultural, religious, legal, psychological and other developments. In the third place the New Economic History is by no means as new as his adherents seem to think. The economists of the so-called Historical School have already extended more than a century ago their studies to historical developments. The study of the trade cycle, which can roughly been said to have been started in the twenties of the present century, is a remarkable example of a combination between economic history and economic theory. The change in the methods employed by economic historians has been already on the way for a considerable time. There is therefore no reason to call the application of the methods recommended by the adherents of the so-called New Economic History as a new phenomenon. The author agrees, however, with the view that there should be a closer collaboration between economic historians, economists and statisticians.

During the 1960's, quantitative methods began to make a noticeable impact on the work of Soviet historians. Numerous books and articles based on quantitative studies appeared, courses in mathematics and computer data processing were included in graduate history programs, and efforts were made to induce more historians to learn and use the new methodology. Pressure to "quantify" came not only from the small minority of historians employing the new techniques, but also from the Communist Party ideologists. At the Twenty-third Party Congress the Central Committee passed a resolution, "On Measures for the Further Development of the Social Sciences and Increase in Their Role in the Building of Communism."' The following year, on June 8, 1968, the government newspaper, Izvestiya, carried an article by Aleksei M. Rumyantsev, Feodor M. Burlatskii, and Gennadii V. Osipov on "Concrete Social Research: Tasks and Perspectives."2 Osipov is the Director and Burlatskii a member of the Institute of Concrete Social Investigation of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Burlatskii is also a political reviewer for the Party newspaper, Pravda. Rumyantsev is a member of the University of World Economics and International Relations of the Academy of Science. These writers stress the need for social scientists, including historians, to master quantitative techniques and join in interdisciplinary work. The Party seeks a directly useful historical scholarship able to contribute to the solution of pressing social and economic problems facing the USSR in the 1970's. However, they are also the guardians of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, and fear that the uncontrolled application of historical reason to concrete problems might undermine the established economic and social system and above all the monopoly of political power held by the Party. They encourage the use of methods intended to produce more reliable, more useful information but they want investigations to be made and results formulated within the framework of Marxist-Leninist theory. That "bourgeois objectivity" and "bourgeois empiricism" remain the terms of abuse they have been since the end of the 1920's in the USSR is clear from Dzhermen M. Gvishiani's article, "Historical Materialism and Particular Sociological Investigations,"3 and .that of Rumyantsev and Osipov, "Marxist Sociology and Concrete Social Investigations."4

History of Science An Annual Review of Literature, Research and Teaching, Vol. 1. Edited by A. C. Crombie and M. A. Hoskin. Pp. vii + 133. (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd., 1962.) 30s. net.

A Social History of Engineering By W. H. G. Armytage. Pp. 378. (Faber and Faber, 1961.) 42s.