America's psychologists : a survey of a growing profession PDF
Preview America's psychologists : a survey of a growing profession
AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS A Survey of a Growing Profession AMERICA’S P S Y C H O L O G I S T S A Survey of a Growing Profession KENNETH E. CLARK Professor of Psychology University Minnesota of 7957 WASHINGTON, D.C. American Psychological Association, Inc. Copyright 1957 by the AMERICAPNS YCHOLOGICAASLSO CIATION, INC. 1333 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. All rights reserved No part of this book may be repro- duced in any form without permis- sion in writing from the publisher LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER, 56-12942 CONTENTS Preface V I Review of the Development of Plans for the Survey of Psy- chologists 3 z Development and Present Status of American Psychology '3 3 Indices of Eminence 26 4 Present Status of Significant Contributors to Psychological Science 62 5 Background and Early Training of Psychologists 06 I 6 Graduate Training and the First Five Years After the Doctorate I22 7 Differences Between Psychologists in Various Areas of Specializa- tion I37 8 Follow-up Study of Persons Receiving BA and MA Degrees in Psychology 158 g The Utilization of Psychological Techniques in the United States I77 Survey of First-Year Graduate Students in Psychology 10 209 I I Summary Thoughts : Implications for Psychology's Problems and Future 227 Index 241 . . . v . . . PREFACE IF DONE WITHOUT VANITY, IT IS WORTHWHILE, from time to time, to take a critical and searching look at one’s self. Such self-examination is as worthwhile for organizations and professions as for individuals, for it helps to identify major problems, to see what the members are like, to appraise the state of development of the field repre- sented, to review educational procedures, and, in general, to try to see where the group is going and what progress it is making in getting there. When the American Psychological Association went through a major reorganization at the end of World War 11, the members established a Policy and Planning Board, and instructed that board periodically to review the major problems and trends that affected psychology and psy- chologists. The Policy and Planning Board decided in 1952 that it was time for a major investigation of a number of interrelated questions of psychologi- cal personnel, education, and employment, and an appraisal of the state of development of the science of psychology. Happily, the National Science Foundation agreed upon the desirability of such a study, and granted funds to the American Psychological Association so that the study could be carried out. From the very first thinking about the matter, it was apparent that the study had two distinct aspects. One, which quickly came to be known . . . . . . vii PREFACE as Project A, dealt with substantive questions about psychology as a scientific discipline. Professor Sigmund Koch of Duke University was engaged to direct this half of the study. He, his advisors, and many col- laborators have been reviewing the nature, the state of development, and the points of agreement or disagreement among the theories, the partially formed theories, and the systematic points of view that have been de- veloped in the several branches of psychology. They have also been ex- amining methodological problems and have been reviewing the basis of empirical knowledge upon which theories or systematic positions rest. This ambitious effort resulted in a series of monographs that will be published over the course of the next few years by the McGraw-Hill Company. The other half of the total investigation naturally came to be known as Project B. Under the direction of Professor Kenneth Clark of the Uni- versity of Minnesota, and with the help of a staff and a panel of advisors, Project B has been devoted to matters of psychological personnel and training. Some psychologists have been outstanding in research produc- tivity. What are they like? How do they differ from their less productive colleagues? Are there major differences-other than the particular field of special interest-among productive psychologists in, say, experimental psychology and those in, say, industrial psychology? To answer such ques- tions, Dr. Clark and his collaborators have studied the undergraduate education, the family backgrounds, the types of jobs held, and the attitudes and values of different groups of psychologists. Other questions were taken up: How many persons in the United States are engaged in pre- dominately psychological work ? Are recent recipients of PhD degrees similar to or different from those who received that degree or 20 years 10 ago? Where are psychologists employed? What do they read? These are samples of the questions that are discussed and on which substantial amounts of factual data are given in the following pages, for this book is the report of Project B. Because the studies are about psychologists, the report will be of greater interest to psychologists than to any other group. It provides a factual background that will be helpful in reaching decisions concerning many practical problems faced by psychologists and their organizations. But nonpsychologists may also find some things of interest. Some readers may merely want to find out what psychologists are like. Others will be interested in the methods used in the study. The study of a profes- sional group poses a number of interesting methodological problems, and Dr. Clark and his colleagues have used a good deal of ingenuity in hand- ling some of these problems. An outstanding example is the technique . . . ... . . . Vlll PREFACE used to identify a group of psychologists who were judged to be outstand- ing research contributors. Essentially the same method would appear to be equally usable in physics, or political science, or many other fields. Organizational patterns and customs being what they are, the appoint- ment of a committee to steer the activities of Project A and Project B was inevitable. The members of that committee were Clarence H. Graham, Lyle Lanier, Robert MacLeod, Eliot Rodnick, M. Brewster Smith, and Robert Thorndike. I had the pleasure of serving as chairman of the com- mittee. The steering committee helped to make the initial plans. From time to time it advised the project directors. The committee also appointed panels of consultants who could work much more closely with the project directors than the committee was able to do. For Project B, these con- sultants were Raymond A. Bauer of the Russian Research Center of Harvard University, M. Brewster Smith, then of the Social Science Re- search Council and now of New York University, John Stalnaker, then of the Association of American Medical Colleges and now director of the Merit Scholarship Foundation, Robert L. Thorndike of Teachers College, Columbia University, and (for part of the time) Milton Wexler of Beverly Hills, California. We are most appreciative of the help given by these valued advisors. We wish also to record our appreciation to the National Science Foun- dation for its financial support and for the counsel and support of John T. Wilson, Assistant Director for the Biological Sciences. The persons named, and others who are not here named, all helped, generously and effectively. But Kenneth Clark planned the details, de- veloped most of the methods employed, directed the staff, and wrote the report. The project was his. The credit is his. DAELW OLFLE June 1956 ... i x . . . AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS A Survey of a Growing Profession
The list of books you might like
