ERIC EJ876458: The Pattern of History of Psychology Teaching on British Undergraduate Psychology Courses

2005·0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

The pattern of History of Psychology
teaching on British undergraduate
Psychology1 courses
Graham Richards, BPS History of Psychology Centre
Teaching of History of Psychology is likely to become increasingly important as the British Psychological
Society’s 2002 guidelines for approved undergraduate courses are implemented. Results of a survey of
History of Psychology teaching during the academic year 1999–2000 are summarised and discussed in the
light of these new requirements. While now slightly dated, there is no reason to believe the situation has
radically changed since these data were gathered. They suggest that only about a third of courses currently
include substantial coverage of the topic and that the approaches and agendas of this teaching vary widely.
Only a small minority actually appear to engage History of Psychology as an active and important sub-
discipline in its own right. A variety of problems related to increasing the level and quality of History of
Psychology content are identified and some tentative suggestions offered regarding the way forward.
T
HE FIRST AIM of this paper is to Centenary interest in HoP was the creation of
present, a little belatedly, the findings of a History of Psychology Centre at the Society’s
a survey of the situation regarding London offices, which at last brought
History of Psychology (HoP) teaching on together the Society’s archival collections and
undergraduate courses in Britain during the made them publicly available.
1999–2000 academic year. Secondly the In Richards (1994) (in this journal)
implications of this in the context of the new I attempted to make a case for reviving HoP’s
British Psychological Society guidelines for presence on undergraduate courses and
approved undergraduate courses will be pointed out that it had some ‘natural allies’
identified and briefly discussed. within the discipline, particularly among
It is clear the British Psychological those of a critical persuasion in the social and
Society’s Centenary in 2001 and associated developmental fields. The years since have
events heightened awareness of HoP as a seen a tremendous expansion of historical
subdiscipline, and attracted attention to many scholarship taking us ever further both from
of the issues with which HoP is currently traditional celebratory approaches on the
concerned. These include, particularly, ques- one hand and simplistic ideological critique
tions regarding the discipline’s relationships on the other.2 Unfortunately, although the
with society at large and the various functions situation has probably improved somewhat,
it has served in modernist cultures, as well as particularly in terms of the way in which it is
long-standing concerns about Psychology’s taught, HoP continues, as we will see, to have
scientific status and the controversy between a somewhat patchy presence on the under-
those espousing a ‘natural science’ view of the graduate curriculum and, perhaps more seri-
discipline and those adopting what may ously, those teaching it lack any kind of
rather inadequately be termed ‘social consensus on the nature of the topic or the
constructionist’ views. One outcome of the agenda they are pursuing. The majority of
1In this paper I am adopting my usual custom of capitalising Psychology/Psychological when using the term in
the discipline sense and ‘psychology/pyschological’ when using it to refer to Psychology’s subject-matter.
The rationale for this is provided in Richards (2002a), Introduction.
2See Richards (2002a) chapter references for bibliographic details of much of this.
12 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
The pattern of History of Psychology teaching
the new wave of scholarship mentioned previ- remains that the topic’s value lies in descrip-
ously remains largely invisible at the under- tively providing a ‘background’ of historical
graduate level. The new BPS guidelines now information about the famous figures and
explicitly include a requirement that theoret- theories from which contemporary work
ical and conceptual issues be covered. While emerged. This function is often advocated
not specifically identifying history as the quite enthusiastically and it would be
route by which this should be achieved it is churlish in the extreme to say it should be
clearly, in association with Philosophical merely brushed aside as based on an obso-
Psychology, one of the most appropriate. lete understanding of the topic. This would
In what follows I will first present the only serve to alienate potential allies. It is in
findings of a comprehensive survey of HoP any case unrealistic to imagine that students
teaching in Britain and Ireland during the can be plunged in at the deep end without
year 1999–2000, and then proceed to some some basic descriptive chronological knowl-
recommendations. I will not, here, be edge, especially when, as in about half the
rehearsing yet again the case for the impor- cases where it is taught, the survey reveals
tance of the field (see e.g. Richards, 1994, that HoP is a compulsory first-year introduc-
2002a, b and c; Jones & Elcock, 2001) other tory course rather than a second or third
than to observe that it boils down to two key year option. Clearly some negotiation and
points. Firstly, as just suggested, it offers, in compromise – from both sides – will be
alliance with Philosophical Psychology, the required if the New Agenda is to establish a
most satisfactory strategy for tackling some regular place on first degree courses. I will
core theoretical questions. Any undergrad- be considering this issue again in due
uate curriculum which cannot do this is course, at this point I will rest with noting the
surely failing to fulfil one of its most essential two-fold difficulty: on the one hand the
functions – showing students where the fron- number of specialists in HoP is too small, on
tiers lie. Secondly, the absence of HoP leaves the other there is widespread ignorance of
students in complete ignorance of a growing what it has to offer, occasionally amounting
corpus of scholarship relating directly to the to outright hostility.
topics they are studying, scholarship which We may now turn to the survey findings.
analyses, explains and sets in context the
origins and subsequent success of present- History of Psychology Teaching
day Psychological theories and practice. This 1999–2000
is not a return to the older ‘heritage’ or In order to ascertain the current extent of
‘celebratory’ function, for it seeks to History of Psychology teaching 99 question-
promote critical self-awareness and – dare naires were circulated to British and Irish
one use the word? – ‘objectivity’ regarding Republic university and college departments
the present, the very opposite of the identified as offering undergraduate
previous agenda of simply justifying and Psychology degree courses during the
celebrating it. In what follows the term ‘New academic year 1999–2000 (see Appendix A).
Agenda’ will be used to refer, a little (While the resulting data is a little out of date
grandiosely, to this critical and contextu- there is no reason to think that the situation
alised approach to History of Psychology has radically changed in the meantime, partic-
which has emerged since the mid-1980s. ularly as many institutions have been awaiting
We should though be wary of dismissing the new BPS guidelines which were produced
out of hand the more traditional views of in 2002. As mentioned later, only three depart-
HoP’s function in undergraduate teaching. ments not teaching the subject had plans to do
In the light of what follows it is clear that so in the future.) Of these 60 responded. With
while this New Agenda is being taught on a the addition of the author’s own department
few courses, the prevailing perception we have information on 61 courses.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 13
Graham Richards
1. Proportion of degree courses offering compulsory course may well be no more
HoP courses. than 20 per cent.
Of these 61, 24 (39 per cent) either offer a
HoP course or include it as a major compo- 2. When it is taught.
nent in a course with another name (such as At what point of the course is HoP taught?
‘Historical and Philosophical issues’). This The picture here is neatly bi-modal, with 11
figure includes one first-year course which teaching it in Year 1, 10 in Year 3 and only
was going to start in 2000–2001. A further 23 two in Year 2 (in one further case it is taught
(39 per cent) only include historical material on an undifferentiated Years 2/3
as introductory background on other programme). Since we may infer that Year 1
courses (this often also occurs of course courses are primarily of an introductory
alongside specific courses) while 13 (22 per nature it would appear that the opportunity
cent) do not cover it at all. Since we may for more advanced study is present in about
plausibly assume that the 38 non-responding 20 per cent of the courses (21 per cent on
departments include a higher percentage of our sample), but since, as we have seen,
cases in the latter two categories we may research-active staff are reported in only 12
reasonably conclude that HoP has an per cent, this is, even so, likely to be an over-
explicit presence on approximately a third of estimate of what happens at the chalk-face .
undergraduate honours Psychology degree This pattern reflects a longstanding
courses currently being offered in Britain dilemma about the placement of HoP. This
and Ireland (possibly less). In only 16 cases is may be summed by saying that if taught at
HoP a staff member’s major responsibility the start students are not in a position to
(either exclusively or jointly with another understand it, while if taught at the end it is
course). In one case two staff members have too late for them to make full use of it. We
HoP as a joint major responsibility. Only 12 will return to this issue in due course.
departments reported staff as academically
active in HoP (in eight cases a single 3. Fragmentation
member, but one reported three as active), The impression of fragmentation in how
however, three of these are departments HoP is taught which arises from these last
which do not actually offer a HoP course, figures is reinforced when we consider the
thus only on nine courses are students responses in more detail. Question 1 asked
taught by a research-active staff member. whether HoP was taught: (a) as a separate
Allowing for the strong possibility, course; (b) as a major component of a course
mentioned previously, that this data overesti- with a different title; (c) as introductory
mates the level of HoP teaching in under- background on other course; and (d) not
graduate courses taken as a whole, it is covered at all in any major fashion. The ratio
clearly not a field which can be described as of (a):(b) responses was 15:9, indicating that
flourishing in Psychology teaching. It even where explicitly covered approaches are
appears on probably less than a third of the likely to vary considerably. This impression is
courses, while in 10 per cent at most is there confirmed when we consider Question 4,
likely to be a member of academic staff who which asked for up to three textbooks recom-
is research-active in the field. It should mended (if any). Of the 24 instances
further be noted that since the BPS guide- responding (a) or (b) to Question 1, six did
lines issue was not considered at the time this not specify a main textbook. (Some of these
survey was conducted no data was obtained used copies of selected primary source texts
regarding whether or not HoP courses were or concentrated on a primary source text.)
compulsory or optional. Given that it is likely Of the remainder only Leahey (2000, 5th
to be the latter when taught in Year 3, the ed.), A History of Psychology. Main currents of
proportion of courses on which it is a psychological thought, had a notably high
14 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
The pattern of History of Psychology teaching
profile, with nine citations, followed by and its contemporary character as an active
Richards (1996) Putting Psychology in its Place field of research.
(six), and seven titles were cited twice
(including Miller’s Psychology. The Science of 4. Assessment
Mental Life, which, since it first appeared in The picture regarding assessement is also
1962, is somewhat depressing – is there any varied. Crudely grouping responses to Q.5
other field of Psychology on which a lecturer into ‘Examination’, ‘Essay/Coursework’ and
would recommend a 1962 text except for ‘Mixed’ the profile is six, eight and eight cases
historical reasons?) and 13 once. respectively, with two unascertainable (one
Obviously, unlike mainstream topics such being the course due to start 2000–2001, the
as perception, cognitive psychology and other saying only ‘part of general first-year
social psychology there is very little cross- assessment’). This masks some further diver-
teacher consensus on the merits of different gence, for example one exam was of the
textbooks except, to a limited extent, in the multiple choice kind, and two courses
case of Leahey’s – basically because it has included ‘seminar’ or ‘presentation’ in the
been going so long. Leahey’s text certainly coursework. Third-year courses tended to use
does have considerable merits, notably essay-only assessment more frequently (five)
because he has attempted to take on board than first-year courses (two), which is unsur-
some at least of the changes in approach and prising. While we lack the data to determine
agenda of the last two decades. Several whether HoP modes of assessment differ in
respondents commented on the lack of a their variability from those used for other
suitable textbook, especially one appropriate subjects, there are other grounds for believing
for first-year courses. Richards (1996) was that it is a topic which requires further discus-
popular mainly among those explicitly sion, to which we will return.
supporting the New Agenda.
In this connection it is worth observing 5. Likelihood of change
that until 2001 there was no textbook at all Finally, we should briefly note the responses
actually on HoP, Jones and Elcock (2001) to Question 7 on plans to change the
have now taken a step in this direction at an coverage of HoP. There were seven ‘yes’
introductory level. What we have had are responses (all to increase coverage) but only
numerous narratives of Psychology’s history, three of these related to degree courses from
often of a highly ritualised kind, as Smith which it was currently absent as a separate
(1988) noted some time ago. In other words course. None reported intentions to drop it.
there have been no texts which tell the While perhaps indicating some improve-
student such things as what the issues are in ment in the picture, clearly no conclusions
contemporary HoP, what the different can be drawn from these figures with any
approaches to HoP are and have been, how certainty.
to actually do HoP research or how to read
primary historical texts. This is analogous to Summary
recommending a textbook on perception To summarise the quantitative data this
which said nothing about the design of seems to suggest that HoP is taught only on
experiments on perception. In the case of about a third of undergraduate courses,
general ‘History of Psychology’ textbooks being compulsory on perhaps a fifth. There
students are typically presented with the is a symmetrical divide between it being
narrative itself as if it were its own self-suffi- taught on first and final years, and an appar-
cient evidence and the only story worth ently wide variation in the kinds of teaching
telling. This surely exacerbates the mismatch materials used and approaches adopted.
between HoP as presented in such texts (and There is a hint, albeit a faint one, that its
understood by many of those teaching it) presence might possibly be increasing.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 15
Graham Richards
6. Qualitative data. sub-area of Psychology in its own right.
Turning to the qualitative questionnaire (Question 8)
data elicited under Questions 8 and 9, (c) perceived lack of student interest:
we obtain a rather richer picture of the Unfortunately, I feel that most of my staff are
range of attitudes towards HoP and the not interested in teaching the History of
variety of concepts of what it is. One certainly Psychology. This is partly because I believe it
gets the impression that some of those would be perceived poorly by current students.
teaching it are operating in something of a (Question 8)
vacuum and that the content of their courses General interest but not regarded as
can be determined by their personal particularly interesting by first-year students.
agendas, rather than related to what is going (Question 8)
on in the field as a whole. Only one respon- This last view is not however shared by all:
dent expressed outright hostility to HoP: Staff are interested in the history of our
Do physics departments teach physics students discipline, and weave relevant material into
the ‘History of Physics’? A History of their courses e.g. phrenology and neuroscience.
Psychology should be about history, it is not Students are, in general, fascinated by these
about psychology. (Question 8) links – even if the more cynical think in terms
What generally passes as ‘History of of ‘reinventing the wheel’. Nevertheless, the
Psychology’ is no more than third rate focus of our courses is on contemporary
chronicling – historiographically and psychology. (Question 8)
philosophically naive. And confusing to Even so, not all respondents from non-
students attempting to understand a research- teaching departments are happy about the
based science. (Question 9) situation:
More generally among non-teaching depart- There is a growing feeling that the
ments the reasons for its exclusion include: assumptions underlying current Psy. are not
(a) competing demands, e.g. clear and that a historical perspective would
Some individual appreciation of its make them more apparent. (Question 8)
importance – but Society requirements leave no I believe there should be more of it so that
room for it in a Joint Honours course. students appreciate where psychological ideas
(Question 8) come from. (Question 9)
Probably it is seen as a luxury and difficult to I strongly believe students should be aware of
fit into competing demands on the curriculum. the origin + cross-fertilisation of ideas so that
(Question 8) theories are not seen to just pop out of the ether
I do not believe it is an issue for my colleagues. and/or have independent existence.
We have recently re-written the course and (Question 9)
reduced all contextual elements in favour of I personally think the area deserves fuller
more cog. and bio (what fun). (Question 8) treatment. (Question 9)
(b) feeling that coverage on other courses is And more wrily:
sufficient: During my training I benefited greatly from an
Can be covered adequately by being subsumed exhilarating course in the H. of Psych. In
within ‘substantive’ content of the programme. today’s curriculum there are seen to be too
(Question 8) many new and exciting topics with great
In general, staff feel that it is important to give apparent ‘relevance’. It would be difficult to
historical context and that this is best provided teach the L & T committee to introduce H of
as introduction to sub-disciplines within Psych. (Question 9)
psychology. (Question 8) What emerges from the non-teaching
Taught within relevant courses to set history of department responses generally is that
the discipline in the context of contemporary outright hostility to HoP is rare, and that its
research and theory. Therefore, not seen as a absence is usually due to pragmatic
16 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
The pattern of History of Psychology teaching
curriculum design/ staff interest concerns unsophisticated understanding of the
and/or complacency (or satisfaction) nature of contemporary HoP and rely on
regarding the adequacy of its coverage on textbooks of the more traditional kind
courses on other topics. There is little sense which adopt a basically internalist, heroic
that it is really a specialist area in its own and celebratory approach. These will see
right, and few indications of much awareness it primarily as first-year course, setting the
of the character of contemporary HoP. On scene for the remainder of the degree
the other hand there are clearly individuals course as a whole. Among those in this
who are unhappy about the situation, some category are, nonetheless, a number who
being fatalistic and a handful actively seeking are quite enthusiastic about HoP’s value.
to change things, although feeling belea- c. Those who have a personal enthusiasm
guered by indifference. The fact that usually for some aspect of HoP related to their
HoP’s exclusion does not apparently stem major research interests and theoretical
from any principled rejection is perhaps position will tend to design their own
grounds for hope that the new GBR bench- courses with relatively little reference to
marks could result in a significant rise in its the main HoP literature. Their agendas
wider academic and scholastic profile are likely to be in some degree
without too much resistence. Unfortunately ‘presentist’ – depicting a particular
this optimism is somewhat offset when we theoretical position as the legitimate heir
consider the previously noted point that the of a tradition which can be cast as the
departments which do teach HoP by no authentic ‘scientific’ core of psychology.
means share a common view of the topic. These will prefer teaching later rather
Broadly speaking there would appear to than earlier, but may be happy to grab a
be three major approaches in play: slot opportunistically whenever it is
a. Those actively engaged in HoP research, available.
in contact with others in the field, It would though be contrary to the New
involved in the New Agenda and in touch Agenda itself to see the situation solely in
with the literature, are using it as a route terms of the individual preferences and
for critically addressing the kinds of issue interests of those teaching HoP – or wanting
identified at the beginning of the paper, to do so. Pressure on the curriculum to
making links with other sub-disciplines include ‘relevant’ courses (such as Coun-
and generally trying to enthuse their selling and Health Psychology), lack of
students and broaden their interest among colleagues, perceived lack of
understanding of the nature of the interest among students, the nature of
subdiscipline as a whole. These will current modularised approaches to course
usually strive (not always successfully) to design and the assumption that HoP work
locate their courses in the second or does not earn any RAE points are all
third years. Although it is hard to be mentioned as factors inhibiting the strength-
definitive, judging from their comments ening of its presence, personal enthusiasm
around nine (38 per cent of those notwithstanding.
teaching it) of those responding fall into Promoting HoP on undergraduate
this category. Psychology degree courses will, it seems,
b. Those who view HoP more traditionally require something of a balancing act. Insofar
as a way of inducting students into the as it is currently taught this is very often
disciplinary ‘culture’ and as providing a because either the lecturer, or his/her
descriptive chronological background of colleagues, see it as having a valuable ‘serv-
basic historical information about where icing’ role of the traditional kind. HoP is felt
current ideas originated. These will tend to be necessary because it provides students
not to be research active, have a relatively with some basic historical understanding of
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 17
Graham Richards
the origins of the Psychology as practised possibilities. Striking the balance between
today, without which their knowledge of the the demands just identified remains a major
present is effectively knowledge in a vacuum. consideration, but we may perhaps start by
This servicing role can of course be played in making the stress on HoP theoretical rele-
several registers, from the celebratory and vance more explicit. The nature of the HoP
heroic, to a more down-to-earth ‘learning syllabus certainly needs to be reconsidered.
lessons from past mistakes’ approach, or The traditional syllabus has tended to be
focusing on intrinsically interesting (or even highly ‘internalist’ in character, typically
amusing) episodes and figures of some tracking a succession of theories and ‘great
specific ethical, methodological or theoret- men’. In the US, though less so in Britain,
ical significance. To suggest that HoP special- the story is generally begun with the Greeks
ists should henceforth high-mindedly and the Galenic ‘humours’, followed, on
eschew this role would be a grave mistake, as both sides of the Atlantic, by Descartes,
was observed previously. What is needed is Locke and the major schools of Englighten-
the development of an approach which ment philosophy (although the Scottish
continues to meet this felt need but at the ‘Common Sense’ or ‘Realist’ school of Reid
same time enables the New Agenda itself to tended to get short shrift until relatively
be introduced to students and enables recently, despite being, arguably, the closest
specialist HoP staff to establish an academic to modern Psychology in its concerns).
position and status comparable to those of Phrenology (but rarely Lavater’s physiog-
specialists in other subdisciplines. Everyone nomy) and Mesmerism are often mentioned
thinks they can cover history – and up to a also, but primarily as curious anticipations of
point they are probably right, inasmuch as later developments. Psychology proper is
this involves only telling some sorts of histor- then ritually pursued through Wundt,
ical narratives. However, when it comes to Darwin and Galton, William James and the
evaluating the respective merits of different American ‘New Psychology’ of the 1880s and
narratives, doing historical research, and 1890s, Behaviourism, Gestalt Psychology,
using history to address the kinds of issue Psychoanalysis, intelligence testing and
with which the New Agenda is concerned, Cognitive Psychology. Developmental, Com-
then we are surely dealing with a specialism parative and Social Psychology may also
of the same order as any other within receive some separate coverage (particularly
Psychology. One obvious option would be to regarding Piaget, ethology and attitude-
try and recruit those currently teaching HoP testing respectively). (Which is not to deny
in more traditional ways, encouraging them that individual teachers will focus on their
to engage more actively with contemporary topics of special interest, or that historical
scholarship and to undertake research of coverage of e.g. perception or memory
their own. might not be provided elsewhere as back-
The new guidelines have however now ground to courses on those fields.) This
added a fresh factor to the situation and it is largely ritualised agenda is to a great extent
with reference to the requirement that determined by the content of the textbooks
coverage of theoretical and conceptual usually employed, which follow a similar
issues be a mandatory component in the trajectory
curriculum that the best chances of For historians of Psychology pursuing the
promoting HoP lie ‘New Agenda’ this approach has some rather
obvious flaws, even allowing for the fact that
History of Psychology in the new such a syllabus need not necessarily be
curriculum taught in an outdated ‘celebratory’ or
What follows is intended only as a brief ‘heroic’ fashion. The most serious shortcom-
personal reflection on the problems and ings may be identified as the following:
18 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
The pattern of History of Psychology teaching
● It will neglect the complex relationship These shortcomings all pertain, directly or
between developments within the indirectly, to precisely the kinds of theoret-
discipline and the cultural, economic ical and conceptual issues with which
and psychological contexts in which it is psychologists in general are currently
being practised, giving a false impression engaged: the extent to which psychology can
of Psychological theories as autonomous legitimately be considered a ‘natural
intellectual creations; science’, psychology’s relationships to, and
● It gives a misleading picture of clearcut roles within, society as a whole, ethical ques-
periodisation – introspection followed by tions, the reflexivity conundrum, and how
behaviourism followed by cognitivism for far the discipline’s own subject matter
example – which mythologises the very (‘psychology’) changes over time and is
complicated historical realities, thereby historically or culturally constituted.
obscuring the perennial internal diversity Having said this however, we need to
of Psychology while giving the impression acknowledge that some basic level of funda-
that there is a non-controversially mental internalist knowledge is essential. The
progressive scientific core lineage of failure of the traditional syllabus is not that it is
theories; wrong, but that it is incomplete and that this
● It leaves unaddressed a number of very incompleteness yields a misleading
historical questions of paramount picture. As already indicated, we need to find
importance, particularly regarding an approach which provides a forum for the
methodology (see e.g. Danziger, 1990; New Agenda while at the same time recognising
Gigerenzer, 1996) and the relationship the legitimacy of some of the more traditional
between the discipline and its subjects, concepts of HoP’s role on undergraduate
both human and animal; these would degree courses. One central problem is that of
include the nature of Psychology’s time. It is difficult enough cramming the tradi-
dealings with children, women, ‘race’ tional agenda into 10 to 15 hours in anything
issues, sexuality, primates and those with like a comprehensive fashion, adding the kinds
learning difficulties; of coverage just alluded to amounts to some-
● Related to the first point, it similarly thing like a doubling of the material one would
leaves unaddressed equally important ideally like to cover. Moreover, if the topic
issues such as Psychology and war, becomes compulsory, essay assessment
Psychology and religion and Psychology’s methods will also come under pressure. As
relations to mass media and mass culture noted previously, these are currently widely
generally; used on third-year courses, where the topic
● Finally, the effect of all this is to render it tends to be an optional module, and most of
very difficult to move from the level of those active in the field would probably feel that
understanding Psychological work in its essays provide students with the best opportu-
own terms to working towards a more nity to engage with the subject in a constructive
reflexive understanding of the fashion. Again, even leaving resource questions
discipline’s character as a whole, and the aside, the time pressure would be exacerbated
relationship between ‘Psychology’ and if the extended essay mode of assessment was
‘psychology’.3 being used on cohorts numbering in three
figures.
3There is an affinity between this last point and the situation which obtained in mid-20th century philosophy
teaching. In both Psychology and philosophy the historical text is treated as a current one with a transparently
self-evident meaning. Authors are viewed as peers making contributions to the same debates we are now engaged
in. Only slowly has appreciation dawned of the extent to which the meaning of historical texts can be quite
opaque, requiring some hermeneutic and contextualising effort to appraise, and that the authors often had aims
very different to our own.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 19
Graham Richards
Returning to curriculum content, what a single lecture explaining the very inter-
then can be sacrificed from the old-style esting reasons why we cannot cover it, and
‘internalist’ story? And how far can ‘sacri- merely sign-posting the material we are
fice’ be minimised by adopting a changed regretfully leaving aside. It perhaps ought to
approach to traditional topics? One, perhaps be admitted also that students temperamen-
draconian, first move would be to dramati- tally inclined towards an interest in this are
cally reduce coverage of anything pre-1800. relatively less likely to have chosen to do a
Although this period is absolutely fascinating Psychology degree in the first place than to
and provides the deep background for have opted for philosophy or history. (Joint
numerous Psychological traditions and ideas Psychology and Philosophy degree students
it is highly debatable whether two or three are a special case, but are best placed to draw
lectures (at most) on a Psychology degree the connections themselves.)
course can serve much purpose. To grasp Before proceeding any further it would
the pre-1800 period properly requires a fairly be useful to reconsider the placement of
thorough grounding both in philosophy and HoP within the three-year course. If the new
general history (as well as some history of benchmarks resulted in increased coverage
science). A philosophy degree will typically the dilemma between first- and third-year
involve an entire course on Descartes alone. placement might evaporate. One solution
Reducing events to what can be covered in which could become viable in these circum-
two or three hours (even allowing for addi- stances would be for some kind of history
tional reading) can but produce a caricature component to be included throughout the
of pre-1800 thought. Insofar as this phase is course offering an on-going commentary, so
covered it should be very much from the to speak, on the other courses being taught
perspective of identifying specific proto- at the same time. This could be incorporated
Psychological work and episodes, rather into a broader course which included less
than treating entire philosophical systems as obviously history-related conceptual, theo-
quasi-Psychological theories before the fact – retical or philosophical issues.
which for the most part they were not. We Whatever the solution in terms of explicit
have, in fact, to be up-front with our content, to meet the needs of the new
students, telling them that an adequate curriculum we certainly must address those
understanding of Psychology’s deeper, pre- shortcomings identified above. There are
1800 roots in philosophy, early physiology, though some practical difficulties facing
Enlightenment linguistics, proto-psychiatry those teaching HoP which will, if anything,
and educational writings, etc., is simply be rendered even more acute by so doing.
beyond the remit of an undergraduate ● Incoming students who are school-
course on the history of modern Psychology. leavers will, even if they have a
The continued inclusion of this period is Psychology A-level, know virtually
largely an inertial legacy from the pre- nothing about Western intellectual
Second World War period, when history in general, let alone the history of
Psychology’s own history was still brief, and Psychology. The only two relevant figures
when locating its roots in Aristotle and Plato they are likely to have heard of are
was a useful rhetorical move – convincing Darwin and Freud. Unless they have
students they were the heirs of a tradition done modern history at some point (and
going back to antiquity (Smith, 1988). An remembered it) their image of the past
entirely separate optional course on pre- two centuries will be patchy and bizarre.
1850 proto-Psychological thought and its (If unfair to the minority of more high-
Psychological significance might be offered flying students with an autodidactic
if there is a staff member willing to do so. intellectual streak, this is hardly
Failing that we would be best advised to offer inaccurate as far as the majority are
20 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
The pattern of History of Psychology teaching
concerned.) This places us in a very postgraduate training have acquired it in
difficult position, in which what is really Canada or the US, or entered the subject
required is a preliminary crash-course on via History of Science or Medicine
the history of western culture, science following undergraduate history
and ideas since 1600. A general course degrees). The majority of British
somewhat in this spirit has long been historians of Psychology are either
widely taught in the US to all ‘freshmen’, autodidacts, or have come to the topic
but they have four, rather than three, from other disciplines. In the latter case
years to play with. There is, moreover, no their orientations and agendas may differ
guarantee that they will be much better significantly from those pertinent to a
informed by the third year. How we Psychology degree course. This problem
address this is one of the questions cannot be fully solved on a short
requiring urgent discussion. time-scale.
● Appropriate teaching resources are All this may sound rather pessimistic. This is
particularly problematic in many to ignore the extent to which HoP has
institutions, particularly with regard to already succeeded in raising its profile over
access to primary texts and early testing the last decade, albeit somewhat slowly.
materials, etc. This means that all too Certainly the situation has improved consid-
often both students and lecturers are erably since the author’s 1994 paper in this
reliant on secondary sources and neither journal. (Even so, membership of the
are in a position to do any actual research History and Philosophy Section of the
– raising further difficulties regarding Society has remained effectively static.) HoP,
any non-exam method of assessment. as currently being practised, offers, I believe,
Even back runs of the leading journals in a unique and exciting route for meeting the
the field are not held by many college new Society requirement for coverage of
libraries, nor are they subscribed to. (In theoretical and conceptual issues. If it is to
actual fact working copies of most 20th fulfil its potential in this respect it will be
century Psychology classics, especially necessary for those actively engaged in the
American ones, can currently be field to make a collective effort at finding
acquired on the web for under £10, so ways of overcoming the serious problems
building up a basic collection would not identified in this paper.
be that expensive.) Again, a debate
regarding possible solutions to this Correspondence
problem is badly needed. Professor Graham Richards
● Most serious however is the need for staff BPS History of Psychology Centre,
able and willing to teach HoP courses. 33 JohnStreet, London WC1N 2AT.
There are, in Britain, no postgraduate E-mail: [email protected]
courses in HoP (most of those with any
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 21