The Social Context of Research Practice and the History of Psychology

  • Kurt Danziger
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)


The empirical domains about which psychologists theorize are not raw natural phenomena but carefully constructed products of psychological practice. The rules governing the construction of such products are enforced by communities of practitioners. Such communities are themselves part of the history of the societies in which they flourish. They adapt to the demands imposed on them by their social context by modifying the rules governing their professional activity, including the production of empirical domains. These rules are subject to historical change, and the knowledge products that are constructed with their help are historical products. At the same time, rules for the production of acceptable empirical domains are based on theoretical presuppositions about the nature of psychological reality. Changes in these rules are also theoretical changes. On this level there is a profound historicity of theory, but the theorizing at issue here is that which goes on implicitly before and during the construction of empirical domains rather than explicitly afterwards. A major historical change in rules of practice and their implicit theories occurred when psychology switched to a preference for certain types of statistical data. This preference can be traced to practititoners’ need to legitimize their activity in terms of a particular interpretation of what constitutes science and a limited interpretation of what constitutes socially useful knowledge.


Implicit Theorize Human Practice Psychological Reality Individual Investigator Empirical Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ach, N. (1905). Ueber die Willenstätigkeit und das Denken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  2. Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology, (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  3. Danziger, K. (1979). The social origins of modern psychology. In A. R. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in social context (pp. 27–45). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  4. Danziger, K. (1980). The history of introspection reconsidered. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danziger, K. (1987). Social context and investigative practice in early twentieth-century psychology. In M.G. Ash & W. R. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society (pp. 13–33). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Danziger, K. (1988). On theory and method in psychology. In W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. V. Rappard, & H. J. Stam (Eds.). Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 87–94). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gergen, K. J. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harré, R. (1979). Social being. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. James, W. (1892). A plea for psychology as a ‘natural science’. Philosophical Review, 1, 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lamiell, J. T. (1987). The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Napoli, D. S. (1980). Architects of adjustment: The practice and professionalization of American psychology, 1920–1945. Pt. Washington, NY: Kennikat Press.Google Scholar
  13. Valsiner, J. (1986) (Ed.). The individual subject and scientific psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  14. Watson, R. I. (1971). Prescriptions as operative in the history of psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 7, 311–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt Danziger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations