Historical Controversies in Psychology: Irrational Egotistic Anomalies or Structural Stages of Rational Debate?
Article Sidebar
Published
07/2015
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper presents an empirical (historical) survey about the insertion, definition and valuation of scientific controversies in psychology on the basis of certain historiographical trends in History of Psychology. With the overall objective of reviewing the importance of controversial instances for the scientific development of psychology, and the specific objective of enabling rapprochement between the historiography of psychology and social studies of science, the definition and explanation given about historical controversies by the classic historiography of psychology are first described, emphasizing the anomalous character of such controversies to said historiography given the implicit theoretical and methodological principles of such tradition. The redefinition of historical controversies by the ‘new history’ of psychology developed since 1970 is then detailed. It is noted that such redefinition took place partly due to the historians’ incorporation of certain sociological and socio-historical principles and explanatory resources from social history of science and social studies of science. The positive character of such a redefinition and of the foresight of deeper socio-historical analysis of controversies in psychology is then concluded.
Article Details
Palabras clave
historiography of psychology, social history of science, social studies of science, scientific controversies, empirical programme of relativism
Section
Thematic Section
Copyright (c) 2017 Summa Psicológica
Proposed policy for journals offering open access
Those authors who have published with this journal, accept the following terms:
- The authors will keep their copyright and guarantee the magazine the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and first publication in this magazine are indicated.
- The authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematic archive or publish it in a monographic volume) as long as the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
- Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through the Internet (e.g.: in institutional telematic archives or in their web page) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase the number of citations of the published work. (See The effect of open access).
References
Araujo, S. (2013). O Manifesto dos filósofos alemães contra a psicologia experimental: introdução, tradução e comentários. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 13(1), 298-311. Recuperado de http://www.revispsi.uerj.br/v13n1/artigos/pdf/v13n1a18.pdf
Ash, M. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt and Oswald Külpe on the Institutional Status of Psychology: An Academic Controversy in Historical Context. En W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt Studies (pp. 396-421). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Ash, M. (1983). The Self-Presentation of a Discipline: History of Psychology in the United States between Pedagogy and Scholarship. En L. Graham, W. Lepenies & P. Weingart (Eds.), Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories (pp. 143-189). Dordretch: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-7035-9_7
Ash, M. (1987). Introduction. En M. Ash & W. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in Twentieth-Century Thought and Society (pp. 1-12). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Ash, M. (1992). Historicizing Mind Science: Discourse, Practice, Subjectivity. Science in Context, 5(2), 193-207. doi:10.1017/S0269889700001150
Ash, M. (1993). Rhetoric, Society, and the Historiography of psychology. En H. Rappard, P. Van Strien, L. Mos & W. Baker (Eds.), Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 49-57). Nueva York: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2982-8_3
Blight, J. (1981). Toward the Reconstruction of Psychology and Its Historiography. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17(1), 136-143. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198101)17:1<136::AID-JHBS2300170116>3.0.CO;2-N
Böhme, G. (1977). Cognitive Norms, Knowledge-Interests and the Constitution of the Scientific Object: A Case Study in the Functioning of Rules of Experimentation. En E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge (pp. 129-142). Dordrecht: Reidel. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1186-0_6
Boring, E. (1929/1963a). Interpretation. En R. Watson & D. Campbell (Eds.), History, Psychology, and Science: Selected Papers by Edwin Boring (pp. 26-28). John Wiley: Nueva York.
Boring, E. (1929/1963b). Psychology of Controversy. En R. Watson & D. Campbell (Eds.), History, Psychology, and Science: Selected Papers by Edwin Boring (pp. 67-84). John Wiley: Nueva York.
Boring, E. (1954). Psychological Factors in the Scientific Progress. American Scientist, 42(4), 639-645. doi:10.2307/27826574
Boring, E. (1955). Dual Role of the Zeitgeist in the Scientific Creativity. Scientific Monthly, 80(2), 101-106. doi:10.2307/21367
Brush, S. (1974). Should the History of Science Be Rated X?. Science, 183(4130), 1164-1172. Recuperado de http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts414/doel/SB_H_S_rated_X.pdf
Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in Society. An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. London: Routledge.
Buchdahl, G. (1965). A Revolution in Historiography of Science. History of Science, 4, 55-69. doi:10.1177/007327536500400103
Buss, A. (1975). The Emerging Field of the Sociology of Psychological Knowledge. American Psychologist, 30(10), 988-1002. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.988
Buss, A. (1978). The structure of psychological revolutions. Journal
of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 57-64. doi:10.1002/
1520-6696(197801)14:1<57::AID-JHBS2300140109>3.0.CO;2-7
Campbell, D. (1979/1988). A Tribal Model of the Social System Vehicle Carrying Scientific Knowledge. En D. Campbell (Comp.), Methodology and Epistemology for Social Sciences: Selected Papers (pp. 489-503). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Capshew, J. (2014). History of Psychology since 1945: A North American Review. En R. Backhouse & P. Fontaine (Eds.), A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences (pp. 144-182). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139794817
Collins, H. (1981). Stages in the Empirical Programme of
Relativism. Social Studies of Science, 11, 3-10. doi:10.1177/
030631278101100101
Collins, H. (1983). An Empirical Relativist Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. En K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed (pp. 85-113). London: Sage.
Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (1979). The Social Origins of Modern Psychology. En A. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in Social Context (pp. 27-45). Nueva York: Irvington.
Danziger, K. (1984). Towards a Conceptual Framework for a Critical History of Psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 5(1), 99-107. Recuperado de http://www.revistahistoriapsicologia.es/revista/1984-vol-5-n%C3%BAm-1-2/
Danziger, K. (1990). The Social Context of Research Practice and the History of Psychology. En W. Baker, R. van Hezewijk, M. Hyland & S. Terwee (Eds.), Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology, Vol. II (pp. 297-303). Nueva York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9688-8
Danziger, K. (1994). Does the history of psychology have a future?. Theory and Psychology, 8(5), 467-484. doi:10.1177/0959354394044001
Danziger, K. (1995). The Production of Psychological Knowledge by Experts. Cuadernos Argentinos de Historia de la Psicología, 1(1-2), 259-273.
Danziger, K. & Shermer, P. (1994). The varieties of replication: A historical introduction. En J. Valsiner, R. van der Veer & M. van Ijzendoorn (Eds.), Reconstructing the mind: Replicability in research on human development (pp. 17-36). Norwood: Ablex.
Diéguez, A. (2004). Los Estudios sobre Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. Una Panorámica General. En J. Atencia & A. Diéguez (Eds.), Tecnociencia y Cultura a Comienzos del Siglo XXI (pp. 53-86). Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.
Fernández, A. (2009). El Constructivismo Social en la Ciencia y la Tecnología: Las consecuencias no previstas de la ambivalencia epistemológica. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 185(738), 689-703. doi:10.3989/arbor.2009.738n1046
Fierro, C. (2015a). La Historia de la Psicología y su Enseñanza a 40 años de ‘Should the History of Science Be Rated X?’ de Stephen Brush. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 15(1), 310-330. Recuperado de http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/revispsi/article/view/16076/12095
Fierro, C. (2015b). La Historiografía de la Psicología: Historia Clásica, Historia Crítica y la Recepción de los Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 36(2), 67-94. Recuperado de http://www.revistahistoriapsicologia.es/revista/2015-vol-36-n%C3%BAm-2/
Fierro, C. (En prensa). Un Encuentro Problemático: Historiografía de la Psicología y Enseñanza de la Historia de la Psicología en Estados Unidos. En T. Caycho Rodríguez (Ed.), Estudios sobre historia de la psicología en el Perú y Latinoamérica. Perú: Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.
Fierro, C. & Visca, J. (En prensa). Revisión de un concepto central en la Formación y Enseñanza en Historia de la Psicología: Las escuelas psicológicas desde la Historia, la Sistematología y la Sociología de la Psicología. En AA.VV., Avances y Desafíos para la Psicología. San Luis, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de San Luis.
Friedman, R. (1967). Edwin G. Boring’s “mature” view of the science of science in relation to a deterministic personal and intellectual motif. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 17-26. Recuperado de http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1520-6696%28196701%293:1%3C17::AID-JHBS2300030103%3E3.0.CO;2-%23/abstract
Furumoto, L. (1989). The new history of psychology. En I. Cohen (Ed.), The G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series, Vol. 9 (pp. 5-34). Washington, D.C: APA.
Gallegos, M. (2014). Thomas Kuhn y su vinculación con la psicología: Un homenaje de despedida. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 35(2), 65-92. Recuperado de http://www.revistahistoriapsicologia.es/revista/2014-vol-35-n%C3%BAm-2
Golinski, J. (1990). The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory: Sociological Approaches in the History of Science. Isis, 81, 492-505. doi:10.1086/355457
Gruba-McCallister, F. (1978). Efficient Causality in Boring’s Work and Thought: A Case of One-Sided Determinism. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(3), 207-212. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(197807)14:3<207::AID-JHBS2300140303>3.0.CO;2-Q
Harris, B. (1980). Ceremonial Versus Critical History of Psychology. American Psychologist, 35(2), 218-219. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.218
Harvey, O. (1965). The History of Psychology as Sociology of Thought. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1(2), 196-202. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(196504)1:2<196::AID-JHBS2300010213>3.0.CO;2-N
Heidbreder, E. (1933/1960). Psicologías del siglo XX. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Henle, M. (1973). On Controversy and Its Resolution. En M. Henle, J. Jaynes & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Historical Conceptions of Psychology (pp. 47-59). Nueva York: Springer.
Jaraba-Barrios, B. & Mora-Gámez, F. (2010). Reconstruyendo el objeto de la crítica: sobre las posibles confluencias entre psicología crítica y estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 19(2), 225-239. Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=80415435006
Klappenbach, H. (2000). Historia de la historiografía de la psicología. En J. Ríos, R. Ruiz, J. Stagnaro & P. Weissman (Eds.), Psiquiatría, Psicología y Psicoanálisis: Historia y Memoria (pp. 238-268). Buenos Aires: Polemos.
Klappenbach, H. (2013). Aportes de la Historia de la Psicología a la Integración y Diversidad en Psicología. En J. Alchieri & J. Barreiros (Org.), Confêrencias do XXXIV Congreso Interamericano de Psicología (pp. 83-98). Brasilia: SBPOT.
Krantz, D. (1969). The Baldwin-Titchener controversy. En D. Krantz (Ed.), Schools of Psychology (pp. 1-19). Nueva York: Appleton Century Croft.
Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kusch, M. (1995). Recluse, Interlocutor, Interrogator: Natural and Social Order in Turn-of-the-Century Psychological Research Schools. Isis, 86(3), 419-439. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/235021?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Leary, D. (1987). Telling likely stories: The rhetoric of the New Psychology, 1880-1920. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 23(4), 315-331. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198710)23:4<315::AID-JHBS2300230402>3.0.CO;2-V
Louw, J. (2003). In Search of Method. En A. Brock, J. Louw & W. Van Hoorn (Eds.), Rediscovering the history of psychology: Essays inspired by the work of Kurt Danziger (pp. 33-52). Nueva York: Springer. doi:10.1007/b106634
Mendelsohn, E. (1977). The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. En E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Murphy, G. (1929/1964). Introducción histórica a la Psicología contemporánea. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Polanco, F. & Fierro, C. (2015). Recepción de la Sociología del Conocimiento en la Historia de la Psicología. Revista de Psicología de Arequipa, 5(1), 13-35. Recuperado de http://www.academia.edu/11944275/Recepci%C3%B3n_de_la_sociolog%C3%ADa_del_conocimiento_y_de_la_ciencia_en_la_historia_de_la_psicolog%C3%ADa_Reception_of_the_Sociology_of_Knowledge_and_the_Sociology_of_Science_in_the_History_of_Psychology
Richards, G. (1987). Of What is History of Psychology a History? The British Journal for the History of Science, 20(2), 201-211. doi:10.1017/S0007087400023748
Ross, D. (1969). The “Zeitgeist” and American Psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 5(3), 256-262. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(196907)5:3<256::AID-JHBS2300050305>3.0.CO;2-5
Schaffer, S. (1985). What is the History of Science?. History Today, 35, 49-50.
Shapin, S. (1982). History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions. History of Science, 20(3), 157-211. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4498-5_18
Sokal, M. (1984). James McKeen Cattell and American Psychology in the 1920s. En J. Brozek (Ed.), Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States (pp. 273-323). Nueva Jersey: Associated University Presses.
Talak, A. (1997). Comentarios sobre la historia crítica de la psicología y la sociología del conocimiento. Anuario de Investigaciones de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 5, 572-581. Recuperado de http://www.psi.uba.ar/docentes_graduados.php?var=investigaciones/revistas/anuario/anteriores/anuario5/historia.php
van Strien, P. (1993). The Historical Practice of Theory Construction. En H. V. Rappard, P. van Strien, L. Mos & W. Baker (Eds.), Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 149-227). Nueva York: Plenum Press.
Vilanova, A. (1990). La raíz social del conocimiento psicológico. Mar del Plata: Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.
Vilanova, A. (1995). El dilema olvidado de la psicología latinoamericana. Cuadernos Argentinos de Historia de la Psicología, 1(1/2), 83-99.
Vilanova, A. (1997a). La historia de la psicología y su sentido curricular. Clepios, 3(2), 18-23.
Vilanova, A. (1997b). Las deudas de la Psicología del Cono Sur. Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 43(2), 103-111.
Watson, R. (1975). Prescriptive Theory and the Social Sciences. En K. Knorr, H. Strasser & H. G. Zilian (Eds.), Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development (pp. 11-36). Dordretch: Reidel.
Weimer, W. (1974). The History of Psychology and Its Retrieval from Historiography: I. The Problematic Nature of History. Science Studies, 4(3), 235-258. Recuperado de www.researchgate.net/publication/261782618_The_History_of_Psychology_and_Its_Retrieval_from_Historiography_I._The_Problematic_Nature_of_History
Weimer, W. (1979). Notes on the Methodology of Scientific Research. Nueva York: Erlbaum.
Wettersten, J. (1975). The historiography of scientific psychology: A critical study. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 157-171. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(197504)11:2<157::AID-JHBS2300110207>3.0.CO;2-5
Woodward, W. (1980). Toward a Critical Historiography of Psychology. En J. Brozek & L. Pongratz (Eds.), Historiography of Modern Psychology (pp. 29-70). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Woodworth, R. (1938/1961). Contemporary Schools of Psychology. Calcuta: Asia Publishing House.
Young, R. (1966). Scholarship and the History of the Behavioural Sciences. History of Science, 5, 1-51. doi:10.1177/007327536600500101
Ziman, J. (1985). What is the History of Science? History Today, 35, 52-53.
Ash, M. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt and Oswald Külpe on the Institutional Status of Psychology: An Academic Controversy in Historical Context. En W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt Studies (pp. 396-421). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Ash, M. (1983). The Self-Presentation of a Discipline: History of Psychology in the United States between Pedagogy and Scholarship. En L. Graham, W. Lepenies & P. Weingart (Eds.), Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories (pp. 143-189). Dordretch: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-7035-9_7
Ash, M. (1987). Introduction. En M. Ash & W. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in Twentieth-Century Thought and Society (pp. 1-12). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Ash, M. (1992). Historicizing Mind Science: Discourse, Practice, Subjectivity. Science in Context, 5(2), 193-207. doi:10.1017/S0269889700001150
Ash, M. (1993). Rhetoric, Society, and the Historiography of psychology. En H. Rappard, P. Van Strien, L. Mos & W. Baker (Eds.), Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 49-57). Nueva York: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2982-8_3
Blight, J. (1981). Toward the Reconstruction of Psychology and Its Historiography. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17(1), 136-143. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198101)17:1<136::AID-JHBS2300170116>3.0.CO;2-N
Böhme, G. (1977). Cognitive Norms, Knowledge-Interests and the Constitution of the Scientific Object: A Case Study in the Functioning of Rules of Experimentation. En E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge (pp. 129-142). Dordrecht: Reidel. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1186-0_6
Boring, E. (1929/1963a). Interpretation. En R. Watson & D. Campbell (Eds.), History, Psychology, and Science: Selected Papers by Edwin Boring (pp. 26-28). John Wiley: Nueva York.
Boring, E. (1929/1963b). Psychology of Controversy. En R. Watson & D. Campbell (Eds.), History, Psychology, and Science: Selected Papers by Edwin Boring (pp. 67-84). John Wiley: Nueva York.
Boring, E. (1954). Psychological Factors in the Scientific Progress. American Scientist, 42(4), 639-645. doi:10.2307/27826574
Boring, E. (1955). Dual Role of the Zeitgeist in the Scientific Creativity. Scientific Monthly, 80(2), 101-106. doi:10.2307/21367
Brush, S. (1974). Should the History of Science Be Rated X?. Science, 183(4130), 1164-1172. Recuperado de http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts414/doel/SB_H_S_rated_X.pdf
Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in Society. An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. London: Routledge.
Buchdahl, G. (1965). A Revolution in Historiography of Science. History of Science, 4, 55-69. doi:10.1177/007327536500400103
Buss, A. (1975). The Emerging Field of the Sociology of Psychological Knowledge. American Psychologist, 30(10), 988-1002. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.988
Buss, A. (1978). The structure of psychological revolutions. Journal
of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 57-64. doi:10.1002/
1520-6696(197801)14:1<57::AID-JHBS2300140109>3.0.CO;2-7
Campbell, D. (1979/1988). A Tribal Model of the Social System Vehicle Carrying Scientific Knowledge. En D. Campbell (Comp.), Methodology and Epistemology for Social Sciences: Selected Papers (pp. 489-503). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Capshew, J. (2014). History of Psychology since 1945: A North American Review. En R. Backhouse & P. Fontaine (Eds.), A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences (pp. 144-182). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139794817
Collins, H. (1981). Stages in the Empirical Programme of
Relativism. Social Studies of Science, 11, 3-10. doi:10.1177/
030631278101100101
Collins, H. (1983). An Empirical Relativist Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. En K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed (pp. 85-113). London: Sage.
Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (1979). The Social Origins of Modern Psychology. En A. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in Social Context (pp. 27-45). Nueva York: Irvington.
Danziger, K. (1984). Towards a Conceptual Framework for a Critical History of Psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 5(1), 99-107. Recuperado de http://www.revistahistoriapsicologia.es/revista/1984-vol-5-n%C3%BAm-1-2/
Danziger, K. (1990). The Social Context of Research Practice and the History of Psychology. En W. Baker, R. van Hezewijk, M. Hyland & S. Terwee (Eds.), Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology, Vol. II (pp. 297-303). Nueva York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9688-8
Danziger, K. (1994). Does the history of psychology have a future?. Theory and Psychology, 8(5), 467-484. doi:10.1177/0959354394044001
Danziger, K. (1995). The Production of Psychological Knowledge by Experts. Cuadernos Argentinos de Historia de la Psicología, 1(1-2), 259-273.
Danziger, K. & Shermer, P. (1994). The varieties of replication: A historical introduction. En J. Valsiner, R. van der Veer & M. van Ijzendoorn (Eds.), Reconstructing the mind: Replicability in research on human development (pp. 17-36). Norwood: Ablex.
Diéguez, A. (2004). Los Estudios sobre Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. Una Panorámica General. En J. Atencia & A. Diéguez (Eds.), Tecnociencia y Cultura a Comienzos del Siglo XXI (pp. 53-86). Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.
Fernández, A. (2009). El Constructivismo Social en la Ciencia y la Tecnología: Las consecuencias no previstas de la ambivalencia epistemológica. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 185(738), 689-703. doi:10.3989/arbor.2009.738n1046
Fierro, C. (2015a). La Historia de la Psicología y su Enseñanza a 40 años de ‘Should the History of Science Be Rated X?’ de Stephen Brush. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 15(1), 310-330. Recuperado de http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/revispsi/article/view/16076/12095
Fierro, C. (2015b). La Historiografía de la Psicología: Historia Clásica, Historia Crítica y la Recepción de los Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 36(2), 67-94. Recuperado de http://www.revistahistoriapsicologia.es/revista/2015-vol-36-n%C3%BAm-2/
Fierro, C. (En prensa). Un Encuentro Problemático: Historiografía de la Psicología y Enseñanza de la Historia de la Psicología en Estados Unidos. En T. Caycho Rodríguez (Ed.), Estudios sobre historia de la psicología en el Perú y Latinoamérica. Perú: Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.
Fierro, C. & Visca, J. (En prensa). Revisión de un concepto central en la Formación y Enseñanza en Historia de la Psicología: Las escuelas psicológicas desde la Historia, la Sistematología y la Sociología de la Psicología. En AA.VV., Avances y Desafíos para la Psicología. San Luis, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de San Luis.
Friedman, R. (1967). Edwin G. Boring’s “mature” view of the science of science in relation to a deterministic personal and intellectual motif. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 17-26. Recuperado de http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1520-6696%28196701%293:1%3C17::AID-JHBS2300030103%3E3.0.CO;2-%23/abstract
Furumoto, L. (1989). The new history of psychology. En I. Cohen (Ed.), The G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series, Vol. 9 (pp. 5-34). Washington, D.C: APA.
Gallegos, M. (2014). Thomas Kuhn y su vinculación con la psicología: Un homenaje de despedida. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 35(2), 65-92. Recuperado de http://www.revistahistoriapsicologia.es/revista/2014-vol-35-n%C3%BAm-2
Golinski, J. (1990). The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory: Sociological Approaches in the History of Science. Isis, 81, 492-505. doi:10.1086/355457
Gruba-McCallister, F. (1978). Efficient Causality in Boring’s Work and Thought: A Case of One-Sided Determinism. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(3), 207-212. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(197807)14:3<207::AID-JHBS2300140303>3.0.CO;2-Q
Harris, B. (1980). Ceremonial Versus Critical History of Psychology. American Psychologist, 35(2), 218-219. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.218
Harvey, O. (1965). The History of Psychology as Sociology of Thought. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1(2), 196-202. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(196504)1:2<196::AID-JHBS2300010213>3.0.CO;2-N
Heidbreder, E. (1933/1960). Psicologías del siglo XX. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Henle, M. (1973). On Controversy and Its Resolution. En M. Henle, J. Jaynes & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Historical Conceptions of Psychology (pp. 47-59). Nueva York: Springer.
Jaraba-Barrios, B. & Mora-Gámez, F. (2010). Reconstruyendo el objeto de la crítica: sobre las posibles confluencias entre psicología crítica y estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 19(2), 225-239. Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=80415435006
Klappenbach, H. (2000). Historia de la historiografía de la psicología. En J. Ríos, R. Ruiz, J. Stagnaro & P. Weissman (Eds.), Psiquiatría, Psicología y Psicoanálisis: Historia y Memoria (pp. 238-268). Buenos Aires: Polemos.
Klappenbach, H. (2013). Aportes de la Historia de la Psicología a la Integración y Diversidad en Psicología. En J. Alchieri & J. Barreiros (Org.), Confêrencias do XXXIV Congreso Interamericano de Psicología (pp. 83-98). Brasilia: SBPOT.
Krantz, D. (1969). The Baldwin-Titchener controversy. En D. Krantz (Ed.), Schools of Psychology (pp. 1-19). Nueva York: Appleton Century Croft.
Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kusch, M. (1995). Recluse, Interlocutor, Interrogator: Natural and Social Order in Turn-of-the-Century Psychological Research Schools. Isis, 86(3), 419-439. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/235021?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Leary, D. (1987). Telling likely stories: The rhetoric of the New Psychology, 1880-1920. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 23(4), 315-331. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198710)23:4<315::AID-JHBS2300230402>3.0.CO;2-V
Louw, J. (2003). In Search of Method. En A. Brock, J. Louw & W. Van Hoorn (Eds.), Rediscovering the history of psychology: Essays inspired by the work of Kurt Danziger (pp. 33-52). Nueva York: Springer. doi:10.1007/b106634
Mendelsohn, E. (1977). The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. En E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Murphy, G. (1929/1964). Introducción histórica a la Psicología contemporánea. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Polanco, F. & Fierro, C. (2015). Recepción de la Sociología del Conocimiento en la Historia de la Psicología. Revista de Psicología de Arequipa, 5(1), 13-35. Recuperado de http://www.academia.edu/11944275/Recepci%C3%B3n_de_la_sociolog%C3%ADa_del_conocimiento_y_de_la_ciencia_en_la_historia_de_la_psicolog%C3%ADa_Reception_of_the_Sociology_of_Knowledge_and_the_Sociology_of_Science_in_the_History_of_Psychology
Richards, G. (1987). Of What is History of Psychology a History? The British Journal for the History of Science, 20(2), 201-211. doi:10.1017/S0007087400023748
Ross, D. (1969). The “Zeitgeist” and American Psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 5(3), 256-262. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(196907)5:3<256::AID-JHBS2300050305>3.0.CO;2-5
Schaffer, S. (1985). What is the History of Science?. History Today, 35, 49-50.
Shapin, S. (1982). History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions. History of Science, 20(3), 157-211. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4498-5_18
Sokal, M. (1984). James McKeen Cattell and American Psychology in the 1920s. En J. Brozek (Ed.), Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States (pp. 273-323). Nueva Jersey: Associated University Presses.
Talak, A. (1997). Comentarios sobre la historia crítica de la psicología y la sociología del conocimiento. Anuario de Investigaciones de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 5, 572-581. Recuperado de http://www.psi.uba.ar/docentes_graduados.php?var=investigaciones/revistas/anuario/anteriores/anuario5/historia.php
van Strien, P. (1993). The Historical Practice of Theory Construction. En H. V. Rappard, P. van Strien, L. Mos & W. Baker (Eds.), Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 149-227). Nueva York: Plenum Press.
Vilanova, A. (1990). La raíz social del conocimiento psicológico. Mar del Plata: Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.
Vilanova, A. (1995). El dilema olvidado de la psicología latinoamericana. Cuadernos Argentinos de Historia de la Psicología, 1(1/2), 83-99.
Vilanova, A. (1997a). La historia de la psicología y su sentido curricular. Clepios, 3(2), 18-23.
Vilanova, A. (1997b). Las deudas de la Psicología del Cono Sur. Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 43(2), 103-111.
Watson, R. (1975). Prescriptive Theory and the Social Sciences. En K. Knorr, H. Strasser & H. G. Zilian (Eds.), Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development (pp. 11-36). Dordretch: Reidel.
Weimer, W. (1974). The History of Psychology and Its Retrieval from Historiography: I. The Problematic Nature of History. Science Studies, 4(3), 235-258. Recuperado de www.researchgate.net/publication/261782618_The_History_of_Psychology_and_Its_Retrieval_from_Historiography_I._The_Problematic_Nature_of_History
Weimer, W. (1979). Notes on the Methodology of Scientific Research. Nueva York: Erlbaum.
Wettersten, J. (1975). The historiography of scientific psychology: A critical study. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 157-171. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(197504)11:2<157::AID-JHBS2300110207>3.0.CO;2-5
Woodward, W. (1980). Toward a Critical Historiography of Psychology. En J. Brozek & L. Pongratz (Eds.), Historiography of Modern Psychology (pp. 29-70). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Woodworth, R. (1938/1961). Contemporary Schools of Psychology. Calcuta: Asia Publishing House.
Young, R. (1966). Scholarship and the History of the Behavioural Sciences. History of Science, 5, 1-51. doi:10.1177/007327536600500101
Ziman, J. (1985). What is the History of Science? History Today, 35, 52-53.