Thesis ID: CBB001560758

Boundary-Work in United States Psychology: A Study of Three Interdisciplinary Programs (2005)

unapi

Root, Michael J. (Author)


University of New Hampshire
Woodward, William R.


Publication Date: 2005
Edition Details: Advisor: Woodward, William R.
Physical Details: 234 pp.
Language: English

Between 1970 and 2000 scientists from three interdisciplinary programs--- evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and chaos theory---contributed to changing U.S. psychology's disciplinary boundaries. These interdisciplinary scientists brought about this change through their conceptual, material, and social practices. Psychologists used "boundary-work" as a means to control the influx of these various practices. Boundary-work connotes activities that promote scientists' epistemic authority in society. Boundary-work also serves to demarcate a science's particular collection of knowledge from other collections. Through their boundary-work activities, various psychologists resisted some of the practices of these interdisciplinary scientists while making accommodations for other types of practices. These resistances and accommodations illustrate the ways in which psychologists conveyed their epistemic authority and demarcated their discipline's boundaries between these three decades. The purpose of my dissertation is to describe psychologists' boundary-work in reaction to the introduction of these interdisciplinary programs' practices between 1970 and 2000. First, I present an overview of psychology's complex disciplinary boundaries. I then use the history of psychology and sociology of scientific knowledge literature to describe the nature of boundary-work activities. Next, I present the foundational components and a brief history of each interdisciplinary program. Fourth, I outline each program's conceptual, material, and social practices. Lastly, I discuss psychologists' resistances and accommodations to each interdisciplinary program's practices with reference to how they affected psychology's disciplinary boundaries. My results indicate that certain psychologists most often resisted evolutionary psychologists', cognitive scientists', and chaos theorists' conceptual practices. Psychologists' resistances seemed ineffective in preventing these conceptual practices from entering the discipline and did not stop other psychologists from using them. Accommodations occurred for all types of practices for all three programs, indicating that psychology's disciplinary boundaries are relatively permeable. I argue that psychologists made accommodations for these practices to increase their epistemic authority within the scientific community and throughout society. Finally, I discuss the advantages of writing psychology's history through an examination of psychologists' boundary-work.

...More

Description On how evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and chaos theory changed psychology's disciplinary boundaries. Cited in Diss. Abstr. Int. A 66/12 (2006): 6934. UMI pub. no. 3198013.


Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB001560758/

Similar Citations

Book Malik, Kenan; (2000)
Man, Beast and Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell about Human Nature (/isis/citation/CBB000600037/)

Article Philippe Fontaine; (2020)
Calling the Social Sciences Names (/isis/citation/CBB117012073/)

Article Hayles, N. Katherine; Pulizzi, James J.; (2010)
Narrating Consciousness: Language, Media and Embodiment (/isis/citation/CBB001035622/)

Article Brunner, José; Ophir, Orna; (2011)
“In Good Times and in Bad”: Boundary Relations of Psychoanalysis in Post-War USA (/isis/citation/CBB001232219/)

Article Marchel, Carol; Owens, Stephanie; (2007)
Qualitative Research in Psychology: Could William James Get a Job? (/isis/citation/CBB000774007/)

Book Chandra, Jagdish; Robinson, Stephen M.; (2005)
Uneasy Alliance: The Mathematics Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, 1956-1987 (/isis/citation/CBB000500361/)

Article Jan Surman; (2021)
Productive marginalities: The history of science in/about Poland since 1989 (/isis/citation/CBB407601366/)

Article Nadine Weidman; (2016)
Overcoming Our Mutual Isolation: How Historians and Psychologists Can Work Together (/isis/citation/CBB761011156/)

Article Giuliano Pancaldi; (2020)
Reframing the Sciences of the Long Eighteenth Century (/isis/citation/CBB517793271/)

Book Frank W. Stahnisch; (2020)
A New Field in Mind: A History of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Brain Sciences (/isis/citation/CBB376085655/)

Article Henrik Thorén; Line Breian; (2016)
Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science (/isis/citation/CBB657683298/)

Article Warren D. Allmon; (2020)
Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolutionary Thinking in the US and Britain, 1860–1940 (/isis/citation/CBB053017087/)

Article Cassidy, Angela; (2006)
Evolutionary Psychology as Public Science and Boundary Work (/isis/citation/CBB000830298/)

Article Yulia Frumer; (2018)
Cognition and Emotions in Japanese Humanoid Robotics (/isis/citation/CBB191691606/)

Authors & Contributors
Cassidy, Angela
Thorén, Henrik
Breian, Line
Frumer, Yulia
Yamalidou, Maria
Weidman, Nadine M.
Concepts
Interdisciplinary approach to knowledge
Academic disciplines
Psychology
Cognitive science
Evolutionary psychology
History of science, as a discipline
Time Periods
20th century, late
21st century
19th century
20th century
18th century
Places
United States
Great Britain
Switzerland
Poland
Japan
Germany
Institutions
University of Wisconsin
Harvard University
University of Chicago
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment