I have been informed that 'Untold Lives'... Scarborough and Furomoto (1987)was written in the style of "great men" of science.

Firstly; is this how most historians would see this and are then any references which can support this view ?

Secondly; why would they write in this way ?

Thanks for your help.

Fran

-- fran Mcloughlin (fran_8@hotmail.com.uk), April 09, 2003

Answers

Fran,

A belated answer, but this comment would have been in the context of a historical debate that was framed by E. G. Boring regarding the issue of whether some men/women are so great that their achievements arise out of their personalities, while other historians emphasize the Zeitgeist--the "spirit of the time" in which the ideas are so dominant that sooner or later someone will develop them. There is some discussion of this in the 2nd edition of Boring's A History of Experimental Psychology (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1950) on p. 744. Various historiographers have discussed it since then, and you should be able to find the discussions by using the phrases "zeitgeist" and "great man" in PsycInfo.

-- Hendrika Vande Kemp (hendrika@earthlink.net), April 16, 2003.

[Posted for ES by cdg.]

As I understand the "great men" style, (a) it focuses on those special individuals who stand out as having made contributions that are memorable for "making history" -- in science those who produced and propagated compelling theories or new discoveries that significantly influenced the course of their field, as opposed to the rank-and-file workers who compiled "normal science," and (b) it focuses for explanation of greatness on the personal, individual characteristics of the achievers (great men make history rather than history making great men). Had we published earlier, we no doubt would have followed this approach, as that is how most early women's history was written. (The female counterpart for "great men" is "women worthies.") In fact, my collaboration with Laurel Furumoto began when we participated in a symposium featuring psychology's first three worthies: Ladd-Franklin, Calkins, and Washburn. There we followed what women's history commentator Gerda Lerner has named "compensatory" and "contribution" history.

But by the time we decided to embark on a book project, we had become aware of less well-known early women psychologists and we wanted to document their lives and explore their experiences as women at a particular time in psychology's history in America. Thus we moved beyond the women worthies and identified the group of 25 women who qualified as psychologists by 1906. Our collective biography of this generation attempted to explore how gender issues influenced their experiences as psychologists and as women living at a particular time and in a particular socio-cultural milieu. We documented their participation in psychology (which was limited to their graduate study for some of them) and also were able to see patterns in how these women coped with the barriers and social demands that inhibited their full participation in psychology's affairs.

Now, I have no idea how many historians view this as a "great men" approach. We were faulted for not including more discussion of the women's contributions to psychology, but as I said we chose to include the entire group of those who qualified and to emphasize their experience. I invite you to read the book and decide whether it does or does not meet YOUR understanding of the "great men of science" approach. And, of course, I am curious as to why your informant believed that it did! At any rate, it has been a pleasure to respond and I wish you success in your academic pursuits.

-- Elizabeth Scarborough (escarbor@iusb.edu), April 23, 2003.