A History of Psychology

The ambiguous “new history of psychology”: New questions for Brock (2017).

“…It is just a very particular interpretation of the lessons given by some critical histories, an interpretation that is certainly summarized in Furumoto’s (1989) classical definition of “new history.” Textbooks, however, will continue to serve important pedagogical functions for students and psychologists alike. They constitute a pedagogical tool now used even by critical historians (e.g., Jones & Elcock, 2001; Walsh et al, 2014) and proponents of the “new history” (e.g., Lawson et al, 2016; Leahey, 2000; Pickren & Rutherford, 2010). Nevertheless, these materials should be viewed as what they are, that is, as introductory steps rather than as the most appropriate form of historical research.…”

“…On the other hand, proponents of the “new history” have been silent about Lovett’s article. Some recent justifications of the “new history” do not even mention it despite its widespread influence (see, e.g., Harris, 2009; Lawson, Graham, & Baker, 2016; Pickren & Rutherford, 2010).…”