Development of Laboratory Equipment in Psychology in the United States

On the origins of bibliometrics

“…See BORING (1928), DAVIS & GOULD (1929), LOUTTIT (1929;), LAUER (1931. 28 On early lists and statistics on American laboratories, see DELABARRE (1894), CATTELL (1898b;, RUCKMICH (1926), GARVEY (1929 (HORNSTEIN, 1988;DANZIGER, 1990). Measuring the psychological discipline itself was therefore a small and easy step to many psychologists.…”

Psychologists on site: A reconnaissance of the historiography of the laboratory.

“…Most laboratory accounts published in this era fall into two main categories: (a) surveys and comparative assessments of many laboratories and (b) brief reports of the expansion of existing facilities. As an example of the first type, Christian Ruckmick (1926) of the University of Iowa followed up his pre World War I survey of laboratory facilities (Ruckmich, 1912). Interested in determining how "pure" psychology was faring in relation to the rise of applied work, he decided that laboratory equipment inventories and budgets would provide useful indicators.…”

“…Animal experimentation was becoming increasingly common, especially studies that dealt with the white rat and those that contributed to the rise of various new behavioristic approaches. Ruckmick's (1926) emphasis on laboratory technology was echoed by other authors writing about individual facilities in the interwar period. Leading research journals such as the American Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Psychology published a number of short articles concerning new laboratory equipment and facilities at various institutions, including Cornell, Louisiana State, North Carolina, Ohio State, Oregon, Princeton, Randolph-Macon, Rochester, Skidmore, and Wittenberg (see Table 1).…”

“…In his words: Obviously apparatus does not make a science but in the same sense that the material aspects of a community reflect its prosperity, so the continued demand for apparatus is a fair indicator of the health and vigor of the experimental method. (Ruckmick, 1926, p. 582) Data gathered by Ruckmick showed that the total capital investment in U.S. laboratories had grown substantially, from $30,000 in 1893 to more than $1,000,000 in 1925. The survey indicated that 85% of the current inventory was composed of experimental apparatus; the remainder was for materials related to psychological testing.…”

“…Obviously apparatus does not make a science but in the same sense that the material aspects of a community reflect its prosperity, so the continued demand for apparatus is a fair indicator of the health and vigor of the experimental method. (Ruckmick, 1926, p. 582)…”