Information Overload, Professionalization, and the Origins of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

Abstract

This article examines the origins of psychology's adoption of a standardized style and format for its publications and the controversies that this decision engendered. The present account draws on perspectives derived from the history of reading and the sociology of professions to explain the historical appeal of such standards. Archival documents are used to trace the events that led to the drafting of the first set of publication standards in 1929. Where previous historical accounts of the publication manual have stressed the influence of behaviorism, the discipline's leaders embraced these instructions because of the perception of information overload resulting from the rapid expansion and professionalization of psychology following World War I. Under the auspices of the National Research Council, a committee on publication practices surveyed scientists, editors, and publishers in the hopes of making more efficient the communication of psychological knowledge within an increasingly large and anonymous discipline. Archival documents also reveal an animated debate over whether the progress of psychology as a science required the adoption of universally followed rules trusted by all or the cultivation of the scientist's creativity and individuality of expression.

Meaning-Change Through the Mistaken Mirror: On the Indeterminacy of “Wundt” and “Piaget” in Translation

“…14 The resulting perspective is a bit skewed toward the present, of course, because Google has access only to those materials that have been digitized. (And also because the disciplinary “style” for citations has changed over the period of study; see Sigal & Pettit, 2012.) But this at least should be skewed consistently: Google has no particular interest in any one aspect of Piaget’s output over another, except perhaps for a preference for recent citations, so its data should be more than adequate for the purposes of my demonstration.…”

Unburdening the Shoulders of Giants: A Quest for Disconnected Academic Psychology

“…that psychologists develop their research and ideas by drawing on the work of other contemporary and preceding psychological scientists (e.g., Adair & Vohra, 2003;Sigal & Pettit, 2012); that psychologists, regardless of their research domain, are broadly connected via the referencing styles and other reporting conventions that prompt shared epistemological underpinnings (e.g., Budge & Katz, 1995;Madigan et al, 1995); that groups of psychologists may be connected via research programs, domains, or agendas (Lakatos, 1970); and so on. In contrast, in disconnected psychology, all these aspects of connectedness are avoided.…”

“…Indeed, I have argued that the field metaphorically resembles a “sea” of different findings and approaches whose constantly fluctuating degree of connectedness (or lack of it) may depend on the research domains to which they belong and on various other factors (e.g., Feyerabend, 1975 ; Haslam & Lusher, 2011 ). By referring to psychology as connected , I posit that connectedness is inherent to the field given that, for published research findings, it is of crucial importance to explain how they are linked to other relevant research and contribute to it (e.g., Safer & Tang, 2009 ); that it is generally expected that psychologists develop their research and ideas by drawing on the work of other contemporary and preceding psychological scientists (e.g., Adair & Vohra, 2003 ; Sigal & Pettit, 2012 ); that psychologists, regardless of their research domain, are broadly connected via the referencing styles and other reporting conventions that prompt shared epistemological underpinnings (e.g., Budge & Katz, 1995 ; Madigan et al, 1995 ); that groups of psychologists may be connected via research programs, domains, or agendas ( Lakatos, 1970 ); and so on.…”

“…Independently developing new methodologies, theories, approaches, and so forth, was therefore a necessity. The advent of the Internet and the explosion of information led to a substantial increase in the number of citations per article that has been more dramatic in psychology than in other sciences, such as physics (Adair & Vohra, 2003; Sigal & Pettit, 2012). Referencing is undoubtedly useful when it comes to connecting various sources of psychological knowledge and understanding how theories, methodological approaches, and empirical findings are related.…”

Solution for Information Overload Using Faceted Search–A Review

“…Sigal and Pettit [44] explained the factors that first led to the establishment of a set of rules regulating the presentation and style of psychology papers and the controversy created by these needs. This article discusses the origins and the controversy caused by the introduction of a standardized format and design by psychology to its publications.…”