Apa Style: the Development of Publication Standards for American Psychology, 1900-1952
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APA STYLE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLICATION STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY, 1900-1952 MATTHEW J. SIGAL A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAMME IN PSYCHOLOGY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO NOVEMBER 2010 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-80652-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-80652-4 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. 1*1 Canada iv Abstract The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association plays a prominent role in the lives of many psychologists. As it evolves, the authors of the manual aim to lay a foundation for diverse practitioners, from neuroscientists to psychoanalysists, to communicate by codifying limits of acceptability. This thesis deconstructs and analyzes the development of the manual, from calls for standardization around 1900, through noncompulsory guidelines in the 1920s, to the printing of the first denominated Publication Manual in 1952. This archival-based project reveals the oft-ignored agency of the manual's authors as they strove to improve the state of psychological discourse. Two conclusions of this thesis are: that, despite previous claims to the contrary, the development of the Publication Manual had little to do with institutionalizing the language of behaviorism; and, instead of being understood as a behaviorist project, its development should be perceived in light of organizational growth and anxieties. V Acknowledgments This project would have never neared completion if not for the support of a collection of remarkable individuals. First, I must thank my primary supervisor, Dr. Michael Pettit, for his ever-pertinent advice, helping me refine my ideas, and showing me around Washington. Likewise, the commentary leading up to and during my defense from Drs. Christopher Green, Alexandra Rutherford, and Kenton Krocker was both invaluable and eye opening. Thank you. I would also like to acknowledge Janice Goldblum at the National Research Council Archives and Lizette Royer at the Archives of the History of American Psychology for their guidance with their archival collections, and the kind folks at Cheiron for their commentary on selections from Chapter One. Cheers are also in order for the History and Theory gang at York University, for giving excellent feedback at my colloquium and for generally being an awesome and supportive group of people. Further, I would like to send my wannest regards to my friends and family, Joanne, Michael, Alison, and Maria Sigal, Cindy, Dan, James, and Derek Belliveau, Nathan Sassi, Carrie Smith, Wendy Ko, Jennifer Bazar, Eric Oosenbrug, and Kate Sheese for their ongoing humor and affection. Finally, and most significantly, I would like to thank my partner, Arlie Belliveau. I could not imagine having accomplished this milestone without you by my side. VI Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: 19 An Unstandardized Discourse, 1900-1928. Chapter Two: 73 Publication and Revision, 1929-1944. Chapter Three: 100 Bureaucratization in the American Psychological Association, 1945-1952. Conclusion 149 References 158 Appendices 189 1 Introduction The release of the 6' edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association triggered a fiery debate among psychologists. Academic listservs were flooded with messages pertaining to changes found in the revision1. Complaints were lodged against the manual itself: about how much certain individuals dislike the standards and how they "suck the life" out of their writing (Melucci, 2009, April 29); about how the manual really is much ado about nothing - with claims that the revisions are really just a clever money making scheme, a never ending cycle of changes based upon whim (Smith, 2009, May 1). Some asserted that the manual makes too many blanket decisions that should be left in the hands of authors. And amidst all of this, others wondered: is the manual really necessary? And under what circumstances did it come to be?2 My current research, in part, aims to respond to these questions. That the Publication Manual sparks such debates is evidence of its importance in the academic lives of many social scientists, educators, and affiliated professionals. It is 1 For instance, a thread on the Teaching in the Psychological Sciences hstserv with the subject "New edition of publication manual" (Taylor, 2009, April 28) featured intense discussion of the proposed changes 2 Many other threads appeared around the publication of the revision, including: Carroll (2009, July 7), Standing (2009, July 15), Froman (2009, July 17), Bernhardt (2009, July 21; August 25), McKelvie (2009, July 28, August 24), Horton (2009, August 18), Guiliano (2009, September 13), Taylor (2009, September 18), Wuensch (2009, October 6, October 22), Peden (2009, October 6), Green (2009, October 14, October 15), Winter (2009, November 3). While this is a modest sampling, taken from only two listservs (Teaching the Psychological Sciences and the List for the Society for the History of Psychology), the number of new threads on the revision demonstrates the importance of the revision in terms of its professional implications Many of these messages, and their responses, tracked problems found in the new edition or sought clarifications; other messages speculated about the origins of the publication standards or discussed the standard's relevancy (or irrelevancy) in the post author's particular career. 2 more than a mere set of requirements one checks off when getting ready to publish one's research - it plays a substantial role in structuring the language we use and the analyses we deem appropriate by codifying the limits of acceptability within the discipline's publishing venues. As it evolves, the authors of the manual aim to lay a foundation for diverse practitioners, from neuroscientists to psychoanalysists, to communicate. And while this goal may be more lofty than realistic, such attempts at the regulation of language and style certainly warrant historical analysis. The current project aims to trace more than the lineage of the Publication Manual, however. The manual is a regulating document that is a symptom of a broader movement toward scientific standardization. Accordingly, while the manuals are the centerpieces of this thesis, I intend to situate them within the broader context of American psychology, surrounded by numerous attempts of editors, business managers, and psychologists, as they attempt to understand and normalize their discipline. As such, this thesis is as much about the control of language as it is a historical story about the development of standards for publication. Such desires for standardization have permeated psychological discourse since the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was not until the late 1920s, a time when the American Psychological Association (APA) was having "growing pains" (Evans, 1992, p. 73), that a formal document pertaining to publication standards would be drafted to address these concerns. While this development could be situated within the wider scientific management movement, a field that concerned itself with efficiency and 3 standardization and peaked in the 1920s, this link is inessential for understanding the justification for drafting this regulatory document. Instead, this thesis will focus upon the intradisciplinary conflicts and tensions that provoked the manual's development. For instance, the aforementioned growing pains that the Association underwent referred not only to a dramatic increase in membership but also an ever-widening definition of what topics or actions pertained to one calling themselves a psychologist. This caused journal editors who previously only had