Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
信札中的微观心理学历史:黄翼形重错觉研究报告的曲折境遇
阎书昌1; 高志鹏2
(1河北师范大学心理学系, 石家庄 050024) (2约克大学心理学系, 多伦多 M3J1P3, 加拿大)
A microhistory of psychology in letters: What happened to I. Huang’s research reports on the size-weight illusion?
YAN Shu-Chang1; GAO Zhipeng2
(1 Department of Psychology, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024, China) (2 Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto M3J1P3, Canada)
全文: PDF(618 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

本文透过微观历史的视角, 以黄翼与周先庚、吴有训等人的10余封通信为素材, 还原了黄翼两篇形重错觉研究报告的评审与发表过程, 揭示出黄翼与审稿人汪敬熙、主编吴有训、好友周先庚以及导师格塞尔之间的冲突、协商和合作的复杂学术互动。这些信札作为私人交流的媒介, 记录了当时心理学知识生产中局部的、互动的、存在于特定关系之中的思想、计划和动机。信札中的对话涉及到当时心理学学术成果评审的几方面核心问题:评审标准和流程、写作语言规范、学术权威、同行举荐、创新性认可、文献引用等诸多问题。本文进一步以科学知识社会学的视角对这些问题进行分析, 解构学术“象牙塔”的传统形象, 以此揭示和反思心理学知识生产的内在过程。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
阎书昌
高志鹏
关键词 黄翼 信札研究 微观心理学历史 学术规范 科学知识社会学    
Abstract

In the recent development of history and sociology of science, peer review practice has been scrutinized. However, historians have not paid any attention to this important topic in the history of Chinese psychology. Primarily based on thirteen recently discovered letter correspondences among leading scholars such as I. Huang, Siegen K. Chou, and Wu Youxun, this paper studies the complicated stories behind I. Huang’s two publications on the size-weight illusion using a microhistory approach. I. Huang (1903-1944) was an important Chinese psychologist who received trainings in child psychology and Gestalt psychology from Arnold Gesell and Kurt Koffka in the USA. A few years after returning to China, Huang’s research was severely impeded by the Sino-Japanese War, poverty, and terminal cancer. Nonetheless, Huang persevered in conducting research in hopes of delivering two research reports to international colleagues. Unexpectedly, in 1941 and again in 1943, the only two state-run international outlets both invited the same reviewer, Wang Jingxi, a physiological psychologist heading the Psychology Institute of Academia Sinica, who kept criticizing Huang’s reports. Unconvinced by Wang’s criticisms, Huang wrote letters to the editors in defense of his reports as well to his old classmate and colleague, psychologist Siegen K. Chou, for support. These correspondences discussed a number of core issues in the peer review practice: evaluation criteria, the composition and qualifications of reviewer (s), dispute resolution, and institutional and social factors that shape research activities. For example, various evaluation criteria – originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, sample size, experimenter effects, the suitability of the statistics used, replicability, referencing, and language style – were brought up and discussed. In Huang’s view, Wang nitpicked about language style while downplaying other more important criteria, failed to appreciate that high reliability and statistical significance can overcome the limitation of the small sample size, and did not possess appropriate expertise to evaluate his research. When Wang criticized Huang’s study as repetitive of extant literature, Huang argued, first, that successful replication is not entirely useless, and, moreover, that his research was mainly aimed at theoretical integration rather than empirical findings. Huang admitted that his reports did indeed have certain shortcomings but argued that the wartime scarcity of literature and research equipment had made these inevitable. For instance, such scarcity had led to Huang’s lack of awareness of extant literature resembling his independent theoretical innovation. In order to resolve the disagreements, Huang contended that his methodological and language choices were no different than those of authoritative psychologists. When Huang called upon Siegen K. Chou to mediate the dispute, Chou delicately voiced his support of Huang, his intimate friend and colleague, while paying due respect to Wang, the leading figure in Chinese psychology. Chou echoed Huang’s proposal of recruiting additional reviewers, and offered further suggestions to improve the peer review process. Finally, Huang refused the two state-run outlets’ sympathetic offers of acceptance of the articles along with remuneration. He instead submitted the articles to The Journal of General Psychology based in the USA. Unfortunately, Huang soon passed away in extraordinary hardship before his articles were published. It is worth noting that the published papers include editorial footnotes about their having been accepted by Arnold Gesell, who deeply respected and mourned his former student.

Key wordsI. Huang    letters    microhistory of psychology    research normativity    sociology of scientific knowledge
收稿日期: 2016-03-16      出版日期: 2017-04-25
基金资助:

中国科协“老科学家学术成长资料采集工程”项目资助(2012-F-Q-XH09)。

通讯作者: 阎书昌, E-mail: yanshuchang@126.com   
引用本文:   
阎书昌;高志鹏. 信札中的微观心理学历史:黄翼形重错觉研究报告的曲折境遇[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00554.
YAN Shu-Chang; GAO Zhipeng. A microhistory of psychology in letters: What happened to I. Huang’s research reports on the size-weight illusion?. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(4): 554-568.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00554      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I4/554
[1] 范庭卫. 黄翼与中国儿童心理辅导的开拓[J]. , 2009, 41(02): 182-188.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn