Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

SAGETRACK

Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smyth, M. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Fact Making in Psychology

The Voice of the Introductory Textbook

Mary M. Smyth

Lancaster University, m.smyth{at}lancaster.ac.uk

Autonomous scientific fact statements, independent of the circumstances in which they were made, are to be found in scientific textbooks, according to Kuhn and Latour. Introductory biology textbooks have few references, little acknowledgement of researchers, and few qualifications of the facts they present. This paper examines introductory psychology textbooks and finds little autonomous fact writing. Instead, when dealing with memory and with social interaction, psychology text-books use experiments to demonstrate generalizations, they qualify claims and refer extensively to the literature. A key feature is that psychology textbooks present experiments and other evidence as the content that the beginner must learn. Psychology presents paradigms of doing, not of knowing. Psychology's struggle to make scientific knowledge is presented in the textbooks, but the knowledge is not autonomous. Psychological knowledge always carries evidence with it, indicating that the possibility of disagreement is ever-present. This raises issues about how psychological knowledge becomes accepted and about the place of academic fact making in the establishment of psychological regimes of truth.

Key Words: fact statements • knowledge making • Latour • psychology • textbooks

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 5, 609-636 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354301115002


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
M. M. Smyth
Exploring Psychology's Low Epistemological Profile in Psychology Textbooks: Are Stress and Stress Disorders Made within Disciplinary Boundaries?
Theory Psychology, August 1, 2004; 14(4): 527 - 553.
[Abstract] [PDF]