Contrary to Rappard's (1997) reading of my paper (Danziger, 1994), I did not advocate that the history of psychology be left to historians. However, that does not mean we can afford to ignore historians' criticisms of insider history. Underlying our disagreement there are different conceptions of the role of history in the natural and social sciences and of the position of psychology among these.
Ash, M.G. (1983). The self-presentation of a discipline: History of psychology in the United States between pedagogy and scholarship. In L. Graham, W. Lepenies, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Functions and uses of disciplinary histories (pp. 143-189). Dordrecht and Boston, MA: D. Reidel.
2.
Boring, E.G. (1929). A history of experimental psychology. New York: Century.
3.
Danziger, K. (1994). Does the history of psychology have a future?Theory & Psychology, 4, 467-484.
4.
Forman, P. (1991). Independence, not transcendence, for the historian of science. Isis, 82, 71-86.
5.
Markus, G. (1987). Why is there no hermeneutics of natural sciences? Some preliminary theses. Science in Context, 1, 5-51.
6.
Rappard, J. F. H. van (1997). History of psychology turned inside(r) out: A comment on Danziger, Theory & Psychology, 7, 101-105.
7.
Shapin, S. , & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Smith, R. (1988). Does the history of psychology have a subject?History of the Human Sciences, 1, 147-177.
9.
Young, R.M. (1966). Scholarship and the history of the behavioural sciences. History of Science, 5, 1-51.
