Green Christopher D, Feinerer Ingo, Burman Jeremy T
J Hist Behav Sci. 2014 Summer;50(3):249-79. doi: 10.1002/jhbs.21665. Epub 2014 Jun 9.
In order to better understand the broader trends and points of contention in early American psychology, it is conventional to organize the relevant material in terms of "schools" of psychology-structuralism, functionalism, etc. Although not without value, this scheme marginalizes many otherwise significant figures, and tends to exclude a large number of secondary, but interesting, individuals. In an effort to address these problems, we grouped all the articles that appeared in the second and third decades of Psychological Review into five-year blocks, and then cluster analyzed each block by the articles' verbal similarity to each other. This resulted in a number of significant intellectual "genres" of psychology that are ignored by the usual "schools" taxonomy. It also made "visible" a number of figures who are typically downplayed or ignored in conventional histories of the discipline, and it provide us with an intellectual context in which to understand their contributions.
为了更好地理解美国早期心理学的更广泛趋势和争议点，按照心理学的“流派”——结构主义、机能主义等——来组织相关材料是一种惯例。尽管这种方案并非毫无价值，但它将许多其他方面有重要意义的人物边缘化了，并且倾向于排除大量次要但有趣的人物。为了解决这些问题，我们将发表在《心理学评论》第二和第三个十年的所有文章按五年为一组进行分组，然后通过文章之间的语言相似性对每组进行聚类分析。这产生了一些重要的心理学知识“类别”，而这些类别被通常的“流派”分类法所忽视。它还使一些在该学科的传统历史中通常被轻视或忽略的人物“浮出水面”，并为我们提供了一个理解他们贡献的知识背景。
