Every once in a while, someone invents a new way to describe what scholars do. The results are typically quantitative. Sometimes they’re also quite useful, in the sense of providing a “thin description” (as a corollary to Clifford Geertz’ meaning-full thick description) of whatever it is you want to know. […]
The October 2020 issue of History of the Human Sciences is a special (double) issue dedicated to the memory of John Forrester (1949-2015). In their introduction, editors Chris Millard and Felicity Callard situated my contribution relative to their view of the whole: Burman (2020) takes us on a journey, inserting Piaget in […]
In his comment included in the special issue of History of Psychology that I edited with Ivan Flis and Nadine Weidman, Ted Porter (UCLA History) said this of our efforts: It rarely suffices merely to count things, for they may also require to be classified…. The problem can be especially thorny for the “psy” disciplines, where it applies […]
In her comment included in the special issue of History of Psychology that I edited with Ivan Flis and Nadine Weidman, Melinda Baldwin (now of History at the University of Maryland) said this of our efforts: As a historian of scientific publishing, I am excited by the possibilities of such […]
In his comment included in the special issue of History of Psychology that I edited with Ivan Flis and Nadine Weidman, Christopher Green (YorkU Psychology) said this of our efforts: It was a pleasure to read these two sophisticated efforts to bring digital methods to the history of psychology. In […]
I was surprised and delighted to hear that Frank Costigliola (UConn History) had mentioned me in the final chapter (“Reading for emotion”) of the third edition of his textbook surveying the history of American Foreign Relations. I wouldn’t have thought I’d have anything useful to say to his audience. In […]
@Burman PhD 