Advertisement

A Gendered Prestige: The Powers at Play When Doing Psychology with Ink Blots/Statistics

  • Katherine HubbardEmail author
  • Natasha Bharj
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology book series (PSTHP)

Abstract

In the history of Psychology, women and the Rorschach ink blot test have had some surprising commonalities; both have been constructed as unscientific, emotional, and invalid. In this chapter we explore the history of women’s involvement with the Rorschach, and demonstrate how the conceptualization of legitimate science has negated women’s contributions in revealing ways. In particular, we will correspond this history with the related trajectory of the use of statistics in Psychology and examine key moments within this history where women in Psychology, the Rorschach, and statistics, have come into contact. In doing so we distinguish between Psychology the discipline and psychology the subject matter (see Richards, 2002), but play with this distinction by making the discipline itself the subject matter under examination. By historically contextualizing Psychology and considering the feminist ramifications of its history, it is possible to shine a light on how Psychology has constructed itself as a legitimate science. Our goal is not to locate legitimacy and subjectivity, since these concepts can be applied to all parts of psychological history and science. Instead, by utilizing a Science and Technology Studies perspective we are able to examine how attributions of subjectivity are strategically applied to de/legitimize certain people and certain knowledge. Entrenched within such explorations of gender, scientific legitimacy, and construction of knowledge, is power. Therefore, this chapter will provide a short analysis of the power dynamics at play within these histories and highlight the historically gendered nature of prestige within Psychology.

References

  1. Amâncio, L., & Oliveira, J. M. (2006). IV. Men as individuals, women as a sexed category: Implications of symbolic asymmetry for feminist practice and feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 16(1), 35–43.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2000). Women in academe: Two steps forward, one step back. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, M. D., & Russo, N. F. (1974). The history of psychology revisited: Or, up with our foremothers. American Psychologist, 29(2), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohan, J. S. (1990). Contextual history. A framework of re-placing women in the history of psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14 (2), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner, J. (2001). “Oh those crazy cards again”: A history of the debate on the Nazi Rorschachs, 1946–2001. Political Psychology, 22(2), 233–261.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, R. D. (1997). Ink blots or profile plots: The Rorschach versus the MMPI as the right tool for a science-based profession. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22(2), 168–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, R. D. (2010). Playing with fire: The controversial career of Hans J. Eysenck. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burfoot, A. (2016). First ladies of running. New York: Rodale.Google Scholar
  9. Buros, O. K. E. (Ed.). (1959). The fifth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Causadias, J. M., Vitriol, J. A., & Atkin, A. L. (2018). Do we overemphasize the role of culture in the behavior of racial/ethnic minorities? Evidence of a cultural (mis) attribution bias in American psychology. American Psychologist, 73, 243–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fancher, R. E., & Rutherford, A. (2012). Pioneers of psychology. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Furumoto, L. (2003). Beyond great men and great ideas: History of psychology in sociocultural context. In Teaching gender and multicultural awareness: Resources for the psychology classroom (pp. 113–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (1986). Placing woman in history of psychology: The first American women psychologists. American Psychologist, 41, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grob, G. N. (1991). Origins of DSM-I: A study in appearance and reality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(4), 421–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gasser, C. E., & Shaffer, K. S. (2014). Career development of women in academia: Traversing the leaky pipeline. Professional Counselor, 4(4), 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guthrie, R. V. (1990). Mamie Phipps Clark (1917–1983). In A. N. O’Connell & N. F. Russo (Eds.), Women in psychology: A bio-bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 66–74). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, J. (2007). The emergence of clinical psychology in Britain from 1943 to 1958, Part II: Practice and research traditions. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 9(2), 1–33.Google Scholar
  20. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470.Google Scholar
  23. Hegarty, P. (2003a). Homosexual signs and heterosexual silences: Rorschach research on male homosexuality from 1921 to 1969. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(3), 400–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegarty, P. (2003b). Contingent differences: A historical note on Evelyn Hooker’s uses of significance testing. Lesbian and Gay Review, 4(1), 3–7.Google Scholar
  25. Hegarty, P. (2007). Getting dirty: Psychology’s history of power. History of Psychology, 10(2), 75–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21(1), 18–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubbard, K. (2017). Treading on delicate ground: Comparing the lesbian and gay affirmative Rorschach research of June Hopkins and Evelyn Hooker. Psychology of Women Section Review, 19(1), 3–9.Google Scholar
  28. Hubbard, K. (2018). Queer signs: The women of the British projective test movement. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 53(2), 265–285. Google Scholar
  29. Hubbard, K., & Hare, D. (2015). Psychologists as testers. In J. Hall, D. Pilgrim, & G. Turpin (Eds.), Clinical psychology in Britain: Historical perspectives. History of Psychology Centre Monograph No. 2. British Psychology Society. Leicester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Hubbard, K., & Hegarty, P. (2016). Blots and all: A history of the Rorschach ink blot test in Britain. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 52(2), 146–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hyde, J. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs, 16(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemov, R. (2011). X-rays of inner worlds: The mid-twentieth-century American projective test movement. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 47(3), 251–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, A. J. (1934). Melancholia: A clinical survey of depressive states. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 80, 277–378.Google Scholar
  34. Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591–1599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCarthy Woods, J. (2008). The history of the Rorschach in the United Kingdom. Rorschachiana: Journal of the International Society for the Rorschach, 29(1), 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Milar, K. S. (2000). The first generation of women psychologists and the psychology of women. American Psychologist, 55(6), 616–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minton, H. L. (2002). Departing from deviance: A history of homosexual rights and emancipatory science in America. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practices solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Morawski, J. G., & Agronick, G. (1991). A restive legacy: The history of feminist work in experimental and cognitive psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15(4), 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rees, T. (2011). The gendered construction of scientific excellence. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place: A critical historical overview. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test based on perception (P. Lemkau & B. Kronenberg, Trans.). New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  44. Rovenpor, D. R., & Gonzales, J. E. (2015, January). Replicability in psychological science: Challenges, opportunities, and how to stay up-to-date. Psychological Science Agenda, 29(1). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/01/replicability.aspx.
  45. Rutherford, A., Vaughn-Blount, K., & Ball, L. C. (2010). Responsible opposition, disruptive voices: Science, social change, and the history of feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rutherford, A., Vaughn-Johnson, E., & Rodkey, E. (2015). Does Psychology have a gender? The Psychologist, 28(6), 508–510.Google Scholar
  47. Scarborough, E., & Furumoto, L. (1989). Untold lives: The first generation of American women psychologists. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shields, S. A. (2007). Passionate men, emotional women: Psychology constructs gender difference in the late 19th century. History of Psychology, 10(2), 92–110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spears, R., & Smith, H. J. (2001). Experiments as politics. Political Psychology, 22(2), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stevens, G., & Gardner, S. (1982). The women of psychology. Cambridge, USA: Schenkman Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Tyler, B., & Miller, K. (1986). The use of tests by psychologists: Report on a survey of BPS members. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 405–410.Google Scholar
  52. Valentine, E. R. (2008). To care or to understand? Women members of the British Psychological Society 1901–1918. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 10(1), 54–65.Google Scholar
  53. Valentine, E. R. (2010). Women in early 20th-century experimental psychology. The Psychologist, 23(12), 972–974.Google Scholar
  54. Wheeler, W. M. (1949). An analysis of Rorschach indices of male homosexuality. Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques, 13(2), 97–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2013). Representing our own experience: Issues in “insider” research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wylie, A. (2004) Why standpoint matters. In S. G. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 339–352). Hove: Psychology Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations