Interfield Connections and Psychology

  • William Bechtel
  • Adele A. Abrahamsen
Part of the Annals of Theoretical Psychology book series (AOTP, volume 9)


Woodward and Devonis propose a program for analyzing the history of psychology based on the notion of interfield theory. Both of us have long been interested in relations between fields or disciplines of science, and one of us (WB) has analyzed a number of examples of interfield theories. The notion of an interfield theory was developed for quite specific purposes, however, and it is not clear that it can bear the load Woodward and Devonis seek to place upon it. We will first indicate some of the challenges that will confront any attempt to apply the notion of interfield theory to analyzing the development of psychology as a discipline and then offer an alternative perspective on psychology as a discipline, from which we might then apply the notion of interfield theory fruitfully in a more restricted way. In addition to advancing a framework for analyzing the development of psychology, Woodward and Devonis also advance interpretations of specific aspects of psychology’s history. Some of these interpretations are open to challenge or alternative formulations; however, we have chosen to restrict our focus to questions raised by their application of interfield theory.


Behavioral Science Research Technique Theory Reduction Lower Level Component Specialization Hierarchy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrahamsen, A.A. (1987). Bridging boundaries versus breaking boundaries: Psycholinguistics in perspective. Synthese, 72 ,355–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamsen, A.A. (1991). Bridging interdisciplinary boundaries: The case of kin terms. In C. Georgopoulos &R. Ishihara (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda (pp. 1–24). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (1988). Philosophy of science: An ovennew for cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (1989). An evolutionary perspective on the re-emergence of cell biology. In K. Halweg &C. Hooker (Eds.), Issues in evolutionary epistemol ogy (pp. 433–457). Albany: SUNY University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W. (In press). Integrating science by creating new disciplines: The case of cell biology. Biology and Philosophy Google Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W., &Richardson, R.C. (In press). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Biology and Philosphy Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (enlarged edition). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  8. Churchland, P.M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and propositional attitudes.The Journal of Philosophy 78 ,67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchland, P.S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind brain. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  10. Darden, L. (1986). Relations amongst fields in the evolutionary synthesis. In W. Bechtel (Ed.), Integrating scientific disciplines (pp. 113–123). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darden, L. (1991). Strategies for theory change.: The case of the theory of the gene. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Darden, L., &Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 43 ,44–64.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J.A. (1974). Special sciences (Or: Disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28 ,97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hull, D.L. (1988). Science as a process. An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. McCauley, R.N. (1986). Intertheoretic relations and the future of psychology. Philosophy of Science, 53 ,179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCauley, R.N. (1987). The not so happy story of the marriage of linguistics and psychology or why linguistics has discouraged psychology’s recent advances. Synthese ,72,341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mullin, N. C. (1972). The development of a scientific speciality: the phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva, 10 ,51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nickles, T. (1980). Introductory essay: Scientific discovery and the future of philosophy of science. In T. Nickles, (Ed.), Scientific discovery: Logic and rationality (pp. 1–59). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reber, A. (1987). The rise and (surprisingly rapid) fall of psycholinguistics. Synthese, 72 ,325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Staats, A.W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Philosophy and method for a unified science. New York: PraegerGoogle Scholar
  22. Staats, A.W. (1989). Unification: Philosophy for the modern disunified science of psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 2 ,143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Bechtel
    • 1
  • Adele A. Abrahamsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGeorgia State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations