History and Theory of Psychology Student Network

This month, the cover of the New York Times magazine features a wonderful essay by Robin Marantz Henig about the psychology of play. It covers the old “play as preparation for living” hypothesis and counters it with the more recent “play to grow the kind of brain that works” argument. And it cites some of the same characters I discuss in my own forthcoming play-piece, which is due out in the Spring. But it isn’t a review article and it’s not really history. Although it has aspects of both, it’s clearly also something else.

So here’s my question:

What’s the difference between good scholarship in the history of science and the best historical science writing?

Are they separated by the speculative and personal bits that sometimes show up in science writing? Or the activist hint that, for example, ADHD might not be such a problem if only we had a better handle on what it means to play? Or simply the fact that scholars provide explicit references to back up their claims and science writers don’t?

My leisure time — what’s left of it, anyway — has lately been devoted to an annual series called “The Best American Science and Nature Writing” (see also Best Science and Best Essays). Although the essays collected in these works sometimes just paint a picture, or celebrate an individual achievement, they also occasionally do what this New York Times piece has done: synthesize a vast literature in an engaging way.

Although I certainly have criticisms, and don’t necessarily wish to hold Henig’s piece up as the exemplar of popular historical psychology, I think it might be an interesting collective activity to follow-up with the idea.

Thus: Is there something we can learn from this kind of writing? Or are “science writing” and “history” two separate species, descended from a common ancestor but without possibility of a future fertile cross?

To help the discussion, and lay the foundations for a return to the topic later, I have collected some resources below the fold. But, following the template set by Ryan’s successful open forum on epistemology, there’s no need to be overly scholarly in approaching the problem; I’m just curious to hear people’s thoughts.

(Thanks to David Clark and Mark Solovey for commenting on an earlier version.)

Related readings:

Clark, W. (2003). On the Professorial Voice. Science in Context, 16(1/2), 43-57.

Curtis, R. (1994). Narrative Form and Normative Force: Baconian Story-Telling in Popular Science. Social Studies of Science, 24(3), 419-461.

Daniels, G. H. (1967). The Process of Professionalization in American Science: The Emergent Period, 1820-1860. Isis, 58(2), 150-166.

Knight, D. (1996). Presidential Address: Getting Science Across. The British Journal for the History of Science, 29(2), 129-138.

Lightman, B. (2000). Marketing knowledge for the general reader: Victorian popularizers of science. Endeavour, 24(3), 100-106.

Pfeiffer, J. (1953). Some Comments on Popular-Science Books. Science, 117(3042), 399-403.

Sheets-Pyenson, S. (1985). Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: The emergence of a low scientific culture, 1820-1875. Annals of Science, 42(6), 549-572.

Shermer, M. B. (2002). This View of Science: Stephen Jay Gould as Historian of Science and Scientific Historian, Popular Scientist and Scientific Popularizer. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 489-524.

Thomas, G. & Durant, J. (1987). Why Should we Promote the Public Understanding of Science? Scientific Literary Papers, 1-14.