References 551several important roles in the development of both the sci-
ence and profession of psychology. Over the course of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, scientific knowledge
came to form the basis for social and professional authority.
Scientific and professional organizations shared in and en-
hanced this authority by providing a communal voice for the
claims of their science or profession. This, in turn, led to in-
creased credibility for claims to expert knowledge or practice
(Appel, 1988; Hardcastle, 2000; Sokal, 1992). Scientists
have recognized this for several centuries, as witnessed by
the creation of scientific societies as each new realm of
knowledge was discovered and professionalized (Frangsmyr,
1989; Shapin, 1996; Starr, 1982).
Scientific and professional organizations also exercise a
certain measure of control over what counts as scientific
knowledge or professional expertise (Pickren, 1995). This
control allows them to exert authority over what qualifies an
individual to participate in the knowledge-production or pro-
fessional practice process. In this way, scientific and profes-
sional societies act as gatekeepers of social and professional
authority.
The society or professional organization serves to set off
areas of inquiry or practice that belong to that science or prac-
tice and thus demarcate the boundaries of knowledge and
practice (Abbott, 1988). These boundary lines allow for the
definition of problems and the delineation of methods that are
appropriate for the science or profession. In this way, they fa-
cilitate the formation of professional identity (Gieryn, 1983,
1999).
The provision of professional identity is another important
role played by organizations. A woman who belongs to the
Cognitive Science Society, for example, has as part of her
sense of professional self the identity of cognitive scientist
that such membership provides. A national psychological so-
ciety that belongs to the IUPsyS shares in the identity of in-
ternational science that the larger organization provides.
Often, there is a sense of exclusivity provided as part of this
identity. For example, only one national organization per
country can belong to the IUPsyS, and only 50 psychologists
at a time could belong to Titchener’s Experimentalists.
There is often overlap in the knowledge claims and realms
of practice among different sciences and professions. These
scientific and professional borderlands have often led to
fierce rivalry, but they also have led to the creation of inter-
disciplinary organizations (Pickren, 1995). Such interdisci-
plinary societies are more likely to form where there are
problems that are perceived as falling within the purview of
more than one science or profession. The creation of the
American Orthopsychiatric Association is one professional
example, and the Society for Research in Child Development
is another.
At the end of the twentieth century, a new pattern of sci-
entific and professional organizations had emerged. Increas-
ing specialization of knowledge led to the rapid growth of
many specialty societies. For an example, the reader is en-
couraged to visit the World Wide Web site of the Federation
of Psychological, Behavioral, and Cognitive Societies
(www.thefederationonline.org). The federation comprises 19
different societies ranging in size from the very large APA to
the very small Society of Judgement and Decision-Making.
As these specialty societies proliferate, many psychologists
have chosen to belong to only their specialty group rather
than to a larger association such as the APA or American Psy-
chological Society that represents a broader, more inclusive
view of psychology as both science and profession. A poten-
tial problem with this increased specialization is the further
fractionation of organized psychology (Fowler, 1992). It is
possible that such fractionation will weaken the authority
of psychology and psychologists in the larger society. But,
that, perhaps, will be the subject for some future history of
professional organizations.REFERENCESAbbott, A. (1988). The system of professions, an essay on the divi-
sion of expert labor.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Status of
Women in Psychology. (1973). Report of the Task Force on the
Status of Women in Psychology.Washington, DC: Author.
Appel, T. (1988). Organizing biology: The American Society of Nat-
uralists and its affiliated societies. In R. Rainger, K. R. Benson, &
J. Maienschein (Eds.),The American development of biology
(pp. 87–120). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (1977). The psychological round table.
American Psychologist, 32,542–549.
Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (1997a). Organized industrial psychology before
Division 14: The ACP and the AAAP. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 82,459–466.
Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (1997b). The origin of psychological species:
History of the beginnings of American Psychological Associa-
tion divisions. American Psychologist, 52,725–732.
Bent, R. J., Packard, R. E., & Goldberg, R. W. (1999). The American
Board of Professional Psychology, 1947–1997: A historical per-
spective.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30,
65–73.
Bernal, M. (1994). Hispanics in psychology. Focus, 8,9–10.
Blascovich, J. (2000). Society of Experimental Social Psychology. In
A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),Encyclopedia of psychology(Vol. 7, pp. 380–
381). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Boring, E. G. (1951). The woman problem. American Psychologist,
6,679–682.