Pauline Sears Accomplishments And Long Career In The Field Of Psychology

9
Pauline Sears’ (1908-1993) accomplishments and long career in the field of psychology are worth considerable attention. She not only furthered knowledge in child development, motivation and learning but did so in the face of sexist institutions and traditions. From the beginning of her academic career she was asked to leave her undergraduate program at Stanford University for failing to maintain “ladylike” behaviour. Sears’ acquiesced, but displayed her tenacity by exploring other employment opportunities and later returning to finish her degree. Sears would be confronted with more hurdles as two different employment opportunities were lost due to anti-nepotism laws in her graduate school years. Yet, these setbacks did not derail her

focus and spent the next seven years as an unpaid research associate innovating doll play and assessment of child aggression. After this period of dedicated research she moved between several psychological institutions across the United States to finally settling down at Stanford University. A year later, in 1966, she became a full professor and two years later a fellow of Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Pauline Sears’ resilience, accomplishments and dedication to psychology certainly makes her worthy of attention. It is unfortunate that such recognition must be given in retrospect, as she was not afforded the same respect or opportunity during her career.
If Pauline Sears were to be integrated into the Pioneers of Psychology textbook her work could find a home in several different chapters. Firstly, her contribution to child studies and education built upon some of Stanley Hall’s work in chapter eight. Also a good fit would be in chapter twelve, besides Maslow’s work on motivation and esteem. Lastly, in chapter thirteen her work on child development deserves a place alongside Piaget’s own developmental findings.

Unfortunately, most history of psychology textbooks have been dominated by the “Great White Men” for several reasons. Firstly, in order to be written about, a person would need to have amassed a large corpus of work to explore and cite by the author. The creation of such a body of work requires professional networks, resources, specialized education and positions of prominence, all of which “Great White Men” had a near monopoly on. Another reason for this biased focus is that the authors of these histories are they themselves belong to the same class and race as the “Great White Men”. This leads to a more narrow focus, possible bias and the likelihood of relevant work by women and minorities being overlooked or disregarded.
A more inclusionary history of psychology textbook could bring more attention to the women and minorities who have made contributions to the science of psychology and in so doing shift focus to neglected fields of study. For example, many women were channelled into the applied fields of psychology, while the “Great White Men” dominated the more respected experimental psychology. A more inclusionary textbook could correct this bias, and give the history of psychology a more holistic or Zeitgeist approach. In so doing this give more opportunity for theory generation and help to move away from the deterministic origin myth process or Great Man approach towards a critical history of psychology.