Interpretation of Bartlett's Production

Interpretation of Bartlett's Production 

Bartlett's total production is quite large, containing around 200 titles (the total number of items varies according to the source; cfr. Harris and Zangwill, 1973; H.F. Bartlett, 2000, and the bibliography within this web site), the vast majority of which were authored by himself alone. 

The beginning of World War II can be taken as a dividing line within his production. Before the war his work had mainly an academic orientation, while after the breaking of the conflict it took a more applied path, with an important presence of studies of military interest (addressed principally to the R.A.F.) and other similar themes, such as the study on the development of motor abilities, the effects of fatigue on efficiency/production or the studies of the relationship between man and machine. His work in these fields are also an important contribution to the development of new ideas in Psychology. However, this change in the emphasis of his work does not mean a complete shift in his interests, nor a swift change in his theoretical outlook. Rather, there is a continuous presence of both types of research (academic and applied) throughout his whole career. It is only the relative frequency of each type of production what varies in each period, even if the balance changed quite abruptly as a consequence of the outbreak of the War. 

When looking to Bartlett's intellectual biography and bibliographic production before 1939 a rather clear picture appears. There seems to be an initial period in his career that finishes around 1924-1925, in which his interest is mainly focused on Experimental Psychology as an instrumental science for the study of issues of Anthropological interest, pivoting around the search for a psychological explanation of the conventionalisation of cultural materials. It was during these years when Bartlett gathered the greater part of the data that would eventually transform into his most famous title (Remembering). However, once Myers left Cambridge and Bartlett became director of the laboratory and took on teaching duties, his interests centred more closely into Experimental Psychology, something which left a mark in his production during the late 1920's. The years 1931-1932 seem to mark a turning point. It was then when he first occupied the chair of experimental psychology at Cambridge, and immediately after Remembering was published. This book represents the culmination of a period and a first exposition of his systematic posture. After it, his production branches off towards new projects. 

Once his institutional position was secured, his works seemed to advance clearly towards more psychological themes, especially Social Psychology (cfr. Bartlett, 1926c, 1927d, 1928a and b, 1938, 1939a), and to the Psychology of Thinking (Bartlett & Smith, 1920; Bartlett, 1925, 1927a, 1938, 1939b). There are signs that allow us to suggest, at least at a hypothetical level, that the systematic posture that is already indicated in the field of remembering/thinking could have had a continuation in these two aforementioned fields. So Thinking (published in 1957) may be considered an attempt to revive previous research themes that other obligations had forced him to postpone in the past. 

Bartlett was adamant in his rejection to the pertinence of building a system of psychology or creating any kind of school (cfr. Bartlett, 1930, 1936). However, these same texts - together with Remembering and Thinking - are genuine exercises of theoretical developments. This refusal of adscription to any school of psychology, or to any attempt to develop one, made him say: "If I am to say what sort of Psychologist I am, I can say only that I am a Cambridge Psychologist. The trouble about this is that Cambridge psychology of the laboratory type has never committed itself to any hard and fast and settled scheme of psychological explanation. I hope it never will" (1936, p. 40). However, he was also clear that there were "positive ideas that underly the Cambridge approach to psychology" (1936, p. 44). And soon goes into a description of what such approach was, using what he called "a dogmatism of expression which I hope in no way represents an equal dogmatism of attitude" (1936, p. 42). It is worthy to summarise which were "these positive ideas" at that time (1936). 

For him "Psychology is a biological science" (p. 42), "and its methods must be as rigorously exact as possible" (p. 43) but when he goes into the pains of explaining what this means, he goes well beyond any biological reductionism. Methods includes experimentation and field observation, but also participant reports. They require to take into account the "tendencies to specific responses which, in combination with the objective, external conditions, will issue in conduct of one kind rather than of others" (p. 44). These tendencies may be common to all the members of the species (instinctual), individual (temperamental), learned by experience, or socially determined. These tendencies cannot be observed and therefore are hypothesis the psychologist must use for what the subject does or the psychological materials that appears. By psychological materials Bartlett meant "Sensations, percepts, images, ideas, thoughts, some at least of whatever is present in volition and emotion, and no doubt a good many other things for which the inventive psychologist can find names" (p. 46). This material is only accessible to the subject, so any "psychological observation must be a cooperative effort in which both observer and subject must play their parts" (p. 47). Any instance of psychological material is "both complex in structure and organized" (p. 48), and "must be understood to play its part in an indivisible manner - 'as a whole'" (p. 48), so that "combinations or organizations of 'mental elements' may have different properties from elements themselves" (p. 49). This take him to follow a genetic outlook when devising experiments or interpreting observations. Bartlett takes all this to be just "a point of view", "not a scheme of explanation" (p. 49), which combines structural and functionalist approaches in a non-reductionist manner. 

The research on military and applied psychology that Bartlett then carried out during WW II does not represent a departure from his previous work. His interest in this field can be traced back to the First World War, though there are no signs of lack of dedication to these issues during the 1920´s and 1930´s. The fact that it eventually ended up constituting a central facet of his work in the 1940's is a consequence of his contribution to his country's war effort. Without doubt, this gave him important social recognition and represented the development in a theoretical approximation of great interest for the study of complex abilities. 

Taking all this into consideration, some conclusions that go beyond the biographical sequence, can be teased out. In the case of Bartlett there seem to be two interrelated enterprises (Gruber, 1989) which developed in time fertilising each other. One can speak of a first enterprise, focused on the exploration of anthropological problems with an experimental psychology methodology, centred around the study of `conventionalisation´ of cultural materials. This enterprise, through the 1920s evolved towards the development of what Bartlett called an 'approach' to psychology (Bartlett, 1936). This enterprise runs along diverse paths among which Social Psychology and Thinking stand out. In addition, another enterprise can be envisaged, that of the development of an Applied Experimental Psychology, which had an important place in Bartlett's work from the very beginning. These enterprises and themes were perhaps more closely related than what is usually understood - something which may be a matter worthy of closer historical examination. It is difficult to think otherwise taken into account Bartlett's personality and intellectual biography and the 'approach' to psychology he preached.

-- Alberto Rosa, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain