Focusing on Harvard's Center for Cognitive Studies as a case, this article uses economies of research tool exchange to develop a new way of characterizing cross-disciplinary research. Throughout its life from 1960 to 1972, the Center for Cognitive Studies hosted scholars from several disciplines. However, there were two different research cultures at the Center. With its directors and patrons committed to a philosophy that equated creative science with eclectic search for and invention of new tools, the Center's initial interdisciplinary research culture emphasized the exchange of ideas and methods. Several years later, once its work was well under way, the Center's culture became multidisciplinary. Rather than emphasizing the sharing, invention, location, discussion and stabilization of new research techniques, the Center's multidisciplinary economy involved researchers working in parallel.
1 H. Gardner, The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution, New York, 1985; M. Posner and G. L. Schulman, ‘Cognitive Science’, in The First Century of Experimental Psychology (ed. E. Hearst), Hillsdale, NJ, 1979, 371–406.
2 The psychologists included R. Brown, M. Henle, U. Neisser, D. Norman, B. Inhelder and N. Waugh, P. Greenfield, S. Carey, J. Mehler, D. Aaronson, D. Kahneman, J. Carroll, D. McNeill, D. Olson and W. Reitman. Linguistics was represented by N. Chomsky, R. Jakobson, J. Fodor and J. Katz; biology by E. Mayer; mathematics by B. Mandelbrot and S. Papert; paediatrics by T. Berry Brazelton; history by H. Stuart Hughes; psychiatry and psychoanalysis by J. Lacan and J. Jaffe; and decision theory and industrial administration by H. Simon. The roster of the Center's students, visitors and directors can be found in Harvard University, Center for Cognitive Studies, Annual Reports, 1960–1969; J. S. Bruner, ‘Founding the Center for Cognitive Studies’, in The Making of Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of George A. Miller (ed. W. Hirst), Cambridge and New York, 1988, 90–9.
3 J. S. Bruner and G. A. Miller to N. Pusey, 4 January 1962. Papers of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to/from, 1961–2, Box 2, Folder: Center for Cognitive Studies, Harvard University Archives.
4 J. Cohen-Cole, ‘Thinking about thinking in Cold War America’, Ph.D. dissertation, number 3107869, Princeton University, 2003, Chapter 3.
5 NIH Grant Application, ‘Studies in cognition,’ 13 December 1965, 4. Papers of the Center for Cognitive Studies, Grant Requests, Proposals & Reports, Folder: NIH Proposal. Harvard University Archives.
6 This approach to research production in an interdisciplinary environment draws inspiration from Robert Kohler's and Lorraine Daston's examination of the ‘moral economy’ of research and Peter Galison's analysis of the ‘trading zone’ and ‘trading language’ that allow scientists of different training to communicate and collaborate. R. E. Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life, Chicago and London, 1994; Daston, L., ‘The moral economy of science’, Osiris (1995), 10, 2–24. The classic discussion of moral economy is Thompson, E. P., ‘The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century’, Past and Present (1971), 50, 76–136.
7 For instances of the use of the word ‘tool’ as a descriptor for both physical implements and methodological procedures see K. W. Spence, Behavior Theory and Conditioning, New Haven, 1956, 3; E. R. Hilgard, ‘Psychology: its present interests’, in The Behavioral Sciences Today (ed. B. Berelson), New York, 1963, 38–51, 49–50; Kahn, T. C., ‘Clinically and statistically oriented psychologists split our profession’, American Psychologist (1955), 10, 171–2, 171; Bruner, J. S., ‘Mechanism riding high: review of Kenneth W. Spence, Behavior Theory and Conditioning’, Contemporary Psychology (1957), 2, 155–7, 157.
8 See, for instance, J. S. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge and London, 1966, 19–26; idem, The Process of Education, Cambridge, 1960; idem, ‘The act of discovery’, Harvard Educational Review (1961), 31, 21–32; N. E. Golvin, ‘The creative person in science’, in Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development (ed. C. W. Taylor and F. Barron), New York and London, 1963, 7–23, 21.
9 For contemporary discussion of this state of affairs see Johnson, E. P., ‘On readmitting the mind’, American Psychologist (1956), 11, 712–14, 712; McGuire, F. L., ‘On the issue “what is science?”’, American Psychologist (1956), 11, 152–3, 153; Tolman, E. C., ‘There is more than one kind of learning’, Psychological Review (1949), 56, 144–55, 146; D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory, New York, 1949, 4; S. Koch, ‘Epilogue: some trends of study I’, in Psychology: A Study of a Science. Volume 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context (ed. S. Koch), New York, 1959; MacCorquodale, K. and Meehl, P. E., ‘On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables’, Psychological Review (1948), 55, 98–107.
10 The Cambridge Conference on Thinking, 8 September 1955. Office of Naval Research, London, Technical Report ONRL-86-55. Jerome S. Bruner Papers. Harvard University Archives, HUG 4242.9. Box 3 of 4. Folder: Cambridge Conference.
11 G. A. Miller, Spontaneous Apprentices: Children and Language, New York, 1977, 2–3. See also Miller, G. A., ‘The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective’, Trends in Cognitive Science (2003), 7, 141–4, 141. For similar sentiment see the recollections of G. Mandler as cited in B. J. Baars, The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology, New York, 1986, 254.
12 Lecture notes from ‘The materialist tradition’, Lecture 4, 5. Social Sciences 8: Psychological Conceptions of Man, Harvard University. Delivered on 6 October 1960. Personal papers of G. A. Miller, Princeton University Department of Psychology.
13 For a useful and more recent discussion of the linkage between new tools and new theories in cognitive psychology see Gigerenzer, G., ‘Discovery in cognitive psychology: new tools inspire new theories’, Science in Context (1992), 5, 329–50; idem, ‘From tools to theories: a heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology’, Psychological Review (1991), 98, 254–67.
14 For discussion of the role of the war in fostering task-oriented, interdisciplinary research see Galison, P., ‘The Americanization of unity’, Daedalus (1998), 127, 45–71, 59–65. For discussion of how this practice developed out of Warren Weaver's earlier style at the Rockefeller Foundation see D. A. Mindell, Between Human and Machine: Feedback, Control, and Computing before Cybernetics, Baltimore, 2002, 189.
15 Sewell, W., ‘Some reflections on the golden age of interdisciplinary social psychology’, Annual Review of Sociology (1989), 15, 1–16, 5.
16 Sewell, op. cit. (15), 5.
17 On reading an earlier draft of this article, G. Miller remarked that ‘both Jerry and I were forced by WWII to become interdisciplinary (altho [sic] re different disciplines), and we found it exciting and wanted to revive it in 1960. The war had given both of us intellectual claustrophobia’. Personal communication, 29 December 1997.
18 Bruner to Allport, 17 September 1945. J. S. Bruner Correspondence 1944–7. Box A–E, folder: Allport, G. W. 1945. Harvard University Archives, HUG 4242.5; underlining in the original, italics added.
19 While he had the support of the primaries in Psychology (E. G. Boring and G. Allport), and some support in Sociology (T. Parsons, as well as G. Allport and C. Kluckhohn, who, though not properly sociologists, had voting rights in the department), Bruner's appointment to Sociology was blocked by P. Sorokin and C. Zimmerman, who saw Bruner's interests and methods as too far outside their field and interests. Bruner's efforts to be appointed to the Department of Sociology are discussed in J. S. Bruner to G. Allport, 24 May 1945, and E. G. Boring to P. Buck, 6 September 1945. Papers of J. S. Bruner. Correspondence 1944–7, A–E, Folder Allport, G. W. 1943–4, Harvard University Archives; T. Parsons to P. Buck, 1 May 1945. Papers of the Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to/from, 1944–5, R–Sociology. Folder: Sociology. Harvard University Archives.
20 General discussion of Lincoln may be found in S. W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at M.I.T. and Stanford, New York, 1993.
21 G. A. Miller, E. Galanter and K. H. Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, New York, 1960.
22 Miller explained to his department chairman, ‘My plan is to spend this time at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. I hope to learn more of the mathematics I need to develop some of my own theoretical notions. Since von Neumann has a group of men working on his theory of games, the Institute seems an ideal place to become familiar with this kind of theory construction.’ G. A. Miller to E. B. Newman, 15 December 1949. Papers of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to/from, 1949–50, Phillips–S (Misc), Folder: Psychology. Harvard University Archives.
23 Bruner has reflected that there had been ‘times when I thought I would have been better off in the seventeenth century, when it was more usual to follow one's curiosity than the straighter arrow of specialized study. I am not a good “discipline” man and do not like boundaries’. J. S. Bruner, In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography, New York, 1983, 8.
24 Geiger, R. L., ‘American foundations and academic social science, 1945–1960’, Minerva (1988), 26, 315–41.
25 Cohen-Cole, op. cit. (4), Chapter 3.
26 Miller, G. A., ‘What is information measurement?’ American Psychologist (1953), 8, 3–11; Miller, G. A. and Frick, F. C., ‘Statistical behavioristics and sequences of responses’, Psychological Review (1949), 56, 311–24; Miller, G. A. and Selfridge, J. A., ‘Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material’, American Journal of Psychology (1950), 63, 176–85; Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A. and Lichten, W., ‘The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials’, Journal of Experimental Psychology (1951), 41, 329–35; Miller, G. A., ‘The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information’, Psychological Review (1956), 63, 81–97; Miller, G. A. and Friedman, E. A., ‘The reconstruction of mutilated English texts’, Information and Control (1957), 1, 38–55; Chomsky, N. and Miller, G. A., ‘Finite state languages’, Information and Control (1958), 1, 91–112. For further discussion of Miller's post-war work see Crowther-Heyck, H., ‘George A. Miller, language, and the computer metaphor of mind’, History of Psychology (1999), 2, 37–64; P. N. Edwards, The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America, Cambridge, 1996, Chapter 7.
27 Bruner, J. S. and Goodman, C. C., ‘Value and need as organizing factors in perception’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1947), 42, 33–44; Bruner, J. S. and Postman, L. J., ‘On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm’, Journal of Personality (1949) 18, 206–23.
28 J. S. Bruner, J. J. Goodnow and G. A. Austin, A Study of Thinking, London, 1956. Once the book was published, Bruner would tell Jean Piaget, ‘if it had not been for you, for von Neumann and for Claude Shannon, it never would have occurred to me to take this approach’. J. S. Bruner to J. Piaget, 17 May 1956, Papers of J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1965–71, Papousek–Ry (gen'l), Folder: Piaget. Harvard University Archives.
29 Crowther-Heyck, op. cit. (26).
30 S. A. Stouffer, ‘Research techniques’, in The Social Sciences at Mid-Century, Freeport, NY, 1952, 62–9.
31 L. S. Cottrell, Jr., ‘Strengthening the social science in the universities’, in The Social Sciences at Mid-Century, Freeport, NY, 1952, 21–36, 32.
32 C. Dollard, ‘Strategy for advancing the social sciences’, in The Social Sciences at Mid-Century, Freeport, NY, 1952, 12–20, 18. For discussion of Dollard and his relationship with Stouffer see E. C. Lagemann, The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy, Middletown, CT, 1989.
33 The yearly expenditure figures given above are only approximate since the available data give total project allocations. Most lasted over several years and the data do not specify the expenditure burn rate. Figures given above are thus calculated as a fraction of the total grant with the assumption that funds would be used at an equal rate year to year. Summary Report of the Behavioral Sciences Division, 1952–3. Papers of Paul Herman Buck, Box: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 1952–late 1960s, Folder: Misc. Harvard University Archives.
34 The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, ‘Report of the Planning Group’, and meeting minutes of CASBS, June 1952. Papers of P. H. Buck. Box: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1952–late 1960s, Folder: Misc.
35 H. H. Harman, ‘The psychologist in interdisciplinary research’, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1955.
36 Carnegie Corporation of New York, Annual Report, 1946, 27–8.
37 Gardner, J. W., ‘International relations and sociology: discussion’, American Sociological Review (1948), 13, 273–5, 273.
38 The Behavioral Sciences at Harvard, Cambridge, MA, 1955, 12.
39 Cohen-Cole, op. cit. (4), 187–96.
40 Sewell, op. cit. (15), 5; W. A. Wallis, ‘The 1953–54 Program of University Surveys of the Behavioral Sciences’, Behavioral Sciences Division, Ford Foundation, 1955, 5.
41 J. T. Dunlop et al., ‘Toward a common language for the area of the social sciences’, Harvard University, 1941; T. Parsons et al., ‘Some fundamental categories of the theory of action: a general statement’, in Toward a General Theory of Action (ed. T. Parsons and E. Shils), Cambridge, 1951, 3–29.
42 C. Kluckhohn, ‘Comment on Margaret Mead “The comparative study of culture and the purposive cultivation of democratic values”’, in Science, Philosophy and Religion (ed. L. Bryson and L. Finkelstein), New York, 1942, 72–6; idem, Mirror for Man: The Relation of Anthropology to Modern Life, New York, 1949. See also V. Yans-McLaughlin, ‘Science, democracy, and ethics: mobilizing culture and personality for World War II’, in Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays on Culture and Personality (ed. G. W. Stocking, Jr.), Madison, WI, 1986, 184–217.
43 G. W. Allport, C. K. M. Kluckhohn, O. H. Mowrer, H. A. Murray and T. Parsons, ‘Confidential memorandum on the reorganization of the social sciences at Harvard’, 1 September 1943, 2. Harvard University Archives, Papers of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to/from, 1945–6, Box: Social Science–Z, Folder: Social Sciences.
44 Lagemann, op. cit. (32), 170; Cohen-Cole, op. cit. (4), 179–81.
45 J. B. Conant, ‘Memorandum to the Carnegie Corporation’, n.d. (receipt acknowledged 11 July 1946). Carnegie Corporation Grant Files. Series 1, Box 163. Folder: Harvard University Laboratory of Social Relations.
46 ‘Some considerations on the Integration of Research’. Papers of the Department of Social Relations, Correspondence, etc. 1948–194[?]. A–K. Harvard University Archives, UAV 801.2010.
47 Frenkel-Brunswik, E., ‘Tolerance toward ambiguity as a personality variable’, American Psychologist (1948), 3, 268; Barron, F., ‘Personality style and perceptual choice’, Journal of Personality (1952), 20, 385–401.
48 Carnegie Corporation Grant Files. Series 1, Box 163. Folder: Harvard University Laboratory of Social Relations.
49 J. S. Bruner and G. A. Miller to N. Pusey, 4 January 1962. Papers of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to/from, 1961–2, Box 2, Folder: Center for Cognitive Studies, Harvard University Archives.
50 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, First Annual Report, 1960–1961, 1–2.
51 Bruner initially presented the results of his research on the R & D group at a conference in 1958. For his paper in the conference proceedings see J. S. Bruner, ‘The conditions of creativity’, in Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking (ed. H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell and M. Wertheimer), New York, 1962, 1–30.
52 J. Bruner and G. Miller to J. W. Gardner, 7 April 1960. Papers of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to/from, 1959–60, Box 6, Folder: Center for Cognitive Studies. Harvard University Archives.
53 ‘Weekly Log’, 28 November 1960, Center for Cognitive Studies, Correspondence; Center for Cognitive Studies, Budget and Equipment Papers, Harvard University Archives.
54 The Center's pattern of intellectual exchange worked in many ways like that of the souk (baazar) in Sefrou, Morocco described by C. Geertz and L. Rosen. Geertz and Rosen argued that the conditions of trade in the souk in Sefrou are linked to its energetic and intimate social patterns. For Geertz this is because market information is poorly distributed and goods are non-standard, so buyers organize their activities by developing close relationships with vendors and through constant, intensive and lengthy negotiations with each transaction. This pattern and the relationships that develop through it help people acquire information about the goods under negotiation and also the market in general. Rosen adds that these negotiations construct not just the marketplace in Sefrou but also the wider social world. Through these interchanges people establish prices for goods, as well as (re)negotiate their relationships with one another and the wider community. Researchers at the Center traded intellectual tools in a souk-like fashion, constituting both their local culture and the (professional) identities of the participants. C. Geertz, ‘Suq: the bazaar economy in Sefrou’, in Meaning and Order in Moroccan Society: Three Essays in Cultural Analysis (ed. C. Geertz, H. Geertz and L. Rosen), Cambridge, 1979, 123–313; L. Rosen, Bargaining for Reality: The Construction of Social Relations in a Muslim Community, Chicago and London, 1984.
55 N. Chomsky and G. A. Miller, ‘Finitary models of language users’, in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (ed. R. D. Luce, R. Bush and E. Galanter), New York, 1963, 419–91; N. Chomsky and G. A. Miller, ‘Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages’, in ibid., 269–332.
56 J. S. Bruner to M. J. Aschner, 28 June 1961. J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1962–4, Box A, Folder: Aschner. Harvard University Archives.
57 G. A. Miller, ‘Language and psychology’, in New Directions in the Study of Language (ed. E. H. Lenneberg), Cambridge, 1964, 89–107, 94.
58 See, for instance, Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Third Annual Report, 1962–1962, 5.
59 D. French, quoted in Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, First Annual Report, 1960–1961, 4.
60 See R. R. Olver, ‘A developmental study of cognitive equivalence’, Ph.D. dissertation number 0261491, Harvard University, 1962.
61 G. A. Miller, ‘Project Grammarama’, in idem The Psychology of Communication, New York, 1967, 125–87.
62 G. A. Miller, ‘Computers, communication and cognition’, in The Psychology of Communication, New York, 1967, 93–124.
63 For instance, see Chomsky, N., ‘Three models for the description of language’, IRE Transactions on Information Theory (1956), IT-2, 113–24.
64 N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, The Hague, 1957, 18–25. The original proof appears in Chomsky, op. cit. (63).
65 G. A. Miller, Lecture Notes for Psychology 165: Psychology of Speech and Communication. 4–18 October 1957. Harvard University Archives, HUC 8957.272.165, Box 1247, Folder: Miller: Lecture Notes for Psych 165.
66 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Third Annual Report, 1962–1963, 39.
67 Miller, op. cit. (62).
68 A sampling of this line of Bruner's research follows. Historians of science will be familiar with the results of the paper with Postman for it is central to Thomas Kuhn's discussion of gestalt-switching. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, 1970, 62–4; Bruner and Goodman, op. cit. (27); Bruner and Postman, op. cit. (27); Bruner, J. S. and Potter, M. C., ‘Interference in visual recognition’, Science (1964), 144, 424–5; Bruner, J. S., ‘On perceptual readiness’, Psychological Review (1957), 64, 123–52. The eye camera and associated research is discussed in Mackworth, J. F. and Mackworth, N. H., ‘Eye fixations recorded on changing visual scenes by the television eye-marker’, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1958), 48, 439–55; Mackworth, N. H., ‘A stand camera for line-of-sight recording’, Perception and Psychophysics (1967), 2, 119–27.
69 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, First Annual Report, 1960–1961, 8.
70 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Second Annual Report, 1961–1962, 5.
71 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Second Annual Report, 1961–1962, 5.
72 D. A. Norman, interview, 2 August 1997. See also D. A. Norman and W. J. M. Levelt, ‘Life at the Center’, in The Making of Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of George A. Miller (ed. W. Hirst), Cambridge and New York, 1988, 100–9.
73 J. S. Bruner, interview, 7 May 1997.
74 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Second Annual Report, 1961–1962, 5.
75 D. A. Norman, interview, 2 August 1997.
76 Bruner, op. cit. (51). This work was a part of a quickly growing research area concerned with understanding creativity and using group-brainstorming to produce innovation among businessmen, engineers, scientists and students. See, for instance, W. J. J. Gordon, Synectics, New York, 1961; A. F. Osborn, Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of the Creative Process, rev. edn, New York, 1953.
77 NIH Grant Application, ‘Studies in cognition’, 13 December 1965, 4. Center for Cognitive Studies, Grant Requests, Proposals and Reports, Folder: NIH Proposal.
78 Center for Cognitive Studies, Annual Report, 1965–6, 39–40.
79 For discussion of the role of behaviourism in establishing the disciplinary autonomy of psychology see J. M. O'Donnell, The Origins of Behaviorism: American Psychology, 1870–1920, New York, 1985.
80 Cohen-Cole, J.. ‘The reflexivity of cognitive science: the scientist as model of human nature’, History of the Human Sciences (2005), 18, 107–39.
81 D. A. Norman, interview, 8 August 1997; Norman and Levelt, op. cit. (72), 100–9.
82 On Postman see Papers of J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1948–51, Box Meikle–Postman, Folder Postman, Harvard University Archives. On Mackworth see Papers of the Center for Cognitive Studies, Correspondence. Harvard University Archives.
83 J. S. Bruner et al., Studies in Cognitive Growth, New York, 1966; J. S. Bruner, ‘The growth and structure of skill’, in Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing (ed. J. M. Anglin), New York, 1973; N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA, 1965; P. M. Greenfield and J. S. Bruner, ‘Culture and cognitive growth’, in Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (ed. D. A. Goslin), Chicago, 1969, 633–54; Miller, op. cit. (61); Mackworth, op. cit. (68).
84 R. A. Harris, The Linguistics Wars, New York and Oxford, 1993, 68, 271.
85 D. Norman and W. Levelt remark that ‘the Center for Cognitive Studies gathered together a vibrant group of people with unconventional knowledge and interests, stuck them together in one place, gave them excellent research, meeting, and support facilities, and then allowed what was to happen to happen. There were frequent meetings and seminars, a continual stream of visitors, and, for members of the Center, no responsibilities. All of the ingredients were present: facilities, people, an active spirit, and critical mass. The Center offered a true demonstration of the critical mass theory of research, the notion that work proceeds best when there are enough people interested in the same or closely related topics so there is always an audience for new ideas, an audience that can criticize in depth, suggest, and help generate the next generation of ideas’. Norman and Levelt, op. cit. (72), 101. Also Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies Annual Reports (especially before 1965); NIH Grant Application, ‘Studies in Cognition’, 13 December 1965, 3–4. Center for Cognitive Studies, Grant Requests, Proposals & Reports, Folder: NIH Proposal; D. A. Norman, interview, 2 August 1997; Center for Cognitive Studies, ‘Final Report 1965–1972’, Carnegie Corporation Grant Files, Series 2, Box 606: Harvard University – Thought Processes, Columbia University Archives; Bruner, op. cit. (23); Bruner, op. cit. (2).
86 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Third Annual Report, 1962–1963, 8.
87 NIH Grant Application, ‘Studies in Cognition’, 13 December 1965. Center for Cognitive Studies, Grant Requests, Proposals & Reports, Folder: NIH Proposal, 4–5. Harvard University Archives.
88 The history of that curriculum, ‘Man: A Course of Study’, is narrated in P. B. Dow, Schoolhouse Politics: Lessons from the Sputnik Era, Cambridge and London, 1991.
89 Interview, name withheld.
90 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, First Annual Report, 1960–1961, 10.
91 J. S. Bruner to P. Achinstein, 15 December 1969. Papers of J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1965–71, Box A. Harvard University Archives.
92 For other recent examples of the relationship between architecture and research culture see Leslie, S. W. and Knowles, S., ‘“Industrial Versailles”: Eero Saarinen's corporate campuses for GM, IBM, and AT&T’, Isis (2001) 92, 1–33; A. J. Levine, ‘Life in the Lewis Thomas Laboratory’, in The Architecture of Science (ed. P. Galison and E. Thompson), Cambridge, MA, 1999, 413–22.
93 J. S. Bruner to R. Stanger, 9 February 1962. Papers of J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1961–2, Box N–Z, Folder S. Harvard University Archives. Although, in the last couple of years before the move to William James, the Center had an outpost on Garden Street, the split that entailed did not draw energy from the Center's Kirkland Street home base because the majority of the Center's activities remained in the original location.
94 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Fifth Annual Report, 1964–1965, 7–8.
95 Interview with D. A. Norman, 2 August 1997.
96 One was G. Miller. Interview, 25 September 1997.
97 D. Aaronson, personal communication, 23 August 1997; interview with M. Potter, 8 October 1997; interview with G. Miller, 25 September 1997.
98 J. Bruner to H. Himmelweit, 22 March 1971. Papers of J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1965–71, Head Start–I, Folder: Himmelweit, Hilde. Harvard University Archives.
99 N. Pusey, handwritten memo to himself outlining a meeting with Bruner and Miller, 12 January 1962. Papers of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Letters to and from, 1961–2, Box 2, Folder: Cognitive Studies, Center for, Harvard University Archives.
100 Bruner to B. Woolf, 26 October 1970. J. S. Bruner, Personal Correspondence and Papers, N–P, Folder: NICHHD 03049 Request for Renewal. Harvard University Archives.
101 Bruner mentions this group briefly in ‘Founding the Center for Cognitive Studies’, op. cit. (2). For details on Bread and Roses see Nancy Hawley, ‘Dear Sisters’, 8 October 1970, Annie Popkin Papers, Box 2, folder 39, Schlesinger Library; A. Echols, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967–1975, Minneapolis, 1989; A. H. Popkin, ‘Bread and roses: an early moment in the development of socialist-feminism’, Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis, 1978.
102 Rose Olver, interview, 8 September 1998.
103 Among the numerous accounts these events have received are D. Ravitch, The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945–1980, New York, 1983; R. N. Smith, The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation, New York, 1986. The full story remains clouded, however, as Harvard's administrative records on the event are sealed until at least 2029.
104 J. Bruner to D. Kahneman, 22 March 1971. J. S. Bruner, General Correspondence, 1965–71, Kagan–Kennedy, Folder: Kahneman, Daniel. Harvard University Archives.
105 U. Neisser, Cognitive Psychology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1967, 5.
106 Center for Cognitive Studies, ‘Final Report 1965–1972’, Carnegie Corporation Grant Files, Series 2, Box 606: Harvard University – Thought Processes, Columbia University Archives.
107 Bruner, op. cit. (2), 97.
108 Harvard University Center for Cognitive Studies, Seventh Annual Report, 1966–1967 (Cambridge, MA), 1.
109 Among these are Willem Levelt's role in founding the Max Planck institute in Nijmegen and Jacques Mehler's in the Journal of Cognition, and G. Miller in the programme in cognitive science at Princeton. In addition, Howard Gardner shaped Project Zero at Harvard and D. Norman shaped the programme at UCSD along the lines they saw at the Center. D. A. Norman, interview, 2 August 1997; H. Gardner, To Open Minds, New York, 1989, 54–5.
110 See, for instance, M. Poovey, ‘Interdisciplinarity at New York University: innovation without planning’, in Schools of Thought: Twenty-Five Years of Interpretive Social Science (ed. J. W. Scott and D. Keats), Princeton, 2001, 288–312; M. Strathern, ‘Genetics Knowledge Park: an interdisciplinary experiment’, Princeton University, 12 April 2004.
For their careful readings, suggestions and advice on the many drafts of this article, my thanks to Elizabeth Lunbeck, Michael Mahoney, Eric Ash, David Attis, Angela Creager, Peter Galison, Manfred Laublicher, Ole Molvig, Suman Seth and Norton Wise. I am grateful to Jerome Bruner and George Miller for allowing access to their personal papers, without which this article could not have been written. For recollections of life and work at the Center for Cognitive Studies I owe an additional debt of gratitude to them and to other members of the Center: Doris Aaronson, Susan Carey, Noam Chomsky, Patricia Greenfield, Charles Gross, Daniel Kahneman, George Mandler, Jean Mandler, Alastair Mundy-Castle, Donald Norman, Rose Olver and Mary Potter.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed