You must pick a person, area, theory, or perspective from the 20th century. The safest choice is a particular person simply because you are more likely to find relevant information organized by person than by specialty, for example. But you should chose a topic that interests you, not one that is easy to do.

The paper should consist of at least three basic parts.

First, you must identify the topic and its current status. What did the theorist say? Or (if you have chosen an area of psychology) what is the current status of the specialty?

Second, where does your topic fit in the history of psychology? What is the historical background?

Third, what has been the influence of the person, area, theory? Has psychology been changed because of Theory X, Person Y, or the emergence of Specialty Z?

Although you should have a go at all three of these parts, it does not follow that the paper must have separate sections for each or that they are of equal importance.

Organization

While your paper will naturally focus on the particular person or theory (etc.) that you have selected, you must also be mindful that this is a paper for a History of Psychology course and that this particular course has a long chronological reach. Thus, you should attempt to place your topic in the historical tradition. That does not mean that you must document influence or lack thereof from every person touched on in this course. However, you should be able to demonstrate that you have a good feel for the major intellectual traditions in the history of psychology and how your topic fits.

Analyzing the influence of your theory or person on those who have or will follow will be easier for some topics than others. Obviously the influences of a figure from early in the century will be outlined more clearly than those from a more contemporary person.

There is no canonical organization for a paper of this sort. What works for one theorist might not function as well for another. And the relative importance of background vs. content of the specific topic will also likely vary from paper to paper depending on how important the topic is in the history of our field and how much previous scholarship you can find.

Stylistic Matters

I have no strong feelings about the appearance of the paper provided it is neat and follows some accepted convention. Thus, it makes no essential difference whether footnotes are at the end or at the bottom of the paper or how wide your margins are. Spend your time worrying about your actual words not about how big they are or where they appear on the page.

My tolerance is not perfect, however. You must follow some acceptable convention for writing the paper. You must also manage to acknowledge your sources and in a way that is consistent with the demands of ordinary scholarship. That generally means that specific ideas that are not a part of the easily found public record should be documented. In other words don't cite references for things such as birth dates, but do tell the reader where you got information that seems less obvious. A good rule of thumb is that the reader should not have any ambiguity for where to turn to check on where you got your information. So if you are describing a person's biography and it is clear that you are relying on a specific book or article, you don't need to footnote each new biographical detail, but you do need to document the general source.

On the other hand, you must be perfectly clear as to what are your ideas and what are the ideas of others; it counts as plagiarism if you inadvertently or deliberately claim credit for ideas others have had. In this context sometimes the issue of when to quote secondary sources comes up. It never hurts to quote directly from a secondary source, but a paper that consists of nothing but a string of quotes from the writings of others has gone astray at some point.

Finally tolerance does not extend to poor spelling or sloppy grammar. Clarity is a major virtue in papers of this sort, and therefore diction is also important. What you want to say is important, but how you say it is also.

Reference Materials

Fondren Library has a spotty but surprisingly broad collection in this area. You will find the library has several biographies of famous psychologists and histories of specialized areas. Of the various histories of psychology that are available, Boring's classic History of Experimental Psychology will prove most useful probably. You will also find useful material in Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences which despite its title is largely oriented toward psychology; Fondren does not have the complete set of this journal so you may need to make use of Interlibrary Loan for this. Psychologists who have won the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association have short biographies in The American Psychologist. That same journal often published obituaries of famous psychologists. There are also several collections of biographies of psychologists, the most famous of which is History of Psychology in Autobiography, edited by Boring, then by Boring and Lindzey, then by Lindzey. Several of these are surprisingly interesting.

In recent years the Internet has become quie useful as a s general source. On the main course page you will find some links to portals that may diretc you to relevant sites. Generally you should be suspicious of information found on the Internet, but in this area most of the information you find is valid although often incomplete. You must, of course, document Internet sources, and all style manuals (including that of the American Psychological Association) tell you how to do this.