The new history of psychology II: Some (different) answers to Watrin's four questions.

This article is mainly a response to the article by João Paulo Watrin, "The Ambiguous 'New History of Psychology': Some New Questions to Brock (2017)" (Watrin, 2017), which was itself a reply to my article, "The New History of Psychology: Some (Different) Answers to Lovett's Five Questions" (Brock, 2017). Watrin (2017) suggested that previous writers have conflated the terms "critical history" and "new history." They are said to differ, in that although the former is merely a name for a loose collection of approaches to the history of psychology, the latter involves rhetoric about the historiographical commitments of critical history.

The future of the history of psychology revisited.

In 1994, Kurt Danziger published an article in Theory & Psychology with the title, "Does the history of psychology have a future?" The article attracted a great deal of controversy and is now listed on the journal's website as one of the most cited articles in its history. After providing a synopsis of Danziger's article, I discuss some of the issues that emerged from the controversy that followed its publication. I also ask whether the position of the history of psychology has changed in the intervening years.

The new history of psychology: Some (different) answers to Lovett's five questions.

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 20(2) of (see record 2016-53552-001). In this article there was an error in the 11th paragraph of the Lovett's Five Questions for the New Historians section. The conference paper "The "new" history of science: Implications for philosophy of science" by Rachel Laudan (1992) was wrongly attributed to her husband, Larry Laudan.