Analysis of the Relations of the Stuff of the Psychological Institute (1913-1937)

Artemeva Ol'ga Arkadjevna ORCID: 0000-0002-0093-0166 Doctor of Psychology Professor of the department of General Psychology, Head of the Laboratory of Methodology and History of Psychology, Irkutsk State University 664025, Russia, Irkutsk, Chkalova str., 2, office 205 oaartemeva@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

IntroductionThe year 2022 is marked by the 100th anniversary of the Psychological Institute established by G.I. Chelpanov at Moscow University in 1912.

The revolutionary events in the country, the reform of schools and science partly overlapped and partly coincided with the trends in the formation of domestic psychological education and science launched by G.I. Chelpanov. So it is difficult to separate the importance of scientific-social and subject-logical aspects of determination in the development of the scientific school of the Psychological Institute in the first half of the twentieth century. In the historiographical tradition of domestic and foreign psychology (see e.g.., ^{[1],[2],[3],[4],[5]}) the main contribution of G.I. Chelpanov to the development of psychology is presented as organizational. It is noted that he created the material and technical base of the institute, organized the training of psychologists, was a teacher and supervisor of many later leading Soviet psychologists. At the same time, the substantial influence of G.I. Chelpanov's research program fades into the background. This, of course, is also facilitated by the traditional historiographical ideas about G.I. Chelpanov as an "idealist" who was defeated in the discussion about the tasks of Marxist psychology and was dismissed from his post as director in 1923.

At the same time, in modern historiography, one can notice the "rehabilitation" of G.I. Chelpanov not only as an organizer of psychological education and science, but also as a researcher. The relevant work was carried out, first of all, by employees of the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State University, where Georgy Ivanovich worked. In the works of E.P. Guseva and O.G. Serova, employees of the History of National Psychology group of the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, G.I. Chelpanov is presented as "the founder of the system of scientific psychology and psychological education in Russia" ^{[6, p. 62]}. Professor of Moscow State University A.N. Zhdan concludes that G.I. Chelpanov created the first scientific school of Russian psychology – "a school of scientific and educational type" ^{[7, p. 14]}. Continuing the line of research laid down in the candidate's dissertation under the leadership of A.N. Zhdan, S.A. Bogdanchikov defines the scientific school of G.I. Chelpanov not only as a scientific and educational, but also a research team school ^[8]. We come to the same conclusion based on the results of a study of the composition and characteristics of research teams created by G.I. Chelpanov at the bases of the Psychological Seminary at the Imperial University of St. Vladimir in Kiev (1897-1907), the Psychological Seminary at the Imperial Moscow University (1907-1912) and the L.G. Shchukin Psychological Institute (1912-1923) ^[9].

The logic of the study of the problem of collective forms of development of domestic psychology under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanov determines the appeal to the analysis of subject relations between the members of the scientific collectives created by him. Subject connections reflect "the degree of similarity of the research topics of the scientist and his colleagues" ^{[10, p. 49]}. They are an indicator of the subject-reflexive relations of scientists ^[10] responsible for his communication with members of the scientific team about the subject of joint activity and, as a result, for the effectiveness of scientific interaction ^[11],[12]. The experience of organizing the first psychological institute in Russia puts forward the analysis of subject relations between the staff of the Psychological Institute as an actual direction of research of subject-reflexive relations of scientists. The availability of published primary and secondary sources of data on the scientific activities of the Institute's staff determines the prospects of the declared research direction.

MethodIn this regard, the purpose of the study was to characterize the subject relations of G.I. Chelpanov, his students and staff at the Psychological Institute from 1913 to 1937.

The choice of such time frames allowed us to divide the selected period into equal 5-year subperiods available for comparative diachronic analysis of subject relations and results of scientific activity: 1913-1917, 1918-1922, 1923-1927, 1928-1932, 1933-1937. Referring to five-year intervals allows us to fix sufficiently pronounced features of research topics and, at the same time, to trace their dynamic change. The allocation of these time boundaries of periods also makes it possible to take into account the influence of significant social and scientific-social events in the life of the domestic psychological community, the Psychological Institute and its leading employees. The choice of the beginning of the first period is associated with the year of the opening of the Psychological Institute (1912), the end of the last period – with the year of the death of its founder G.I. Chelpanov (1936). Taking into account the postponement of the publication of the results of scientific activity, the boundaries of the studied periods are limited to 1913-1937. Hypotheses were tested: 1) on the existence of a relationship between the distribution of research topics of G.I. Chelpanov and his staff during the years of his leadership of the Psychological Institute; 2) on the absence of a relationship between the distribution of research topics of G.I. Chelpanov and students after his dismissal from the Psychological Institute; 3) on the existence of a relationship between the distribution of research topics of G.I. Chelpanov's successors as director of the Institute and his students. 

The array of slang analysis data was compiled by the titles of scientific publications of 1913-1937 by the head and leading employees of the Psychological Institute under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanov (P.P. Blonsky, N.F. Dobrynin, K.N. Kornilov, S.V. Kravkov, N.N. Ladygin-Cats, A.A. Smirnov, B.M. Teplov, A.N. Rybnikov, G.G. Shpet, V.M. Instantirsky); as well as the directors and leading scientists of the Institute who replaced G.I. Chelpanov (A.B. Zalkind, V.N. Kolbanovsky; L.S. Vygotsky, A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontiev). This made it possible to assess the continuity of research topics in the works of G.I. Chelpanov's staff and the next generation of scientists of the Psychological Institute. The sample was formed taking into account the results of the study of the leading scientific collectives of Russian psychology in the first half of the twentieth century ^[9],[13]. The authors' works were taken into account throughout the period from 1913 to 1937, although some of them left, but later returned to the institute. So, it is known that in 1923, G.I. Chelpanov left for the dismissed, and later a number of his students returned. And in the early 1930s, L.S. Vygotsky, Leontiev, S.V. Kravkov and others temporarily left the Institute. This was taken into account when analyzing the topics of publications and interpreting the results for individual periods. Since the goal was to identify general trends, not all employees of the institute were included in the sample. A small number of discovered works published during the study period, for example, by N.I. Zhinkin, did not allow them to be used for slang analysis. Thus, 558 titles of 16 scientists' publications were analyzed.

At the first stage, a slang analysis of the titles of scientific papers was carried out according to the methodology proposed by S.D. Haitun. It assumes the allocation of semantic words (categories) as slang ^[14]. This allows us to record the fact that more general concepts, in particular, branches of psychology, appear in the headings. The fixation of the appearance of semantic words was carried out using the "Rubricator of branches, directions and problems of psychology" ^[15], presented by V.A. Koltsova and N. Shishlova. There are 47 semantic words, including "general psychology", "social psychology", "psychopathology", etc. During quantitative processing, in each of the periods, the appearance of 15 to 28 semantic words was recorded among the titles of published works, which was taken into account when determining critical values for indicators of the closeness of subject connections. When fixing the cases of the appearance of semantic words in the headings, a "Thematic index" was used, compiled by B.G. Meshcheryakov and V.P. Zinchenko ^[16], with the distribution of scientific concepts by branches of psychology. Prepositions, conjunctions and headline words such as "characteristic", "question", "new" were considered auxiliary and did not participate in the analysis.

The material of the slang analysis was compiled by the titles of monographs, textbooks, practical manuals, lectures and reports published in print. In addition, introductions, afterwords, comments and reviews that had their own names. Comments and reviews that had no titles were coded according to the titles of the collections in which they were published; when published in journals, they were recorded as the category "Methodological problems of psychology". Publications published repeatedly were encoded twice. When "coding" the titles, the "weight" of the publications and the contribution of the authors to the published work (co-author, editor) were taken into account. Following A.M. Kartter, the semantic word in the title of the book (textbook, dictionary, monograph) was estimated at 6 points, in the article – at 1 point (see: ^[10]). One point was also awarded in cases of editing books, co-authoring textbooks, dictionaries and anthologies, publishing a transcript of the report. If the monograph has more than one author (mainly two), 6 points were assigned to each author. Since the procedure of slang, not content analysis, was implemented, several categories/areas of psychology could be fixed at once when analyzing one title; and appropriate points were assigned, reflecting the author's contribution to the development of areas of psychology. After the pilot coding of the headers with the participation of independent encoders, the coding instructions and the coding form were corrected, a dictionary of category indicators was compiled. To overcome the limitations associated with the non-Gaussian nature of the distribution of scientometric indicators ^[14], Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used in quantitative processing. In order to take into account the semantic meanings, the slang analysis of the titles was supplemented with the results of a qualitative analysis of the subject and type of publications, the availability of reprints and biographical data of their authors, as well as the results of an event analysis of the social history of the development of domestic psychology in the first half of the twentieth century (see: ^[10]).

Analysis of resultsLet's trace how the closeness of subject connections and the subject matter of the scientific work of G.I. Chelpanov's staff changed over time.

To characterize the closeness of subject relations of employees, we will use Spearman's rank correlation coefficient indicators. As indicators of the degree of research interest in various fields of psychology (topics) – the average values of the authors' publication activity obtained when divided by the number of authors who had publications during this period.

In the period of 1913-1917, significant indicators of the relationship (when r?0.48, with p?0.05) of the topics of scientific work in the team of G.I. Chelpanov were not revealed. At the same time, a relatively pronounced indicator of the relationship between the topics of his works and K.N. Kornilov's publications was found (0.45, significantly at p>0.08). The corresponding strength of the subject connections may be due, first of all, to the participation of K.N. Kornilov in the development of problems of general, experimental, pedagogical psychology, as well as methodological problems of psychology, set by G.I. Chelpanov as relevant to the work of the staff of his institute.

The greatest contribution of the team members under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanov in 1913-1919 was made in such areas as general (7.6 points, hereinafter – B.), age (4.3 b.) and pedagogical (3.7 b.) psychology, methodological problems of psychology (4.0 points) and experimental psychology (3.0 b.). The development of general psychology and methodological problems of psychology was primarily handled by G.I. Chelpanov himself. The indicator of his contribution to the development of the main areas of psychology was 50 b. Less than the "contribution" of psychological articles and books published by his closest collaborators, primarily G.G. Shpet (31 b.), K.N. Kornilov (31 b.) and N.A. Rybnikov (30 b.). The latter two authors together with P.P. Blonsky solved mainly problems of age and pedagogical psychology. The specificity of G.G. Shpet's contribution is connected with the development of issues of ethnic psychology.

During this short period, several textbooks were published, including "Introduction to Experimental Psychology" (1915) and from the 11th to the 14th editions of "Textbook of Psychology (for gymnasiums and self-education)" (1913, 1915, 1916, 1917) G.I. Chelpanova. Among the joint publications of G.I. Chelpanov's students should be mentioned the second edition of the manual "The Simplest school psychological experiments" for the secondary school of K.N. Kornilov, N.A. Rybnikov and V.E. Smirnov (1916), as well as a voluminous collection of articles on philosophy and psychology "to George Ivanovich Chelpanov from participants of his seminaries in Kiev and Moscow. 1891–1916» (1916). Other significant works include the books "Introduction to the Study of the Child" (1914) and "The Village schoolboy and his Ideals. Essays on the psychology of school age" (1916) by N.A. Rybnikov; "Experimental psychological research (To clarify the question of the nature of types of simple reaction)" (1914) and "Essay on the psychology of a preschool child" (1917) by K.N. Kornilov; pamphlets "Psychology of types of representation and questions of pedagogy" (1916) and "Materials for experimental studies of memory processes" (1916) by V.M. Instantirsky. A significant part of the works were published on subjects related to pedagogy and philosophy, for example, "Introduction to Preschool Education" (1915) by P.P. Blonsky and "Consciousness and its Owner" by G.G. Shpet (1916). A large number of reviews of the works of domestic and foreign scientists and philosophers were published, so characteristic of the stage of formation of domestic psychological education and science.

Articles by G.I. Chelpanov and students were published in the journals "School and Life", "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology", "Bulletin of Education", "Psychology and Children", "People's Reader", "Psychological Review", as well as in the philosophical yearbook "Thought and Word" and in a new series of "Scientific Notes Imperial Moscow University" – "Proceedings of the L. G. Shchukina Psychological Institute at the Imperial Moscow University". A significant part of the journals was founded and published during this period under the editorship of G.I. Chelpanov himself and his students. In addition, discussion and educational articles by G.I. Chelpanov and his colleagues were published on the pages of the socio-political newspapers "Morning of Russia", "Izvestia of the Moscow Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies", "Russian Vedomosti".

Thus, in the first years of the institute's work, its employees, headed by G.I. Chelpanov, prepared a significant number of educational and methodological publications, developed the basics of general, age and pedagogical psychology, as well as experimental psychological research. The breadth of research topics and a large range of solved tasks at the stage of formation of the national system of psychological education and science caused low rates of closeness of subject relations of scientists.

In the period of 1918-1923, statistically significant indicators (when r?0.52, with p?0.05) of the relationship between the topics of publications of the staff of the Psychological Institute under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanov were not revealed. At the same time, as in the previous period, a relatively pronounced indicator of the closeness of the subject relations of G.I. Chelpanov himself and his loyal employee, V.M. Instantirsky, was found (0.47, significantly at p>0.07). The latter, like the teacher, actively developed problems of general psychology during these years and defended his master's thesis on types of representations in 1921. The unity of the problem field was manifested in the appeal of yesterday's students of G.I. Chelpanov to the issues of general (4.3 b.) and age psychology (3.1 b.), labor psychology (2.9 b.) and methodological foundations of psychology (2.6 b.). As well as personality psychology (1.5 b.) and social psychology (1.5 b.), in the development of the problems of which the director of the Psychological Institute did not participate.

The greatest number and total weight of publications distinguish the publication activity not only of the director G.I. Chelpanov (44 b.), but also of his students, leading employees of the Institute N.A. Rybnikov (43 b.) and K.N. Kornilov (37 b.). He was primarily engaged in solving problems of general psychology himself G.I. Chelpanov, as well as P.P. Blonsky and V.M. Instantirsky. During this period, the fifteenth and sixteenth editions of G.I. Chelpanov's "Textbook of Psychology" (1918, 1919) were published, the sixth edition of his work "Brain and Soul. Criticism of Materialism and an essay on modern teachings about the Soul" (1918), as well as the second edition of "Introduction to Experimental Psychology" (1918).

Among the joint works should be mentioned the third and fourth editions of "The Simplest school psychological experiments" (1918, 1922) by K.N. Kornilov, N.A. Rybnikov and V.E. Smirnov. As well as the pedological collection "Childhood and youth, their psychology and pedagogy", edited by K.N. Kornilov and N.A. Rybnikov (1922). It can be noted that at the end of the first decade of the institute's work, G.I. Chelpanov's students had considerable experience of joint activities without the direct participation of their teacher, the head of the institute. G.I. Chelpanov himself did not involve them in the development of the methodological foundations of psychology and, at the same time, did not limit them in their own theoretical search. Methodological problems were also solved by K.N. Kornilov, N.A. Rybnikov and others. Scientific articles and individual publications of the staff were devoted to methods of psychological research, in particular, experiment, self-observation, biographical, analytical method.

The staff of the Institute made articles on topical issues of education in the magazines "National Enlightenment", "On the way to a new school", "Voice of the Enlightenment worker", etc. During this period, work continued on the presentation of works by foreign authors. So, edited and with a preface by V.I. Instantirsky and B.I. Severny, a translation of the first part of the "Fundamentals of Psychotechnics" (1922) by G. Munsterberg was published. The peculiarity of this period is the growing attention to the development of problems of labor psychology, primarily in the works of N.A. Rybnikov and P.P. Blonsky. Psychological issues of labor training and labor organization were discussed on the pages of the magazines "Labor Issues", "Working World", "Labor Organization", etc. A significant part of the research was carried out at the intersection of labor psychology and pedagogical psychology. In addition to many articles, these are special works by N.A. Rybnikov "Psychology and choice of profession" (1918) and P.P. Blonsky "Labor School" (1919).

In general, the expansion of the research problems of the Institute's staff, including in the field of practical psychology, primarily psychotechnics, did not contribute to strengthening their subject connections. Meanwhile, attention to the development of methodological problems of psychology in line with the understanding of the theoretical and methodological foundations of their own research contributed to the convergence of the focus of the scientific work of G.I. Chelpanov and his leading students.

For the period 1923-1927, the only significant correlation indicator (when r?0.46, at p?0.05) of the subject of the works is K.N. Kornilov, who became director of the Institute during this period, and A.R. Luria invited by him (0.46). Both authors focused on the development of issues of general psychology and methodological problems of psychology. Also close to statistically significant are the indicators of the closeness of the subject relations of K.N. Kornilov and another employee invited by him – L.S. Vygotsky (0.44), as well as L.S. Vygotsky with S.V. Kravkov (0.45), who, however, left the institute together with G.I. Chelpanov and others in 1924 G.I. Chelpanov after dismissal Together with V.M. Instantirsky, he worked in the physico-psychological department of the Russian (since 1927 – the State (GAKHN) Academy of Art Sciences, led by his student G.G. Shpet.

The highest indicators of research interest of G.I. Chelpanov and his former employees were found in relation to methodological problems of psychology (8.8 b.), general (5.3 b.), pedagogical (4.9 b.) and age (2.9 b.) psychology. To a lesser extent – experimental psychology (1,6 b.) and psychometry (1,4). The greatest number and weight of publications are distinguished by the contribution of the new director of the Institute, K.N. Kornilov (101 b.). A much smaller, although significant, number of psychological works was published by G.I. Chelpanov (47 b.), the new scientific authority at the Institute – L.S. Vygotsky (44 b.) and P.P. Blonsky (43 b.).

After a relative decline in attention to methodological issues in the post-revolutionary years, a jump in relative and absolute indicators of attention to methodological problems of psychology was found. They were most actively discussed in the works of G.I. Chelpanov and K.N. Kornilov. Although the authors argued not only with each other, they were the most active opponents in the discussion about the subject and the ways of development of Soviet psychological science in the mid-1920s (see: ^[17],[18]). In line with this polemic, G.I. Chelpanov published two editions of the work "Psychology and Marxism" (1924, 1925), "Objective Psychology in Russia and America (Reflexology and Psychology of behavior)" (1925), "Psychology or Reflexology?" (Controversial issues of psychology) (1926), "Social Psychology or"conditioned reflexes"? (1926), "Spinozism and Materialism. The results of the controversy about Marxism in psychology". (1927). In addition, the author published the third edition of "Introduction to Experimental Psychology" (1924) and fundamental "Essays of Psychology" (1926).

K.N. Kornilov published a series of articles in the new journal "Under the Banner of Marxism": "Modern Psychology and Marxism", "Psychology and Reflexology", "Psychology and the Theory of New Biology" (1923), "Dialectical Method in Psychology" (1924), etc. In addition, these articles, mainly of a debatable nature, became the basis for the preparation of a separate collection "Modern Psychology and Marxism", published in 1924 and 1925. In the same years, the author published regular reprints of the works "The Doctrine of human reactions ("Reactology")" (2nd ed., 1923), "An essay on the behavior of a preschool child" (3rd ed., 1927), "The simplest school psychological and pedological experiments" (with co-author, 5th ed., 1927). Instead of G.I. Chelpanov's textbook, K.N. Kornilov prepared a "Textbook of Psychology Presented from the Point of View of Dialectical Materialism" (1926). Under the editorship of the new director of the Institute of Experimental Psychology of the Institute, collections of articles by employees "Psychology and Marxism" (1925) and "Problems of Modern Psychology" (1926) were published. Also, under the editorship of K.N. Kornilov, a "Workshop on Experimental Psychology" was published by V.A. Artemov, N.A. Bernstein, L.S. Vygotsky, N.F. Dobrynin and A.R. Luria (1927), as well as a voluminous "Psychological Textbook" prepared by the same authors, with the exception of N.A. Bernstein.

Other significant publications for this period include the works of the Institute's staff not only on general, pedagogical, age, but also differential and ethnic psychology, labor psychology, etc.: "Self-observation" (1922) by S.V. Kravkov, "The Problem of Giftedness" (1923) by V.M. Instantirsky, collections of articles "Methods of studying the child"(1923) and "Children's Speech" (1927) edited by N.A. Rybnikov, "Pedagogical Psychology" (1926) by L.S. Vygotsky, "Ethnic Psychology" (1926) by G.G. Shpet, "Psychological Essays" by P.P. Blonsky (1927), "The Life of the Organism and Suggestion" (1927) by A.B. Zalkind and "Psychology of Professions" (1927) by A.A. Smirnov.

Thus, in the first years of the leadership of the Institute of K.N. Kornilov, G.I. Chelpanov's students, including those who left the institute, and his new employees continued to develop methods of psychological research and the basics of general psychology. A new psychological school began to take shape. A characteristic feature, including joint work, was the increase in the number of publications of a practical orientation, primarily in the mainstream of pedagogical and age (child) psychology. At the same time, it is obvious that the development of practical psychology problems would not have been possible without the knowledge of the methodology and skills of psychological reality research acquired by the staff of the Psychological Institute under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanov in previous periods.

The period of 1928-1932 in the life of the Institute was a time of scientific and ideological discussions and subsequent structural changes. Until the end of 1930, the Institute of Experimental Psychology RANION was headed by K.N. Kornilov. A.B. Zalkind, who succeeded him, headed the reorganized Institute of Psychology, Pedology and Psychotechnics until the end of 1931, having managed to take part in the organization of a reactological discussion. In 1932, the leadership passed to V.N. Kolbanovsky, a graduate of the Institute of the Red Professorship. G.I. Chelpanov did not publish scientific papers during these years. In 1930, he was also dismissed from the GAKHN due to staff reduction, having been left without a source of income.

This period of change is characterized by the greatest number of significant relationships (when r?0.38, with p?0.05) of the subjects of the works of the Institute of Psychology staff of different years: the works of A.B. Zalkind and N.A. Rybnikov (0.41), A.B. Zalkind and L.S. Vygotsky (0.38); N.A. Rybnikov and L.S. Vygotsky (0.40), as well as L.S. Vygotsky and P.P. Blonsky (0.38). The center of the correlation pleiad, which can be built on the basis of the identified relationships, is the subject of L.S. Vygotsky's works. The results obtained reflect the influence of the status of the head of A.B. Zalkind and the status of the scientific leader L.S. Vygotsky on the strength of their subject relations with the leading scientists of the Institute. Despite the differences in the attention paid to the issues of general, age, special psychology and labor psychology, these authors were united in their interest in the development of debatable issues of psychology methodology and the basics of practice-oriented pedology.

As in previous periods, during these years, psychological scientists have been actively developing issues of general (11.9 b.), age (9.5 b.), pedagogical (7.2 b.) psychology, to a lesser extent than before - methodological problems of psychology (5.5 b.). As well as social psychology (2.1 b.), labor psychology (1,7) and special psychology (1,7). The greatest contribution to the development of the designated areas of psychology was made by L.S. Vygotsky (236 b.). The second place in terms of the number and contribution to the development of the main areas of psychology, including those related to other sciences, belongs to A.R. Luria (111 b.). A significant number of works were published by A.B. Zalkind (94 b.) and N.A. Rybnikov (76 b.).

In general, a large number of books were published during this period. A number of employees of the Institute in these years have published several of their own monographs and textbooks. Indicative works of this period are "Pedology of school age (1928) by L.S. Vygotsky, "Fluctuations of attention. Experimental Psychological Research" (1928) by N.F. Dobrynin, two editions "Sexual Education (1928, 1930) by A.B. Zalkind, "Memory, its Psychology and Pedagogy" (1930) and "Autobiographies of Workers and their Study" (1930) by N.A. Rybnikov, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions of "Psychology of a child and a teenager" (1928, 1929, 1930) by A.A. Smirnov, two editions of "Difficult Schoolchildren" (1929, 1930) by P.P. Blonsky, "Development of Memory" (1931) by A.N. Leontiev. At least half of the publications were a continuation of the work started on the basis of the Institute under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanov. G.I. Chelpanov's students published several psychology textbooks. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions of the Textbook of Psychology presented from the point of view of Dialectical Materialism (1928, 1928, 1929) by K.N. Kornilov; Introduction to Psychology (1929) by N.F. Dobrynin; a course of lectures for part-time students "Fundamentals of Psychology" (1930) A.A. Smirnova, M.V. Sokolova and P.A. Shevareva.

Among the joint works should also be mentioned five issues of materials for the examination of schoolchildren and the methodological manual "School tests" (1928), prepared by E.V. Guryanov, N.I. Zhinkin, A.A. Smirnov, M.V. Sokolov and P.A. Shevarev, as well as "Psychological tests for adults on Ed. Thorndyke" edited by B.M. Teplov, P.A. Shevarev and A.A. Smirnov. L.S. Vygotsky, S.G. Gellerstein, B.A. Fingert and M.L. Shirvindt presents "The main currents of modern psychology" (1930). In addition, among the joint works of L.S. Vygotsky and A.R. Luria, it should be noted "Studies on the history of behavior. A monkey. Primitive. The Child" (1930). Under the editorship of K.N. Kornilov, the collective works "Natural scientific prerequisites of Psychology" (1929), "Elements of Differential Psychology" (1929), "Elements of General Psychology. Basic mechanisms of human behavior" (1930), "Elements of Social psychology" (1930). The collections were also published under the editorship of L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Luria, N.A. Rybnikov. In 1930, the materials of the first All-Union Congress on the Study of Human Behavior "Psychoneurological Sciences in the USSR" (1930) were published under the editorship of A.B. Zalkind.

The Institute's employees actively participated in the discussion of the problems of modern psychology on the pages of the "Scientific Notes of the Moscow State Institute of Experimental Psychology" (1925-1930). They were actively published in the journals "Psychology" and "Pedology", open and closed during this period (1928-1932), "Natural Science and Marxism", "On the way to a new school" and others . They took part in the preparation of dictionary entries for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Great Medical Encyclopedia, the Pedagogical Encyclopedia, etc. L.S. Vygotsky, together with B.E. Warsaw, published the Psychological Dictionary itself (1931). The work on the preparation of psychological articles for encyclopedias is evidence of the authors' participation in the development of Soviet psychology as a paradigm science. It was during this period that a significant number of translations were published, primarily under the editorship of L.S. Vygotsky, in particular, "An Essay on the spiritual development of a child" (1930) by K. Buhler, "A Study of the Intelligence of humanoid Monkeys" (1930) by V. Koehler, "Speech and Thinking of a Child" (1932) by J. Piaget, etc.

Although G.I. Chelpanov no longer published the work, the students continued to develop the problems chosen under his leadership. The new directors of the institute attracted young employees. New researchers came to the institute, but they continued to develop the line of research and methodological tasks outlined by its creator. The development of problems of general psychology continued, however, mainly on the material of the psychological practice of socialist construction. Scientists were united by their interest in solving the problems of the labor school, psychological support of "difficult" teenagers, workers and other socio-psychological tasks of the first five-year plan.

In the period 1933-1937 . no significant indicators of subject relations were found (when r?0.42, at p?0.05) of the institute's employees. G.I. Chelpanov's students and new employees of the Institute developed questions of general (8.3 b.), pedagogical (5.5 b.) and age (4.0 b.) psychology. The number of works on methodological problems of psychology continued to decrease (2.1 b.).

This period marks the milestone events in the history of Soviet psychology. In the conditions of increasing centralization and the course of building an original national science by 1934. psychology lost the last of its own periodicals; 1936 marked the beginning of a break in the publication of translations of foreign psychological works; etc. ^[10]. In 1936, the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) issued a resolution on pedological perversions in the system of People's Commissars, which limited the development of practical psychology. In 1934, on the threshold of opening his own scientific center at the All–Union Institute of Experimental Medicine, L.S. Vygotsky died; in early 1936, after a series of personal shocks, G.I. Chelpanov; in July 1936, one of the leaders of pedology, A.B. Zalkind, who had previously been dismissed from the post of director of the Institute. At the beginning of 1937, the repressed G.G. Shpet was shot. A number of leading psychologists, including V.M. Instantirsky, were expelled from Moscow. G.I. Chelpanov has not been published in recent years and is known primarily for his work on preparing for the launch of the "Russian universal psychological apparatus" series ^[19]. The Institute of Psychology, Pedology and Psychotechnics (since 1934 – the State Institute of Psychology) continued to be headed by V.N. Kolbanovsky, under whose editorship a number of significant works were published.

The greatest total "weight" of published works distinguishes the scientific activity of P.P. Blonsky (71 b.), who was in charge of the Institute since 1930, first the memory laboratory, and later – the laboratory of thinking and speech; to a lesser extent – L.S. Vygotsky (60 b.), who worked in these years not only in Moscow, but also in Kharkov and Leningrad. The works of P.P. Blonsky and L.S. Vygotsky are devoted to the results of general psychological studies of thinking, speech and memory, as well as pedagogical and child psychology. Posthumously in 1934 and 1935, with the participation of L.V. Zankov, J.I. Shifa and D.B. Elkonin, collections of L.S. Vygotsky's works "Thinking and Speech" (1934) and "Mental development of children in the Learning process" (1935) were published. In 1934 and 1936 two editions of the textbook "Pedology" by P.P. Blonsky were published. In 1935, the author published three books at once: "Essays on child sexuality", "Memory and Thinking" and "The Development of schoolboy thinking". In the years before the Resolution of 1936, P.P. Blonsky and L.S. Vygotsky (in collaboration with A.R. Luria) prepared critical prefaces to the last known translations of the works of the 1930s by foreign psychologists on the problems of learning and development: "Fundamentals of mental Development" (1934) by K. Koffka and "The Process of learning in man" (1935) by E. Thorndyke (see: ^[10]). In 1935, in line with solving problems of general psychology, S.V. Kravkov and B.M. Teplov published a collection of experimental works of the laboratory of psychophysiology of sensations "Visual sensations and perceptions". Among his articles are the works of A.A. Smirnov on perception and sensitivity of the eye. The following year, the first edition of S.V. Kravkov's famous monograph "The Eye and its Work" (1936) was published.

Among other works on the psychological foundations of pedagogical activity are articles by N.A. Rybnikov, V.M. Instantirsky, etc., devoted to the problems of teaching reading to schoolchildren, organizing the educational work of part–time students, etc. After criticizing the reactological approach and removing K.N. Kornilov from the leadership of the institute, the author also continued to develop the tasks of pedagogical psychology and teaching psychology. He prepared a textbook "Psychology" (1934) for higher pedagogical educational institutions.  After the restoration of scientific degrees in 1935, the degrees of doctors of pedagogical sciences "according to the totality of works" were awarded to the Institute's employees P.P. Blonsky, S.V. Kravkov and K.N. Kornilov. A year later, N.F. Dobrynin and A.R. Luria defended their doctoral dissertations.

Thus, after the departure of G.I. Chelpanov, the directors of the Institute, first of all V.N. Kolbanovsky, managed not only to preserve its staff, ensuring continuity in the development of their own scientific school, but also to attract new employees, such as L.S. Vygotsky and A.R. Luria, who did honor to Soviet psychology. It was the employees of the Institute, the students of G.G. Chelpanov who were awarded the first degrees of doctors of sciences in 1935 according to the totality of works.

Discussion of the resultsThe slang analysis made it possible to detect significant indicators of the relationship between the topics of scientific work of only individual researchers – in the periods from 1923 to 1932.

 In the first periods, relatively pronounced indicators of the relationship (significantly at p>0.08) between the subjects of G.I. Chelpanov's works and the works of his leading students were found: in 1913-1917 with the publications of K.N. Kornilov, and in 1918-1922 – V.M. Instantirsky. The authors were united by attention to the development, first of all, of general psychology, the importance of which in combining research on the basis of the Institute was mentioned by G.I. Chelpanov at its official opening in 1914 (see: ^[20]). In the period 1923-1927, a significant indicator was noted (at p?0.05) of the closeness of the subject relations of the new director of the Institute, K.N. Kornilov, and A.R. Luria, invited by him. The basis of the similarity in the distribution of research topics was also the focus on solving issues of general psychology and methodological problems of psychology. In the period 1928-1932 the greatest number of significant interrelations (at p?0.05) of the subjects of the works of the Institute of Psychology staff of different years was found. First of all, A.B. Zalkind, who held the post of director of the Institute in 1930-1931, as well as L.S. Vygotsky, N.A. Rybnikov and P.P. Blonsky. In the difficult period of 1933-1937 for the development of Soviet psychology, no significant indicators of the relationship between the subjects of the Institute's employees' work were found.

The results of the study indicate the strength of the subject connections of the heads and leading employees of the Institute, who supported them in the implementation of research programs and in the development of topical issues. It is noteworthy that among these employees were experienced researchers who began their work at the Institute in previous periods. Among them is a student of G.I. Chelpanov – N.A. Rybnikov, who not only continued to work at the institute in the 1920s and 1930s, but also headed it during the difficult war years. Which also proves in favor of the conclusion about the trend of the relationship between the distribution of the topics of publications of the head of the institute and his staff. In other periods, there were no cases of interrelation of the subjects of scientific research of G.I. Chelpanov and his colleagues.

In general, the use of the slang method did not fully meet the expectations of its use to study the dynamics of changes in subject relations between the creator, managers and employees of the Psychological Institute. Limiting the sample to 16 scientists and the volume of analysis – 558 headings – did not allow us to obtain the expected spread of significant relationship indicators for conducting a comparative diachronic study. In contrast to the study we conducted with a sample of 41 domestic researchers and 2342 headlines (see: ^[10]). The results of the slang analysis were supplemented with data from a qualitative analysis of the topic and type of publication, taking into account the availability of reprints, as well as biographical data of the authors and ideas about the events of the social history of the development of domestic psychology, highlighted earlier. This made it possible to identify trends in the collective development of certain areas of psychology by the staff of the Psychological Institute in 1913-1937.

During all the studied periods, the highest rates of attention of scientists who worked under the leadership of Chelpanov, and later K.N. Kornilov, A.B. Zalkind and V.N. Kolbanovsky, to the development of the basics of general psychology were recorded. In particular, the psychology of consciousness, behavior and such mental processes as sensations, perception, memory, thinking, speech. In addition, methodological problems of psychology, problems of age and pedagogical psychology, including in the mainstream of pedology, were solved on the basis of the Institute. Considerable attention was paid to the organization of research on experimental and social psychology, as well as labor psychology.

ConclusionsAccording to the results of the analysis, the following features of the subject relations of the staff of the Psychological Institute in the first 25 years of its work can be distinguished.

During the periods of the leadership of the Institute by G.I. Chelpanov (1912-1923), trends in the relationship between the distribution of the topics of scientific research of the head and his staff were discovered. First of all, with the leading students – K.N. Kornilov and V.M. Instantirsky. In subsequent periods, when G.I. Chelpanov was removed from the leadership of the institute, his subject ties with students and former employees weakened. At the same time, the interrelation of the scientists' topics with the publications of the new directors, first K.N. Kornilov (1923-1930), and then A.B. Zalkind (1930-1931), was outlined. Thus, with varying degrees of statistical reliability, all three hypotheses stated in the article were confirmed.

Qualitative data of the conducted research highlight the role of V.N. Kolbanovsky (1932-1937), the fourth director of the Institute, in maintaining its staff, ensuring continuity in the development of its own scientific school, creating conditions for the return of retired employees and the work of psychologists - the first Soviet doctors of sciences who received scientific degrees in 1935-1937.

The results obtained testify to the strength of the subject connections of the institute leaders and specific leading employees who supported them in the implementation of research programs and in the development of topical problems of psychological theory and practice. The main topic that united scientists was general psychology, to a lesser extent pedagogical psychology. The appeal to the development of general psychology was due to the logic of developing the foundations of Russian objective, and later – Marxist – psychology. The need for this was pointed out by both the founder of the institute, G.I. Chelpanov, when it was opened in 1914, and L.S. Vygotsky when determining ways out of the psychological crisis of the 1920s.

The revealed features of the subject-reflexive relations of the creator, managers and employees of the Psychological Institute of different years determined the effectiveness of their joint scientific activity in the 1910s and 1930s. Due to the presence of subject connections, the Institute's employees made a significant collective contribution to the definition of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of the psychology of behavior, consciousness and such mental processes as sensations, perception, memory, thinking, speech; in the development of methods of psychological research: experimental, biographical, methods of observation, testing, etc. Attention to the problems of pedagogical psychology reflects the practical orientation of the Institute's research, as well as the relevance of developing its foundations in the context of school reform, solving the problem of homelessness, the tasks of the labor school, educating a "new person", etc. Solving the problems of pedagogical psychology, as well as other practice-oriented areas of psychology – age, social, special, labor psychology, etc. by G.I. Chelpanov's students and new employees, it was based on the tradition of organizing experimental research, laid down when the institute was founded and determined the content of the subject relations of its leading scientists in the following decades.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.