Digital history of psychology takes flight.

The articles authored by Flis and van Eck (2018) and by Burman (2018) serve as fine examples of the ways in which digital historical methods can illuminate aspects of psychology’s past that would probably not be possible otherwise. This success, however, presents no reason to think that digital history is some kind of threat to conventional historiography or that former aims to replace the latter. The two can work complementarily—so closely, in fact, that it sometimes becomes difficult to know which of the two one is practicing at any given moment. Multiple skill sets need not define the historian as being a particular “kind”: They just enable any historian to do his or her work more completely than before. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)