Jean Piaget (1896–1980) launched his career as a developmental psychologist in the early 1920s. Early studies in child logic garnered Piaget considerable fame but also brought forth immediate doubts and criticism, along with alternative theoretical explanations.
According to an article by Richard F. Kitchener published in History of Psychology, a signature event in the intellectual life of Jean Piaget occurred in the 1930s when he met Susan and Nathan Isaacs. Susan was a founder of the famous Malting House (Cambridge, England), a school emphasizing progressive education. In addition, she and her husband Nathan wrote several significant books on educational psychology (Susan’s 1930 Intellectual Growth in Young Children) and philosophy (Nathan’s 1949 The Foundations of Common Sense: A Psychological Preface to the Problems of Knowledge).
Although the Isaacs were supporters of much of Piaget’s theoretical and empirical work, they also advanced substantial objections to his methodology, empirical results, and theoretical interpretations. Susan Isaacs’ empirical observations provided much of the evidence in support of their differing views of proper methodology, intellectual development, and pedagogical philosophy. In addition, Nathan Isaacs’ theoretical and philosophical arguments were set against Piaget’s arguments about cognitive development and genetic epistemology. This decade-long interaction influenced Piaget both theoretically and methodologically. The Isaac’s critique of his clinical method encouraged him to focus more on studying the actions of children by nonverbal means, something Piaget had recently undertaken with his newborn infants. They disagreed with Piaget about a stage theory of development, empiricism versus interactionism, and the nature of education.
The Isaacs’ conceptual and empirical objections were weighty enough for Piaget to write two (largely unknown, and one never translated) explicit replies to them, something Piaget rarely did. Although Piaget appreciated their work, he did not agree with all of the Isaacs’ views.
Piaget visited the Malting House in 1927 while spending a year in England, engaging in numerous discussions with the Isaacs about their respective empirical research and theoretical interpretations. Subsequently Susan Isaac’s interest in Piaget’s work declined and shifted, although Nathan Isaac’s interest continued, resulting in a long-time personal friendship with Piaget and Nathan’s regular attendance at Piaget’s International Centre for Genetic Epistemology for several years (Graham, 2009). This connection raises questions about the absence of their recognition of each other’s respective views about genetic epistemology.
Objections to one’s particular view often require a reflective response, necessitating the further development of that view, which likely happened to Piaget because of Susan and Nathan Isaacs. Clearly, Piaget was strongly influence by them, taking their criticisms so seriously that he wrote systematic replies. However, later in life, he tended to minimize the Isaacs’ views and their influence on him. This puzzling history, rich in intellectually rewarding details, begs the attention of students of Piaget, historians, and psychologists alike.