ABSTRACT
It has been 16 years since Dick Neisser (1978) gave the opening address to the first conference on practical aspects of memory. Of his many quotable remarks, the one concerning our past efforts that became most famous is the principle that: “If X is an interesting or socially significant aspect of memory, then psychologists have hardly ever studied X” (p. 4). It is not entirely surprising that scholars of memory received this commentary on their past accomplishments with less than universal acclaim. In retrospect, most would agree that Dick Neisser’s address was provocative, perhaps disturbing to scholars who had spent a large portion of their professional life in the memory laboratory. It was certainly also a catalyst that gave attention and impetus to the work of those who wanted memory research to relate more directly to the neglected phenomena we encounter in our daily lives. Much has happened during the 16 years since Dick Neisser’s address, and he has acknowledged (Neisser, 1988) that his assessment no longer applies to the present scene. I believe that we have moved beyond the point of wholesale disparagement of laboratory or naturalistic methods, and also beyond the point of simply advocating peaceful coexistence. My theme for this chapter is advocacy of synergy between the experimental tradition and an ecological orientation of the field. My intent is to show, in a historical perspective, that basic research directed at understanding naturalistic phenomena is succeeding in psychology as well as in other sciences. I want to stress that the emerging domains of naturalistic learning and memory research require a range of innovative strategies that combine ecological methods with traditional laboratory techniques.
