Int. J. Man-Machine Studies (1981) 14, 235-236

Editorial

The ten papers in this special issue are some of those presented at a conference on Software in Psychology held at the London Conference of the British Psychological Society in December 1979. This meeting was sponsored by the Social Science Research Council as part of a commissioned study of Psychology Laboratory Computing under- taken by David Hale, Thomas Green and Roger Henry. The conference formed an integral part of the study both as a means of canvassing the current "state of the art" with respect to computer use in psychological laboratories (and outside the laboratory) and as a means of presenting new approaches and possibilities to a wider audience.

Why should psychological laboratory computing justify a special issue of this journal? At a general level any form of laboratory computing, with its emphasis on critical real-time process control and concurrent processes, is a neglected area of man-machine study both in terms of programming languages for process control and in terms of human factors of software systems for the control of concurrent processes. Also the problems tackled by psychologists are often quite complicated and demanding compared to those in other disciplines. Yet psychologists (and certainly their students) are frequently naive in terms of formal training in hardware and software skills. At a practical level psychologists make such extensive use of laboratory automation that any advances could be most beneficial. Finally, psychologists--together with other social scientists--should be using their expertise in human behaviour to make corrtributions towards computing rather than remaining mere users of computing.

The idea for an SSRC funded study into psychological laboratory computing needs over the next two or three years originated with the concern of Max Sime and Thomas Green over the persistent use of poor software tools by psychologists. Hale (1977) and MacRae (1980) had shown that most of the 300-odd computers in U.K. psychology- based sites were still being programmed in F O R T R A N , BASIC or assembler and were using operating systems provided by computer manufacturers. Such primitive software tools were not specifically designed to aid the programming of real-time experiments nor were they conducive to good or efficient programming. It seemed likely that inertia or ignorance of better alternatives might see this situation continue unless some external initiatives were taken.

The conclusions of the study are available in the report by Hale, Green & Henry (19 81 ) which suggests developments that might usefully be pursued over the next two or three years. A minor theme is the augmentation of high-level languages such as C or Pascal with routines implementing device control and real-time functions. Such languages might offer alternatives to the present use of F O R T R A N , particularly on microcomputer systems. A major suggestion is that a modern system programming language, such as Modula-2, should be developed by providing modules tailored for psychological use. A particular advantage of this approach is the relatively easy implementation of concurrent processes. Another suggestion is for the development of a language related to POP-2 suitable for laboratory control. Such a language could provide a "user-fr iendly" development environment and also aid linguistic and simula- tion studies. A persistent theme of the report is the need for continued support of human factors studies of computing and man-computer interaction.

235

0020-7373/81/030235 + 02502.00/0 �9 1981 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited

236 EDITORIAL

The importance of this theme is confirmed by four of the papers presented in this issue. DuBoulay, O'Shea & Monk discuss the presentation of computing concepts to novices while the papers by the Langs & Auld are concerned with user support and user behaviour in a batch environment. Sharp describes an ecological study of how the user uses programming language facilities. A related paper by Tagg examines the user interface to data analysis packages. The extent of psychologists' involvement in real-time programming is shown in Hale's review of their attempts at writing their own languages. Leslie gives a more detailed view of the few "psychological languages" which have achieved widespread acceptability and use. Henry reviews the requirements and potential of real-time languages developed outside psychology while Runciman provides a detailed example of the application of one such language--Modula. Finally, Arblaster offers the views of a computer scientist on the need to provide not just a hospitable language but also amicable program development and running environ- ments.

Thanks are due to those who spoke at the meeting but whose contributions are not published here. Some work is published elsewhere: Thomas Green's review of human aspects of programming is in Smith & Green (1980) while Mike Coombs' analysis of individual differences in programming skills should be published elsewhere in this journal. The "silent majority" were represented by Alan Cleary's defence of BASIC (he is too busy earning a living in the computer industry to contribute) and Peter Bailey's description of a FORTRAN system for speech and psychoacoustic work (he did not feel enough "missionary zeal" to write up his contribution). The paper by Mildred Shaw & Brian Gaines on interactive psychological testing has effectively been published in book form. George Kiss' description of a new "psychological language" PSYLON remains unwritten as he devolves software onto hardware. A sad omission is Richard Young's paper on computing requirements of artificial intelligence in psycho- logy though this paper may yet appear in a later issue of this journal.

Thanks are due to Marc Eisenstadt for being a most coherent discussant and to those speakers who contributed to the panel discussion. Particular thanks are given to my co-workers on the SSRC study group, Roger Henry and Thomas Green, for their contributions to the meeting--suggesting speakers, being chairpeople, discussants and panel members. I hope their efforts will be rewarded with support for their particular research interests. Hugh Smith deserves mention for his sympathetic review of the conference in AISB Quarterly. Finally, Max Sime deserves thanks for starting every- thing.

DAVID HALE Queen's University, Belfast

References

HALE, D. J. (1977). Computer use in British Psychology Departments. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 30, 67-71.

HALE, D. J., GREEN, T. G. R. & HENRY, R. B. (1981). Psychology Laboratory Computing. Social Science Research Council (1 Temple Avenue, London EC4Y OBD).

MACRAE, A. W. (1980). Computer Use in British Psychology. A Report of the BPS Mathematical and Statistical Section Computer Group. Leicester: British Psychological Society.

SMITH, n. T. & GREEN, T. R. G. (1980). Human Interaction with Computers. London: Academic Press.