________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL May-June 1997 ________________________________________________________ ======================================================== EDITORIAL ======================================================== Essential to the progress of a science and the refinement of its theory is the systematic gathering of evidence and the formulation of descriptive and analytic concepts and principles. An important element in this endeavor is the questioning, on substantive and methodological grounds, of findings and interpretations. Unfortunately, in psychology this role of contradiction has often taken the form of divisiveness and self-promotion. The result is a multiplicity of paradigms and theories with an emphasis on separation and differentiation of one's own formulations from that of other researchers, theorists, and clinicians. Thus, at the end of the 20th Century, after over 100 years of the empirical study of human behavior we do not have an even vaguely agreed upon paradigm for research, assessment, and intervention. One disturbing result of this separatism is that theories for which there have been little supportive evidence continue to be promoted. Or after years of investigation and evaluation they are "refined" or abandoned only to be replaced by equally questionable postulations. Additionally, progress in the development of a comprehensive theory of psychology is hampered by the use of poor methodology. Another problem is the flagrant display of biases resulting from the determined promotion of one's own point view. Related to this is a cult-like mentality among followers of a given theory or approach. This dogmaticism may exist at the general paradigmatic level: the behavioral, cognitive, biological, and so on. Or more specifically, within each of these orientations, competing theories and approaches may exist. Or this splitting may occur even in the study of particular disorders such as depression. Moreover, there is inadequate communication and integration among the different subfields of psychology. Some psychologists have argued that this competition is good for the field and that a unified approach may be either unattainable or undesirable. However, it may be argued that this "jousting" is inefficient and unnecessary. A comprehensive and unified theory of psychology or human behavior can provide a strong foundation for the systematic and progressive study of human phenomena and the application of consistent concepts and principles in intervention. ====================== Leon Pereira, Ph.D. Acting Editor-in-Chief