As a follow up to Volume 7, contributors continue to explore the latest developments in developmental psychology. Here, researchers focus on the integration of theory and research and evaluates theoretical progress and advanced research. Continuing with the successful format of previous volumes in Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Volume 10 presents four major contributions-each accompanied by commentaries and replies to commentaries.

As such things happen, several manuscripts in the present volume were under review prior to the ones that appeared in Volume I of the Annals. A major difficulty encountered in the preparation of these volumes apart from working up to three years in advance of publication-is elic iting appropriate commentary. If this format is to succeed, the com mentary must be both engaging to the reader and satisfying to the author. It is not yet clear how successful we have been in this regard and, indeed, we do not feel bound to publish commentary with each manuscript that is accepted for publication. Nevertheless, we do invite readers' commentaries on published materials. The contributions by Jan Smedslund and Benjamin Wolman in this volume have been through an inordinately long publication lag. We have been in receipt of both manuscripts since early in 1981 and Dr. Smedslund, especially, has since clarified and advanced his views else where in print. K. B. Madsen and Joseph Rychlak submitted their man uscripts in the fall of 1981 while Michael Hyland and J. Philippe Rushton had first drafts of their manuscripts accepted for publication in the fall of 1982. We are grateful to our contributors for their expressed com mitment to the Annals and assure potential contributors that the delay in publication is a mere matter of getting the series off the ground.

This is the first of a two-volume work in the Annals series devoted to developmental psychology. The project was originally conceived in 1985 when Paul van Geert, who had just completed his Theory building in developmental psychology (North Holland, 1986), agreed to col laborate on anAnnals volume examining foundational issues pertaining to the concept of development. The project attracted considerable interest and, in view of the length of the resulting manuscript, a decision was made to publish it in two volumes. Fortunately, the contributors provided coherent perspectives on two relatively distinct developmen tal themes which served to facilitate our task of dividing their contribu tions into two volumes. The first volume deals with the foundations of developmental theory and methodology; the second volume -to appear as Volume 8 of the Annals -with theoretical issues in developmental psychology. In this first volume, the contributions by Willis Overton and Joachim Wohlwill were completed in 1988, those by Roger Dixon, Richard Lerner, and David Hultsch, and Paul van Geert in 1989. Commentaries followed quickly and replies to commentaries were completed in 1990. Paul van Geert provides a general framework within which the founda tional issues of development are discussed. He is especially concerned with the nature of transition models and the structure of time in developmental theory. The relationship between methods and framework, or theory, is the topic of Joachim Wohlwill's contribution."

The present volume is a continuation of Volume 8 in the Annals series. Together Volumes 8 and 9 are intended to show the contribu- tion of history to theory in psychology. The reader is referred to the Introduction by Hans Rappard and Pieter van Strien, and the Preface in Volume 8 that serve as a prelude to the papers included in both volumes. Volume 8 includes three major papers: Psychological objects, practice, and history by Kurt Danziger, with commentaries by Mitchell Ash, Franz Samelson, and John Mills; History and the psychological imagination by Irmingard Staeuble, with commentar- ies by Carl Graumann and Roger Smith; and The historical practice of theory construction by Pieter 1. van Strien, with commentaries by Helmut Luck, Kenneth Gergen, and Ian Lubek. Similarly, the present volume includes three major papers and ten commentaries. In preparation of this volume and its companion, Volume 8, we gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Valerie Welch who entered the text, and Casey Boodt who proofread the text and prepared the indexes. Leendert P. Mos and William J. Baker June, 1993 vii Contents Chapter 1. History and system ...* ...* ...1 ...Hans V Rappard Psychology as its history . ..*...**...*. *...*. . 41 Daniel N. Robinson Theoretical psychology, systematology, and phenomenological variation...* ...47 . Eckart Scheerer Systematization and history...* * ...63 K. B. Madsen Towards the remarriage of theoretical psychology and psychology: Reply to commentators...67 Hans V Rappard Chapter 2.

I have been involved in constructing a unified theory for many years, in considering the state of psychology's unity-disunity, and in generally attempt ing to persuade our profession to work on its unification. In this work I have had the opportunity to become acquainted with the works of a number of other psychologists whose statements indicated that they had something to say on these topics. I saw also that it would be very productive for psychology to have these individuals address themselves to psychology's disunity-unity, consid ered as a problem that should be confronted and addressed. In 1983 I began to indicate that it was my intention to devote a book to the topic, as seen through the eyes of a group of prominent psychologists concerned with related issues. It was very fortunate from my standpoint that Joseph Royce and later Leendert Mos, who were editing this series, were interested in this book. I accepted the former's invitation to do within the present series the book I had planned. Although I must assume responsibility for selection of the contributors, for the book's organization, and for the first editing of their papers for substance, Pro fessor Mos offered to help in an editorial capacity and I am most grateful for his contributions to the formal editing. The volume is much improved as a result of his careful efforts, which in one case involved rewriting material."

The intention of this paper is to review the evidence support ing the major thesis that a knowledge of genetic architecture within a species gives clues to the evolution of behavior. To this end, a study of some of the origins of this idea, both within genetics and psychology, will be embarked upon, together with a review of the experimental evidence supportive of it. This review will concentrate on behavioral phenotypes, though not to the exclusion of other, usually morphological, character on which the original enunciation of the proposition was based. Essentially, the rationale is disarmingly simple. The study of the gene action governing a behavioral or other characteristic, by revealing the genetic architecture of the organism or species, indicates the forces of natural selection which have moulded the genetic architecture in the way that it is observed today. Thus natural selection leaves its imprint on the genome and it is argued that a sophisticated analysis of that genome in turn allows an inferential statement about the nature of those forces. It will be at once apparent that the substructure for this type of argument is that of Darwinian evolutionary theory, which is so widely and so pervasively accepted in contemporary biology that it seems hardly necessary to argue its case."

Early in 1986 I invited Professor Robinson to collaborate on a volume of the Annals devoted to the theme of the 'person' in psychology. He accepted my invitation later that year suggesting, instead, that the volume be devoted to the theme of explanation in psychology. I gladly compromised for, as I knew from his exterisive writings on the history and philosophy of psychology, the concept of explanation is firmly rooted in philosophical anthropology. The contributions by Rom Harre, James Lamiell, Joseph Margolis, and George Miller were available in June, 1988, and the commentaries and replies to commentaries early in 1989. Fortunately, foundational papers wear well, as the content of the present volume so aptly testifies. Beginning with Volume 6, the Annals will be entirely edited and prepared using the computer facilities at our Center. Thanks to the dedicated effort of my colleague, Professor William Baker, this is the first volume produced from camera-ready copy. His personal support and technical expertise made the transition to desk-top publishing somewhat less than formidable. Mrs. Valerie Welch, our Center secretary, entered the text and managed my personal correspondence; Casey Boodt proofread the entire manuscript; and the University of Alberta continues to support my involvement with this series. Dan Robinson's commitment to scholarship also extends to the more mundane task of editing. Every volume with a co-editor is a challenge; he made this one a delight.

As a follow up to Volume 7, contributors continue to explore the latest developments in developmental psychology. Here, researchers focus on the integration of theory and research and evaluates theoretical progress and advanced research. Continuing with the successful format of previous volumes in Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Volume 10 presents four major contributions--each accompanied by commentaries and replies to commentaries.

Since the 17th century, autobiography has an honorable place in the study of history. In 1930, the preeminent historian of psychology, Edwin Boring, writes that a science separated from its history lacks direction and promises a future of uncertain importance. To understand what psychology is and what it is becoming, the autobiographies of famous psychologists is history at it best. Here we find model inquirers of the science who offer a personalized account of themselves and their vocation in the context of the history of the science. What is characteristic of many of those who have contributed to an alternate vision of psychological science is that they never considered themselves, or were considered by others, as belonging to the mainstream of the discipline. In considering an alternative history of psychology in autobiography, the editor invited contributors whose research and writings have pushed the discipline in other directions, pushed its limits, and whose scholarship finds its philosophical framework outside the discipline altogether. If these contributors may not be model inquirers, their scholarship is very much a matter of consequence for those who wish to understand psychology. Among the outliers included here are those who devoted themselves to the writing of psychology, examining its history, theories, research and professional practices, and who enthusiastically embraced, over the course of their lives, the discipline as a human science. Their influence has been subtle as has been their appeal to many students who affection for the discipline finds its promise in a discerning self-awareness and a critical understanding of others and their worlds. This volume is not simply a collection of personal chronologies which might inspire or lend appreciation to a younger generation. Our contributors write from their personal and professional experience, of course, but they write of their thinking and understanding of the psyche as an aspect of human life, of psychology as an academic form of human sciences' inquiry, and so bring to bear their scientific and philosophical imagination to their personal challenges in their chosen vocation as psychologists. Our contributors cover a broad swath of the second half of the 20th century, the century of psychology. Nurturing the discipline from within various philosophical, social-political, and cultural roots, their autobiographies exemplify marginality, if not alienation, from the mainstream, even as their professional and personal lives give expression to engaged scholarship, commitment to vocation and, straightforwardly and reflectively, a love of the heart. From Germany, Carl Graumann, from France, Erika Apfelbaum, from Canada, David Bakan and Kurt Danziger, and from the United States, Amedeo Giorgi, Robert Rieber, and Joseph Rychlak, relate their lives to the larger contexts of our times. Their personal stories are an integral part of the historiography of our discipline. Indeed, a contribution to historiography of our discipline is constituted in their autobiographical self-presentations, for their writings attest as much to their lives as model inquirers as they do to the possibility of psychology as a human science.

As a follow up to Volume 7, contributors continue to explore the latest developments in developmental psychology. Here, researchers focus on the integration of theory and research and evaluates theoretical progress and advanced research. Continuing with the successful format of previous volumes in Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Volume 10 presents four major contributions-each accompanied by commentaries and replies to commentaries.

I was asked and, alas, with little reflection on the magnitude of the task, thoughtlessly consented, to take on the 'simple' job of writing a preface to the collection of essays comprising this volume. That I was asked to carry out this simple task was probably due to one consideration: I was the main representative of the host institution (Clark University) for the 1991 ISTP Conference, at which the talks, foreshadowing and outlining the 'extended remarks' here printed, were originally presented, and hence, as a token of gratitude, I was vouchsafed the honor of setting the stage. It did not dawn on me, until I began piecemeal to receive and accumulate, over a period of months, the remarkably diverse and heterogeneous essays precipitated by the conference, how mind-boggling it would be to pen a preface pertinent to such an aggregate of prima/acie unrelated articles. Typically, prefaces to collections of essays from different hands are attempts by the prefator or a pride of prefators to provide an overview, a concise map, of the complex terrain which readers are invited to enter; or to direct the attention of potential readers to what the editors take to be the essential or central themes of each of the variegated articles: a practice which, not infrequently and often not unjustifiably, irritates and even enrages individual authors, who object to the complexity, profundity, and nuanced character of their thought being reduced to clicMs and editorial equivalents of sound bites.

This is the first of a two-volume work in the Annals series devoted to developmental psychology. The project was originally conceived in 1985 when Paul van Geert, who had just completed his Theory building in developmental psychology (North Holland, 1986), agreed to col laborate on anAnnals volume examining foundational issues pertaining to the concept of development. The project attracted considerable interest and, in view of the length of the resulting manuscript, a decision was made to publish it in two volumes. Fortunately, the contributors provided coherent perspectives on two relatively distinct developmen tal themes which served to facilitate our task of dividing their contribu tions into two volumes. The first volume deals with the foundations of developmental theory and methodology; the second volume -to appear as Volume 8 of the Annals -with theoretical issues in developmental psychology. In this first volume, the contributions by Willis Overton and Joachim Wohlwill were completed in 1988, those by Roger Dixon, Richard Lerner, and David Hultsch, and Paul van Geert in 1989. Commentaries followed quickly and replies to commentaries were completed in 1990. Paul van Geert provides a general framework within which the founda tional issues of development are discussed. He is especially concerned with the nature of transition models and the structure of time in developmental theory. The relationship between methods and framework, or theory, is the topic of Joachim Wohlwill's contribution."

This volume constitutes the proceedings of the second biannual conference of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology (see Epilogue) held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, April 20-25, 1987. Thirty-nine papers were presented during the four days of the conference including an invited address by Kenneth Gergen. Unfortunately, even after severely restricting the length of the written papers, the required limitation on printed space permitted only 34 of these to be included in these proceed ings. While most of the papers required editorial adjustment, the authors had final word on style and content. The classification of conference papers tends to be somewhat arbi trary' but we decided to structure the chapters under four headings: phi losophy, metatheory, methodology, and theory. By philosophy we refer primarily to issues in the philosophy of science as these pertain to the dis cipline of psychology. Metatheory refers to theory, drawing on the philo sophy of science and having implications for methodology, about psycho logical theories. Methodology refers to both theory of inquiry and specif ic methods of investigation as these derive from philosophical and meta theoretical considerations. By theory we refer to both analyses of the foundations of extant theory, including historical and sociological ana lyses, and the advancement of substantive theory."

This discipline has become more reflective in recent years. It has also become blatantly philosophical, which is itself cause for reflection. The philosophy of psychology has not been exactly a burgeoning field, and yet psychologists and philosophers of all persuasions are writing philosophical psychology. Perhaps all this activity merely reflects the uneasy bifurcation of psychology into biological and cognitive domains. After all, there were similar flurries in the 1920s and 1950s when the discipline assumed new directions. But, before, there were too many things to do; scientific knowing seemed so compelling and so singular in methodology. Today, the entire enterprise is much more uncertain, and not just psychology, but all human scientific inquiry. The fun damental questions remain much the same, of course; what has changed is that philosophers are explicitly addressing questions of psy chology and psychologists are at least implicitly engaged in philosophy. The bounderies are no longer clear cut Theoretical psychology is as much the doing of philosophy as it is of experimental research. Volume 4 of these Annals attests to this state of affairs. The psychologists' style reflects their philosophical understanding; the philosophers differ according to what they take to be psychological knowledge."

As such things happen, several manuscripts in the present volume were under review prior to the ones that appeared in Volume I of the Annals. A major difficulty encountered in the preparation of these volumes apart from working up to three years in advance of publication-is elic iting appropriate commentary. If this format is to succeed, the com mentary must be both engaging to the reader and satisfying to the author. It is not yet clear how successful we have been in this regard and, indeed, we do not feel bound to publish commentary with each manuscript that is accepted for publication. Nevertheless, we do invite readers' commentaries on published materials. The contributions by Jan Smedslund and Benjamin Wolman in this volume have been through an inordinately long publication lag. We have been in receipt of both manuscripts since early in 1981 and Dr. Smedslund, especially, has since clarified and advanced his views else where in print. K. B. Madsen and Joseph Rychlak submitted their man uscripts in the fall of 1981 while Michael Hyland and J. Philippe Rushton had first drafts of their manuscripts accepted for publication in the fall of 1982. We are grateful to our contributors for their expressed com mitment to the Annals and assure potential contributors that the delay in publication is a mere matter of getting the series off the ground."

Since the 17th century, autobiography has an honorable place in the study of history. In 1930, the preeminent historian of psychology, Edwin Boring, writes that a science separated from its history lacks direction and promises a future of uncertain importance. To understand what psychology is and what it is becoming, the autobiographies of famous psychologists is history at it best. Here we find model inquirers of the science who offer a personalized account of themselves and their vocation in the context of the history of the science. What is characteristic of many of those who have contributed to an alternate vision of psychological science is that they never considered themselves, or were considered by others, as belonging to the mainstream of the discipline. In considering an alternative history of psychology in autobiography, the editor invited contributors whose research and writings have pushed the discipline in other directions, pushed its limits, and whose scholarship finds its philosophical framework outside the discipline altogether. If these contributors may not be model inquirers, their scholarship is very much a matter of consequence for those who wish to understand psychology. Among the outliers included here are those who devoted themselves to the writing of psychology, examining its history, theories, research and professional practices, and who enthusiastically embraced, over the course of their lives, the discipline as a human science. Their influence has been subtle as has been their appeal to many students who affection for the discipline finds its promise in a discerning self-awareness and a critical understanding of others and their worlds.

This volume is not simply a collection of personal chronologies which might inspire or lend appreciation to a younger generation. Our contributors write from their personal and professional experience, of course, but they write of their thinking and understanding of the psyche as an aspect of human life, of psychology as an academic form of human sciences' inquiry, and so bring to bear their scientific and philosophical imagination to their personal challenges in their chosen vocation as psychologists. Our contributors cover a broad swath of the second half of the 20th century, the century of psychology. Nurturing the discipline from within various philosophical, social-political, and cultural roots, their autobiographies exemplify marginality, if not alienation, from the mainstream, even as their professional and personal lives give expression to engaged scholarship, commitment to vocation and, straightforwardly and reflectively, a love of the heart.

From Germany, Carl Graumann, from France, Erika Apfelbaum, from Canada, David Bakan and Kurt Danziger, and from the United States, Amedeo Giorgi, Robert Rieber, and Joseph Rychlak, relate their lives to the larger contexts of our times. Their personal stories are an integral part of the historiography of our discipline. Indeed, a contribution to historiography of our discipline is constituted in their autobiographical self-presentations, for their writings attest as much to their lives as model inquirers as they do to the possibility of psychology as a human science.

This volume and its companion, to be published as Volume 9 in the Annals series, had their origin in a visit by the first editor to our Center in 1983, a year prior to our initiating publication of the Annals. Some three years later, Hans Rappard formally proposed to edit, together with the historian of psychology in the Netherlands, Pieter van Strien, an Annals volume devoted to history and theory. Rappard emphasized, however, that it was to be "not just a volume on the relation between history of psychology and theoretical psychology, but rather a volume on the relevance of history to theory, or psychology in general. In other words, how and what could 'doing history' contribute to (theoretical) problems that face contemporary psychology. " Another four years passed before commitments from the twenty-seven contributors were received. The plan was to publish a single volume devoted to history and theory, however, the length of six major papers, eighteen commentaries, and replies to commentaries, necessitated a decision to publish the manuscript in two volumes. It was not an easy decision especially as the contributors and editors had achieved an integrity of theme and content that is unusual for edited volumes. Moreover, in view of the manuscript's long past, we felt little inclination to extend its history.