Developmental psychopathology as a meta-paradigm: From zero-sum science to epistemological pluralism in theory and research

In a thoughtful commentary in this journal a decade ago, Michael Rutter reviewed 25 years of progress in the field before concluding that developmental psychopathology (DP) initiated a paradigm shift in clinical science. This deduction requires that DP itself be a paradigm. According to Thomas Kuhn, canonical paradigms in the physical sciences serve unifying functions by consolidating scientists' thinking and scholarship around single, closed sets of discipline-defining epistemological assumptions and methods. Paradigm shifts replace these assumptions and methods with a new field-defining framework. In contrast, the social sciences are multiparadigmatic, with thinking and scholarship unified locally around open sets of epistemological assumptions and methods with varying degrees of inter-, intra-, and subdisciplinary reach. DP challenges few if any of these local paradigms. Instead, DP serves an essential pluralizing function, and is therefore better construed as a metaparadigm. Seen in this way, DP holds tremendous untapped potential to move the field from zero-sum thinking and scholarship to positive-sum science and epistemological pluralism. This integrative vision, which furthers Dante Cicchetti's legacy of interdisciplinarity, requires broad commitment among scientists to reject zero-sum scholarship in which portending theories, useful principles, and effective interventions are jettisoned based on confirmation bias, errors in logic, and ideology.

Psychology: Where history, culture, and biology meet

This article argues that the same epistemological assumptions cannot be confidently applied in the transition from the biological to the social arenas of psychology, as a consequence of the sociocultural instability resulting from human linguistic and technological flair. To illustrate this contention, reference is made to historicist theses within critical and sociocultural psychology, the work of Ian Hacking and Norbert Elias, the centrality of language and technology to sociocultural instability, and the illustrative issues raised by cultural neuroscience and replication studies.