There was never any doubt as to which authors we would ask to write
the chapters. We simply wanted the most knowledgeable authors available,
preferably native ones. We also wanted the manuscript in English. This last
requirement was dictated by the experience of the early edition, in which
translations were expensive, placed great demands on accuracy, and resulted
in considerable lost time.

It was many months before we were able to identify and reach agreement
with all the authors, but their participation was worth the effort. We are
proud that our contributors, five of whom also wrote for the early edition,
are among the most distinguished psychologists in their respective coun-
tries. In the few cases in which non-native authors were used, they came to
us with the highest recommendations and with impeccable credentials.

Each author received a page allotment based on our estimate of the size
and development of the discipline in the country. We were not rigid on page
count, returning only two chapters for drastic cutting and retaining several
others that went significantly beyond our requested length. In the latter case,
a few authors made special requests to extend their chapters and we found
it difficult to refuse. Most of the chapters, however, were the approximate
length requested.

Each author also received a page of guidelines. These were more detailed
than for the early edition because we hoped to compare some characteristics
across all countries. At the same time, we did not expect total uniformity
in presentation. Instead, we anticipated that the organization and content
would be directed, at least to some extent, by national needs and circum-
stances. We were particularly interested in learning the degree to which
national psychologies were largely translations of the psychologies of other,
more developed nations. We also wished to know the extent to which truly
indigenous psychologies were emerging, if any. This last item has become
a matter of some debate. Some believe there is only one psychology, de-
spite the happenstance of geography (e.g., Matarazzo, 1987; Kunkel, 1989).
Others make a case for multiple psychologies (e.g., Moghaddam, 1987). Still
others argue that the development of an indigenous psychology can be a
sign of maturity in the discipline (e.g., Azuma, quoted in Rosenzweig, 1984,
p. 880).

Some of the guideline questions explored specific aspects of the profes-
sion (e.g., the status of licensure); others involved broader questions aimed
at the development of the science (e.g., the nature and extent of research
support). Our intention was to generate a broad view of each country's
psychology, as a general introduction for the interested reader. Among the
many questions, there were nine core areas in which we hoped to make
direct comparisons among all the countries: (1) the definition of a psycholo-

-viii-