WHAT NONUNIVERSAL THEORY STILL NEEDS TO ADDRESS TO BECOME UNIVERSALLYACCEPTED - A REACTION TO FELDMAN AND FOWLER

In their thought-provoking paper on nonuniversal developmental theory, Feldman and Fowler (this issue) address several of the most fundament al issues of developmental psychology. If I understand them well, they have various aims. First, they wish to clarify such terms as ''develo pmental'' and ''domain'' which were insufficiently clear in previous e xpositions of the theory. Secondly, they want to posit additional chan ge mechanisms as they find the notion of equilibration insufficient. T hirdly, they want to improve on previous versions of the theory by pos iting the notion of a ''pancultural'' domain. Fourthly, they claim tha t such a revised nonuniversal theory is able to clarify Piaget's and V ygotsky's seemingly contradictory views on the relationship between le arning and development. These are quite ambitious goals and it will co me as no surprise that I have not become fully convinced that they ach ieved them. I will, one by one, briefly discuss these topics, point to some points which I find insufficiently clear and raise some question s that in my view still need to be answered. As I feel in no position to present an alternative to Feldman's and Fowler's conception, my com ments and questions may seem not to be very constructive. They are mea nt, however, to enable the authors to formulate a stronger version of their conception or to advance a new one that overcomes the difficulti es which I feel the present one still has. And, of course, as always, the comments made reflect as much the views of the authors as the obse ssions of the critic. (C) 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.