The scientific methodology of the natural sciences has provided the model for the conduct of research in the social sciences. There this model holds the ascendancy, and the understanding gained on this basis is widely acknowledged. Although the model has had much to offer, however, scholars are becoming increasingly aware of its negative potential and its socially destructive consequences. Hence, some begin to question the adequacy of such a model for the conduct of the social sciences.

Its underlying Cartesian assumptions are being challenged; critiques of the experimental method, quantitative analysis and objectifying tendencies become more numerous. Many critiques point to the dehumanizing effects of this model, the trivial nature of its findings and its pseudo-scientific trappings. The most telling criticism, however, is in terms not so much of what this model produces, but of what it leaves out, namely, the human being in a human world. Hence, other and more recent philosophical traditions are now being examined for their potential for providing a more adequate basis for understanding in the social sciences.

In 1959 the graduate program of the Department of Psychology of Duquesne University was initiated with the intention of developing psychology as a human science, as an alternative to the natural scientific paradigms prevalent in the United States. Since then, 77 books, 745 articles and 144 doctoral dissertations have been published by the Department in furthering this project. In a historical survey of phenomenological, existential and humanistic psychologies, the Department was identified as "the capital of phenomenological psychology in the New World".

Professor Adrian van Kaam, the founder of the Department, used the European term "anthropological phenomenology" to describe the approach and defined it as "fundamentally a mode of existence of a psychologist who seeks a comprehensive or a differential knowledge of intentional behavior as this manifests itself, with the least possible imposition of psychological theory or method, personal and cultural prejudice or need, and language habit. Later, Professor Amedeo Giorgi clarified this approach to psychology further in a work entitled, Psychology as a Human Science: a Phenomenologically Based Approach. Throughout the more than 30 years of the program's existence, faculty members have been revising the various branches of psychology, critiquing their natural scientific biases and proposing models which are more reflective of human experience.

The present study is part of that search for an alternative philosophical foundation. In keeping with its desire to include the human, the term "human sciences" is used to differentiate from the term " social sciences" which is so closely tied to the natural scientific model.

An alternative philosophical foundation for the human sciences is sought in the phenomenological work of Edward Husserl and the existential-phenomenological work of Martin Heidegger; in consequence, the term "phenomenology" is used in the title.

Further, collaboration with philosophers in the Chinese cultural context showed the rich resources of that culture for responding to the need for a more humane approach to psychology. In dealing with Chinese scholars the philosophical foundations for the human sciences were broadened and additional implications for the conduct of the human sciences were uncovered. As a result, the title of this volume reads "Psychology, Phenomenology, and Chinese Philosophy". Here phenomenology and the Chinese Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist traditions collaborate in pointing to ways of so founding the human sciences that they may reflect more adequately the fullness of human life and experience.

I wish to thank Professor Vincent Shen, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at National Cheng Chi University, for his superb job of organizing the colloquium and for making it such a wonderful experience for the participants. He, his colleagues and students provided a climate of hospitality which greatly facilitated our examination and critical discussion of the papers presented special thanks are owned to Professor Tran Van Doan of the Department of Philosophy of National Taiwan University for developing and nurturing the idea of the colloquium from the very beginning. I would also like to thank Professor Suganne Bamard, EVA SIMMS and Michael Sipiora of the Psychology Department of Duquesne University for their editorial assistance and all those whose cooperation and good will made the colloquium such a productive and enjoyable experience.