ABSTRACT
Early in our discussion it was noted that the major theories of development were largely formulated prior to 1930, while the bulk of our data on behavioral development has become available since that time. A small recapitulation of some previous observations may be useful here. There has been no major revision of grand developmental theory in light of data, although data have served to bolster allegiance to one theoretical disposition over another. The exception is seen in recent attempts to alter or adjust Piagetian theory given evidence challenging the stage-structure analysis proposed by Piaget. From one point of view, it could be said that the theories have served the field well in generating research. Disconfirming evidence has not provided sufficiently serious challenge to any given theory to necessitate theory revision or theory generation. Alternatively, developmental theories may be viewed as currently irrelevant in the formal sense to the generation of research. The theories can be seen as serving, instead, as a kind of background ambience for the choice of problems, for the selection of terminology, and as an umbrella rationale for a strategy of investigation. Although neither position, in its extreme form, properly characterizes the field with respect to theory/research relationships, the intellectual tradition from which most developmentalists operate is closer to the latter orientation than to the former.
