IJPR
Volume 8, Number 2
ISSN: 1932-6092
© 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND RESEARCH
IN MEXICO: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS
Cirilo H. García1, César A. Carrascoza2 and Héctor L. Díaz3
1
2
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (México)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (México)
3
The University of Texas – Pan American (USA)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to critically analyze the dependence of Mexico and the
Spanish-speaking world on the theorizing and research of other more industrialized
countries, whose cultural, political and economic reality is quite different from the
Hispanic or Ibero-American reality. The authors accept the nomothetic search for general
relations in psychology as a discipline but only after we have established the uniqueness
of experiences of particular research-subject groups. While doing research in Mexico or
Ibero-America, the emphasis must be on the experiences of Hispanics. The authors
propose that the positions and views expressed in this article do not argue against the
universality of the concepts. A short overview is provided of historical, political,
academic and economic factors that have led to the Mexican reliance on mostly AngloSaxon theories and models. A criticism is provided of the policy of publishing such
theories and models in the academic journals of Mexico and the Spanish-speaking
countries as well as the use of such theories and models in the formation of Hispanic
researchers. Such practice tends to socially and culturally perpetuate the previouslydescribed dependence on foreign theoretical frameworks. Finally, the article provides
recommendations for how to change this undesirable and abhorrent status quo of
conceptual sterility.
Keywords: Theory, research, dependence, journals, scientific formation
INTRODUCTION
Theorizing requires thinking, wondering about the nature of reality and trying to figure
out how it operates. We theorize about human phenomena that we have been part of the
human experience for thousands of years (García, 2009; Kantor, 1975). Similarly, we are
interested in a reality that is independent from our human existence and external to us but that
we can study and understand through our systematic methods and efforts of inquiry (Goode
and Hatt, 1976). An effort is made to separate ourselves from the reality created by Solipsitic
2
Cirilo H. García, César A. Carrascoza and Héctor L. Díaz
subjective approaches, Piaget’s constructivism and its derivatives (1954), or Vigotsky’s social
approach (1978) (García, 2003; Gergen, 1996). Many of our conceptualizations or ideas
related to psychological reality will inevitably be wrong like it happens at the same reality be
physical, chemical, biological, social or cultural because at the end it is the same but analyzed
from different views (Piña, Ybarra, Alcalá and Samaniego, 2010). In other words, reality is
often deceitful and elusive of our human efforts to understand it and transform it. Obviously,
it would be a lot easier to transform reality if we could first understand it. This means that
ontogenetic scientific knowledge and understanding should take precedence over
technological knowledge. Interestingly however, in the history of humanity, man has first
modified his environment in an effort to meet his needs and has subsequently become
concerned with trying to understand it (Bernal, 1979; Kantor, 1990). This phenomenon seems
evident in the experiences of many businesses that continually modify goods and services
while relying on minimal scientific knowledge. In spite of this, they make great profits given
that they can make life more comfortable and pleasant for their clients and can create an
extraordinary esthetic world that significantly elevates us over all other species. Similarly, in
the religious realm, humans usually divinize their existence and create a spiritual world we
would all like to access following our death. Nevertheless, neither the business nor the
religious worlds aim at describing and explaining reality in the same way that science does.
We must acknowledge that reality’s level of complexity varies significantly from one
realm or dimension of life to the other. For instance, it is a lot easier for us to explain physical
than biological phenomena and it is easier to explain biological than psychological or
sociological phenomena.
In the following section we will discuss the influence of the colonialism perpetrated by
highly industrialized countries on developing countries, and the devastating effects of those
asymmetrical and oppressive relationships on psychological theory-making and research.
COLONIALISM AND PSYCHOLOGY
The influence of highly industrialized countries over smaller or less developed countries
is overwhelming. Such influence permeates every dimension of their lives including the
social, economic, political and the scientific. Colonialism impacts and modifies people’s
reality in subtle, seductive and in sometimes brutal ways.
As a result of having a colonial mentality, we tend to believe that any product or service
coming from a first world country will inevitably be of better quality than any product or
service originating in a Spanish-speaking country. Many of us for instance, will gladly
purchase shoes and clothing made in a foreign country if we believe this is a luxury we can
afford. The way we communicate and our countless “neologisms” also clearly reflect this
suffocating reality. For example, in Mexico a cake made of cheese is called “chisqueik”
(Spanish pronunciation for cheesecake) instead of being called “pastel de queso”. Similarly,
we use the word “maus” (Spanish pronunciation for mouse) to refer to this commonly used
computer’s wired or wireless control, instead of using a Spanish word to refer to it.
We can also observe that in the world of politics, democracy has been widely adopted
throughout the world, and that in the world of economics capitalism and the free markets
dominate. As a result, many believe that the more we consume “First World” goods and
products the more we will become like them and subsequently we will become better persons.
Psychological Theory and Research in Mexico: Critical Reflections
3
The assumption is, of course, that we are not good enough to begin with. The authors
acknowledge that the exchange of ideas, products and life styles has taken place in the world
for millennia, and that such exchanges are often mutually beneficial. Such exchanges,
however, are not completely good or beneficial when ideological or other types of
monopolies exist and when the exchange of ideas and theoretical models is unbalanced and
asymmetrical. Such a situation inevitably leads to inequality, dependency and oppression.
It is imperative for us to create a balance in the cross-national and cross-cultural
exchange of models, theories and research findings. It is also necessary for us to propose or
develop models and theories that more validly describe our reality and experiences (Popper,
1959). Unfortunately, scientists in highly industrialized countries engage in the two very
important scientific tasks of theory-making and hypothesis-testing in a very systematic and
ongoing basis while the same does not happen in Ibero-America, particularly in Mexico.
One of the problems faced in Ibero-America and especially in Mexico is that we try to
build our scientific body of knowledge by researching and testing Anglo-Saxon theories and
models that do not stem from our existential reality and as a result lack validity for us. Little
has changed in this regard since Díaz-Guerrero (1971) and Ardila (1972) described this
challenge to the Ibero-American psychology. According to these authors, we devote too much
emphasis to the application aspects of our research while neglecting the development of
original theories and experimentation. They argue that in spite of the high quality of our
research, and our empirical studies in particular, we have consistently failed to develop and
test our own theories. We must develop indigenous theories, based on the immersion,
observation, evaluation and analysis of our reality and experiences.
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM
There are multiple historical, political, and economic factors contributing to the
previously-described problem.
The experiences of Mexico during colonial times help us understand the current Mexican
dependence on Anglo-Saxon theories and models (Carrascoza, 2010; De Gortari, 1979).
During the colonization period the conquered territories were not encouraged or allowed to
produce scientific knowledge. Such endeavor was controlled and regulated by the
imperialistic nation and knowledge-building was limited to the privileged social classes who
had access to education and had the option of obtaining an education in other countries. In
spite of these restrictions, religious orders such as the Company of Jesus (la Compañía de
Jesús) played a very important role in promoting education in Mexico (Larroyo, 1980). At the
same time, the Jesuits promoted scientific exploration and discovery in Mexico. Under
Mexico’s colonial relationship with Spain, autochthonous or indigenous knowledge was
rejected or destroyed by the invaders. As a result, the natives of the New Spain (Nueva
España) who were privileged enough to obtain an education had to rely on European theories,
concepts and educational systems. The exchange of knowledge and ideas between the New
and the Old Worlds was minimal and the hegemony of Spain prevailed. These dynamics
created a precedent that has motivated Mexico to continue to rely on foreign knowledgebuilding efforts in spite of the fact that Mexico has made significant contributions to science
and in spite of the ongoing efforts of Mexicans to study their culture and themselves.
4
Cirilo H. García, César A. Carrascoza and Héctor L. Díaz
Mexico’s educational policies have also greatly contributed to the lack of original
scholarship in Mexico. From the time of former President Porfirio Díaz to the present, the
Mexican government has emphasized and promoted the formation of scientists in the various
disciplines who are educated in other more industrialized countries. The argument or
justification for this policy has been that Mexico must acquire scientific knowledge from
those countries that produce it given that Mexico is a developing country that lacks the
resources for research as well as the scientific research capability of those more developed
countries. The strategy has been to acquire scientific knowledge abroad and transplant it to
Mexico where it should then be taught and applied. In spite of the logic behind these
arguments, a clear by-product of this educational policy is that Mexico has been and still is
overly dependent on foreign theories and models that do not describe and address the
Mexican reality. This is particularly true in the social and behavioral sciences. Critics have
labeled the Mexican scientific endeavor as “border science” in an effort to refer to an
adulterated type of science that result from the clash between or convergence of two cultures,
societies and educational systems. At the same time, Mexican scientists educated abroad often
lack an awareness of their role as Mexican producers of knowledge. They often lack an
appropriate philosophical and political foundation that can enable them to critically analyze
their scientific endeavors within the context of the Mexican reality. It can be argued that they
simply become technicians instead of pertinent and relevant behavioral scientists who can
effectively respond to national or regional challenges.
Economics and hidden agendas have also played very important roles in creating this
state of conceptual dependence. Foreign universities generate great profits as a result of
educating students from other countries. Foreign students usually pay higher than usual
tuition, fees, room and board and by doing this support the host country’s educational
industry. At the same time, providing higher education to foreign nationals serves to
disseminate the ideology, values and lifestyles of the host countries (Carrascoza, in press).
Ultimately, the education of foreign nationals serves to support the institutions and maintain
the political and economic status quo of the host countries (Carrascoza and Manero, 2009).
One of the problems created by the policy of forming Ibero-American professors and
researchers in universities from other countries is that the curricular and extracurricular
activities of their respective disciplines in those countries do not include socio-cultural or
political content related to the Ibero-American country where the academicians end up
teaching. An implication of integrating such academicians and researchers into our
educational systems is that the theories and models they acquired as part of their education
and that they are importing to our countries are often impertinent and irrelevant to the
psychological and sociological reality those academicians are now trying to address. This in
turn produces a feeling of academic disorientation among students and makes it difficult for
the institution to effectively engage its surrounding community and society.
We acknowledge that countries have different economic priorities depending on their
respective levels of industrialization and economic development. Certain countries devote
much of their efforts and resources to the production of knowledge and technology. Less
developed countries on the other hand often simply purchase such knowledge and technology
instead of generating it. This fact is reflected in the percentage of the various countries’ Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) devoted to research. In the case of Mexico, for instance, only 1% of
the GDP is allocated for research even though the UNESCO’s recommends a 5% or 6%. For
Psychological Theory and Research in Mexico: Critical Reflections
5
this reason funding for research in México is very scarce and obtaining such funding
represents a highly competitive and selective process.
Budget allocations intended for industrial and other practical purposes are always given
priority in Mexico’s national budget over possible allocations for cultural, social or historical
endeavors. The same logic applies to the dissemination of research findings and scientific
knowledge in recognized international journals and other venues. In such instances, national
researchers and academicians must compete against their peers and colleagues researchers
from other countries following the same eligibility criteria for the opportunity to receive well
deserved academic and economic rewards. Guidelines and criteria for the international
dissemination of scientific knowledge are usually dictated by universities and pertinent
government agencies of each country. Articles for publication, for instance, must comply with
conventional research methodologies; in other words, it is very unlikely that indexed
scientific journals in other countries will accept and publish any discipline-specific
knowledge we wish to disseminate if such knowledge that was not acquired through
conventional research methodologies. The end result of all this is a national research agenda
that emphasizes and prioritizes the reproduction of foreign knowledge regardless of its
relevance, the proliferation of scientific journals, national and international academic
conferences, and an increased desire to participate in all of these in an ongoing basis in spite
of the level of quality and originality of our research.
We must all ask ourselves, what are we doing in an effort to change this undesirable state
of affairs? Díaz-Guerrero (1971) recognized this as a problem and proposed solutions.
Nevertheless, neither the recommendations of Díaz-Guerrero (1971) nor the
recommendations of others are likely to have any impact on the current state of affairs given
that many policy-makers do not see this situation of scientific dependence on other countries
as a problem and much less as problem with systemic, long-term, harmful effects. Our
myopic vision or blindness continue to promote research practices and educational policies
that perpetuate our theoretical and research dependence and inhibits our scientific originality
or creativity.
SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY JOURNALS FROM MEXICO
AND IBERO-AMERICA AND THEIR PUBLICATION POLICIES
The review and selection policies of Mexican and Ibero-American scientific journals also
promote our horrible state of conceptual and research dependence on foreign countries. Such
journals require originality; however it is difficult to comply with originality criteria if our
hypotheses stem from dominant or established formal theories with propositions that are
never challenged. This seems to be done in an effort to promote a never ending utopic
universality.
We also often promote non-critical empirical practices related to the validation and
adaptation of research instruments, whose original conceptualizations do not stem from our
Ibero-American psychosocial and cultural reality. Furthermore, the publication guidelines
focus more on compliance with specific requirements than on substantive issues of content.
6
Cirilo H. García, César A. Carrascoza and Héctor L. Díaz
Are We Really Forming Researchers in Our Doctoral Programs
or Non-Thinking Appliers of Models and Research and Statistics
Techniques?
We must challenge ourselves to determine if we are forming doctoral level psychologists
and researchers or if we are simply forming re-transmitters of theoretical models and
technicians in research and statistics. It will be very difficult for us to break the chains of
theoretical dependence and conceptual sterility as long as we allow our graduate students to
earn doctoral degrees without requiring them to engage in critical thinking and demanding
that they develop new theories and models that stem from our psycho-social and cultural
experiences.
Furthermore, we will be unable to transcend our conceptual mediocrity as long as we
simply expect our students to develop research instruments with adequate levels of validity
and reliability regardless of the samples used to develop the instruments and the cultural
context where the instrument were developed.
In summary, we cannot postpone any further the adoption of new strategies for promoting
theoretical creativity to better respond to our psychological service needs, and the imperative
to make research more meaningful in our socio-cultural milieu.
We now recommend strategies for change, with the awareness that our list is not all
inclusive and that many of our readers, who are also concerned about our current state of
scientific knowledge, may also have other good recommendations.
Our first recommendation is to make it a priority to review and revise the theories we
currently while taking into account the psycho-social, cultural and historical origin of the
researcher and without diminishing the importance of research conducted in other countries.
The consensus seems to be that there is little or no empirical research related to this proposed
course of action. While this may be true, we believe that we should include in our dialog the
ideas of thinkers such as novelists, essay writers and poets who have analyzed and discussed
this issue.
We must open our dialogue to other sources of knowledge not considered necessarily
scientific, including religious literature. For instance, if our psychological research is related
to the concept of forgiveness, we should at least analyze what the Gospels have to say about
it. This new approach to knowledge building will inevitably imply a change in the proportion
of scientific bibliographic references we use. At this moment, most bibliographic references
come from Anglo-Saxon writers and less importance is given to Ibero-American authors. We
propose that no less than 50% of the bibliographic references in our scientific publications
should come from Latin-American authors.
Our second recommendation is related to the use of Anglo-Saxon psychological research
instruments. Their use should be considered appropriate only if they are consistent and
compatible with our indigenous theories and models. At the same time, we must ensure they
possess the necessary divergent and convergent validity. For these reasons we must
encourage the development of our own instruments and resources for scientific research that
are born out of our experiences, culture and reality.
Psychological Theory and Research in Mexico: Critical Reflections
7
CONCLUSION
In our opinion, readers who disagree with the views expressed in this article and who
refuse to take any action will be promoting the status quo. If that happens, we will continue
preparing Ibero-American researchers who think and conduct research with the same lack of
awareness that characterized America’s former slaves, who were thankful to their masters for
the exploitation to which they were subjected. Nothing would change as a result of our
inaction and Mexico would then have no other option but to become one more star in the flag
of the world’s greatest colonizer.
The counter arguments to the views presented in this article include that since its outset,
science has been universal in nature, that it has always transcended national and artificial
boundaries, and that an honest search for knowledge and truth requires universal laws or
methods of scientific research. Furthermore, it could be argued that all psychological and
sociological phenomena share commonalities that science attempts to identify, explain and
predict regardless of the particular characteristics of the studied individuals or groups (Ribes
and López, 1985). According to this line of reasoning, the historical or cultural contexts of
psychological dynamics do not alter their intrinsic universal essence. In spite of this, we argue
that the views expressed in this article are not in conflict with the counter arguments we
previously described. We believe that we must go from the specific to the general and from
the particular to the universal. How can we possibly identify commonalities or differences
among societies and groups unless we know what characterizes such societies or groups, or
what makes them unique in the first place? Furthermore, why should we continue working on
non-Hispanic lines of research in a mechanical way and with a noncritical attitude? Why can
we not develop our own theoretical models and test them using our own observation and
measurement instruments, which are based on our unique life experiences?
Finally, we provide a few examples of research questions that meet the unavoidable
requirement of taking the subjects’ psycho-social and cultural contexts into account. These
questions are presented without their respective justifications given that in our opinion they
possess relevance and their answers could have a high social impact.







How does the mental health of the residents of Nuevo Leon, Mexico compare to the
mental health of other Mexican urban dwellers?
Will the type of public transportation used (bus vs. train) have a differential impact
on the mental health of their users?
What are the best psychological instruments we could use to detect psychological
dysfunctions among children, preadolescents and school age adolescents? (Urdiales
and Robles, 2013)
What psychological profile would best help us predict automobile accidents in our
urban centers?
Why do many Mexicans continue to seek psychological and medical services from
people who have not been trained or educated for this purpose? (Garza, 1984).
To what extent have the lack of security and violence in Mexico affected the mental
health of its residents?
What particular psychological therapeutic interventions are most effective for smoke
cessation?
8
Cirilo H. García, César A. Carrascoza and Héctor L. Díaz






What particular psychological therapeutic interventions are most effective for
helping reduce addiction to alcohol?
Is there any particular psychological profile associated with corruption?
What psychological factors would best predict the tendency to steal?
How is mental health associated with the productivity of employees in the business
world?
Is it fair to hypothesize that the better the mental health the higher the productivity?
Is it fair to hypothesize that the lower the burn out of teachers in elementary schools
the more students will learn?
We do not wish to leave the impression that we are favoring applied research over basic
research, because as proposed by Pérez-Tamayo (2001) what really matters is that we conduct
and produce high quality research. We must resist the temptation of creating artificial and
meaningless research typologies. We should all be interested in research projects that will
help us better understand cause and effect relationships between variables, even if research
findings do not automatically or immediately solve a major social or psychological problem.
This article will have missed its objective if after reading it you view the arguments here
presented as outdated and out of touch with the modern world, or as a reflection of Mexican
nationalism and efforts to enforce academic and research protectionism in an era of
globalization.
On the other hand, we will have succeeded if we have stimulated your thinking and if we
are able to generate some debate among behavioral scientists and researchers. It is also our
expectation that such debate will lead to changes in the publication policies of scientific
journals and in the educational policies of our respective countries that have historically
favored educating our researchers and doctors in other countries.
REFERENCES
Ardila, R. (1972). La psicología contemporánea. Panorama internacional. Buenos Aires:
Paidós.
Bernal, J. D. (1979). La ciencia en la historia. México: UNAM-Nueva Imagen.
Carrascoza, C. y Manero, R. (2009). Génesis social de la psicología en México. La Psicología
experimental en la Universidad de México. Veredas. Revista del Pensamiento
Sociológico, 10, 51-69.
Carrascoza, C. (2010) Elementos para una historia del origen de la psicología experimental en
México. Dissertation thesis for getting Doctoral Degree. México: Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana.
Carrascoza, C. (at press) Génesis social de la psicología e identidad del Mexicano.
International Journal of Hispanic Psychology.
De Gortari, E. (1979). La ciencia en la historia de México. México: Grijalbo.
Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1971). La enseñanza de la investigación en psicología en Iberoamérica: un
paradigma. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 3, 1, 5-36.
García, C. H. (2003). Construccionismo social y producción de conocimiento. Enseñanza e
Investigación en Psicología, 8, 363-373.
Psychological Theory and Research in Mexico: Critical Reflections
9
García, C. H. (2009). Cómo investigar en psicología. México: Trillas.
Garza, C. (1984). Personal communication.
Gergen, K. J. (1996). Realidades y relaciones. Aproximaciones hacia la construcción social.
Buenos Aires. Paidós.
Goode, W. J. y Hatt, P. K. (1976). Métodos de investigación social. México: Trillas.
Kantor, J. R. & Smith, N. W. (1975). The science of psychology: An interbehavioral survey.
Chicago: Principia Press.
Kantor, J. R. (1990). La evolución científica de la psicología. México: Trillas.
Larroyo, F. (1980). Historia de la educación en México. México: Porrúa.
Pérez-Tamayo, R. (2001). Ciencia básica y ciencia aplicada. Salud Pública de México, 43, 4,
368-372.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Piña López, J. A., Ybarra Sagarduy, J. L., Alcalá Sánchez, I. G. y Samaniego Garay, R. A.
(2010). Psicología y salud [I]: La importancia de llamarse Modelo y apellidarse Teóricoconceptual. Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología, 2, 1, 21-29.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Ribes, E. & López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta: un análisis de campo y paramétrico.
México: Trillas.
Urdiales, M. E. & Robles, A. (2013). Personal communication.
Vigotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.