The Globalization of Psychology, the Psychology of Globalization

We are pleased to present the thirty fourth volume of the Bethlehem University Journal as a special issue on psychological research in Palestine and the world. This special issue draws from original papers and other related scholarship presented at the First Annual International Psychology Conference entitled, “Psychological Research in Palestine between Theory and Practice,” which was held at Bethlehem University, Bethlehem, Palestine, from April 22-23, 2016.

Second, we proposed upholding international norms and practices in publication standards and implementing a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. All the articles in this issue, including the four articles that were originally delivered at the he First Annual International Psychology Conference at Bethlehem University, were thus subjected to the journal's rigorous double blind peer-review process as well as a second round of review after the revisions were completed, before they were finally accepted for publication in this issue. Additional revisions were made per journal's policy to maintain a consistent structural format for all these articles. We hope that this rigorous process would ensure a higher quality of contributions to BUJ in a way that can make this scholarship more competitive and visible in the world.
Third, we recommended reaching out to international research communities and intensifying the levels of engagement with transnational networks for the joint production and dissemination of knowledge in the world. Such a level of engagement offers a much needed opportunity to increase the representation and visibility of Arab scholars and research communities in international research journals and raise their research capacity and overall productivity. This internationalization makes it also possible to stage local, regional, and international conversations about the future of research in the region and our role in the production of transformative knowledge on a global scale.
The contributions to this issue are multinational, representing scholars, practitioners, and different research communities in Palestine, Spain, and the USA. The issue includes contributions from Palestinian scholars and researchers from Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Galilee. It also contains contributions from international researchers, who are affiliated with different universities and institutions in the USA and Spain as well as collaborative research between Palestinian and international scholars (Fasfous et al.; Abdein et al.).
We are also fortunate and honored that we could include two specially-invited contributions from Prof. Miguel Pérez-García and Prof. Antonio Puente, the current President of the American Psychological Association (APA). Prof Puente and Prof Pérez-García gave two keynote addresses at the First Annual International Psychology Conference and were gracious enough to submit different contributions for this issue.
To consolidate our transnational network and help spread local and regional research communities in the world, the Bethlehem University Journal has recently signed a publishing and distribution agreement with Pluto Press, which will make BUJ available to research communities around the world through their global platform J-stor. This will allow BUJ to expand and grow, by increasing the number of issues published to two issues per year in the following years, and by considering more high quality articles for publication during the year.
And fourth, we advocated a new theoretical approach, which we referred to as "subaltern cosmopolitanism," grounded in meta-critical and reflexive attitudes towards traditional and emergent research methodologies. Indeed, in the debate over culture, Arnett correctly suggests that any meaningful move towards the globalization of psychology should take into account the diverse cultures of the world and a broader philosophy of science (Arnett, 2009).
Nonetheless, Arnett's proposal does not take into account the specific geopolitical context of the research community in relation to the dominant networks of the production and dissemination of knowledge within the structural inequities of the global capitalist system, including the glaring discrepancies in the allocations of research funds between the global North and the global South. From a perspective grounded in the neocolonial realities of the global South, any paradigm shift in theory should be able facilitate the development of alternative theoretical frameworks and epistemological assumptions and practices that refract the international struggles and experiences of the communities in the global South within the realities of the global capitalist system. Indeed, in the rejoinder to his critics, Arnett discusses the example of AIDS in Africa, in order to show that basic processes alone cannot adequately explain this epidemic. Rather, culturally grounded theoretical perspectives can more effectively account for the social and cultural causes of the epidemic. Nonetheless, cultural causes cannot offer a satisfactory analysis, since these ignore the processes of economic globalization that push the men to seek employment in urban centers, where they get exposed to the disease.
The contributions to this special issue on psychology examine a broad range of hot topics that reframe this debate about culture within the interrelationships among basic (psychological) processes, universal (psychological) laws, cultural context, and (psychological) theory within the geopolitical realities of the global capitalist system in Palestine and the world. This allows not only or examining the globalization of psychology, but also the psychology of globalization especially, in conflict zones of settler-colonial societies like Palestine.
The articles by Antonio Puente and Yahya Alnajjar & Etaf Ghali, explicitly or implicitly, revisit the concerns about the cultural sensitivity of dominant (Western) psychiatric diagnostic systems  and their relevance to mental health issues in Palestine (Puente), while others (Al-Arja) open up the possibility for proposing particular dispensations or psychiatric diagnosis for children whose experiences are affected by specific geopolitical concerns that have not been clearly and forcefully articulated in these systems.
Puente and AlNajjar & Ghali also reconfigure major psychological disorders such as PTSD within a comparative global framework. Fasfous et al. and Ghanayim & Ghanayim examine the role of cultural variables and backgrounds in different neuropsychological tests and psychological reading tests, respectively. Finally, Abu Nijaila and Abdein et al. consider the applicability of Western theory namely, moral foundations theory, and mental health practices to the Palestinian context. As such, it is hoped that this issue can make significant contributions to the current state of scholarship in the field of psychology in the region and in the world.
Perhaps these conversations will encourage other researchers to consider establishing a specifically Palestinian system that can adapt DSM-5 and / or ICD-10 to national and regional realities on the ground in Palestine akin to other national and/ or hemispheric systems such as the Cuban Glossary of Psychiatry, the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Disorders, etc. The Bethlehem University Journal would be happy to support such an initiative.