本文對於黃光國教授所主張之「多重哲學典範」心理學研究策略提出疑問：「多重哲學典範」之主張，到底有沒有可能是依問題性質而採不同方法典範的實用主義彈性運用，還是根植於本土心理學發展道路中的進程現象，如從後實證主義、建構實在論、到詮釋學的進程？本文認為，不同科學哲學典範有不同的本體論，因此研究者很難在不同典範間遊走而不感到自相矛盾。如果研究者在經驗「多重哲學典範」時不是，也無法採行彈性運用的方式，那麼我認為，這種種的典範之於本土心理學研究者，有可能是經過深入探討深思熟慮之後的選擇或轉移選擇的經驗。

To Professor Hwang's multi-paradigmatic strategy for indigenous psychology, I raise the question that: is this strategy a pragmatic flexibility for various research intents or a necessary sequence from post-positivism. constructive realism, to hermeneutics in the process of developing indigenous psychology? Regarding that different epistemological paradigms hold different ontologies, it is difficult for the researchers to shift among different paradigms without being incoherent. If this is truly the case; then the various paradigms appearing in the field of indigenous psychology might indicate the researchers' thoughtful choices or conversional choices in the process of pursuing indigenous psychology.