At that time, a very intense debate had ensued among the contributors to two prominent list-serves. The contributors to this debate, respectively, tended to take very pro-and con-positions regarding prescriptive authority for psychologists. From this debate, the editor invited two articulate and respected individuals, each representing one of these respective positions, to serve as guest editors for the journal and to work together to ensure that a full and fair hearing about the issues was presented.
From such an ignoble and unobtrusive beginning, there has ensued nearly four long years of struggle, conflict, and debate. The guest editor representing the pro-prescriptive authority position initially found that his constituency doubted that they would receive a fair hearing in the pages of this journal. Many potential authors apparently saw the journal as an arm of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology (AAAPP), probably because the other guest editor, Elaine Heiby, has spoken so strongly on behalf of the latter organization and because the editor is a member of that group. A strong and vocal debate ensued, during which I enlisted the assistance of Patrick DeLeon, then the president-elect of the American Psychological Association (APA) and a vocal advocate for prescriptive authority. To his credit, and based solely on our long acquaintanceship, DeLeon was good enough to contact potential authors, to vouch for the integrity of the editor and the Journal, and to advocate for moving this issue into the forefront. He actively lobbied with potential authors to obtain their cooperation, and without his contributions, this special issue would never have seen the light of day.
But alas, the initial response to Pat's and my pleas waned after a brief period of time. Advocates of Prescriptive Authority for Psychologists (often referred to as PPP) made initial efforts, but then again withdrew, expressing the same distrust and fear. DeLeon intervened a second time in 1999 and 2000, and each time (except for Norfleet and Caccavale) there was a brief response but a rapid withdrawal of commitments. Indeed, in late 2000, the guest editor, who was coordinating responses on the pro-prescriptive authority position, withdrew from the endeavor. He expressed frustration at soliciting the coop-