The four reviews of the state of the counseling psychology research base in the May 2005 issue of The Counseling Psychologist provide thought-provoking critiques of institutional research productivity. In this rejoinder to these critiques, the authors frame their responses in terms of explaining methodological issues in the original study, discussing the intended use and interpretation of their findings, exploring perceived schisms and values of the field, and offering suggestions for future research and discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Betz, N. E. (2005). Enhancing research productivity in counseling psychology: Reactions to three perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 358-366.
2.
Brown, F. G. (1969). Seven years of the journal: A review. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 48, 263-272.
3.
Diegelman, N. M., Uffelman, R. A., Wagner, K. S., & Diegelman, S. A. (2005). Current institutional trends in research productivity in counseling psychology journals. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 327-339.
4.
Gore-Felton, C. (2005). Understanding quantitative research in counseling psychology: An elusive endeavor in an increasingly diverse discipline. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 367-374.
5.
Kahn, J. H. (2005). Institutional research productivity, use of theory-driven research, and statistical application in counseling psychology: Examining the research base. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 340-348.
6.
Karr, C. A., & Larson, L. M. (2005). Use of theory-driven research in counseling: Investigating three counseling psychology journals from 1990 to 1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 299-326.
7.
Lee, D. (2005). Calls for multiple indices in corporating multiculturalism in content analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 349-357.
8.
Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 269-298.
