This commentary addresses Subotnik et al.’s target article from the perspective of researchers active in the field of giftedness. First, we self-critically examine the current standing of giftedness research within the scientific community. Second, the authors’ critique of gifted education is sharpened in three respects: (a) gifted identification, (b) effectiveness of gifted education, and (c) credentials of gifted education. Finally, four necessary and productive lines for future research are proposed.
BrowderF. (Ed.). (1976). Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert problems. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics Vol. XXVIII. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
2.
BurgeT. (1993). Concepts, definitions, and meaning. Metaphilosophy, 24, 309-325.
3.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
DickersinK. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1385-1359.
5.
EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP.HoffmanR. (Eds.). (2006). Cambridge handbook on expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6.
FetzerJ. H.ShatzD.SchlesingerG. N. (Eds.). (1991). Definitions and definability: Philosophical perspectives. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
7.
FreemanJ. (2006). Emotional problems of the gifted child. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 481-485.
8.
GoodmanN. (1983). Fact, fiction, and forecast (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1201.
10.
OrneM. T. (1973). Communication by the total experimental situation: Why it is important, how it is evaluated, and its significance for the ecological validity of findings. In PlinerP.KramesL.AllowayT. (Eds.), Communication and affect (pp. 157-191). New York, NY: Academic Press.
11.
PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.). (in press). Development of excellence in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness. London, England: Routledge.
12.
RindermannH.SailerM.ThompsonJ. (2009). The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development. Talent Development & Excellence, 1, 3-25.
13.
RobinsonR. (1950) Definition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
14.
SagerJ. C. (2000). Essays on definition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
15.
ShavininaL. V. (2003). The international handbook on innovation. Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
16.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
17.
StalkerD. (1994). Grue! The new riddle of induction. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
18.
ZieglerA.BakerJ. (in press). Gifted education from a systemic perspective: The importance of educational capital and learning capital for the development of actiotopes. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Development of excellence in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness. London, England: Routledge.
19.
ZieglerA.PhillipsonS. (in press). Towards a systemic theory of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 23.
20.
ZieglerA.VialleW. (in press). The actiotope model of giftedness. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Development of excellence in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness. London, England: Routledge.
