In the past 20 years, there have been numerous calls for a reinvigoration of vocational psychology. Now, as vocational psychology has grown again within counseling psychology, the authors argue that what is needed is not a reinvigoration but rather a new paradigm that reintegrates vocational psychology and the rest of counseling psychology. The new paradigm conceptualizes vocational issues as an integral part of theory, research, practice, and teaching of counseling psychology. Vocational issues should not overshadow other issues but should be an integrated part of what counseling psychologists do. The articles in this major contribution take steps toward this new paradigm by addressing teaching issues in counseling psychology training programs. If the new paradigm is to be adopted by all counseling psychologists, they must begin in their training programs. These articles give suggestions for how to begin the paradigm shift in this setting, discussing implications for the science and practice of counseling psychology beyond the training programs.In this Major Contribution, we argue for a change in the paradigm for the role of vocational psychology within counseling psychology. Kuhn (1970) defined a paradigm and a paradigm shift, in particular, as having three distinguishing characteristics: (a) it necessitates rejection of an incompatible way of thinking, (b) it opens up new possibilities for scientific inquiry, and (c) it changes the way scientists view the world around them. He went on to say that paradigm shifts can exist within scientific subspecialties; that is, they do not have to be global. We are proposing this type of paradigm shift within the subspecialty of counseling psychology.The paradigm that we propose is to reintegrate vocational psychology with all aspects of counseling psychology. Specifically, we propose that vocational issues be viewed as primary issues and contextual factors in people's lives. In the new paradigm, vocational factors will provide another facet

Because of the increasing complexity of work in people's lives and the rapid ways in which work is changing, it is likely that all applied psychologists will need greater content knowledge about work to assist clients with issues related to work choice, entry, and adjustment. This article identifies 5 knowledge domains about work that include important information for applied psychologists. These domains are as follows: (a) economics and politics, (b) work structures, (c) globalization, (d) social factors, and (e) technology. These 5 domains are outlined, as are anticipated future trends in work. The implications of these issues for applied psychologists are discussed.

The article reviews 7 experimental studies that examined eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) treatment. The 7 studies varied greatly in their complexity, their designs, how treatment effects were measured, and their results. Each study is detailed and critically examined. A summary of results is provided as well as suggestions for clinical application and future research. In addition, questions are raised regarding F. Shapiro's (1995) approach to disseminating information about EMDR.

Although B. F. Skinner is probably the best known American psychologist, his provocative ideas have generated widespread controversy, and his deceptively simple theory lends itself to misunderstanding. We investigated the extent to which individuals hold misperceptions about Skinner's ideas. Subjects at various levels of education in psychology (N = 75) completed a truefalse questionnaire on Skinner's ideas. Results indicate that subjects at all levels of eduation hold several myths concerning Skinner's work. Implications of the results for the teaching of psychology, particularly Skinner's ideas, are discussed.

Seven myths about counselor supervisor roles and activities are identified. These include myths about theory, roles, process, and professional issues. Suggestions are given for improving the congruence between supervision literature and actual practice.Although the counselor supervision literature offers a rich source of information about supervise needs (cf. Whiteley, 1982;, it has given less emphasis to the clinical supervisor's issues. Some descriptions of supervisor roles exist, but they seem closer to myth than to reality because they do not match actual practice. In this article, we specify seven myths about supervision theory, roles, process, and professional issues, and offer suggestions for furthering knowledge of the supervisory relationship. The focus is on the clinical supervisor, that is, an individual who promotes the development of supervisee counseling skills (VanZandt, 1986).The myths presented in this article were developed from readings, dialectics, previous supervision experience, and our personal reflections stimulated by a formal course and practicum on supervision. They were further refined by comments from several colleagues also engaged in supervision. Some of these myths have been mentioned by previous authors (e.g., Leddick 8c Bernard, 1980; Styzynski, 1980), who referred to them as "assumptions." The term "myth" suggests a more extreme view, which might be justified if it focuses attention on these issues and stimulates possible solutions.