Institutional affiliations of contributors to scholarly and professional activities in counseling psychology: 1980–1983.

Abstract

This study used four sources of information in assessing productivity in counseling psychology. The sources were the affiliations of presenters at Division 17 programs of American Psychological Association (APA) conventions, the affiliations of authors of Journal of Counseling Psychology and The Counseling Psychologist articles, and the affiliations of Division 17 leaders. The most highly active institutions across all four dimensions were the

A Content Analysis of the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development

“…Given these factors, it is not surprising that only 10% of all JMCD contributions over the past 5 years were based in non-university agencies. This finding replicates earlier research on sources of productivity in general counseling publications (e.g., Skovholt et al, 1984).…”

“…The institutional affiliations were awarded points in the same fashion. This point procedure was recently used by Skovholt, Stone, and Hill (1984) and allows variable credit for an article. With this method, joint authorship increases the score for an article, giving a higher score than would an article by a single author.…”

The research productivity of academic psychologists: assessment, trends, and best practice recommendations

“…This latter type of study has been done in counseling psychology (Skovholt et al 1984), clinical psychology (Golden et al 1980), school psychology (Webster et al 1993), socialpersonality psychology (Quiñoes-Vidal et al 2004), industrial-organizational psychology (Bowling and Burns 2010), and management (Podsakoff et al 2008).…”

A Content Analysis of the JMCD Revisited: How Are We Doing Five Years Later?

“…Ponterotto provided an extremely convincing analysis of the rewards and resources that exist in academic-versusagency settings and that lead to such publication imbalance. Because this situation also exists for general counseling publications (Skovholt, Stone, & Hill, 1984) and the cause seems to be embedded in the nature of the professional field, perhaps we as counselors should put this chronic complaint to rest by simply ensuring that there is a sensitivity and receptivity to contributions from nonacademic settings while recognizing that a balance with academic-based contributions is not to be expected.…”