Contemplating Consolidation: Acting on a Decades Old Call to Survey Professionals in the Discipline

B. Phillips, Quiteya D. Walker, T. Grenawalt, Paige N. Dunlap, J. Bezyak, C. Anderson, A. P. Nerlich, Allison Levine
{"title":"Contemplating Consolidation: Acting on a Decades Old Call to Survey Professionals in the Discipline","authors":"B. Phillips, Quiteya D. Walker, T. Grenawalt, Paige N. Dunlap, J. Bezyak, C. Anderson, A. P. Nerlich, Allison Levine","doi":"10.52017/001c.37922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most professions are represented by one unified association, but not rehabilitation counseling. From its earliest years of professionalization, rehabilitation counseling has been represented by multiple associations. Initially, representing the discipline through multiple associations was deemed necessary to capture nuanced differences within the field. However, the existence of multiple associations has come under increasing scrutiny in the face of declining membership and a changing professional and political landscape. The lively debates of the 1970s and 1980s have more recently devolved into what seems to be an apathy induced stalemate on this issue of consolidation. The primary aim of this article is to revitalize a conversation about the future of rehabilitation counseling associations by assessing professionals’ perspectives on consolidation. Data from 2,608 rehabilitation counseling professionals indicated that the majority of participants either favored consolidating into a single association or were unsure of their choice. Fewer than 7% of respondents opposed consolidation. We conclude the article with a brief discussion of actions that are supported by the research.","PeriodicalId":92715,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation counselors and educators journal","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation counselors and educators journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52017/001c.37922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Most professions are represented by one unified association, but not rehabilitation counseling. From its earliest years of professionalization, rehabilitation counseling has been represented by multiple associations. Initially, representing the discipline through multiple associations was deemed necessary to capture nuanced differences within the field. However, the existence of multiple associations has come under increasing scrutiny in the face of declining membership and a changing professional and political landscape. The lively debates of the 1970s and 1980s have more recently devolved into what seems to be an apathy induced stalemate on this issue of consolidation. The primary aim of this article is to revitalize a conversation about the future of rehabilitation counseling associations by assessing professionals’ perspectives on consolidation. Data from 2,608 rehabilitation counseling professionals indicated that the majority of participants either favored consolidating into a single association or were unsure of their choice. Fewer than 7% of respondents opposed consolidation. We conclude the article with a brief discussion of actions that are supported by the research.
考虑整合:对数十年前对该学科专业人员进行调查的呼吁采取行动
大多数专业都由一个统一的协会代表,但康复咨询却没有。从最早的几年专业化,康复咨询一直代表着多个协会。最初,通过多个协会代表学科被认为是必要的,以捕捉领域内的细微差异。然而,面对会员数量的下降以及不断变化的专业和政治环境,多个协会的存在受到越来越多的审查。上世纪70年代和80年代的激烈辩论,最近在这一整合问题上演变成一种似乎由冷漠引发的僵局。本文的主要目的是通过评估专业人士对巩固的看法,重振关于康复咨询协会未来的对话。来自2608名康复咨询专家的数据表明,大多数参与者要么倾向于合并成一个单一的协会,要么不确定自己的选择。不到7%的受访者反对合并。我们在文章的最后简要讨论了研究支持的行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信