- Email: [email protected]
Comments from the new editor
JOURNAL
OF VOCATIONAL
BEHAVIOR
37, l-6 (1990)
EDITORIAL Comments from the New Editor HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
When this issue appears I will have had editorial responsibility for manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Vocational Behavior for approximately 11 months. My policies and procedures are much the same as those used by Nancy Betz, Lenore Harmon, and Sam Osipow, my predecessors, so long-standing contributors to the Journal will notice only minor changes. My academic training and personal persuasion lead me to view most activities from a developmental perspective, and this propensity influences the way in which I perform my duties as Editor. I approach the task as a facilitator who encourages colleagues to achieve the best research possible, not as a gatekeeper who is eager to keep unworthy manuscripts from appearing in the Journal. That does not mean that most of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal will be published, for a large proportion contain flaws which are not correctable. That does not mean that I am nondiscriminating, for my values and standards influence my editorial judgment. It is appropriate, therefore, to indicate what will be published, how the editorial process will be conducted, and the values and standards which will inform editorial decisions during my tenure as editor. WHAT WILL BE PUBLISHED The Journal of Vocational Behavior publishes empirical, methodological, and theoretical articles which expand knowledge about vocational choice and vocational adjustment across the life span. Studies of vocational choice have examined topics such as theories of career choice; the relation of individual differences on variables such as vocational abilities, interests, and needs to career preferences and choices; the effects of cultural, demographic, and experiential factors on career choice; career decision making and career indecision; career maturity; I am grateful to Nancy E. Betz, Jane L. Swanson, and Diane J. Tinsley for their helpful comments to an earlier draft of this editorial.
0001-8791190$3.00 Copyright 0 I!390 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2
HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
occupational stereotyping; career choice implementation; and occupational reentry. Studies of vocational adjustment have investigated topics such as theories of vocational adjustment; job performance and success; job satisfaction; barriers to career development (e.g., discrimination); work stress and strain; adult career development stages and career patterns; job commitment and job involvement; multiple role management and work-nonwork relations; midlife career change; and the transition from work to retirement. Manuscripts reporting the validation of theoretical constructs, developments in instrumentation and research methodology, evaluations of programs and interventions, and methodological and measurement issues related to choice and adjustment also are published. Brief notes on methodology, instrumentation, or a replication likewise will be considered for publication. Authors are encouraged to integrate the results of a series of closely related studies into one longer manuscript rather than to submit Several shorter manuscripts reporting each study separately. Research to evaluate potentially useful new instruments and procedures for measuring constructs pertaining to vocational choice and adjustment is encouraged. Also of interest are applications of these instruments and procedures in understudied populations. Major initial studies of the reliability and validity of new instruments will be published, but studies of the reliability and validity of established measures should be submitted to a measurement journal or published in the test manual. The Journal emphasizes research based on and contributing to theory development. The potential applicability of the information in interventions is not a necessary ingredient so long as the theoretical significance of the research is clear. Articles of a purely exploratory nature have a low probability of being published. Studies of organizational behavior and of variables more highly related to the welfare of organizations than to individuals ordinarily will not be published. EDITORIAL REVIEW PROCESS Most manuscripts submitted to the Journal are reviewed by two editorial consultants and the Editor. The editorial consultants review manuscripts without knowledge of the identity of the author(s) whenever possible, but the editor is aware of the identity of the author(s) when reviewing the manuscript. Usually, the editorial consultants are members of the editorial board. Members are appointed to the Editorial Board because of their research expertise and their expertise in the specific content areas in which they review. Nevertheless, an effort is made to formulate a board which reflects the diversity among scholars investigating vocational behavior. The board includes both men and women, members from a variety of racial/ethnic heritages, and scholars trained in counseling psychology,
COMMENTS
FROM THE NEW EDITOR
3
industrial/organizational psychology, and sociology. Board members are employed in university settings, in business and industry, and in consulting firms. These board members contribute many hours each year to reviewing manuscripts and advising the editor about which manuscripts should be published. I plan to use ad hoc reviewers to keep the work of board members within manageable limits and to acquaint a broader range of scholars with the editorial process and the standards used by the Journal. Individuals are appointed to the board for 2-year terms, and new editorial board members are most likely to be selected from among the ad hoc reviewers. Individuals who would like to serve as ad hoc reviewers are encouraged to send me a letter indicating their interest and enclosing a vita. INTERPRETING EDITORIAL DECISIONS The manuscripts I have reviewed during the past 11 months have been rejected, rejected with an invitation to revise, or provisionally accepted pending an acceptable revision. It is important to understand the message I am trying to communicate with these designations and the basis upon which these decisions are reached. Most manuscripts eventually are accepted unless they contain a problem which cannot be corrected without redoing the investigation. These irreparable problems are referred to as fatal flaws in the vamacular. Generally, fatal flaws occur in the initial design of the study, and often they involve the significance of the research question or the appropriateness of the research methodology. Manuscripts which are rejected without an invitation to revise are perceived to have an irreparable flaw. Rejection with a request to revise occurs more frequently than provisional acceptance. The difference between the two decisions rests primarily on my degree of confidence that the manuscript can be made publishable and my judgment about the amount of work involved. Provisional acceptance signifies that I am reasonably confident that making the changes requested by the editorial consultants and myself will result in a publishable manuscript. Rejection with an invitation to revise signifies a greater degree of uncertainty about the eventual publishability of the manuscript. In both cases my request that the author revise a manuscript indicates that I believe the research is free of fatal flaws, i.e., that the problems observed in the manuscript are correctable. TECHNICAL ADEQUACY In designing research and in interpreting editorial reactions, therefore, it is important to distinguish between irreparable and correctable flaws.
4
HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
Fortunately, immedicable flaws are avoidable, and some of the flaws researchers seem to fear the most such as those pertaining to the analysis are actually correctable flaws. Fatal Flaws Appropriateness. A statement explaining what will be published by the Journal of Vocational Behavior appears earlier in this editorial. This statement is repeated in each issue of the Journal in the “Information for Authors.” Authors are urged to review this policy statement before submitting a manuscript. Research which falls outside the scope of the Journal cannot be accepted for publication regardless of its significance or technical merit. Significance. Significant research investigates theoretically important problems and contributes information beyond existing knowledge. It is unlikely that important insights will be recognized as important unless clear implications for theory or practice are explained. Manuscripts have a greater chance of publication if they make clear in the introduction and discussion the empirical research context in which the research fits and the relevance of the research to theory or practice. Authors should avoid attempting to publish self-contained papers that bear no obvious relation to theory or practice. Most manuscripts that are deemed to have potentially significant contributions to make can be made publishable through the joint efforts of the authors, the editorial consultants, and the editor. Important contributions grow logically out of prior theory and research. Each research investigation produces information which by itself seldom has important meaning. This information must be embedded in a theoretical context in order to understand its relation to previous knowledge. When viewed in a theoretical context, these new findings often lead to the revision of existing theories, to the identification of needed areas of research, and to the development of new applications. In this sense, I expect that almost all of the research published in the Journal will be tied to theory. Significant research also builds upon previous research. Unfortunately, many contributors appear to be unaware of pertinent research bearing on the issue they are addressing. All too often the findings of an investigator are difficult to assimilate because they appear to be unrelated or only weakly related to previously established knowledge of vocational behavior. Manuscripts which give the appearance that the author has not read any of the related research are likely to be rejected. It is particularly distressing when it appears that the author is not even aware of related research in the Journal of Vocational Behavior. Subjects. When designing a study, researchers should consider carefully whether the subjects are consistent with the research problem.
COMMENTS
FROM THE NEW EDITOR
5
Failure to secure a suitable return rate and failure to use appropriate subjects are irreparable flaws. Some survey return rates are so low that they preclude generalization beyond the immediate respondents. Authors should provide a justification whenever a return rate is less than 50%. Also troublesome is the use of survey data 10 to 25 years old. Often the relations among the variables examined have changed significantly in the last 2 decades and conclusions drawn from such data are likely to be outdated. Most questions about women’s and minority group members’ career development require current data. Variables. Fatal flaws sometimes result from the selection of variables to include in the research. Some investigations include so many variables that the study is confusing and chaotic; others include too few variables to allow a meaningful examination of the alternative explanations. Familiarity with the theoretical and empirical literature is essential in avoiding this flaw. Failure to pay sufficient attention to the operational definition of the important constructs and to the psychometric qualities of the instruments used to measure these constructs is another mistake which cannot be rectified. A study in which an important construct is measured using a new or untested measure is on shaky ground. If it is necessary to develop a new measure of a central construct, the author must provide a convincing rationale for that decision. Each measure used should be described briefly in terms of its physical properties (e.g., item format, number of items, scoring procedure), its reliability (possibly based on previous research and definitely from the present data), and its validity. Correctable Flaws Generally, problems with the analysis are correctable. Three problems are apparent in how data are analyzed. One is the failure to use the correct procedure for analyzing data. Authors frequently use univariate procedures when a lesser number of multivariate procedures would have been better. Another problem is the use of maximization procedures (e.g., multiple regression, discriminant analysis) in an exploratory analysis without cross-validation or correction for shrinkage. Such procedures manipulate the weights assigned to the variables to maximize the relations between the independent and dependent variables, thereby capitalizing on chance variations. Finally, researchers fail to consider the practical importance of statistically significant results. Estimates of the effect size are important in evaluating the contribution of a particular investigation and indispensable for future meta-analyses. I know from personal experience that it can be depressing to be asked to reanalyze the data from an investigation using a different procedure. To make matters worse, this request usually is accompanied by a rejection of the manuscript with an invitation to revise because of the
6
HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
uncertainty about what the new analysis will yield. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that this is a potentially correctable flaw. A rejection such as this definitely holds open the possibility that the research can be published in the Journal. Choice of Methodology From time-to-time articles appear in the literature advocating the use of some design and decrying the receptivity of journals to this design. It is important to understand that the Journal has no policy regarding the exclusion of certain methodologies or research designs. Creative uses of research methodology which provide meaningful insights of a theoretical nature are desired. The editorial consultants evaluate the methodology used in a specific study in terms of its value in investigating the issues under study. Multivariate designs and multivariate methods of analysis are useful in gaining an accurate understanding of the causes and effects of vocational behavior. Case study and intensive designs have the potential to reveal important insights not forthcoming from more traditional univariate approaches. Correlational research can be invaluable in the development of hypotheses about the dynamic interactions among constructs, but only experimental designs allow a definitive test of those hypotheses. Multivariate designs, case study designs, intensive designs, and experimental designs are underrepresented in the vocational literature. Studies using these designs may be rejected, but submitters can be assured that they will not be rejected out of hand because of the design used. A CLOSING COMMENT Sometimes research which is sound is rejected because the authors failed to explain themselves clearly or the editorial consultants and I misunderstood what was written. Sometimes we identify a problem for which we see no remedy, but the authors think they see a way to rectify the problem. In these cases the authors should feel free to revise and resubmit the manuscript. Even a flat rejection does not signify an unwillingness to review a revision of the manuscript. In the end the editorial decision may be the same, but it is the author’s right to decide whether to revise and resubmit.
OF VOCATIONAL
BEHAVIOR
37, l-6 (1990)
EDITORIAL Comments from the New Editor HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
When this issue appears I will have had editorial responsibility for manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Vocational Behavior for approximately 11 months. My policies and procedures are much the same as those used by Nancy Betz, Lenore Harmon, and Sam Osipow, my predecessors, so long-standing contributors to the Journal will notice only minor changes. My academic training and personal persuasion lead me to view most activities from a developmental perspective, and this propensity influences the way in which I perform my duties as Editor. I approach the task as a facilitator who encourages colleagues to achieve the best research possible, not as a gatekeeper who is eager to keep unworthy manuscripts from appearing in the Journal. That does not mean that most of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal will be published, for a large proportion contain flaws which are not correctable. That does not mean that I am nondiscriminating, for my values and standards influence my editorial judgment. It is appropriate, therefore, to indicate what will be published, how the editorial process will be conducted, and the values and standards which will inform editorial decisions during my tenure as editor. WHAT WILL BE PUBLISHED The Journal of Vocational Behavior publishes empirical, methodological, and theoretical articles which expand knowledge about vocational choice and vocational adjustment across the life span. Studies of vocational choice have examined topics such as theories of career choice; the relation of individual differences on variables such as vocational abilities, interests, and needs to career preferences and choices; the effects of cultural, demographic, and experiential factors on career choice; career decision making and career indecision; career maturity; I am grateful to Nancy E. Betz, Jane L. Swanson, and Diane J. Tinsley for their helpful comments to an earlier draft of this editorial.
0001-8791190$3.00 Copyright 0 I!390 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2
HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
occupational stereotyping; career choice implementation; and occupational reentry. Studies of vocational adjustment have investigated topics such as theories of vocational adjustment; job performance and success; job satisfaction; barriers to career development (e.g., discrimination); work stress and strain; adult career development stages and career patterns; job commitment and job involvement; multiple role management and work-nonwork relations; midlife career change; and the transition from work to retirement. Manuscripts reporting the validation of theoretical constructs, developments in instrumentation and research methodology, evaluations of programs and interventions, and methodological and measurement issues related to choice and adjustment also are published. Brief notes on methodology, instrumentation, or a replication likewise will be considered for publication. Authors are encouraged to integrate the results of a series of closely related studies into one longer manuscript rather than to submit Several shorter manuscripts reporting each study separately. Research to evaluate potentially useful new instruments and procedures for measuring constructs pertaining to vocational choice and adjustment is encouraged. Also of interest are applications of these instruments and procedures in understudied populations. Major initial studies of the reliability and validity of new instruments will be published, but studies of the reliability and validity of established measures should be submitted to a measurement journal or published in the test manual. The Journal emphasizes research based on and contributing to theory development. The potential applicability of the information in interventions is not a necessary ingredient so long as the theoretical significance of the research is clear. Articles of a purely exploratory nature have a low probability of being published. Studies of organizational behavior and of variables more highly related to the welfare of organizations than to individuals ordinarily will not be published. EDITORIAL REVIEW PROCESS Most manuscripts submitted to the Journal are reviewed by two editorial consultants and the Editor. The editorial consultants review manuscripts without knowledge of the identity of the author(s) whenever possible, but the editor is aware of the identity of the author(s) when reviewing the manuscript. Usually, the editorial consultants are members of the editorial board. Members are appointed to the Editorial Board because of their research expertise and their expertise in the specific content areas in which they review. Nevertheless, an effort is made to formulate a board which reflects the diversity among scholars investigating vocational behavior. The board includes both men and women, members from a variety of racial/ethnic heritages, and scholars trained in counseling psychology,
COMMENTS
FROM THE NEW EDITOR
3
industrial/organizational psychology, and sociology. Board members are employed in university settings, in business and industry, and in consulting firms. These board members contribute many hours each year to reviewing manuscripts and advising the editor about which manuscripts should be published. I plan to use ad hoc reviewers to keep the work of board members within manageable limits and to acquaint a broader range of scholars with the editorial process and the standards used by the Journal. Individuals are appointed to the board for 2-year terms, and new editorial board members are most likely to be selected from among the ad hoc reviewers. Individuals who would like to serve as ad hoc reviewers are encouraged to send me a letter indicating their interest and enclosing a vita. INTERPRETING EDITORIAL DECISIONS The manuscripts I have reviewed during the past 11 months have been rejected, rejected with an invitation to revise, or provisionally accepted pending an acceptable revision. It is important to understand the message I am trying to communicate with these designations and the basis upon which these decisions are reached. Most manuscripts eventually are accepted unless they contain a problem which cannot be corrected without redoing the investigation. These irreparable problems are referred to as fatal flaws in the vamacular. Generally, fatal flaws occur in the initial design of the study, and often they involve the significance of the research question or the appropriateness of the research methodology. Manuscripts which are rejected without an invitation to revise are perceived to have an irreparable flaw. Rejection with a request to revise occurs more frequently than provisional acceptance. The difference between the two decisions rests primarily on my degree of confidence that the manuscript can be made publishable and my judgment about the amount of work involved. Provisional acceptance signifies that I am reasonably confident that making the changes requested by the editorial consultants and myself will result in a publishable manuscript. Rejection with an invitation to revise signifies a greater degree of uncertainty about the eventual publishability of the manuscript. In both cases my request that the author revise a manuscript indicates that I believe the research is free of fatal flaws, i.e., that the problems observed in the manuscript are correctable. TECHNICAL ADEQUACY In designing research and in interpreting editorial reactions, therefore, it is important to distinguish between irreparable and correctable flaws.
4
HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
Fortunately, immedicable flaws are avoidable, and some of the flaws researchers seem to fear the most such as those pertaining to the analysis are actually correctable flaws. Fatal Flaws Appropriateness. A statement explaining what will be published by the Journal of Vocational Behavior appears earlier in this editorial. This statement is repeated in each issue of the Journal in the “Information for Authors.” Authors are urged to review this policy statement before submitting a manuscript. Research which falls outside the scope of the Journal cannot be accepted for publication regardless of its significance or technical merit. Significance. Significant research investigates theoretically important problems and contributes information beyond existing knowledge. It is unlikely that important insights will be recognized as important unless clear implications for theory or practice are explained. Manuscripts have a greater chance of publication if they make clear in the introduction and discussion the empirical research context in which the research fits and the relevance of the research to theory or practice. Authors should avoid attempting to publish self-contained papers that bear no obvious relation to theory or practice. Most manuscripts that are deemed to have potentially significant contributions to make can be made publishable through the joint efforts of the authors, the editorial consultants, and the editor. Important contributions grow logically out of prior theory and research. Each research investigation produces information which by itself seldom has important meaning. This information must be embedded in a theoretical context in order to understand its relation to previous knowledge. When viewed in a theoretical context, these new findings often lead to the revision of existing theories, to the identification of needed areas of research, and to the development of new applications. In this sense, I expect that almost all of the research published in the Journal will be tied to theory. Significant research also builds upon previous research. Unfortunately, many contributors appear to be unaware of pertinent research bearing on the issue they are addressing. All too often the findings of an investigator are difficult to assimilate because they appear to be unrelated or only weakly related to previously established knowledge of vocational behavior. Manuscripts which give the appearance that the author has not read any of the related research are likely to be rejected. It is particularly distressing when it appears that the author is not even aware of related research in the Journal of Vocational Behavior. Subjects. When designing a study, researchers should consider carefully whether the subjects are consistent with the research problem.
COMMENTS
FROM THE NEW EDITOR
5
Failure to secure a suitable return rate and failure to use appropriate subjects are irreparable flaws. Some survey return rates are so low that they preclude generalization beyond the immediate respondents. Authors should provide a justification whenever a return rate is less than 50%. Also troublesome is the use of survey data 10 to 25 years old. Often the relations among the variables examined have changed significantly in the last 2 decades and conclusions drawn from such data are likely to be outdated. Most questions about women’s and minority group members’ career development require current data. Variables. Fatal flaws sometimes result from the selection of variables to include in the research. Some investigations include so many variables that the study is confusing and chaotic; others include too few variables to allow a meaningful examination of the alternative explanations. Familiarity with the theoretical and empirical literature is essential in avoiding this flaw. Failure to pay sufficient attention to the operational definition of the important constructs and to the psychometric qualities of the instruments used to measure these constructs is another mistake which cannot be rectified. A study in which an important construct is measured using a new or untested measure is on shaky ground. If it is necessary to develop a new measure of a central construct, the author must provide a convincing rationale for that decision. Each measure used should be described briefly in terms of its physical properties (e.g., item format, number of items, scoring procedure), its reliability (possibly based on previous research and definitely from the present data), and its validity. Correctable Flaws Generally, problems with the analysis are correctable. Three problems are apparent in how data are analyzed. One is the failure to use the correct procedure for analyzing data. Authors frequently use univariate procedures when a lesser number of multivariate procedures would have been better. Another problem is the use of maximization procedures (e.g., multiple regression, discriminant analysis) in an exploratory analysis without cross-validation or correction for shrinkage. Such procedures manipulate the weights assigned to the variables to maximize the relations between the independent and dependent variables, thereby capitalizing on chance variations. Finally, researchers fail to consider the practical importance of statistically significant results. Estimates of the effect size are important in evaluating the contribution of a particular investigation and indispensable for future meta-analyses. I know from personal experience that it can be depressing to be asked to reanalyze the data from an investigation using a different procedure. To make matters worse, this request usually is accompanied by a rejection of the manuscript with an invitation to revise because of the
6
HOWARD
E. A. TINSLEY
uncertainty about what the new analysis will yield. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that this is a potentially correctable flaw. A rejection such as this definitely holds open the possibility that the research can be published in the Journal. Choice of Methodology From time-to-time articles appear in the literature advocating the use of some design and decrying the receptivity of journals to this design. It is important to understand that the Journal has no policy regarding the exclusion of certain methodologies or research designs. Creative uses of research methodology which provide meaningful insights of a theoretical nature are desired. The editorial consultants evaluate the methodology used in a specific study in terms of its value in investigating the issues under study. Multivariate designs and multivariate methods of analysis are useful in gaining an accurate understanding of the causes and effects of vocational behavior. Case study and intensive designs have the potential to reveal important insights not forthcoming from more traditional univariate approaches. Correlational research can be invaluable in the development of hypotheses about the dynamic interactions among constructs, but only experimental designs allow a definitive test of those hypotheses. Multivariate designs, case study designs, intensive designs, and experimental designs are underrepresented in the vocational literature. Studies using these designs may be rejected, but submitters can be assured that they will not be rejected out of hand because of the design used. A CLOSING COMMENT Sometimes research which is sound is rejected because the authors failed to explain themselves clearly or the editorial consultants and I misunderstood what was written. Sometimes we identify a problem for which we see no remedy, but the authors think they see a way to rectify the problem. In these cases the authors should feel free to revise and resubmit the manuscript. Even a flat rejection does not signify an unwillingness to review a revision of the manuscript. In the end the editorial decision may be the same, but it is the author’s right to decide whether to revise and resubmit.