It is worth noting that the majority of papers were theoretical discussion papers. There were only two quantitative research articles relating to this paradigm, both of which were surveys about the counseling psychology profession, as opposed to a quantitative testing of a hypothesis based on neuroscientific information. This is perhaps further evidence of the infancy of the paradigm. It is also possible that counseling psychologists may have carried out experimental work which utilizes the integration of neuroscientific information, but have not published it specifically under the title or domain of counseling psychology. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one reason for this may be that there is a lack of counseling psychology journal reviewers available who have the expertise to review detailed neuroscientific studies. If this is this the case, perhaps this is a consideration for editorial teams when selecting peer reviewers, or perhaps it is merely a case of being patient whilst more of our colleagues become further familiarized with neuroscience research. However, this is something which would perhaps benefit from further research inquiry in order to determine whether it is widely evidenced. Finally, it could be advantageous for future research to seek a collective set of views from a number of counseling psychologists on the topic of integrating neuroscience into their work, exploring contemporary experiences of the subject. This may help shed practitioners’ further light on what the current training and occupational landscape is in regard to neuroscience, potentially indicating whether any further actions for integration between the disciplines of counseling psychology and neuroscience would be useful for practice, research and clients.
It is worth noting that the majority of papers were theoretical discussion papers. There were only two quantitative research articles relating to this paradigm, both of which were surveys about the counseling psychology profession, as opposed to a quantitative testing of a hypothesis based on neuroscientific information. This is perhaps further evidence of the infancy of the paradigm. It is also possible that counseling psychologists may have carried out experimental work which utilizes the integration of neuroscientific information, but have not published it specifically under the title or domain of counseling psychology. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one reason for this may be that there is a lack of counseling psychology journal reviewers available who have the expertise to review detailed neuroscientific studies. If this is this the case, perhaps this is a consideration for editorial teams when selecting peer reviewers, or perhaps it is merely a case of being patient whilst more of our colleagues become further familiarized with neuroscience research. However, this is something which would perhaps benefit from further research inquiry in order to determine whether it is widely evidenced. Finally, it could be advantageous for future research to seek a collective set of views from a number of counseling psychologists on the topic of integrating neuroscience into their work, exploring practitioners’ contemporary experiences of the subject. This may help shed further light on what the current training and occupational landscape is in regard to neuroscience, potentially indicating whether any further actions for integration between the disciplines of counseling psychology and neuroscience would be useful for practice, research and clients.
Goss%20(2016)%20STORE.docx