Introduction to the Special Section

This study adopted a dialectical framework to provide insight into the doctoral advisement relationship early in the dissertation phase in different disciplines. Interpretive analysis of in-depth interviews with 6 advisor–student pairs revealed the variety of ways that the autonomy–guidance dialectic was conceptualized and experienced. It also illustrated moments when the advisor and student were not synchronized in their perceptions. Implications are considered.     

Special Section on LGBT Resilience Across Cultures: Introduction

This special section addresses a gap area of resilience and LGBT well‐being. Although comprehensive global diversity regarding LGBT resilience was challenging to find, the special section includes representation from outside the US (Israel and Hong Kong), ethnic/racially diverse domestic populations, immigration, and one population for which LGBT identities might be considered marginalized—Christians in the US. The full range of LGBT identities are represented in the issue along with persons identifying as queer or questioning, although transgendered people were less well represented than lesbian, gay or bisexual identities.     

Introduction to the Special Section on Cognitive Science and Psychological Assessment

This introduction to the Special Section on Cognitive Science and Psychological Assessment begins with a brief overview of cognitive science and its interface with the clinical assessment of cognitive functioning. Concepts and themes permeating the articles in this section are then taken up. Included are cognitive-model architectures and model parameters, differential emphasis on efficiency versus content of cognition, and implementation of stochastic and dynamical aspects of cognitive processes. Selected distinguishing attributes of the respective contributions are highlighted.     

Introduction to Special Section: Student Paper Competition

It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a unique set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examines 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES—and in particular, behavioral health—research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.