A rejoinder to Bimrose & Bayne

To understand the role of theory in guidance, it is reasonable to ask if the theories taught to guidance practitioners are applied in the manner of applied science and, if this is not so, to enquire further into their connection to practice. This is, it is contended, what the earlier article by Kidd et al. does. The status of guidance as a profession is immaterial in this regard, and was not, therefore, considered in the article. Bimrose & Bayne accuse the article of ignoring parts of the literature which were either not relevant, or were actually considered in the conduct of the study on which the article was based. Their methodological criticisms, which are considered particularly gratuitous, fall into two categories: those based upon misreading, and those which are so seriously undeveloped as to verge on the incomprehensible. The need for a clear rationale for theory in guidance is asserted, and it is not pretended that the article has achieved such a rationale. Bimrose & Bayne's views about what guidance is or might be are all very well, but do not yet amount to a convincing rationale either. It is suggested that there are closer parallels between the article and the views of its critics than they acknowledge.