Contents of composites science and technology

Abstract

This paper responds to seven articles containing reactions to Prediger and Vansickle (1992). The paper explains why our occupational mapping procedure and Hexagon Congruence Index are not dependent on a perfect hexagon. Instead, they provide a way to test Holland's hexagonal model. Additional misconceptions offered by Holland and Gottfredson (1992) are addressed. We interpret the other reactors as generally agreeing that a fleshed-out hexagon has considerable potential for depicting similarities and differences among specific occupations—not just Holland's six RIASEC types. In response to three reactors, we describe how the mapping procedure can be used to see whether Holland's hexagon applies to traits other than vocational interests (e.g., abilities). Before diverting attention to a diffuse list of activities, as Holland and Gottfredson suggest, we recommend that the profession stalk the perfect hexagon (“The Holyhex”) and, if the data so indicate, develop a more valid and useful alternative.