A Closer Look at Issues for 1990s: A Response to Rusch and Menchetti Rusch and Menchetti present theme of their reply to our article, Transition Issues for 1990s, in last two sentences of their second paragraph: Specifically, we believe that ignoring an excellent body of literature because subjects were labeled 'severely handicapped' is unwarranted. Moreover, refocusing goals of transition programs to include independent living and social outcomes clashes with what we believe are important trends in special (this issue, p. 364). We will reply to each statement as two discrete issues. Rusch and Menchetti Issue #1: We believe that ignoring an excellent body of literature because subjects were labeled is unwarranted. We reaffirm our position (Knowlton & Clark, 1987, p. 562) that if transition movement in special education is to have a positive impact on quality of adult living for all exceptional persons, then the literature needs to broaden its focus and parameters so that a wider audience may identify with its findings and benefit from its implications. We do not ignore, nor do we recommend that others ignore any body of literature, excellent or otherwise, for any reason. A case in point is definition of transition portrayed in much of special education literature. The term transition does not have only one true professionally accepted definition, nor is it limited in professional scope to any one exceptionality or specific severity level. However, if one were to ignore all but majority of special education literature addressing transition, one might not get this impression. Our intent, and actual assertion, was to point out that current transition literature was focused too narrowly to appeal to diverse audiences that have histories of categorical specialization documented by their research and literature. Our statement was not an indictment of any of contributors to existing literature. Nor was it stated in a way that was intended to imply overrepresentation of any contributing group, since that would suggest a criticism of current literature on basis of its intended audience. Our statement was an observation about nature of transition literature and a recommendation for how literature could be more applicable. If any indictments are due, they more appropriately should be directed at audiences that have failed to stake their claims in transition movement by contributing actively and aggressively in theoretical and research literature of general special education and in literature of their respective disciplines. We view with respect contributions of those specializing in advocacy and programming for persons with severe handicapping conditions. The conceptual and technological break-throughs in this area are historic. Those of us, however, who do not specialize in services for individuals with severe handicapping conditions must adopt or adapt these concepts and technologies on basis of their relevance and usefulness for other populations with our own validation research. For example, Wehman, Hill, Wood, and Parent (1987) saw need to conduct an even more specific subgroup analysis of persons labeled mentally retarded, within broader population label of severely handicapped in order to see how these results might have implications for similar vocational interventions with other populations such as those labeled deaf-blind, autistic, and multiply (p.12). Would Rusch and Menchetti deem this procedure as merely changing subject descriptors . . . (to) make transitional literature more palatable? (p. 364) In short, we do not understand how a call for a broader focus in research and literature on transition is out of place. It is a logical consequence of need for ownership and participation by those who advocate for persons of varying exceptionalities and severity levels. …