The collaboration debate: Finding our way through the maze: Moving forwardinto the future: A response to Erchul (1999)

Arguments that William Erchul (1999) presented in response to my comprehens ive literature review (Gutkin, 1999) of collaborative versus directive cons ultation are considered. Critical points of agreement (the distinction betw een collaborative and directive consultation is a "false dichotomy"), disag reement (suggestions to rely exclusively on "scientific" definitions while ignoring the "daily" meanings of research terminology), and partial agreeme nt (selected aspects of five "consistent findings" pertaining to consultant and consultee leadership behaviors that I delineated in my prior article) are identified and analyzed. An expanded model of "rapprochement" is presen ted in response to Erchul's recommendation to incorporate explicitly the dy adic elements of consultation interactions. Additional issues pertaining to terminology and to interpersonal influence and power, and a rationale for singling out Erchul's seminal research investigations are discussed. It is hoped that this paper, in conjunction with my original literature review an d Erchul's response, will help to advance our understanding of relational b ehaviors pertaining to school-based consultation. (C) 1999 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.