Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Integration of science and practice: A collective case study of scientist -practitioner programs in counseling psychology
(USC Thesis Other)
Integration of science and practice: A collective case study of scientist -practitioner programs in counseling psychology
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: A COLLECTIVE CASE
STUDY OF SCIENTIST-PRACTITIONER PROGRAMS IN COUNSELING
PSYCHOLOGY
Copyright 2004
by
Sujatha Ramesh
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
EDUCATION (COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY)
May 2005
Sujatha Ramesh
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3180311
Copyright 2004 by
Ramesh, Sujatha
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180311
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
TO MY FATHER AND LATE MOTHER
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr.Polkinghome, who has been
my mentor and has been supportive throughout my doctoral training. He has been
of immense help as I progressed through the different phases of the dissertation. I
would also like to thank other members of my dissertation committee, Dr.Gerald
Stone, Dr.Rodney Goodyear, and Dr.Dallas Willard, for facilitating the dissertation.
Dr.Stone and Dr.Goodyear were particularly helpful when I found it difficult to
gain access to necessary data for the dissertation. They were gracious and prompt in
contacting various training directors seeking their assistance on my behalf. But for
their assistance, I would not have succeeded in completing the dissertation. I am
also deeply appreciative of Dr.Nelly Stromquist’s assistance during the early stages
of my dissertation. She provided valuable feedback regarding the methodological
aspects of this study.
Friends, family members, and colleagues have been supportive and patient
as I progressed through the dissertation process. I would especially like to thank
Connie Rogers, Mary Read, Jenny Pak, Hsing-Fang Chang, Byron Breland, Harry
Thompson, Gitika Commuri, Leah Altschuler, and Jennifer Johnston-Jones. They
are cherished friends who helped me in every way they could. My father, brother,
and sister-in-law sent me encouraging emails from United Kingdom cheering me
on. My husband, Ramesh, has been a great support through this endeavor. I thank
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
him for being my sounding board and for being a source of inspiration. Most of all,
he has been patient through the whole process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
CHAPTERS
1. Introduction 1
2. Review of the Literature 12
Historical Context of Counseling Psychology 13
The Guidance Movement 14
The Mental Hygiene Movement 15
The Rise of Applied Psychology 17
The Role of Veterans Administration (VA) 19
Reorganization of APA 21
Emergence of the Scientist-Practitioner Model of Training 23
Boulder Conference 23
Northwestern Conference 26
Committee on Counselor Training 27
Committee on Practicum Training 29
Problems in Integrating Science and Practice 31
Conceptualizing Science and Practice 31
Lack of Clinically Relevant Research 41
Methodology and Clinical Relevance of Research 42
Practitioners’ Knowledge Base 47
Conference Proceedings 49
Problems in Implementation 52
R ecommendations 61
Re-conceptualizing Science and Understanding 62
Psychotherapy Practice
Changes in Strategies of Integration 65
Rationale of Dissertation Study 67
Conclusion 69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Method 71
Research Questions 72
Contextual Background 73
Statement of Research Questions 7 8
Method 79
Data Gathering 87
Selection of Cases 88
Gathering Data from Selected Cases 92
Description of Cases (Training Programs) 95
University of Aristotle (Science-Oriented Program) 95
University of Plato (Balanced Program) 97
University of Socrates (Balanced Program) 98
University of Heidegger (Balanced Program) 98
University of Hegel (Balanced Program) 99
University of Husserl (Balanced Program) 100
University of Descartes (Balanced Program) 101
University of Hume (Practice-Oriented Program) 101
Sources of Data 102
Program Website 103
Self-Study 104
Dissertation Abstracts 105
Interviews 105
Summary of Data Collected 114
Data Analysis 115
4. Findings 125
Individual Case Descriptions 126
University of Aristotle 127
Concept of Science and Practice 127
Concept of Scientist-Practitioner 138
Strategies of Integration 139
Internal and External Factors 145
Summary 147
University of Plato 150
Concept of Science and Practice 150
Concept of Scientist-Practitioner 156
Strategies of Integration 159
Problems in Integration 164
Internal and External Factors 168
Summary 171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
University of Hegel 174
Concept of Science and Practice 174
Concept of Scientist-Practitioner 182
Strategies of Integration 185
Internal and External Factors 189
Summary 200
University of Heidegger 204
Concept of Science and Practice 204
Concept of Scientist-Practitioner 208
Strategies of Integration 210
Problems in Integration 213
Internal and External Factors 217
Summary 221
University of Socrates 224
Concept of Science and Practice 224
Concept of Scientist-Practitioner 229
Strategies of Integration 231
Problems in Integration 237
Internal and External Factors 241
Summary 242
University of Hume 245
Concept of Science and Practice 245
Concept of Scientist-Professional Model 252
Strategies of Integration 256
Problems in Integration 260
Internal and External Factors 262
Summary 270
5. Discussion 274
Comparative Case Analysis 275
Espoused Theories of Psychological Science 278
Theories-in-use of Psychological Science 286
Espoused Theories of Psychological Practice 299
Theories-in-use of Psychological Practice 312
Espoused Theories of the Scientist-Practitioner Model 318
Theories-in-use of the Scientist-Practitioner Model 331
Conceptual Definitions of Integration 332
Manifestation of Separation of Science and 336
Practice
Factors influencing Doctoral Training 349
Summary of Comparative Case Analysis 352
Alternative Training Approaches to Facilitate Integration 361
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
Maintaining Status Quo with some Modifications 364
Separation of Research and Psychotherapy Training 367
Adopting the Occupational Therapy Training Model 370
Conclusion 372
References 374
Appendices 390
A. Letter Requesting Nomination of Counseling Psychology 390
Programs
B. Letter Requesting Case Data and Consent to Interview 397
C. Interview Question Guide 402
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
LIST OF TABLES
Differences between the Ideal Experimental- 44
Laboratory-Research Design Model and the
Realities of Psychotherapy Research
List of Nominated Programs for the 91
Collective Case Study
Final Selection of Training Programs for 94
the Collective Case Study
Quantitative Summary of Gathered Data 115
from Different Data Sources
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Working Flowchart of Themes and Categories 123
Visual Representation of Case Description of University 149
of Aristotle
Visual Representation of Case Description of University 173
of Plato
Visual Representation of Case Description of University 203
of Hegel
Visual Representation of Case Description of University 223
of Heidegger
Visual Representation of Case Description of University 244
of Socrates
Visual Representation of Case Description of University 272
of Hume
Visual Representation of Espoused Theories of Scientist- 359
Practitioner Model
Visual Representation of Theories-in-use of Scientist- 360
Practitioner Model
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xi
ABSTRACT
One of the avowed goals of the scientist-practitioner model is implementing the
goal of integrating science and practice during doctoral training. However, this goal
has proven to be problematic and debates in the academic literature have focused on
conceptual and functional issues related to the training model. This dissertation is a
study of how exemplar accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology
approach the task of implementing the scientist-practitioner model. A collective
case study of eight selected counseling psychology programs was conducted in
order to examine the conceptual and functional differences in the implementation of
the scientist-practitioner model. Data was gathered from program self-studies, web
site descriptions, dissertation abstracts, and interviews with program directors. A
comparison was made between the programs’ espoused theories and their theories-
in-use. The data showed that these programs espouse methodological diversity for
research training and a scientific approach in psychotherapy for practice training.
However, examination of the programs’ theories-in-use showed that the selected
programs emphasize a singular natural science approach rather than a
methodologically diverse approach in research training. They approach
psychotherapy training through the use of a plurality of models rather than a unified
scientific approach. Although the programs in the collective case study espoused
the interdependent relationship between science and practice, they define
integration of science and practice in various ways. The conclusion of the study is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xii
that the programs’ goal of integration of science and practice is incomplete and,
instead, their training tends to provide parallel and somewhat independent training
in research and practice. Interviews with training directors showed that they were
aware of this problem of integrating science and practice in programs located in
research universities. Additional findings were that the programs did not adequately
address concerns voiced in the academic literature about the lack of clinical
relevance of positivistic research and the importance of understanding the nature of
psychotherapy practice. The study concludes by identifying the challenges
programs face while attempting to integrate science and practice within a university
context that values and emphasizes a single research approach to knowledge
generation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Counseling psychology has grown in the last seven decades and is emerging
as one of the burgeoning specialties among the three established applied specialties
in psychology - clinical, counseling, and school. One indicator of the speciality’s
growth is that the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Council of
Representatives approved counseling psychology’s petition for continuing
recognition as a specialty in 1998 (Goodyear, et al. 2000). Another indicator is the
number of accredited counseling psychology training programs that are currently in
operation. Until about 1978, there were 102 clinical psychology programs, 21
counseling psychology programs, and seven school psychology programs
throughout the country (APA, 1978). In contrast, there are 214 clinical psychology
programs, 73 counseling psychology programs, and 56 school psychology programs
in the country as of 2002 (APA, 2002). Next to school psychology, counseling
psychology programs have increased the most in number in the last 25 years. Thus,
the applied specialty of counseling psychology has grown as a discipline, both in
terms of gaining recognition and in becoming more visible in the past 25 years.
A majority of programs in counseling psychology adopted the scientist-
practitioner or the Boulder Model of training, a model adopted from clinical
psychology (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001). One of the avowed goals of this model
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
is implementing the goal of integration of science and practice, as part of doctoral
level training. However, this goal of implementation continues to be challenging,
and alternate models of training (e.g. practitioner model, clinical scientist model,
and practitioner-scholar model) have emerged.
Most of these changes began in the 1960s, in the specialty of clinical
psychology, and the different kinds of training models that emerged assumed
different stances about the need and approach to integrating science and practice
(Albee & Loeffler, 1971; Beutler & Fisher, 1994; Peterson, 1985; Strieker, 1975,
1997; Strieker & Trierweiler, 1995).
Counseling psychology has undergone similar changes as well and these
changes are evident by the increase in combined professional-scientific programs
and in the recent emergence of practitioner training programs (APA, 2002).
Combined professional-scientific programs provide combined training in the three
applied specialties - clinical, counseling, and school psychology. Combined
professional-scientific programs differ in the content of training because they
combine the three applied specialties in psychology but these programs espouse the
scientist-practitioner training model (Counseling/Clinical/School Psychology
Program, CCSP Program Philosophy and Goals, 7). Nine counseling psychology
programs have merged with clinical and/or school psychology to form combined
professional-scientific psychology programs as of 2002 (APA, 2002). Although a
majority of counseling psychology training programs espouse the Scientist-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
practitioner model, a few practitioner models have emerged at the University of
Northern Colorado, Our Lady of the Lake University, and the University of San
Francisco (Stoltenberg, et al. 2000). Thus, it appears as though, in relation to
training, the specialty is in a state of flux even as it expands and grows (Neimeyer
& Diamond, 2001).
This flux in training, as seen in the development of alternate training
models, is a result of disagreements among researchers and practitioners about the
conceptual rationales and the training outcome goals of the scientist-practitioner
model. In terms of conceptual rationales, one enduring and fundamental problem of
the scientist-practitioner model has been the difficulty in arriving at an acceptable
definition of psychological science and its relation to psychotherapy practice
(Davis, Alcorn, Brooks, & Meara, 1992; O’Donohue & Halsey, 1997; Page, 1996).
Two consequences of the difficulty in defining the relationship between science and
practice have been problems in conceptualizing integration and difficulties in
generating clinically relevant research. Difficulties in conceptualizing and
implementing the task of integration led to particularly scathing criticisms of the
model. For example, John (1998) stated that “the term scientist-practitioner model
does not refer to a clearly articulated and coherent description, or representation, of
the way in which psychology is practiced, should be practiced, or even could be
practiced” [italics in original] (p.24).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
The criticism about training outcome goals related to the practicality of
training a single individual in both research and practice within the finite span of a
doctoral degree program. According to Yalof (1997),
The training of psychologists at the doctoral level has evolved to a
point where there is growing consensus within the profession that the
comprehensive nature of training in research and practice can not be
accomplished equally within one degree program and that programs
can best serve students when defined by one or two different training
emphases (p.6).
In addition to the above criticisms, the training model was also criticized for not
adequately preparing students to meet the demands created by recent changes in the
job market.
In the past two decades, discussions in the academic literature have centered
around making the scientist-practitioner model more relevant to current job market
changes such as the demands made by managed care and changes in the private
practice of psychotherapy (Fouad, et al. 2004; Hayes, Barlow, & Nelson-Gray,
1999, p.27; Heppner, Casas, Carter, & Stone, 2000, p.41). With the advent of
managed care, the demand for establishing an empirical base for psychotherapy
services has increased and it has also led to a decline in the private practice of
psychotherapy. Criticisms of the model related to the lack of adequate training in
empirically supported treatments (ESTs) and brief therapy. In response to the
criticisms, the Model Training Program, formulated in the late 1990s, recommended
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
training in ESTs and brief therapy as part of the program objectives (Murdock,
Alcorn, Heesacker, & Stoltenberg, 1998).
In spite of concerns about changing job market needs, surveys have
repeatedly found support for this model over the past three decades (Gallessich &
Olmstead, 1987; O’Sullivan & Quivillon, 1992; Thelen & Ewing, 1970). One
possible reason for this model’s consistent popularity is its inherent flexibility
(Belar, 2000). For instance, Zachar & Leong (2000) concluded that the “Boulder
model does a good-enough job of helping the average clinical or counseling student
be the kind of psychologist he or she wants to be” (p.579). However, the inherent
flexibility of the Boulder model appears to be a mixed blessing. On one hand, it
contributes to an inconclusive and ongoing debate about the viability of the model.
On the other hand, the model became popular as it produced psychologists who
adopted idiosyncratic interpretations of what a scientist-practitioner meant.
This flexibility appears operational in training programs in counseling
psychology as they appear to fall along a continuum regarding how much science
and/or practice is emphasized. In counseling psychology, doctoral programs appear
to occupy the middle ground with a narrow range starting from “scientist-
practitioner, practitioner-scientist, and practitioner-scholar models” (Stoltenberg, et
al. 2000). The authors of this article also cite Hill who stated that all programs
“seemed to integrate science and practice to at least some degree” (p.624).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Thus, in spite of advocating this model, there appears to have been quite a
variation in the academic literature and in doctoral programs regarding how much
science or practice is emphasized. According to Neimeyer and Diamond (2001),
following the Vail Conference in 1973, “most writings have again advocated on
behalf of the scientist-practitioner model, [but] they have varied widely in their
advocacy of which term should receive the greater inflection” (p.52). Donald
Peterson, a proponent of the practitioner model, made a befitting comment in this
context that “the concept of the scientist-practitioner promulgated by the Boulder
conference was subject to varying interpretations” (Peterson, 2000). A recent
Delphi poll of Counseling Psychology Training Directors revealed ‘commitment to
the scientist-practitioner model’ occupied a middle position in the specialty’s future
with a slightly greater focus on ‘exploration of alternative models of training’
(Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001). This middle position is indicative of the attention
that continues to be focused on various aspects of this training model and it is also
symptomatic of the specialty’s state of flux in relation to doctoral training.
In an attempt to provide greater clarity and structure about what the
scientist-practitioner model entailed, the Council of Counseling Psychology
Training Programs (CCPTP) and Division 17 created a Model Training Program.
The Model Training Program espoused the scientist-professional model of training
and emphasized integration of science and practice in a multifaceted manner
(Murdock, et al.1998). This Model Training Program was a response to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
“checklist” approach of accreditation and a response to the Commission for the
Recognition of Specialties in Psychology’s (CRSPP) that sought “further
clarification of a shared definition of counseling psychology” (Murdock, et al.
1998). However, the Model Training Program did not specify the strategies needed
to integrate science and practice although it explicitly espoused integration as a
primary goal. Instead, it espoused the notion that “the scientific process is equally
applicable to the activities of the practitioner, consultant, academician, and
researcher in counseling psychology” (p.663). This approach to integration
implicitly defines integration in a unilateral manner wherein science informs
practice. The recommendation by the model training program that training in ESTs
should be part of doctoral training is an example of the unilateral approach to
integration. A bilateral approach would define integration as a process where
science informs practice and practice informs science. The latter aspect of
integration was not addressed in the Model Training Program.
At the APA level, the accreditation guidelines espoused the inclusion of
science and practice in training but stated, “there is no one ‘correct’ philosophy,
model, or method for professional psychology practice; rather there are multiple
valid ones” (Committee on Accreditation, 1996, p.4). Going back to the time when
the model originated, the Boulder conference did not provide specific
recommendations on how integration of science and practice was to be achieved
either (Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Hayes, et al. 1999, p.9). Instead this task of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
integration was left at the hands of individual instructors in the training program
(Frank, 1986). Thus, it is possible that various counseling psychology programs that
adopt the scientist-practitioner training model differ in how they approach the task
of integration and how they implement their strategies of integration.
As mentioned above, debates about the scientist-practitioner model have
generated extensive literature on why the task of integration has been problematic
and there is also much written about the possible solutions that would facilitate
integration. Problems have been identified in different areas - problematic
conceptualizations of science and practice (Page, 1996); challenges in generating
clinically relevant research (Hayes, et al. 1999, p. 13); and difficulties in
implementation of strategies of integration (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Drabick &
Goldfried, 2000; Frank, 1984; Goldfried, 1984; Halgin & Murphy, 1995, p.441;
Hayes, et al. 1999, pp. 11-12; Hoshmand, 1991; Sprinthall, 1990). These problems
typically resulted in a science-practice split that was evident in multiple areas -
debates about appropriate research methodologies (Hoshmand & Polkinghome,
1992; Howard, 1985, 1993; Kanfer, 1990; Klien, 1995; Linden & Wen, 1990; Page,
1996; Polkinghome, 1984; Rychlak, 1998; Ussher, 1991), differing student and
faculty interests (Frank, 1984), and vagaries of the job market that reinforce the
separation of science and practice (Elliott & Klapow, 1997; Hayes, et al. p.l;
Snyder & Ingram, 2000, p.723). The recommended solutions for facilitating
integration primarily fall into two categories. First, a call for a more inclusive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
definition of science and a better understanding of the epistemology of practice was
made. Second, various suggestions to facilitate the science-practice link during
doctoral training were also made.
However, only a few studies relating to outcomes of doctoral training have
been conducted (Cherry, Messenger, & Jacoby, 2000; Gaddy, Charlot-Swilley,
Nelson, & Reich, 1995; Norcoss, Gallagher, & Prochaska, 1989; Ross, Holzman,
Handal, & Gilner, 1991). Norcoss, et al. (1989) conducted a survey of Division 12
members and concluded that “training preferences are based on one’s own doctoral
training experiences and current occupational demands”. Cherry, et al. (2000)
similarly found that training models distinctly influenced students’ training
experiences as evidenced by professional group affiliation, employment, and
professional activities of clinical psychologists and graduates in clinical psychology
programs. Both these studies examined differences in training outcomes by
comparing different kinds of training models such as the scientist-practitioner
model, practitioner-scholar model, and the clinical scientist model.
Ross, et al. (1991) found significant differences in training outcomes based
on specialty, type of degree, administrative housing, and accreditation status in spite
of various interactive influences among these variables. In a similar study, Gaddy,
et al. (1995) found significant differences in time-to-degree between students in
PhD versus PsyD programs although these differences did not hold up significantly
between specialties. These two studies examined differences in training outcomes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
by comparing programs across different applied specialties such as clinical,
counseling, and school psychology. However, none of these studies examined the
conceptual rationales of integration and the kind of strategies of integration
scientist-practitioner training programs in counseling psychology currently use in
doctoral training. Instead, they examined differences in training outcomes by
comparing different kinds of training models and different applied specialties in
psychology.
One impetus for this investigation is the finding that scientist-practitioner
training programs might not be explicit about a science-practice split due to
constraints of accreditation (Zachar & Leong, 2000). In fact, there seems to have
been a “deliberate blending of Boulder and Vail model characteristics in all
programs” (Dana, 1987). Given that the integration of science and practice is an
explicit aim of the guiding principles of accreditation of doctoral programs in
counseling psychology, the conceptual rationales and the specific strategies training
programs use to facilitate integration have not been examined.
The goal of this dissertation was to determine how exemplar accredited
doctoral programs in counseling psychology integrate science and practice. I
examined how selected programs conceptualize science, practice, and the scientist-
practitioner model. In addition, I examined what their strategies of integration are
and how the selected programs implement their strategies of integration. Finally, I
also examined different factors, internal and external to the selected programs, that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
influence the doctoral training endeavor. Such an investigation will provide
preliminary insight on how selected programs vary in their interpretation and
implementation of the scientist-practitioner training model.
The next chapter reviews the academic literature related to the history and
development of the model, including academic literature related to the interpretation
and implementation of the scientist-practitioner model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The goal of the review of the literature is to trace the development of the
academic literature on doctoral training in counseling psychology with specific
focus on the scientist-practitioner model. Examining the literature on training
revealed the continuing problems faced by doctoral programs in successfully
integrating science and practice during doctoral training. Although various socio
political, financial, and market variables influenced the development of the training
model, the main focus in the review is on how these variables influenced the goal of
integrating science and practice in training per se. Counseling psychology, as a
specialty, has been intimately connected with other applied specialties such as
clinical and school psychology, as it evolved and matured. Hence, I utilize
academic literature from other established applied specialties as well. The academic
literature in clinical psychology features saliently in this context because this
particular specialty focused on various aspects of the model to a considerable
extent.
Psychology, as a field, became organized in the United States in the 20th
century following the end of the second World War and the reorganization of the
American Psychological Association (APA) in 1945 (Fowler, 1996, p.xv). This was
a period of ferment and growth for all applied specialties as they attempted to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
conceive doctoral training goals and programs in order to meet increasing societal
demands for mental health services. The review begins with a brief look at the early
period in order to lay the historical context that led to the development of the
scientist-practitioner model of training. An in depth examination of the scientist-
practitioner model of training follows after an examination of the historical context.
Historical Context o f Training in Counseling Psychology
The formation of Division 17 in 1946 can be taken as the official beginning
of organized counseling psychology. Prior to 1946, counseling psychology was
relatively amorphous in its organization and goals and the specialty was mainly
operational through the Guidance Movement and the Mental Hygiene Movement
that took shape in the first decade of the 20th century. The socioeconomic changes
as a result of the rapid industrialization, the economic Depression, and the Second
World War led to a more systematic organization of counseling psychology in the
1940s. In addition, the rise of applied psychology, the critical role played by the
Veterans’ Administration (VA), and the reorganization of APA played important
roles in the development of counseling psychology. I discuss these contextual
factors in detail now.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
The Guidance Movement
The Guidance Movement, a product of the sweeping demands for social
reform, focused on the evolving nature of work in the new industrialized society
(Blocher, 2000, p. 8). An offshoot of the Guidance Movement was the Vocational
Education Movement that advocated radical changes in curriculum in order to
prepare young people to enter the industrial world and the rapidly changing job
market. Unlike the Guidance Movement, the Vocational Education Movement
focused less on social reform and more on educational reform.
The launch of National Vocational Guidance Association (NVGA) in 1913
could be considered a hallmark event when vocation, education and guidance came
together under one aegis. NVGA was made up of an eclectic group of professionals
ranging from civil servants, lawyers, educators, philanthropists, and counselors
whose goals were to meet a variety of societal needs (Whiteley, 1984a, pp. 1-2).
With the formation and growth of NVGA, there was a gradual shift toward
professionalization of guidance and counseling (Blocher, 2000, p.22). NVGA
evolved over the decades as a result of multiple professional mergers. Since 1992,
NVGA is known as the American Counseling Association (ACA) (p.24).
Although there is considerable overlap between APA’s Division 17 and
ACA, the former has greater affinity to psychology while the latter has a counselor
educational orientation (Heppner, et al. 2000, p.23). With recent changes in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
credentialing professionals, APA focuses on credentialing counseling psychologists
while ACA focuses on credentialing counselors (p.23). The gap between APA and
AC A widened as a result of the decision to credential different professionals and the
membership base of the two organizations became increasingly divided since the
1980s (p.23). I now discuss the historical relevance of the mental hygiene
movement.
The Mental Hygiene Movement
Clifford Beers’ book, A Mind That Found Itself, published in 1909 described
his struggle with mental illness and his experiences in a mental hospital (Whiteley,
1984a, p.2). Beers’ book helped launch the mental hygiene movement with the
establishment of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene (NCMH) in 1909
(p.2). The publication of Beers’ book and the activities of NCMH led to a gradual
attitudinal shift in society toward the mentally ill. The idea that the mentally ill need
to be helped and treated with compassion gradually took hold. The shift also gave
impetus to applied psychology, which was aiming to alleviate psychological
illnesses by applying principles of psychology. In the 1940s, gradual
demedicalization and decentralization of psychotherapy from the hold of medicine
and psychoanalysis began to take place and expanded the scope of the mental
hygiene movement. Earlier, only psychiatrists who were trained in psychoanalysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
could conduct therapy (Whiteley, 1984b, p.5). With the advent of Roger’s
humanistic theory and client-centered therapy, especially after the publication of
Rogers’ Counseling and Psychotherapy in 1942, the power equation changed. The
advent of client-centered psychotherapy opened up the possibility for
psychotherapy to be included in counseling, as a professional activity (p.5). This
expansion was not without its share of problems though.
The demedicalization of the psychotherapy profession was successful
because the practice of psychotherapy was no longer the sole domain of the
psychiatrist. But the demedicalization of professional thinking was not as successful
as evidenced in how science and practice have been conceptualized in psychology,
using the medical model (Albee, 2000; Dana, 1987; Perry, 1987; Ramirez, 1994;
Wampold, Ahn, & Coleman, 2001). One of the earliest instances of the medical
model of professional thinking being adopted in psychology was in 1899 when
William Rainey Harper, the first president of the University of Chicago, called for
the scientific study of the college student akin to the physician’s study of the patient
(Blocher, 2000, p.28). The recent emergence of empirically supported treatments
(ESTs) provides a similar contemporary example of the continued incorporation of
the medical model in professional thinking (Wampold, Ahn, & Coleman, 2001). An
outcome of adopting the medical model of thinking was the adoption of the natural
science approach of science. Later in the review of the literature, I discuss the
assumptions and implications of adopting the natural science approach in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
psychological science in relation to the scientist-practitioner model. During the
period when the mental hygiene movement gained momentum, applied psychology
grew as a result of an increasing need for assessment services following World War
II. I discuss the rise of applied psychology in the following subsection.
The Rise o f Applied Psychology
Following World War II, there was a mushrooming of various psychological
tests and batteries that were used with war veterans. Most guidance counselors
operated in schools. However, it was in colleges and universities where the tests
were used as part of vocational guidance that led to the creation of the professional
title of “vocational counselor” (Blocher, 2000, p.27). The advent of the vocational
counselor can be seen as the marriage between vocational guidance and applied
psychology (p.27). The advent of the vocational counselor also provided an impetus
to the growth of “personnel bureaus” and university career centers in colleges and
universities. Personnel bureaus were forerunners to current day university
counseling centers. However, during this period, the predominant focus of
personnel bureaus was on vocational counseling through the use of psychological
tests (p.28).
Thus, programs of research, test development, and counseling grew in
colleges and universities, especially in the Universities of Iowa, Ohio State,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Minnesota, Stanford, and Chicago; and, the linear Newtonian model of
psychological science was adopted as the model of professional activity (Blocher,
2000, pp.28-29). The Newtonian model continues to operate in today’s linear
notions of psychological science as embodied in the natural science approach
(Rychlak, 1998). Although the rise of applied psychology had facilitated the
professionalization of counseling psychology, it was also true that by the end of
World War II, the Vocational Guidance Movement had died down. Consequently,
the guidance worker typically functioned as the gatekeeper of the test data with the
goal of appraising, grouping individuals, and assigning vocations (Blocher, 2000,
p.69). The profession was in crossroads in terms of its viability and a need for a
distinct professional identity was felt. In response to the need for a distinct
professional identity for counseling psychology, Williamson developed “the clinical
method of guidance” (Blocher, 2000, pp.70-71). His six-step model consisted of,
“ 1. Analysis or data collection; 2. Synthesis or collating of data; 3. Diagnosis or
description of client characteristics and problems; 4. Prognosis or prediction of
probably outcome; 5. Counseling treatment; and 6. Follow-up” (Blocher, 2000,
pp.70-71). Williamson’s clinical counseling approach, later known as the
“Minnesota Point of View”, closely mirrored the medical model, especially in its
language. It soon became established as one of the defining ideas of counseling
psychology. Williamson’s model also closely mirrored the medical approach to
science because he embraced the natural science approach to psychological science.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
Thus, while counseling psychology was taking steps to establish the
specialty’s professional identity, the Veterans Administration (VA) played a critical
role in shaping doctoral training of psychologists.
The Role o f Veterans Administration (VA)
While clinical and counseling psychology were in the process of
establishing themselves as distinct applied specialties in psychology, the World War
II had come to an end. During the war, psychologists were involved in selecting
soldiers from the civilian pool. Following the war, psychologists were in demand
helping thousands of returning war veterans readjust to civilian life, both
emotionally and occupationally (Whiteley, 1984a, p.5). Initially, the VA created the
job title of the Clinical Psychologist whose job was to help veterans with their
emotional problems. Soon, they created another job title of Counseling Psychologist
whose job was to assist veterans with vocational adjustment and rehabilitation.
Whiteley cites Pepinsky who described the VA’s role as follows (1984a):
Toward the end of the War, the USA’s Veterans Administration was
assigned the mission of assisting millions of veterans to return to
civilian life. Lack of sufficient adequately trained personnel for this
work within the VA forced it to seek outside help. The VA’s
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Education thus
supplemented its internal counseling services by contracting with
colleges and universities to provide for the vocational-educational
“advisement” of ex-service men and women, so as to guide them
into appropriate programs of education or training. As Mitchell
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Dreese pointed out in 1949, numerous community and college
counseling centers, recently established, owed their existence to
initial subsidy by the VA (p.6).
Psychologists who had already been playing an active role, especially in job
placement of soldiers using various assessment tools, took on these new emerging
job demands.
Soon thereafter, the VA requested APA to clearly articulate training
programs in clinical psychology so that it could evaluate the competencies of
clinical psychologists (Raimy, 1950, p.8). By creating the link with hospitals and
academic institutions, the VA reinforced the implicit notion that “clinical endeavors
within a psychiatric institution should be associated with scientific inquiry taking
place on the university campus” (Halgin & Murphy, 1995). In response to the VA’s
request for clear statement on doctoral training, the Boulder conference held in
1949 delineated an innovative training program for clinical psychologists, which is
now known as the Boulder model or the scientist-practitioner model. A similar
scenario was true for counseling psychologists as well. In 1951, counseling
psychology also adopted the scientist-practitioner model as its primary model
during the Northwestern Conference (APA, 1952a. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.70;
Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001; Stoltenberg, et al. 2000).
During this period, APA was also instituting major internal organizational
changes in response to professional and political concerns voiced by researchers
and practitioners.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Reorganization o f APA
The long-standing conflict between research-oriented and applied
psychologists is well documented (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Gelso, 1979; Goldfried,
1984; Hayes, Barlow, & Nelson-Gray, 1999, p.10; Heppner, et al. 1992; Howard,
1986; Mittelstaedt & Tasca, 1988; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986; Petersen, 1985;
Strieker, 1975; Strieker & Trierweiler, 1993; Thome, 1945). This long-standing
conflict has been a recurrent theme of most major conferences in applied
psychology, including counseling psychology. The academic departments of
psychology were typically dominated by academic psychologists who were not
particularly concerned with applied aspects of the field (Mitchell, 1977). In
contrast, the market demand created by VA and other forces reinforced the
application of psychology to solve societal problems. The market demand, in turn,
created a cadre of applied psychologists who were distinctly service-oriented. These
two brands of psychologists constantly clashed in their professional ideologies,
values, and priorities.
Prior to the restructuring of APA in 1945, APA was partial to the academic
psychologist and the American Association of Applied Psychology (AAAP) catered
to the needs of the applied psychologist (Fowler, 1996, p.xvi). It is clear that even
prior to the development of the scientist-practitioner model in 1949 there were
underlying tensions between scientists and practitioners. However, the imminent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
need to meet the market demand created by the VA necessitated a rapprochement
between the two associations. The rapprochement led to the reorganization of APA,
including the creation of a divisional structure within the organization, in order to
meet the diverse and disparate needs of its members. Klein (1995) describes the
rapprochement as “marriages of convenience” where each party hoped to achieve
greater political clout through the merger.
However, the merger was fraught with conflict and internal tension. It now
appears that the tension has been a recurring feature as it surfaces in different forms
when training programs attempt to integrate science and practice (Strieker &
Trierweiler, 1995). In the 1980s, the tension became acutely evident when many
members of APA felt disenfranchised by the perceived professionalization of APA,
at the cost of psychological science. The disenfranchised members proceeded to
form the American Psychological Society (APS) that primarily supports
psychological science (Heppner, et al. 2000, p. 15). To extend Klien’s metaphor, the
marriage was always and continues to be strained.
Having provided a review of the historical context, I examine the emergence
of the scientist-practitioner model of training.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Emergence o f the Scientist-Practitioner Model o f Training
The scientist-practitioner model of training psychologists was initially
conceptualized in clinical psychology during the Boulder Conference in 1949
(Hayes, et al. 1999, p.4). Various elements of the Boulder model were already
operational prior to 1949 in terms of quantitative research-driven dissertation
requirements and part-time field training, but the Boulder model made similar
training requirements an official training policy (Routh, 2000). It should be noted
that similar discussions were held during the Michigan conference in 1949 (the
same year as the Boulder conference was held) on the training of personnel in the
field of Counseling and Guidance. During the Michigan conference, conference
participants suggested that counseling psychology adopt “the clinical psychology
curriculum, with some additional emphasis upon problems of educational
personnel...” (Raimy, 1950, pp.147-148). Finally, counseling psychology adopted
the scientist-practitioner model during the Northwestern Conference in 1951 (APA,
1952a. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.70; Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001).
Boulder Conference (1949)
The Boulder conference was a culmination of the United States Public
Health Service and the VA’s demand for a better identification of competent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
training programs for clinical psychologists, the newly re-organized APA’s attempt
to solidify the rapprochement between researchers and clinicians within the
organization, the increasing societal demand for mental health professionals, and
pushed forward by the impetus provided by the Shakow report’s recommendations
to develop a training program that emphasized science and practice (Baker &
Benjamin, Jr., 2000; Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Raimy, 1950, p.75). The dual
emphasis on science and practice, as part of doctoral training in academic
institutions, was a considerable shift because academic clinical psychology had
been formerly interested only in basic science training (Thome, 1945). According to
Raimy (1950):
Most professionals base their practices on one or more sciences and
train their future members in a separate professional school. In
contrast, clinical psychologists are trained concurrently in both the
theoretical (scientific) and applied (clinical) aspects of psychology.
This training occurs not in professional schools but in graduate
schools of our colleges and universities (p.v).
In fact, the link between professional training and academic departments of
psychology was practically non-existent until the emergence of the Boulder Model
of training (Mitchell, 1977). Although the Boulder conference led to the adoption of
a scientist-practitioner model of training, the conference participants were acutely
aware of the uniqueness of the model, including the possibility that the model might
not emerge as a feasible model of training in the future (Hayes, et al. 1999, p.4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
One concern about feasibility of the model related to the decision to train
scientist-practitioners in academic institutions. According to Ellis (1992), the PhD
degree granted in academic institutions had been and continues to be a research and
academically oriented degree that internalized values of the experimental
psychologist. It is, therefore, not surprising that academically oriented professionals
were more satisfied with the scientist-practitioner training than clinically oriented
professionals (Norcoss, Gallagher, & Prochaska, 1989). Thus, at a time when
academic psychologists were not attuned to applied issues, they embarked on
training applied psychologists in “a bootstrapping fashion” where service delivery
and knowledge generation took place simultaneously (John, 1998). As a result,
training programs “patched together their own academic and clinical training
programs the best way they could” (Routh, 1994, p. 128). Unfortunately, the
bootstrapping strategy only served to reinforce the rift between researchers and
practitioners.
In spite of concerns about feasibility and viability of the model, the decision
to proceed with the new training model was based on five major rationales (Hayes,
et al. 1999, pp.5-8). First, it was deemed important that students develop an interest
and background in both research and practice, irrespective of their eventual focus of
professional activity. Second, they acknowledged the need for developing a
knowledge base primarily through sound research. Third, the overwhelming
popularity of psychology made it possible for training programs to select students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
with dual interest in research and practice. Fourth, dual training was seen as a fertile
ground for developing clinically relevant research. Fifth, practice founded on sound
research could increase financial support for the field. Thus, attendees at the
Boulder conference unanimously espoused the scientist-practitioner model of
training clinical psychologists, in spite of underlying concerns about its feasibility
and viability.
Northwestern Conference (1951)
The Northwestern Conference was held in 1951 where counseling
psychology adopted the scientist-practitioner model of training and the conference
addressed three critical issues - counselor and practicum training and the need for
refining the professional identity of counseling psychology, in order to differentiate
counseling psychology from clinical psychology (Whiteley, 1984a, p.32). As a
result of the conference, three committees were formed to address counselor and
practicum training, as well as a definition of the specialty. I focus on the outcome of
the counselor and practicum training committees only.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Committee on Counselor Training
With increasing demand for counseling psychologists, there was a need to
establish a clear statement about the training of counseling psychologists (APA,
1952a. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.70). The goal of the Counselor Training
Committee was to issue a formal statement on doctoral-level training of counseling
psychologists, which included the role and functions of counseling psychologists,
the selection of students, graduate training, and tentative time allotments to areas of
training (Whiteley, 1984a, p.34). According to the Counselor Training Committee,
the role and function of the counseling psychologist is “to foster the psychological
development of the individual” (APA, 1952a. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.71).
The committee acknowledged that no established criteria for selecting
students existed and developing those criteria would be a future goal of the
specialty. It stated that familiar approaches such as “academic records of the
applicant, tests of intellectual status and attainment, personality tests, interviews,
and evaluation of work experience” might be a starting point (APA, 1952a. Also in
Whiteley, 1980, p.73). It also recommended that counseling psychologists should
acquire “a core of basic concepts, tools, and techniques that should be common to
all psychologists” (APA, 1952a. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.73). There was also an
acknowledgment that no doctoral program can train a professional in all facets of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
the profession during a doctoral degree. Hence, graduate training was considered a
starting point rather than an end point of a student’s training.
In addition to the common core areas, the specialized areas for counseling
psychologists to focus on were personality organization and development,
knowledge of social environment, appraisal of the individual, counseling,
professional orientation, practicum, and research. The time allotted for various
aspects of training was delimited to a four-year duration in graduate training. Bulk
of the training included didactics followed by a considerable amount of time spent
in psychotherapy training. Compared to psychotherapy training, relatively less
number of academic units was allotted to research training (APA, 1952a. Also in
Whitelely, 1980, p.78). Further steps regarding refining the above aspects of
graduate training were recommended primarily in the form of intelligent and
flexible experimentation of individual programs. Such flexibility probably led to
variations in how programs implemented training goals including the
implementation of integration of science and practice.
The next subsection discusses the outcome of the Committee on Practicum
Training. However, a parallel conference concerning research training was never
held (Whiteley, 1984a, p.36). Although most official statements issued by the
division stressed the importance of sound research and scientific basis for a
profession to thrive, the Committee on Counselor Training set the standards of basic
understanding quite low (APA, 1952a. Also in Whiteley, 1980):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
At a minimum, such training should aim to develop the ability to
review and to make use of the results of research. Psychological
counseling is and should be founded upon basic psychological
science and related disciplines. Counseling psychologists can make
unique contributions to psychological knowledge because their
counseling experience provides an especially fruitful opportunity to
formulate hypotheses (p.78).
Recent studies indicate that research productivity by counseling psychologists is
comparable to other applied specialties, but there is widespread acknowledgement
for the need for more rigorous research training (Gelso, 1993; Gelso & Lent, 2000).
Committee on Practicum Training
The Committee on Practicum Training formed by the APA delineated the
goals, methods, and role of practicum training during the doctoral studies (APA,
1952b. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.82). The main rationale for the practicum was to
make training in psychotherapy more practical and less academic, a rationale
already indicative of the science-practice split. The other goals of the practicum
were to orient the practicum student to the realities of therapy, professional rigors of
practice, and interpersonal skills that was demanded of a professional in the
counseling setting (APA, 1952b. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p.82). The Committee on
Practicum Training spelled out the details of organizing and conducting practicum,
internships, and supervision that helped to provide guidelines for the future. The
goal of maximizing the practicum training lay on the university training institution
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
and also on the field agency that provided the practicum training opportunity. The
training was meant to take place in different layers - laboratory experiences,
fieldwork, and internship with each layer building on the previous one respectively
(APA, 1952b. Also in Whiteley, 1980, pp.83-84). The prerequisite training for
practicum was didactic training in both the core and specialty areas of counseling
psychology. The Practicum Training Committee recommended that the trainee get a
depth and breadth of exposure to clientele, client problems, and varying approaches
to interventions during practicum training.
It is unclear, however, whether the Practicum Training Committee expected
practicum training to be sequential or integrated with coursework, an issue that has
ramifications in relation to integration of science and practice. The Practicum
Training Committee also failed to address how multiple supervisors influence the
psychotherapy training process, especially if individual supervisors differed in their
theoretical approach in psychotherapy and supervision.
Neither the Counselor Training Committee nor the Practicum Training
Committee articulated the conceptual rationales of psychological science, practice,
and integration of the two. I discuss the various problems of integration that have
been identified in the academic literature now.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Problems in Integrating Science and Practice
Concerns about integrating science and practice as part of implementing the
scientist-practitioner training model are not new. In fact, these concerns were even
voiced during the Boulder Conference in 1949 (Hayes, et al. 1999, p.4). A dual
training model emphasizing science and practice as part of doctoral training in
universities was unique. However, the continuing popularity of the model appears
to stem from the notion that, “what was recommended was a well-trained clinician,
who would combine clinical practice with an empiricism and a research
methodology particularly suited for clinical work” (Hayes, et al. 1999, p.8). As
mentioned previously, problems with integration could be categorized into two
broad categories - problems in conceptualizing science and practice and,
consequently, generating clinically relevant research; and, difficulties in
implementing training goals.
Conceptualizing Science and Practice
The definition of “science” in the scientist-practitioner model appears
problematic (Hoshmand, 1991). According to Page (1996), “... the term science
does not describe a single doctrine, domain of knowledge, or methodology. In
contrast, it describes something that is at best multifaceted” [italics in original]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
(p. 103). Debates about the nature of psychological science have concentrated on the
validity of natural science versus human science approaches and on criteria and
methods to determine the validity of psychological science.
The natural science approach is based on the tenets of positivism. Such an
approach conceptualizes the human subject akin to physical objects in the natural
world and espouses controlled experiments and statistical data analysis as
constituting scientific psychological research. In contrast to the natural science
approach, the human science approach uses the tenets of constructivism and
conceptualizes the human subject as unique and distinct from physical objects in the
natural world. The human science approach views human beings as having the
ability to engage in contextual meaning making and having the ability to use
sophisticated language systems. Thus, the human science approach uses ordinary
language systems and questions the possibility of gaining absolute and accurate
access to reality. Qualitative research methods such as hermeneutics,
phenomenological descriptions, and interpretive analysis are a few examples of
psychological research methodologies based on the tenets of human science. In
recent times, methodological diversity in research is becoming popular (Gelso, et al.
1988; Heppner, Casas, Carter, & Stone, 2000). Methodological diversity accords
equal legitimacy to diverse research methods, both quantitative and qualitative.
However, in spite of debates about the appropriate definition of psychological
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
science in the academic literature, the hegemony of the natural science approach is
well documented resulting in primarily a single notion of psychological science.
As professional psychology was establishing itself outside the academic
realm, academic psychology attempted to establish a scientific basis for
psychotherapy practice. However, the discipline of psychology was still struggling
to establish scientific credibility in the academic environment. In that context, the
epistemic authority of positivism was easy to draw on (John, 1998) and the
temptation of gaining cognitive certainty, however problematic, was too much to
resist (Dana, 1987). One motive for emulation of natural science methodologies
might have to do with the discipline of psychology moving away from philosophy.
According to Ramirez, such a move led to (Ramirez, 1994):
valorization of experimental methodology (operationalism); focus on
behavior rather than experience; adoption of the paradox of being
value-free; and promotion of the view of psychology as an arena for
testing beliefs about how to predict and/or control behavior instead
of a set of beliefs and values about human nature (p.66).
Thus, the trend to adopt the natural science approach to psychological research has
led faculty members to emulate basic research that was not directly relevant to
practice (Heppner, et al. 1992). Integration of science and practice, thus, became
problematic.
The founding members of the Boulder model were aware of the
precariousness of their goals. The model originated during a period of ferment when
the hegemony of science was being challenged contributing to basic confusion
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
about how positivism itself should be understood (John, 1998). As early as 1945,
Thome stated that, “American psychology has been a laboratory rather than a
clinical science and there have been relatively few attempts to develop a science of
psychological diagnosis and therapy based on intensive study of case material”
(Thome, 1945). However, Thome went on to define clinical science from a
predominantly experimental stance suggesting an “increasing application of the
experimental approach to the individual case and to the clinician’s own
‘experience’” (Hayes, et al. 1999, p.3). This approach has extended to allied fields
such as social work as well (Wakefield & Kirk, 1996; MacEachron & Gustavsson,
1997). In spite of simmering discontent about using the natural science approach in
psychological research, the scientist-practitioner model espoused the natural science
approach in psychological science and research and trained students in quantitative
research methods and statistical data analysis.
The next challenge was to define the nature of psychotherapy practice
because there appeared to be “little definitive information about how counseling
works” (Binder, 1993). Similar concerns were raised in the academic literature
about the nature of psychotherapy practice (Borders, Bloss, Cashwell, & Rainey,
1994; Halgin & Murphy, 1995). Arrays of theoretical orientations in psychotherapy
are in operation (e.g. psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, family
systems, and so forth). Plurality of practice epistemologies can lead to a lack of
consensus on what psychotherapy practice really means. According to Page (1996):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Knowing that a person adopts a scientist-practitioner model provides
no information at all about their theoretical orientation, favoured
treatments, or their methods of deciding between alternative theories
and treatments. Furthermore, the term science is so broad that to
require a person or institution to adhere to a scientist-practitioner
model is devoid of prescriptive meaning. Individuals and institutions
are free to adopt narrow empirical or broad “anything goes”
philosophies of science that can justify almost any practice or
approach to training [italics in original] (p. 106).
One reason for the difficulty in understanding the nature of practice is the multiple
manifestations of psychotherapy practice, depending on which theoretical
orientation a practitioner adopted. Extending the comparison to training programs,
core faculty members, adjunct faculty members, and field supervisors who provide
psychotherapy training could vary widely in regard to their theoretical orientations
in psychotherapy practice. Such variations could lead to conflicting supervisory
experiences for students during psychotherapy training.
I will not review the extensive academic literature on psychotherapy
supervision. However, the nature of psychotherapy supervision has evolved over
the decades. Different models of supervision are operational in the discipline and
supervisors (core and adjunct faculty members and field supervisors) vary with
regard to their specific approaches to supervision. Historically, supervision models
extrapolated “counseling theory to the supervisory experience” (Holloway, 1987).
Examples of such supervision models include psychodynamic supervision, rational-
emotive theory supervision, and behavioral supervision (Goodyear, Bradley, &
Bartlett, 1983). In the last two decades, developmental models of supervision “that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
aPPty psychosocial development to counselor trainees’ clinical learning” have
become more popular and more than 18 models of supervision have been identified
as of 1987 (Holloway, 1987). Thus, a wide variety of supervisory approaches are
currently operational in doctoral training programs and there is no clear consensus
regarding the ideal approach to psychotherapy supervision.
The lack of consensus regarding the appropriate definition of psychological
science and psychotherapy practice consequently furthered the debate about how
science and practice should be related to each other. Raimy (1950) hypothesized
that the issue is linked to the different perspectives researchers and practitioners
subscribe to:
Too often, however, clinical psychologists have been trained in
rigorous thinking about nonclinical subject matter and clinical
problems have been dismissed as lacking in “scientific”
respectability. As a result, many clinicians have been unable to
bridge the gap between their formal training and scientific thinking
on the one hand, and the demands of practice on the other (p. 86).
One alternative to overcoming the limitations of the natural science approach relates
to defining psychological science using the human science approach and,
consequently, expanding the definition of psychological science. Human science
approach to psychological science is considered to mirror the activity of
psychotherapy practice (Hoshmand, 1991). In the main, the human science
approach used ordinary language systems and sought descriptions and
understanding of human experience, similar to psychotherapy practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Albee (1970) pointed out that the activities of the scientist and practitioners
endorse different worldviews. He stated, “One of the most serious problems for the
scientist-practitioner psychologist (Boulder model) has been the requirement that
he play the incompatible game of science, and so subject his techniques, his
theories, and his methods to open public, critical, scientific scrutiny” [italics in
original] (Albee, 1970). He pointed out that the clinician often must “engage in life-
history research rather than experimentation” (Albee, 1970). Howard (1986) further
elaborated on this idea by explicating a parallel between ways of understanding
human action as conceptually akin to historical analysis rather than a controlled
scientific experiment.
In contrast to the natural science approach, a human science approach comes
closer to the epistemology of practice. Rennie (1994) used Dilthey and Wundt’s
attempt to define human science based on the notion that “the study of the person
poses challenges that are not encountered when studying the physical and biological
world” and conceptualized human science akin to an historical enterprise. For
instance, the challenges in the positivistic scientific endeavor are different from
those challenges a practitioner encounters in the study of the individual client - the
former enables the subject-object dualism implicit in positivistic science while the
latter does not (Rennie, 1994). Hoshmand & Polkinghome (1992) critiqued the
hegemony of positivistic science by challenging its fundamental assumptions and
notions of science and certainty and its utility in understanding human experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
The critiques of psychological science based on natural science approaches have
become stronger in contemporary psychology discourse (Hoshmand &
Polkinghome, 1992; Howard, 1985, 1993; Kanfer, 1990; Klien, 1995; Linden &
Wen, 1990; Page, 1996; Polkinghome, 1984; Rychlak, 1998; Ussher, 1991).
Thus, the critiques of the natural science approach in psychology led to the
development of two possible alternatives. First, a human science approach would
mirror the epistemology of psychological practice and, hence, would facilitate
integration. Second, an examination of the nature of psychotherapy practice would
lead to a better understanding of psychological practice and facilitate practitioner-
based inquiry (Hoshmand, 1991). Practitioner-based inquiry would also facilitate
the bilateral approach in integration of science and practice, where practice informs
science. A critical difference between the positivistic approach to psychotherapy
practice and practitioner-based inquiry is the assumptions used to understand
psychotherapy practice. The traditional notions of psychotherapy practice relate to
helping individuals develop self-understanding by engaging in a dialogue in the
therapeutic relationship (Polkinghome, 1999). Contemporary views of
psychotherapy redefines the traditional therapeutic endeavor through a
technification of psychotherapy and the goal of psychotherapy is symptom-removal
rather than self-understanding (p.2). According to Polkinghome (1999):
Psychotherapy makes different assumptions about the constancy of
human activity than does traditional research. Aristotle’s three-fold
distinction of spheres of human activity - theorizing, practicing, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
producing artifacts - is still a useful way to identify the kind of
activity involved in doing psychotherapy. Theorizing is the domain
of rigorous science and is concerned with demonstrations that yield
certain knowledge. Practicing (praxis) is the domain of human action
and is concerned with performances and accomplishments....
Performance in each of the three kinds of activity is governed by a
specific kind of thinking. Theorizing uses the thought tools of
epistemic knowing, such formal logic and mathematics (along with
observations). Practicing employs a type of thinking called practical
understanding (phronesis) to guide actions toward intended personal
goals [italics in original] (p.2).
By attempting to understand psychotherapy through theorizing, as defined above,
traditional positivistic psychotherapy research has failed to appreciate the aspect of
praxis and phronesis involved in the practice of psychotherapy. Practitioner-based
inquiry would not be susceptible to such a failure in understanding psychotherapy
practice.
In comparison to the focus and attention psychological research received,
the academic literature has made only a cursory examination of how practitioners
engage in psychotherapy practice. The brief examination of the nature of
psychological practice reveals that the nature of psychotherapy practice might
preclude a practitioner from successfully adopting positivistic scientific criteria. For
instance, a clinician had to typically incorporate clinical reality with its concomitant
limitations and make decisions based on the limited information that was available,
even if the available information was incomplete (Kanfer, 1990; Kozak, 1996). This
particular kind of cognitive processing was a consequence of clinical demands
where “individual problems always call for knowledge beyond basic psychological
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
principles” (Lazarus & Davison, 1971, p.203). An examination of the inferential
reasoning of clinicians seemed to indicate that practitioners made inferences
incorporating missing information (MacDonald, 1996). For instance, practitioners
typically used the presenting problem to determine the theoretical explanation and
then searched for validation of the match in the individual client (Kanfer, 1990). An
examination of skilled practitioners from different theoretical orientations also
revealed that they arrived at similar clinical decisions, albeit with varying
rationalizations, and they admitted that their formal scientific training had little
bearing on their decisions (John, 1998).
It appears that the ideal of integrating science and practice in a balanced
manner has seldom been achieved and the hyphen between the terms scientist and
practitioner symbolized rift rather than cohesiveness between the two (Bernstein &
Kerr, 1993). The gap between the epistemology of science and practice seemed
insurmountable. If one were to adopt Ramirez’s (1994) correspondence model
which stated that truth is dependent on the kinds of instruments used, the tools used
by scientists and practitioners to gain knowledge were incongruent. During the
1990 National Conference on Scientist-Practitioner Education and Training for the
Professional Practice of Psychology, conference participants suggested replacing
the hyphen between the words scientist-practitioner with other symbols in order to
communicate the notion of integration in a better fashion (Belar & Perry, 1992).
The focus was more on reiterating the elusive goal of integrating science and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
practice rather than clarifying the fundamental concepts of science, practice, and
integration.
The prevalence of predominantly singular positivistic notions of
psychological science combined with multiple notions of psychotherapy practice
have made the integration of science and practice a formidable task. As Heppner, et
al. (1992) aptly put it, “science and practice cannot continue together without a
major attitudinal shift, a broadening perspective of science and practice and how
these two activities can be integrated to strengthen each other” (p. 121).
Lack o f Clinically Relevant Research
One product of the successful integration of science and practice should be
the generation of clinically relevant research that will be utilized by practitioners.
Since the inception of the model, a recurring complaint has been about the scarcity
of clinically relevant research and that appears to stem from the disparate goals of
the researcher and clinician. Research methodologies and research goals tend to be
irrelevant or not applicable in the clinical scenario and practitioners tend to look for
other resources to inform their practice (Barlow, 1981a, 1981b; Drabick &
Goldffied, 2000; Kanfer, 1990; Persons, 1991). The disparity relates to the role of
research and science for scientists and practitioners. Researchers are expected to
produce research while practitioners are expected to consume research and the latter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
does not entail personal research productivity (Albee & Loeffler, 1971; APA,
1967). As further evidence it was determined that, “Although a majority still review
the literature and write and present papers, less than half do field research or
outcome or process research, and only 30% do any experimental work at all. We
appear to have come a long way from the scientist-practitioner model” (Fitzgerald
& Osipow, 1986). Watkins (1987) described the disparity as the gap between the
“rhetoric of counseling psychology” and the “reality demands voiced by students,
clients, service agencies, and reimbursement providers”.
The complaint about lack of clinically relevant research also raised
questions about the role of practitioner and the definition of integration. One
interpretation of the concept of integration views the practitioner as applying
positivistic scientific knowledge in psychotherapy practice. Another interpretation
of integration views the practitioner as applying positivistic scientific knowledge as
well as conducting positivistic scientific research. Thus, training programs might
vary in the particular interpretation of integration they adopt in doctoral training.
Methodology and Clinical Relevance o f Research
Conducting clinically relevant research is intimately linked to notions of
science and practice adopted in training. As mentioned earlier, there was a gap
between the natural science and human science approach to understanding human
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
experience in psychotherapy practice. The gap is starkly evident in the issue of
methodology (Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996; Hayes, et al. 1999, p. 15; Snyder &
Ingram, 2000, p.723; Strieker, 1975). The gap was of significant concern because
the dissatisfaction with the approach to research training was considered one of the
primary reasons for the persistent problem of inapplicability and continued
problems with the model’s success (Hayes, et al. 1999, p. 16).
The academic literature on psychotherapy process and outcome research is
extensive and beyond the scope of the review of the literature. However, a significant
portion of psychotherapy research is conducted using the natural science approach.
The practice of psychotherapy, on the other hand, does not fit the tenets of the
natural science approach. As a result, practitioners deem most of the research
generated as clinically irrelevant. The tabular comparison (Table 1) of tenets of
experimental psychology research and the contextual reality of psychotherapy
practice presented below helps in understanding how the positivistic research
methods used by psychotherapy researchers are not successful in appreciating
clinical realities and addressing concerns psychotherapists are interested in
understanding. The differences between the classical model and psychotherapy
resemble the differences between theorizing and practicing, the two kinds of activity,
I discussed earlier.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Table 1. Differences Between the Ideal Experimental-Laboratory-Research Design Model and the
Realities o f Psychotherapy Research
Classical Model
1. The independent variable is a
discrete stimulus or a bounded set of
discrete stimuli.
2. The pattern of presentation of
the independent variable is standardized.
3. There is a provable causal relation
between the independent variable and
the dependent variable.
4. The dependent variables are discrete
responses.
5. There is a small number of important
variables that influence the dependent
variable.
6. Each relevant variable can be held
constant if desired.
7. The direction of causation is one way
from stimulus to response, from
independent variable to dependent variable.
8. Stimulus and response tend to be
contiguous.
9. The system is isolated from all others
as much as possible in an effort to produce
a closed system.
10. This system is concerned with the
regularity and predictability of events.
Psychotherapy
1. The independent variable is a
complex strategy or interaction
with constantly changing tactics.
2. Variation of therapist behavior
from moment to moment and patient
to patient is the rule.
3. There is no provable causal relation
between what the therapist does and
the behavior of the patient.
4. The dependent variables are a
complex set of responses and attitudes
that change over time.
5. There is a large number of
variables that influence therapy
outcome; each only exerts a small
influence.
6. Few relevant variables can be held
constant, even if desired.
7. The direction of influence is two-
way, from therapist to patient and
from patient to therapist.
8. There is no point in time at which
the therapist’s behavior or strategy
can be said to have produced a
therapeutic response.
9. The therapist-patient system
constantly interacts with each other
systems. Uncontrolled and
unmeasured inputs constantly occur.
10. This system is concerned with
the meaning and logical structure of
events.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Table 1 (continued).
Classical Model Psychotherapy
11. Experiments are temporally linear; 11. The meanings of an event are
that is, A follows B follows C. conditional; that is, the meaning o f A
is determined by the meanings of B
and C.
12. There is an experimenter, who 12. Manipulation, to the extent that it
manipulates conditions that affect the occurs, works both ways. The patient
subject, who is treated as an object. is not treated as an object.
13. The possible range of responses of 13. The range of responses of the
the subject are restricted to a few simple patient is large and encouraged to
responses such as “yes”, “no”, or become larger (as, for example, in
“sometimes”. free association).
14. The experimenter is unconcerned 14. The therapist is vitally interested
with the circumstances of the subject’s in the circumstances of the patient’s
life. life.
Note. From “Problems and Alternatives”, by T.B.Karasu, 1982, Psychotherapy Research:
Methodological and Efficacy Issues, (pp.187-213). Copyright 1982 by the APA Commission on
Psychotherapies.
In spite of challenges relating to conducting clinically relevant research,
Sargent & Cohen (1983) found that clinicians’ utilization of research data tended to
depend on a variety of factors including availability of training in the tested
treatment and whether concerns about generalizability from the research sample to
the clinical case at hand were addressed by the research study. A specific aspect of
research is that in spite of numerous studies on psychotherapy efficacy, with the
advent of ESTs; there is a dearth of studies on psychotherapy effectiveness (Halgin
& Murphy, 1995, p.441). In addition, strict adherence to techniques may not
necessarily translate in terms of successful and effective therapy, due to an element
of artistic skill involved in the therapeutic activity (Strupp, 1989). Although this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
particular discourse has been typically pessimistic, some authors have attempted to
acknowledge the advances in methodologies, advancements in statistics, and
increased research on therapy effectiveness, as an argument for clinicians to take a
fresh look at current research (Barlow, 1996; Watkins, 1997).
Strupp (1989) pointed out some positive links between psychotherapy
research and practitioner utilization stating that research has successfully provided
empirical evidence to many unsystematic clinical observations about therapeutic
alliance. Beutler, et al. (1995) further supported the notion through a survey that
found that practitioners held a positive valence toward utilizing research; however,
there was a need for more effective communication between the two so that
research became more applicable in psychotherapy practice. The challenge in
communication would involve determining ways to reconcile the
“incommensurable language systems” used by researchers and practitioners
(Hoshmand, 1991; Howard, 1986). It is also possible that practitioners utilized
research in unanticipated ways wherein the research was used to “(a) confirm
experientially derived knowledge, (b) provide credible explanations for
observations, and (c) facilitate transmitting knowledge from one to another”
(Beutler, et al. 1995). The question then becomes what are the knowledge bases that
practitioners use to base their practice on if research was deemed to be of limited
clinical relevance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Practitioners ’ Knowledge Base
It appears that practitioners preferred to seek other sources for their
knowledge base rather than the existing research base relating to psychotherapy
process and outcome (Barlow, 1981b; Elliott, 1983; Luborsky, 1972; Morrow-
Bradley & Elliott, 1986; Orlinsky & Howard, 1978; Parloff, 1980; Polkinghome,
1999; Rausch, 1974; Rennie, 1994; Sechrest, 1975; Ward, 1964). Matarazzo, a
therapist and researcher, made an alarming comment of historical import that “even
after 15 years, few of my research findings affect my practice. Psychological
science per se doesn’t guide me one bit. I still read avidly, but is of little direct,
practical help. My clinical experience is the only thing that has helped me in my
practice to date” [italics in original] (Bergin & Strupp, 1972, p.340). One possible
explanation for the gap in communication relates to the fact that practitioners
seemed to define “scientific sources” differently from academicians and did not
necessarily seek out peer-reviewed journal articles but a wider range of sources to
inform their practice (Beutler, et al. 1995). An implicit understanding in any task of
integration is that the individual components will fit together cohesively. Thus, one
factor that could explain the nature of this particular problem was the lack of
understanding of the term ‘utilization’ of scientific sources (Strieker & Keisner,
1985):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
The debate about the desirability and feasibility of research
utilization is further complicated by the failure to define either
research or utilization. This makes it possible for the argument to
proceed with each side referring to a different phenomenon although
using the same term, so that agreement is precluded. When research
is used pejoratively by clinicians, they often think of a narrow, static,
methodology-bound, laboratory-based effort that has little potential
for generalizability. Researchers, on the other hand, see clinicians as
seeking a loose, impressionistic, vague set of speculations that
cannot contain any internal validity, making the question of external
validity moot [italics in original] (p.5).
In addition, the traditional idea that research can be applied in specific
practice situations “misdescribes the way practitioners actually work with their
clients” and is based on an inadequate understanding of the nature of practitioner
inquiry (Polkinghome, 2000). An alternative to the predicament could be that
practitioners distinguish between the descriptive and inferential components of
research articles and utilize the former as vicarious experiences that could broaden
their repertoire (Polkinghome, 1999). In the main, practitioners preferred to build
their knowledge base on their clinical experience, reading practice-oriented books,
discussing clinical issues with colleagues, and attending clinically focused
workshops (Barlow, 1981a; Morrow-Bradley & Elliot, 1986; Rennie, 1994).
Two possible recommendations were made for generating clinically relevant
research, including adopting the human science approach in psychological research
and engaging in practitioner-based inquiry (Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992). I
discuss the importance of practitioner-based inquiry later in the subsection on
recommendations for facilitating integration. I now review conference proceedings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
of major conferences held, since the inception of the scientist-practitioner model, in
order to address the various problems in implementing the model.
Conference Proceedings
Numerous conferences in clinical psychology were convened since the
inception of the model in order to address the problem of integration and generating
clinically relevant research. Miami Beach Conference in 1958, Chicago Conference
in 1965, and Vail Conference in 1973 were some of the main clinical psychology
conferences that were held in this regard. The Miami Beach Conference provided
continuing support for the Boulder model (Roe, Gustad, Moore, Ross, & Skodak,
1959, p.38) and the support continued during the Chicago conference in 1965
(Hoch, Ross, & Winder, 1966, p.75). However, there were partially muted
rumblings during both conferences about the limited definitions of psychological
science using the natural science approach as well as questions about the role of
practitioners as producers of research. In fact, preconference materials of the
Chicago conference hinted of a professional model that only was endorsed later in
the Vail conference (Cook, Bibace, Garfield, Kelly, & Wexler, 1965).
Finally, the undercurrent of dissatisfaction came to a climax during the Vail
conference in 1973 when the conference attendees concluded with a call for more
practice-oriented training and made a recommendation to move the training setting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
from universities to professional schools (Korman, 1973). Practitioner (PsyD)
training models developed as a consequence of this particular conference. The two
primary rationales for the practitioner model were the perceived incompatibility of
training an individual in both science and practice and dissatisfaction with training
being conducted in academic settings that were heavily biased toward research
(Fretz, 1974). Yet, it was not clear what kind of training would be necessary to
move a novice therapist to a more advanced stage of expertise (Foreman, 1974).
Counseling psychology addressed the issue of integration in its major
conferences including Northwestern Conference in 1951 and Greyston Conference
in 1964. Following the Northwestern Conference in 1951 when the scientist-
practitioner model was officially adopted as the main training model in counseling
psychology, the Greyston Conference held in 1964 paralleled the developments in
clinical psychology by endorsing the need for a stronger professional focus in
doctoral training. However, unlike clinical psychology, counseling psychology did
not completely endorse the practitioner model (Sprinthall, 1990; Thompson &
Super, 1964. Also in Whiteley, 1980, p. 174). In contrast to clinical psychology
where the practitioner model had a definite presence, counseling psychology
maintained its continued support for the Boulder model in the Georgia Conference
in 1987. The conference participants, however, acknowledged that not all
counseling psychologists would be active researchers (Meara, et al. 1987).
Following the Georgia Conference in 1987, the number of publications relating to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
the scientist-practitioner model went down. But, the recent accreditation of a few
practitioner-scholar programs renewed the debate about the appropriateness and
viability of the scientist-practitioner model during the Houston Conference held in
2001 (Fouad, et al. 2004). Thus, these recent conferences repeatedly endorsed the
scientist-practitioner model and acknowledged its limitations but they failed to
create feasible solutions. One possible explanation for the failure to create feasible
solutions is that none of these conferences adequately addressed the problems
related to appropriate research methodologies. The conferences also did not clarify
whether practitioners were expected to consume research and/or generate research.
The dynamics created by competing training models propelled applied
psychology to reconsider their strategies as evidenced in some of the more recent
conferences held at Mission Bay in 1986, Utah in 1987, and Scientist-Practitioner
Conference in 1990. Because these conferences were held under the broader rubric
of applied psychology, they have implications for counseling psychology
specifically. The Mission Bay Conference consisted of members of the National
Council of Schools of Professional Psychology (NCSPP) who wanted to be certain
that their voice was heard during the Utah conference to be held less than a year
later. In addition to strongly endorsing the practitioner model philosophy, the
conference endorsed the “evolving and developing knowledge base” that closely
paralleled APA accreditation criteria regarding curriculum mandates. The
curriculum mandates covered areas such as “biological bases of behavior,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
cognitive-emotional bases of behavior, social bases of behavior, individual bases of
behavior, statistics and research design, professional issues/ethics, and history and
systems” (Bourg, Bent, McHolland, & Strieker, 1989). In the main, the Utah
Conference held in 1987 addressed “generic” versus “specialty” delineations, levels
of training, training setting, and the appropriate model of training (APA, 1987).
Although the conference participants at the Utah Conference acknowledged the
practitioner model of training, they once again called for an integration of science
and practice as part of graduate training (APA, 1987).
Finally, the Scientist-Practitioner Conference held in 1990 reiterated the
scientist-practitioner model including the importance of the integration of science
and practice although the conference participants acknowledged that many
programs failed to meet this fundamental requirement (Belar & Perry, 1990). In
conclusion, it seems as though “... a research methodology uniquely applicable to
the clinic was made with equal intensity at Boulder in 1949 and at every conference
since, without any discernible change in the products of the graduate schools in
clinical psychology” (Barlow, Hayes, & Nelson, 1984, p. 18).
Problems in Implementation
The previous subsection discussed the conceptual problems related to the
scientist-practitioner model due to differing perspectives on science, practice and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
integration. Numerous conferences held since the inception of the model grappled
with these issues and had limited success in resolving the conceptual differences.
One of-repeated question in these conferences related to the role of the clinician as
a consumer of research and/or as a producer of research. There were functional
problems in the model in the realm of implementation that also made integration of
science and practice problematic. These functional problems included differing
values and priorities of faculty and students (Frank, 1984), quality of research
training (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993), faulty curricular structures (Hoshmand, 1991),
integration of didactics and practicum work (Halgin & Murphy, 1995, p.441),
debates about appropriate dissertation criteria (Hayes, et al. 1999, pp.11-12), role of
the department clinic (Goldfried, 1984), the emerging practice-oriented job market
(Drabick & Goldfried, 2000), the influence of managed care (Drabick & Goldfried,
2000; Sprinthall, 1990), to name a few. I focus on some of the oft-repeated themes.
One of the primary goals of the scientist-practitioner model was that it
would select students who had a dual interest in science and practice and similarly
faculty members would embody these dual foci in their work. Contrary to the goal,
it has been consistently found that graduate students entering the broad field of
professional psychology are more interested in psychotherapy practice than in
research. According to Parker and Detterman (1988), about 71% of clinical
psychology graduate students had a predominant clinical orientation. Surveys of
entering graduate students in counseling psychology also indicated that most of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
them rated interest in research relatively low, had higher entrepreneurial
professional interests, and were more service oriented (Tipton & White, 1988).
More recently, an overall trend toward psychotherapy practice as the preferred
professional activity has been observed in the counseling psychology specialty
(Fouad, et al. 2004). The positive valence of psychotherapy practice could be
explained as a product of personality variables (Beutler, et al. 1995; Frank, 1984;
Gardner, 1980; Gelso, 1993; Spengler, Stohmer, Dixon, & Shivy, 1995; Stone &
Vespia, 1999; Zachar & Leong, 1992), a consequence of epistemic styles
(Hoshmand, 1991; Lyddon, 1989), or a result of market forces attracting graduate
students interested in psychotherapy practice.
The qualities expected in a competent therapist are predominantly
interpersonal in nature - empathy, warmth, and self-insight to a name a few. On the
other hand, researchers are expected to be more comfortable engaging in research
that is frequently solitary and requires an analytic orientation. Stone & Vespia
(1999) conducted a survey of counseling psychology students and professionals
using the Scientist-Practitioner Inventory and their findings supported the notion
that practice-oriented individuals were more socially inclined while science-
oriented individuals favored autonomy and analytic work. Another study of college
students revealed that choice of an individual’s theoretical orientation was based on
the personal epistemology of rationalism, empiricism, or metaphorism (Lyddon,
1989). This particular finding has implications for adherence to the Scientist-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
practitioner model because the model might be more suitable for empirical linear
thinkers than intuitive metaphorical thinkers (Spengler, et al. 1989). In terms of
personality variables, it is possible that there might be a selection bias in operation
where students chose to pursue careers that were congruent with their personality as
evidenced by faculty members who typically are more research-oriented. It is
possible that graduates of programs who are clinically inclined might seldom apply
for these faculty positions.
Faculty members might mirror their research bias just as students express
their inclination toward psychotherapy practice. In this context, research university
settings might perpetuate the bias through the kind of academic and tenure
expectations they demand of faculty members and these expectations might operate
as barriers to integration of science and practice. For instance, most counseling
psychology programs are housed in major research universities where research,
publications, and other academic activities are rewarded frequently at the cost of
psychotherapy practice and generation of clinically relevant research (Frank, 1984;
Goldfried, 1984; Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Heppner, et al. 1992; Peterson, 1985).
Because most graduate students are committed to pursuing practice-related work in
the future, they frequently complain about the inadequate preparation for clinical
work in their doctoral programs (Strieker, 1975; Tipton & White, 1988; Watkins Jr.,
Lopez, Campbell, & Himmell, 1986). There is a disconnection between program
and faculty members’ priorities and students’ aspirations, with faculty members
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
rating research as more important and students valuing psychotherapy practice over
research (Frank, 1984; Halgin & Struckus, 1985; Meara, 1987; Ramirez, 1994;
Royalty, Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Garrett, 1986; Watkins, Lopez, Campbell, &
Himmell, 1986).
Along with the disconnection between faculty members and students’
interests, concerns about the quality of research training and the lack of positive
role models have been expressed. In spite of valuing research, the research training
seemed woefully inadequate in facilitating positive research experiences and
fostering research ideas to develop through sound mentoring (Bernstein & Kerr,
1993; Betz, 1986). One possible result of the inadequacy might be the persistent
challenge in generating scholarly publications. It has been repeatedly found that
most graduates of Boulder programs publish very little or nothing (Peterson, 1985;
Rennie, 1994; Robertson, 1995, p.24; Routh, 1994, p. 128). One possible
explanation for meager publication rates was that research productivity of students
following graduation seemed linked to research productivity of students during
graduate training, which has already been deemed inadequate (Rickard & Clements,
1985). It has been documented that mentoring and positive role models play a
critical role in students’ long-term career commitments whether in research or
practice, and role models embodying the scientist-practitioner are typically absent
during doctoral training (Betz, 1986; Gelso, 1993; Goldfried, 1984; Hill, 1997;
John, 1986; Parker & Detterman, 1988). In addition to concerns about the lack of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
mentoring, there were concerns voiced in the areas of didactics and clinical
supervision as well.
The two primary modes of graduate training involve didactic coursework
and clinical supervision and programs seemed to vary in how they combined these
two aspects in doctoral training (Halgin & Murphy, 1995, p.441). Also, curriculum
structures reinforced the science-practice split because clinical supervision was
seldom framed as research questions and textbooks used for research and practice
had a singular focus and rarely made an attempt to incorporate both science and
practice (Hoshmand, 1991). The disjunction typically revealed a pattern where
science was the focus in graduate school while practice was the focus in later
professional activity, especially during pre-doctoral internship. The demarcated
focus in doctoral training led to a successive rather than a simultaneous approach to
integration (Kanfer, 1990). The successive approach, in turn, weakened the liaison
between faculty members and supervisors in clinical training facilities
(Kalinkowitz, 1978). Such challenges in doctoral training have led to the
fundamental debate concerning whether academic university departments are
appropriate sites for training scientist-practitioners at all (Albee, 1970; Kalinkowitz,
1978). An example of concerns in training scientist-practitioners in university
settings relates to the viability of maintaining faculty members who have joint
appointments with the university counseling center.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Many programs used to accommodate faculty members who held joint
appointments in the program and the university counseling center but now that
number has dwindled and they are viewed as “split” appointments rather than
“joint” appointments (Heppner, et al. 1992). Joint appointments could be viewed as
a strategy of integration because faculty members with joint appointments actively
participate in research and practice and can operate as ideal role models for
students.
On the other hand, core faculty members in Boulder model programs tend to
fall along different points of a scientist-practitioner continuum (Goldfried, 1984).
Extending the comparison to training programs, it appears that they also fell along
the continuum where some programs are more research-oriented or practice-
oriented. The predominance of research or practice are not explicitly stated in a
program’s training philosophy due to the expectation that programs will provide
balanced and integrated training in both areas, as part of meeting accreditation
criteria (Zachar & Leong, 2000). The scientist-practitioner continuum in programs
indicates that there will be differences among various scientist-practitioner
programs in how they interpret and implement the training model. Zachar & Leong
(2000) concluded that, “Honesty with respect to what is really taught aside, as long
as the APA continues to monitor graduate programs to make sure they provide both
a foundation in basic scientific psychology and field-oriented clinical training, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
mix of science types and practice types will continue to make for dynamic (rather
than fragmented) learning environments” (p.579).
Most scientist-practitioner training programs attempt to train professionals
who will combine research and practice in their future careers, however, the job
market does not appear to support this goal as it demands relatively more clinicians
(Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Parker & Detterman, 1988). Surveys of employment
patterns reveal that about 56% of the initial job placements are service delivery
related while about 29% are academic positions, and rest of the 15% gain
employment in diverse settings such as the criminal justice system, business, and
industry (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Fouad, et al. 2004; Galassi & Moss, 1986). The
specialty also acknowledges the increasing “professionalization” of the field by
considering raising the number of required practicum hours for internship in order
to stay competitive (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001). Surveys conducted on
counseling psychologists indicate that although about half the respondents affirmed
being engaged in research, the time they spent on it is was only about 7% to 8%
while practice-related activities took up about 25% to 28% of their time. The
remaining portion of the time got distributed between consultation, administration,
teaching and other related professional activities (Fitzgerald & Osipow, 1986;
Zimpfer & DeTrude, 1990).
The different job priorities of service delivery settings and the academy are
not designed for the dual focus in science and practice either. The service demands
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
in clinical settings are seldom conducive for generating research, which furthers the
split between science and practice (Abrahamson & Pearlman, 1993; Bibace &
Walsh, 1982; Frank, 1984; Goldfried, 1984; Vachon, et al. 1995). Similarly,
research publication and grant-writing demands preclude many academic
psychologists from making the practice of psychotherapy a significant vocational
activity (Davis & Meara, 1995; Murdock & Brooks, 1993). The varying demands of
different job settings for psychologists led to the question if scientist-practitioner
“values” are marketable (p. 139). However, Murdock and Brooks (1993) found that
a stronger identification with practice and its financial benefits were significant
predictors of practice activity and about 65% of survey respondents (faculty
members of APA accredited PhD programs) reported practice activity outside of
academic roles, indicating that the split was not absolute.
One important variable to consider in this regard is that dynamics of the job
market have changed significantly in the last two decades due to managed care.
Managed care has shifted the focus from individual psychotherapy as the primary
practice activity to practice with a much broader scope (Fouad, et al. 2004). Today,
the task of developing, administering, and evaluating mental health service delivery
is of top priority (Hayes, et al. 1999, p.l). Thus, the goals and preparation of the
scientist-practitioner have to undergo dramatic changes because market forces
shaped by managed care are very different from when the model evolved in the late
1940s. Hence, it has become even more critical that the integration of science and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
practice is successful (Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Hayes, et al. 1999, p.27).
Accountability, efficacy, and effectiveness drive reimbursement criteria (Elliot &
Klapow, 1997; Fretz & Mills, 1980; Klein, 1995; Steenbarger, Smith, & Budman,
1996; Yalof, 1997). It has become even more critical that the discipline of
psychology provides a scientific basis for practice and the integration of science and
practice is successful (Hayes, et al. 1999, p.28). Extending Klein’s (1995) metaphor
once again, the marriage has to be saved.
Recommendations
The literature review has so far focused on the articulation of conceptual
differences in defining science, practice, and integration and problems related to
implementing the scientist-practitioner model. Various solutions have also been
suggested in order to successfully integrate science and practice. Two distinct kinds
of solutions have been proposed in this regard. First, a call for broader conceptual
definition of science/research and a call to understand the epistemology of
psychotherapy practice was made. Second, recommendations of specific functional
changes in doctoral training have been made in order to close the gap between
science and practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Re-conceptualizing Science and Understanding Psychotherapy Practice
One major alternative that has been suggested in the academic literature is
broadening the concept of psychological science, beyond experimental methods and
statistical data analysis, both in doctoral training and in scholarly publications
(Heppner, et al. 1992; Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; John, 1986; Neimeyer &
Diamond, 2001). For instance, suggestions for using alternative methodologies such
as action research (Stoker & Figg, 1998) and utilizing “soft” methodologies
(Howard, 1993) have been made. Methodological pluralism has been suggested as
an alternative to incorporating singular positivistic approaches (Dana, 1987;
Howard, 1985, 1986; Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; MacEachron &
Gustavsson, 1997). The recent Delphi poll indicated that the specialty of counseling
psychology considers developing methodological pluralism a top priority
(Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001).
Ironically, the call for appropriate methodology was made during the
Boulder conference itself. Raimy (1950) stated that:
Research training for “rat” psychology is probably most efficiently
accomplished by lengthy exposure to problems in which rats are the
objects of observation and discussion.. .Nonetheless, the problems of
human beings may demand approaches other than those used in
studying the lower animals. If rigorous thinking can produce good
research in animal psychology, equally rigorous thinking should be
possible where humans are concerned. Proper methodology and
cmcial issues in the field of personality may be more difficult to
establish and define; the problems faced by one field o f science are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
rarely if ever solved by a simple carryover o f techniques and
concepts from another field [italics added] (p.87).
The conference participants suggested that specific clinical research skills be taught
rather than those that specifically pertain to the experimental psychologist (Hayes,
et al. 1999, p.6). The specific clinical research skills recommended by the
conference participants were at a nascent stage of development during the inception
of the training model. In addition, clinical research skills also lacked scientific
legitimacy in the academy, which was dominated by psychologists trained in
natural science methods.
In addition to expanding the definition of psychological science, there was
also a need to make existing scientific methods more sophisticated. Kordy (1995)
lamented on a dependence on significance testing and suggested that researchers
need to use more sophisticated tests such as power analysis to make studies more
applicable. Levy (1981) suggested increased incorporation of single-subject
methodology to repair the disconnection between science and practice and make
research more relevant to practice.
Along with expanding notions of psychological science, the call to
understand the nature of psychotherapy practice is also gradually gaining ground
(Bibace & Walsh, 1982; John, 1998). One possible strategy is to develop a better
understanding of the “epistemology of practice” along with an emphasis on
“practice-based professional inquiry” (Beutler, et al. 1995; Claibom, 1987;
Hoshmand, 1991; Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; Polkinghome, 1999; Stoker &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Figg, 1998). Practice-based inquiry is typically grounded in the human science
approach, which has close affinity to psychological practice, in terms of cognitive
processes involved in the two activities (Etherington, 1996; Hoshmand, 1991;
Rennie, 1994). The epistemology of practice could be divided into three models -
the correspondence model, the coherence model, and the noncorrespondence model
(Ramirez, 1994). The correspondence model is primarily dependent on the tools for
knowledge akin to the scientist-practitioner model. Coherence model is based on
the socially constructed, languaged, narrative integrity, and the noncorrespondence
model implies the existence of truth that is inaccessible through language. Thus, a
scientist-practitioner subscribing to the correspondence model would be “using
empirically derived techniques to ameliorate empirically categorized symptoms”
(Ramirez, 1994). It might be appropriate for the specialty to critically reexamine the
current tools used to understand the human subject and reconsider the kind of
models being used in science and practice. The call for adopting the human science
approach in psychological science and understanding the nature of psychotherapy
practice would entail using the coherence model rather than the correspondence
model.
Suggestions for modifying current strategies of integration were also made
in the academic literature.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Changes in Strategies o f Integration
Numerous studies have made recommendations entailing functional and
structural changes in graduate training. These recommendations typically call for
more positive and effective mentoring (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Galassi, 1989;
Halgin & Struckus, 1985), improving the communication between researchers and
practitioners (Belar & Perry, 1992; Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Beutler, et al. 1995;
Borders, et al. 1994; Frank, 1986; Gelso, 1993; Heppner, et al. 1992; Hoshmand,
1991), changing the curricular structure to include integration as a inherent goal of
training (Heppner, et al. 1992; Hoshmand, 1991; Kanfer, 1990; Levy, 1981), and
increasing publications and conferences that act as vehicles of furthering integration
(Beutler, et al. 1995; Drabick & Goldffied, 2000; Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996).
It has been repeatedly suggested that counseling psychology take advantage
of the positive outcome related to sound mentoring by providing good faculty role
models and admitting students who have a genuine interest in both research and
practice (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Galassi, 1989; Halgin & Struckus, 1985).
Another suggestion was that integration take place during didactic
coursework through the introduction of important clinical issues, which would also
help in improving communication between researchers and practitioners (Belar &
Perry, 1992; Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Beutler, et al. 1995; Borders, et al. 1994;
Frank, 1986; Gelso, 1993; Heppner, et al. 1992; Hoshmand, 1991). Heppner, et al.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
(1992) also suggested that a “practice adviser” could oversee the inclusion of
research in practice-related training. A more sensitive attunement to integration of
science and practice during practice-related training would facilitate the generation
of clinically relevant research (Heppner, et al. 1992; Kanfer, 1990; Levy, 1981).
Such an approach could open up the possibility for clinical inquiry being viewed as
a scientific activity, leading to practice-based inquiry (Hoshmand, 1991).
One possible outcome of focused attention on research and practice training
is the increase in more integrated publications that serve as vehicles of
communication between researchers and practitioners (Beutler, et al. 1995).
Another possible outcome would be that researchers and clinicians corroborate
more to design, study, and evaluate interventions (Drabick & Goldfried, 2000;
Goldffied & Wolfe, 1996).
As the previous subsection pointed out, managed care has changed the
nature of the job market considerably and students in doctoral training need to be
prepared to meet these new job market demands. The current job market requires
more from doctoral psychologists than mere individual therapists because master’s
level clinicians meet this demand at a lower cost. In today’s job market, doctoral-
level professionals need to have skills related to developing, implementing, and
evaluating mental health care service delivery and a better appreciation of the
broader institutional picture, a need that has to be addressed during training (Elliott
& Klapow, 1997; Hayes, et al. p.l; Snyder & Ingram, 2000, p.723). Training in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
brief therapy and focusing on establishing scientific support for psychotherapy
practice are steps in the right direction. However, it remains to be seen if broader
conceptual approaches to psychological science are adopted and if practitioner-
based inquiry takes place during doctoral training in the future.
Having traced the development of academic literature on doctoral training in
counseling psychology using the scientist-practitioner model, it is evident that
various conceptual and functional problems related to interpreting and
implementing the model persist. My dissertation study aims to understand how
selected counseling psychology programs differ in their interpretation and
implementation of the scientist-practitioner model. I now discuss my rationales for
conducting the dissertation research.
Rationale o f Dissertation Study
The current review of the academic literature has examined the various
conceptual and functional problems relating to the scientist-practitioner training
model. Various recommendations have also been made to repair the rift between
science and practice. However, only a few studies relating to outcomes of doctoral
training have been conducted (Cherry, Messenger, & Jacoby, 2000; Gaddy,
Charlot-Swilley, Nelson, & Reich, 1995; Norcoss, Gallagher, & Prochaska, 1989;
Ross, Holzman, Handal, & Gilner, 1991). As mentioned in the previous chapter,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
these training outcome studies examined differences in training outcomes by
comparing different kinds of training models such as the scientist-practitioner,
practitioner-scholar, and clinical scientist and by comparing different applied
specialties. None of these studies sought to examine the variations in training
operational among programs that adopt the scientist-practitioner model in
counseling psychology. The goal of my dissertation study is to determine how
counseling psychology programs that adopt the scientist-practitioner model vary in
their interpretation and implementation of the model.
I pose three research questions in the dissertation study. First, how do
programs conceptualize science, practice, and the scientist-practitioner model?
Second, what are the various strategies of integration and how do programs
implement these strategies of integration? Third, what are the different factors that
influence the training process?
I use the collective case study method in order to examine selected
counseling psychology doctoral programs that adhere to the scientist-practitioner
model. My focus in the collective case study is on the different interpretations of the
scientist-practitioner model and the different ways the model is implemented.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Conclusion
The scientist-practitioner model evolved in the late 1940s with the
innovative goal of training professional psychologists as both scientists and
practitioners, as part of doctoral training in universities. The purpose of the dual
emphasis on science and practice, during the inception of the model, was to bring
together academicians and clinicians, who had previously had little or no areas of
commonality. The success of the model in achieving integration of science and
practice has, however, proved elusive. Debates on the relative lack of success in
achieving integration have crystallized around two major groups of questions -
those that inquire into the fundamental nature of psychological science and practice,
and those that question the nature of graduate training. While the hegemony of
positivistic natural science approaches created a single notion of psychological
science, the growth of different schools of psychotherapy practice led to multiple
notions of psychological practice. In addition, an inadequate understanding of the
epistemology of practice preserved the enigmatic quality of psychological practice.
Although the development of human science approaches and technical eclecticism
in psychotherapy practice has altered the equation, the debates in the academic
literature have not ceased. Today, there is widespread acknowledgement that
adopting a broader definition of psychological science coupled with practice-based
inquiry would facilitate integration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
Questions about the training strategies used in doctoral training have also
surfaced in the academic literature. Problems were identified in areas of personality
and value differences between researchers and clinicians, the inadequacy of
research and practicum training, faulty curriculum structures, and the inadequate
preparation of psychologists to meet the needs of a job market shaped by managed
care.
There has been an early acknowledgement of these problems as diagnostic of
the science-practice split, and various recommendations to address each of these
groups of problems have been proposed. However, the few outcome studies that
were conducted focused on differences in training outcomes by comparing different
kinds of training models and different applied specialties. The goal of the
dissertation study is to determine how selected counseling psychology programs
vary in their interpretation and implementation of the scientist-practitioner model. I
use the method of collective case study in order provide a rich description of
selected programs’ conceptual approaches and functional implementation of the
model. The next chapter on Method focuses on the method used to conduct this
dissertation research study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Chapter 3
METHOD
The overall purpose of this chapter is to lay out the specific research
procedures that I used to conduct this study. The previous two chapters have built
the argument justifying the relevance and need of the study - namely, there are
conceptual and functional problems in the scientist-practitioner model and there are
multiple interpretations and variations in how this model is implemented in
accredited counseling psychology doctoral programs. These problems and
variations specifically relate to the strategies of integrating science and practice in
graduate training, one of the avowed goals of the model. In addition, as is evident
from the previous chapter on the review of the literature, most of the academic
debate relating to the scientist-practitioner model has been predominantly
theoretical in nature, focusing on conceptual and functional problems in the model.
A few program outcome studies have examined differences among different kinds
of training models such as the scientist-practitioner, practitioner-scholar and clinical
scientist models and among various applied specialties such as clinical, counseling,
and school psychology. However, the variations among programs that adhere to the
scientist-practitioner model, specifically the differences in interpretation and
implementation of the model, have not been examined.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
I had proposed that examining the variations in programs’ interpretation and
implementation of the scientist-practitioner model would facilitate a better
understanding of the various conceptual and functional problems that have been
discussed extensively in the academic literature. Thus, the examination of these
operational differences within the scientist-practitioner model is the goal of this
study.
This chapter is divided into three major sections. The first section will focus
on the research questions that this study sought to answer. It will also include a
thorough description of the method I used which is the case study method,
specifically the collective case study method. The second section will provide a
detailed description of the case selection process and the strategies I used for
gathering data. This section will also include a description of the selected training
programs that constituted the collective case study and a description of data sources
used while gathering data. Finally, the third section will describe the strategies I
used for data analysis.
Research Questions
Because the goal of this study is to show the manner in which the scientist-
practitioner model is interpreted and implemented in selected APA accredited
counseling psychology doctoral programs, the collective case study method was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
used. This method calls for the collection of data appropriate for case descriptions
of the programs and for a subsequent comparative analysis of the programs.
There is extensive academic literature available on the various challenges
relating to the interpretation and implementation of the scientist-practitioner model.
One consistent theme in the academic literature has been the challenges and the
variations in how the scientist-practitioner model is interpreted and implemented in
psychology doctoral programs. The previous chapter on the review of academic
literature addressed these issues in depth. I state the salient themes again in order to
provide a context for the research questions this study seeks to answer. Then, I
discuss the few program outcome studies that have been conducted and, following
this discussion, I state my study’s research questions.
Contextual Background
As noted in chapter two, the ambiguity in the conceptualization of scientist-
practitioner model (Zachar & Leong, 2000) allows for variations in the
interpretation and programmatic implementation of the model (Peterson, 2000;
Stoltenberg, et al. 2000). The theoretical literature locates the ambiguities in several
areas: (a) the extent to which science or practice should be emphasized (Neimeyer
& Diamond, 2001), (b) the appropriate definition of psychological science
(Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; Howard, 1985,1993; Kanfer, 1990; Klien,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
1995; Linden & Wen, 1990; Page, 1996; Polkinghome, 1984; Rychlak, 1998;
Ussher, 1991), and (c) the functional challenges in integrating science and practice
in actual training programs (Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Drabick & Goldfried, 2000;
Frank, 1984; Goldfried, 1984; Halgin & Murphy, 1995, p.441; Hayes, et al. 1999,
p.11-12; Hoshmand, 1991; Sprinthall, 1990).
Apart from this theoretical debate, few program outcome studies have
examined outcome variables in doctoral training but these studies have focused on
differences among various applied specialties and/or differences among different
kinds of training models (Cherry, Messenger, & Jacoby, 2000; Gaddy, Charlot-
Swilley, Nelson, & Reich, 1995; Norcoss, Gallagher, & Prochaska, 1989; Ross,
Holzman, Handal, & Gilner, 1991). I review the findings of these program outcome
studies before stating the research questions of my study.
Norcoss, et al. (1989) examined the preferences of Division 12 members for
different training kinds of models - scientist-practitioner, practitioner-scholar, and
clinical scientist - as a function of the influence of members’ own training
program’s model during graduate study as well as their current professional
activities. They concluded that training preferences are “based on one’s own
doctoral training experiences and current occupational demands” (p.826). Similarly,
Cherry, et al. (2000) sought to compare training program outcomes as a function of
the kind of training model clinical psychology programs adopt. They divided
training outcomes as internal or intermediate training outcomes and external or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
students’ employment following graduation and included the variable of percentage
of time spent on various weekly employment activities by faculty and students.
They found that “training models are unique in the outcomes they produce” and that
“models do differ in the type of training they provide students” (p.566). Their study
provided more evidence on differences in training outcomes among different kinds
of training models. Both these studies found that the kind of training model adopted
during graduate study influenced a professional’s view of the profession and the
focus of one’s professional activity, whether it is research or practice.
Program outcome studies also revealed that, in addition to differences
between different kinds of training models, there are differences in training
outcomes among different applied specialties. Across applied specialties such as
clinical, counseling, and school psychology, program characteristics such as
administrative housing of the program, accreditations status, type of degree offered,
relative time spent in research or practice during graduate study influenced future
trajectories of program graduates as their careers evolved.
Ross, et al. (1991) investigated the relationship between the performance on
the Examination for the Professional Practice of Psychology (EPPP) and graduate
program characteristics or dependent variables such as specialty, type of degree,
administrative housing of program, and accreditation status and found significant
differences between applied specialties with clinical psychologists leading in their
performance on EPPP followed by counseling and school psychologists
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
respectively. They also found that there was no significant difference between PhD
and PsyD degrees although there was a statistically significant difference in
performance between those holding a PhD versus EdD, with the former faring
better. Similarly, examinees from programs housed in psychology departments
fared better than examinees whose programs were housed in schools of education or
freestanding schools and examinees from programs that had full or provisional
accreditation fared better than those examinees from non-accredited or probationary
programs. McGaha & Minder (1993) found similar differences based on student’s
examination scores and the accreditation status of the student’s graduate program.
In another similar study, Gaddy, et al. (1995) examined differences among
applied specialties such as clinical, counseling, and school psychology. They
compared three outcome variables - student activities, time to degree, and
employment settings of graduates - among a representative sample of 149
accredited doctoral programs and found differences between these three applied
specialties. Clinical psychology faculty and students’ involvement in professional
activities was greater than those in counseling psychology and school psychology
programs. In terms of time taken to complete their degrees, students in PhD
programs took approximately 1.5 years longer than those in PsyD programs.
Employment outcomes revealed a wider spread of settings in terms of initial
employment following graduation and a gradual shift toward individual, group, and
Healthcare Maintenance Organizations (HMO) practice subsequently. Both these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
studies (Gaddy, et al. 1995; Ross, et al. 1991) established that there are differences
in training outcomes among different applied specialties.
Gaddy, et al. (1995) states that, in general, “there is a relative paucity of
published research on outcome of accredited programs in professional psychology”
(p.508). However, these outcome studies do not offer explanations about why these
specific outcome differences among the different kinds of training models or among
different applied specialties exist. None of the outcome studies cited above sought
to examine how scientist-practitioner programs in counseling psychology differ in
their interpretation and implementation of the scientist-practitioner. Thus, this study
examined the differences in interpretation and implementation of the scientist-
practitioner model of training in selected accredited counseling psychology doctoral
programs.
Integration of science and practice, a critical component of the model, has
proved to be problematic both in its conceptualization as well as in its
implementation in different training programs. Examining differences among
programs that adopt the scientist-practitioner model facilitates a better
understanding of how training programs approach the task of integration and in
understanding why the task proves to be difficult. This study attempts to fill this gap
in the existing literature by examining these differences in selected doctoral
programs in counseling psychology that adopt the scientist-practitioner training
model. The first step toward understanding the nature of differences among
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
programs involves constructing a thorough description of selected training
programs, in terms of the different interpretations and differences in implementation
of the training model. Subsequent studies in the future can develop theoretical
explanatory frameworks to further explain these differences among training
programs. I now state the research questions this study sought to answer.
Statement o f Research Questions
In order to develop a thorough understanding of how training programs
interpret and implement the scientist-practitioner model, the following aspects of
training were examined - the conceptual approach in defining science and practice;
the concept of the scientist-practitioner; various strategies of integration; and
factors, internal and external to the program, that impact training. Thus, the primary
questions addressed by this study are:
1 .What are the conceptual approaches the selected APA accredited counseling
psychology doctoral programs that espouse the scientist-practitioner model use to
define the scientist-practitioner?
2. How do these selected training programs describe and implement their strategies
of integration in training?
3. What are the different training-related factors, internal and external to the
program, that impact the conceptualization and implementation of these strategies,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
as evident from the available data? This question was formulated during the early
phase of data gathering and analysis.
The next subsection focuses on the rationale for choosing the collective case
study method for the study.
Method
The program outcome studies that were previously discussed examined
training outcomes based on a set of variables that characterize training programs
such as the kind of training model the program adopts, kind of specialty, kind of
degree offered, administrative housing as well as outcome variables such as
graduates’ professional activities, time to degree, and initial and subsequent
employment following graduation. The outcome studies used secondary data from
programs’ annual reports, self-study, EPPP examination scores and surveys of APA
division 12 members. Because the focus of my study is counseling psychology
programs that adopt the scientist-practitioner model, I examined selected accredited
counseling psychology doctoral programs and I did not examine data from other
applied specialties or counseling psychology programs that adopt other kinds of
training models.
The approach to data analysis in the outcome studies mentioned previously
included comparison of various groups and variables using chi-square analysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
(Norcoss, et al. 1989), separate one-way ANOVAs (Ross, et al. 1991), and the
Kruskal-Wallis H test (Cherry, et al. 2000; Gaddy, et al. 1995). Such analysis of
inter-group differences enabled an overall understanding that there are significant
differences among different kinds of training models and between applied
specialties when various outcome variables are compared across these groups.
However, none of these program outcome studies examined what kind of
differences might be operational in training programs that adopt a specific kind of
training model. Specifically, in relation to the scientist-practitioner model, they did
not investigate how training programs differ in their interpretation and
implementation of the model. This gap not only provided the rationale for
conducting my study but it also informed the method used to conduct the study.
The goal of my study was to develop descriptions of how different scientist-
practitioner programs approach the task of integration in order to understand how
scientist-practitioner programs differ in their strategies of integration. Comparing
program demographics across different scientist-practitioner programs would not
facilitate the goal of understanding the nature of differences among programs that
adhere to the scientist-practitioner model. Thus, developing a thick description of
the selected programs was the first step toward capturing the complexity of the
various strategies used by counseling psychology training programs to achieve the
goal of integration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
At an initial level, qualitative research methods provided a means of
developing programmatic descriptions of the various strategies used to implement
the conceptual scientist-practitioner model. Qualitative research uses multiple
methods and it “reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the
phenomenon in question” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p.5). According to Denzin &
Lincoln (2000), “the word qualitative implies an emphasis on the qualities of
entities and on processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or
measured (if measured at all) in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency”
[italics in original] (p.8). Unlike quantitative research that values etic, nomothetic
information, qualitative research values rich descriptions of the social world (p. 10).
Given that this study seeks to develop a contextual understanding of the different
strategies of integration implemented by selected training programs by developing a
thick description of the programs, qualitative research methods were considered
more suitable than quantitative research methods.
In a qualitative research study, the choice of methods is determined by
“what information most appropriately will answer specific research questions, and
which strategies are most effective for obtaining it” (LeCompte & Priessle, 1993,
p.30). These methods include ethnomethodological techniques, grounded theory,
life history research, interpretive practices and case study among a myriad of
qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p.22).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
I briefly describe these methods in qualitative research in order to provide
my rationale for choosing the collective case study method for my study as opposed
to other qualitative research methods. For instance, different kinds of ethnographic
methods are currently operational but one key assumption of the method “has been
that by entering into close and relatively prolonged interaction with people (one’s
own or other) in their everyday lives, ethnographers can better understand the
beliefs, motivations, and behaviors of their subjects than they can by using any
other approach” (Tedlock, 2000, p.456). Ethnography typically relies on participant
or non-participant observation and fieldwork as tools to gather data (p.455). I seek
to understand how programs describe and implement the strategies they use to
integrate science and practice but I am not interested in understanding the culture of
program per se or engage in situ observation of how programs function. Hence,
ethnographic methods would not facilitate the development of these descriptions of
strategies of integration.
Grounded theory, on the other hand, “consist of systematic inductive
guidelines for collecting and analyzing data to build middle-range theoretical
frameworks that explain the collected data” (Charmaz, 2000, p.509). 1 did not use
the assumptions of grounded theory to develop my research questions or select
cases for this study. More importantly, I did not intend to develop a theoretical
explanatory framework. My goal was to develop a thorough description of the
differences in interpretation and implementation of the scientist-practitioner model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Grounded theory might be more useful for future studies that aim to develop
theoretical explanatory frameworks based on the description of the differences
among selected scientist-practitioner programs in counseling psychology.
Life history methods are used to understand personal experiences of
individuals from the individual’s perspective and it can viewed as an “retrospective
account by the individual of his life in whole or part, in written or oral form, that
has been elicited or prompted by another person” (Watson & Watson-Franke, 1985,
p.2). Because my focus is on interpretation and implementation of the scientist-
practitioner as embodied in selected training programs, it did not involve
understanding individuals’ life experiences. Hence, this method was considered
inappropriate for studying a program’s training policies.
Interpretive practices that include a variety of phenomenological approaches
are a “constellation of procedures, conditions, and resources through which reality
is apprehended, understood, organized, and conveyed in everyday life” (Gubrium &
Holstein, 2000, p.488). Most interpretive practices attempt to understand
experiential aspects of human experiences and are not well suited for understanding
and describing how programs interpret and implement the scientist-practitioner
model.
Case study as a form of research “is defined by interest in individual cases,
not by the methods of inquiry used” (Stake, 2000, p.435). Case study methods
“involve systematically gathering enough information about a particular person,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
social setting, event, or group to permit the researcher to effectively understand how
the subject operates or functions” (Berg, 2004, p.251). According to Patton (1987):
Case studies become particularly useful where one needs to
understand some particular problem or situation in great depth, and
where one can identify cases rich in information - rich in the sense
that a great deal can be learned from a few exemplars of the
phenomenon in question (p. 19).
The single epistemological question that drives the study is, “What can be learned
from the single case” (p.436)? In this study, this question extends to multiple cases.
Stake (2000) distinguishes between three kinds of case study - intrinsic,
instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case study is undertaken if the primary
interest is the case itself and not because it might necessarily lead to a better
understanding of other cases or it might lead to more theory-building (p.437).
Instrumental case study is undertaken, on the other hand, if examining a case might
“... provide insight into an issue or to redraw a generalization. The case is of
secondary interest, it plays a supportive role, and it facilitates our understanding of
something else” (p.437). A collective case study is an “instrumental case study
extended to several cases” (p.437). The collective case study was used for this study
and I now provide the rationale for choosing this particular form of case study.
The variations within the scientist-practitioner model could not be
adequately understood by examining one training program or a single case per se.
The goal was not merely to describe a particular training program’s strategies for
the sake of understanding that particular training program as would be the goal of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
an intrinsic case study. An examination of carefully selected exemplar programs
was necessary to get a better grasp of how programs vary in their interpretation and
implementation of the scientist-practitioner model. Thus, the goal was to understand
an issue in depth and in this study the issue involved understanding how different
training programs interpret and implement the scientist-practitioner model. In the
collective case study, each individual case (individual training program) was treated
as a distinct unit of study and then a comparison across cases was conducted to
develop a better description of the different interpretations and differences in
implementation of the model, within and across the cases. Cross-case comparisons
facilitate the understanding of differences within the scientist-practitioner model in
terms of how programs interpret and implement the training model. Thus, the focus
on understanding different training programs’ approaches to interpreting and
implementing the scientist-practitioner model justified conducting a collective case
study.
For the purpose of answering the research questions stated previously, I
chose to conduct an in depth examination of a selected number of training programs
with a focus on understanding how programs interpret and implement the scientist-
practitioner model. Case study method was the most appropriate method for this
purpose. Training programs fit the requirement of what constitutes a case - it is a
bounded, integrated system (Stake, 2000, p.436). In addition, studying selected
exemplar training programs with a focus on how these programs conceptualize and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
implement the scientist-practitioner model facilitates the development of rich
descriptions of their strategies of integration. According to Berg (2004):
By concentrating on a single phenomenon, individual, community or
institution, the researcher aims to uncover the manifest interaction of
significant factors characteristic of this phenomenon, individual,
community, or institution. But, in addition, the researcher is able to
capture various nuances, patterns, and more latent elements that
other research approaches might overlook (p.251).
The focus on interpretation and implementation of the scientist-practitioner model
also “provide[s] a powerful conceptual structure for organizing the study of a case”
(Stake, 1995, p. 17). The collective case study is also undertaken “because it is
believed that understanding them will lead to better understanding, perhaps better
theorizing, about a still larger collection of cases” (Stake, 2000, p.437). Thus,
developing a description of the selected training programs’ interpretation and
implementation of the model can facilitate future understanding of strategies of
integration used by scientist-practitioner programs that are not part of this study.
However, case studies have limited generalizability and the results of the
study will not be generalizable to all accredited counseling psychology programs.
But, it will inform future studies and accreditation policies by bringing out the
differences among programs that adhere to the scientist-practitioner training model
and provide a richer understanding of the complexity inherent within the model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Gathering
It would have been ideal to study all 65 programs in order to develop a
complete description of all the different interpretations and different approaches to
implementation of the model used throughout counseling psychology doctoral
programs. The collective case study research strategy calls for the selection of
particular case exemplars from across the spectrum of variations in the phenomenon
under study. For this study, eight exemplars of counseling psychology programs
identified as implementing various strategies of the scientist-practitioner model
were selected. In addition, an in-depth examination of all 65 programs is not
feasible to be undertaken as part of an unfunded dissertation study nor is it
necessary as long as great care had been taken while selecting the exemplar cases.
The focus of the case study method is on understanding the particular case under
scrutiny rather than aim for broad generalizations. Hence, I made a choice of
carefully selecting a few training programs that would constitute my collective case
study research. Data gathering consisted of two stages - first, selecting the cases for
the study; second, gathering data from and about the cases.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Selection o f Cases
During the first stage, there were two rationales for selecting the cases.
Firstly, the cases had to be exemplars such that they embody the variations within
the scientist-practitioner model. Secondly, selection had to be made on a pragmatic
basis taking into account accessibility of information, level of cooperation of the
training director, and limitation of time and resources.
As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, there are multiple
interpretations and variations in how the scientist-practitioner model is operational.
In counseling psychology, most programs appear to occupy the middle ground with
a narrow range starting from “scientist-practitioner, practitioner-scientist, and
practitioner-scholar models” (Stoltenberg, et al. 2000). The authors of this article
also cite Hill that all counseling psychology programs “seemed to integrate science
and practice to at least some degree” (Stoltenberg, et al. 2000). To select program
cases that varied in their interpretation and implementation of the scientist-
practitioner model, it was necessary to devise a categorical system, because such a
categorical system has not been developed in the existing literature. I devised a
three-category logical system, which was used in order to provide examples of
cases that employed different implementation strategies. The three categories were:
(a) programs that are predominantly science-focused, (b) programs that seem to be
balanced in their integration of science and practice, and (c) programs that are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
predominantly practice-focused. As mentioned previously, variations within
programs in terms of their varying emphasis on science and/or practice has been
acknowledged and such varying emphasis led me to create this categorical logical
system.
Following this categorization, I sought nominations of training programs by
sending out a letter to all current training directors of accredited counseling
psychology programs that adopted the scientist-practitioner model, describing my
study and seeking nominations of programs that were examples of the three
categories (See letter in Appendix A). The study was limited to programs within the
United States only. This letter was sent out to 65 training directors throughout the
country. I sent this letter with the relevant IRB authorization papers by US mail
and, after a gap of two weeks, emailed the letter to all the training directors. The
email did not include the IRB authorization papers because they had already
received them by US mail. A list of all scientist-practitioner programs was provided
to them in this letter. The list was created by referring to the latest listing of
accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology in the American
Psychologist (APA, 2002). This list did not include programs in counseling
psychology that espoused the practitioner-scholar model, practitioner model, and
combined professional-scientific programs because these programs did not serve
my goal of understanding differences in the scientist-practitioner model in
counseling psychology. Because training directors have expertise and familiarity in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
the area of doctoral training, their knowledge of training programs was used at this
stage. Thus, while seeking nominations, I requested training directors to nominate
scientist-practitioner programs that they deemed to fall into these three arbitrary
categories.
Ideally, if all the 65 training directors or at least most of the training
directors had responded to my request, I would have been in a position to clearly
and easily select programs in all these categories. However, only 14 training
directors responded in the six weeks after the letter and email was sent out.
Consequently, I decided to modify my case selection process. I sought additional
feedback and nomination of programs from two of my dissertation committee
members - Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone - who are considered experts in the field of
graduate training of counseling psychologists. I provided the list of programs that
were nominated in the three categories by the 14 respondents to my letter and email
and, in addition, enclosed the list of programs I had sent to training directors and
sought their feedback. They concurred with most of the nominations that had been
received and made some minor modifications.
The final list of nominations based on training directors’ nominations and
additional feedback from Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone is included in Table 2 below.
Pseudonyms of philosophers’ names are used in order protect confidentiality of
participating institutions and training directors. Finally, 17 training programs were
selected for the collective case study. Of these 17 programs, four programs were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nominated in the science-oriented category, nine programs in the balanced category,
and four programs in the practice-oriented category. The uneven number of
programs in each category was not a major concern. As mentioned previously, most
programs appear to integrate science and practice to some degree and, hence, I was
not surprised to see more programs nominated in the balanced category as opposed
to the science-oriented or practice-oriented categories.
Table 2. List of Nominated Programs for the Collective Case Study.
Science-Oriented Balanced Practice-Oriented
University of Aquinas University of Plato University of Kierkegaard
University of Aristotle University of Husserl University of Hume
University of Spinoza University o f Socrates University of Kant
University of Locke University o f Dewey University of Anselm
- University o f Hegel -
- University o f Descartes -
- University o f Heidegger -
- University o f Leibniz -
- University o f Stuart Mill -
Note: Dashes indicate that programs were not nominated in this category.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gathering Data from Selected Cases
92
The second stage of data gathering involved contacting training directors of
the nominated training programs in order to seek their consent and assistance to
gather data.
Following the selection of cases, I mailed a second letter to the training
directors of the 17 nominated programs describing my study, seeking their
assistance in gaining access to their program’s current self-study, information
related to training such as faculty vitae, course outlines, and about 45 minutes of
their time to conduct an audio-taped telephone interview. The letter is included in
Appendix B. The relevant IRB authorization to conduct this stage of the study was
also included with this letter. Two weeks after mailing the letter, I emailed the letter
to all the training directors without including the IRB authorization papers. If all the
17 training directors had responded positively, I would have had 17 cases for my
collective case study. However, getting access to self-studies and getting the
training directors’ consent for a telephone interview was a difficult process.
Following my email request, two weeks after the hard copies were mailed out, one
training director responded back stating that she could not participate in the study
and two training directors consented to participate. However, the remaining 14
training directors did not respond at all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
At this juncture, I requested Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone to assist me in the
data gathering process. They graciously consented and forwarded my request for
access to self-studies and my request for a time for an interview to the 14 training
directors once again. I received six positive responses and two negative responses
following their email requests. Six training directors never responded. Thus, the six
programs whose training directors responded positively were added to the collective
case study in addition to the two training programs that were already part of the
study.
In addition to the eight programs, I chose to add another nominated program
(University of Aristotle) that provided access to its self-study on their program
website and the website also had detailed information related to doctoral training.
However, the training director of this program never responded to my request for a
telephone interview.
University of Hume, which was nominated in the practice-oriented category,
adopts the scientist-professional program. Initially, I had concerns if this program
should be included in the study because it is not strictly a scientist-practitioner
program. Following a discussion with my dissertation committee members, I
decided to include the program because the scientist-professional training model
explicitly aims to integrate science and practice and the differences between the
scientist-professional and scientist-practitioner models was not considered wide
enough to not select the program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Of the eight training directors who consented to participate, two training
directors declined to provide access to the program’s self-study. A few weeks after
consenting to participate in the study one of the training directors (University of
Anselm) informed me that he could provide me with less than 15 minutes for a
telephone interview. Hence, I chose not to include this program in the collective
case study because I would have had insufficient information and I could not
develop meaningful descriptions based on the available data. Thus, eight training
programs constituted my final collective case study. Of these eight programs, one
program fell in the science-oriented category, one in the practice-oriented category,
and six in the balanced category. The final list of training programs that constituted
my case study is included in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Final Selection of Training Programs for the Collective Case Study.
Science-Oriented Balanced Practice-Oriented
University o f Aristotle University of Plato University o f Hume
- University of Socrates -
- University of Heidegger -
- University of Hegel -
- University of Husserl -
- University of Descartes -
Note: Dashes indicate that programs were not nominated in this category.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Description o f Cases (Tmining Programs)
Program descriptions are completely based on program website information
of respective training programs. Phrases or statements cited in these descriptions are
from the program website and I provide the page number from the printouts and
section from which the statements are cited followed by the suffix, Website. But, I
do not provide website references. In order to protect confidentiality of training
programs and current training directors who consented to interview, the website
reference was not provided because access to this reference information would
compromise confidentiality of training directors and training programs.
University o f Aristotle (Science-Oriented Program)
The counseling psychology program is housed in one of the largest
departments of psychology at a large Research I state university. The department of
psychology was established in 1919 and the counseling psychology doctoral
program has been accredited since 1952. Historically, illustrious leaders in the field
of psychology worked as faculty and administrators in this department, which
helped in enhancing the prestige and popularity of the department. The counseling
psychology doctoral program was also nurtured by leaders in the specialty who
played a pivotal role in the development of the department in general and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
counseling psychology program specifically. The program has a rich and consistent
tradition of research productivity that is based on an empirical research viewpoint to
psychological science and research (Counseling Psychology, p.l; Website). The
program also has a tradition of specializing in the areas of vocational issues,
multicultural research, psychological assessment, biological bases of behavior, and
in the interface between counseling psychology and social psychology. The
department’s historical parallel commitment to “pure science” and “practical
application” continues through “a tradition of critical questioning, challenging
assumptions, and pressing for quantification and measurement” (A Synopsis of our
History, p.4; Website).
The following information was available in the link titled “Highlights from
the Counseling Psychology Program”. The program consists of three core faculty
members, 13 affiliated faculty members, and four emeritus professors. The faculty
members currently serve on seven editorial boards, and many have received
multiple awards from APA, ACA, and Division 17 for their scientific contributions.
There are currently 25 doctoral students in the program and 300 students have
graduated from the program with masters and doctoral degrees since 1952. From
2000 to 2003, 88% of the students were authors or co-authors of convention papers
and 75% were authors or co-authors of journal articles and book chapters. Many
students have received multiple awards, fellowships, and grants. Among the current
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
students, six received graduate school fellowships, 16 department fellowships, and
three graduate research partnerships grants.
This program was nominated seven times as a science-oriented scientist-
practitioner program. Dr.Stone and Dr.Goodyear concurred with this nomination.
University o f Plato (Balanced Program)
The counseling psychology doctoral program is housed in the college of
education in a major Research I state university. The department offers multiple
master’s programs in addition to doctoral training. The doctoral program is one of
the oldest in the country and it was accredited in 1953. It has a long tradition of
research productivity, teaching excellence, and successfully competing for external
funding. The counseling psychology program offers specialized training in
multicultural issues, teaching effectiveness, and supervision.
Currently, there are 13 faculty members in the program. In the past five
years, the program was awarded the APA Richard Suinn Award for excellence in
multicultural graduate education (Counseling Psychology Program, p.2; Website)
and it was selected as the Psychology Department of the Year by the APA
Association of Psychology Graduate Students (p.2).
The program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner program
five times and Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone supported the nomination.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
University o f Socrates (Balanced Program)
The department of educational and counseling psychology in the school of
education, part of a large state university, houses the division of counseling
psychology. The division offers one doctoral training program and three master’s
degree programs. The program has been continuously accredited since 1980 and
consists of 10 faculty members. Since the program got accredited, more than 130
students have graduated with doctoral degrees (A Message from the Director of
Training, p.2; Website). The Committee on Accreditation commended the program
for a clear and organized training model and curriculum. The program’s website
states that the doctoral program has been reputed for faculty productivity and is
ranked among the top programs in the country.
This program was nominated once as a balanced scientist-practitioner
program and Dr.Stone and Dr.Goodyear chose this program in this category as well.
University o f Heidegger (Balanced Program)
The doctoral program is housed in the school of education and offers a
doctoral and master’s degree program. It is part of a major private Research I
university. The doctoral program has been fully accredited since 1996. The program
is currently undergoing major administrative and programmatic changes as part of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
larger policy shifts in the school of education, leading to the phasing out of the
program. These changes have impacted the training program in the last two years as
it adjusts to these major changes. The division of counseling psychology has a
record of attracting faculty who are leaders in the specialty of counseling
psychology and who are active in Division 17 activities. There appears to be a
difference in the kind of doctoral training offered prior to such programmatic
changes being instituted in comparison to the current status of the program. A
reduction in the number of core faculty members and resources has challenged the
demands made on faculty members, students, and the administrative staff.
Currently, there are four core program faculty members, three ‘other’ program
faculty members, and eight adjunct faculty members. The program currently has
approximately 50 students.
Dr.Stone and Dr.Goodyear nominated this program as a balanced scientist-
practitioner program although other training directors did not nominate this
program.
University o f Hegel (Balanced Program)
The doctoral program is housed in the college of education in a major state
university. The program adheres to the scientist-practitioner model of training with
an emphasis on “empirical [s/c] data as the basis for professional practice”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
(Introduction, p.l; Website). The program is gaining prominence by attracting
faculty members who are recognized and visible in the specialty of counseling
psychology for their academic achievements. Faculty members from both
counseling psychology and counselor education teach in the program and there are
a total of 15 faculty members in the program (Counseling Psychology Faculty,
pp. 1-3; Website).
This program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner program
four times and Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone concurred with this nomination.
University o f Husserl (Balanced Program)
The doctoral program, in the college of education, is housed in a Research I
state university. It offers a doctoral degree but no master’s degree is offered. The
main division consists of doctoral programs in five specialties, including counseling
psychology. All the programs share a philosophy of application of psychological
and quantitative principles (Counseling Psychology, p.4; Website). The division
also has a long tradition of research in psychological assessment and psychometrics
and the division houses a research center that focuses on psychometric issues.
This program has been accredited since 1983 and consists of six core faculty
members and seven adjunct faculty members. Faculty members have been
recognized with awards for outstanding achievement in Counseling Health
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Psychology and serve on several journal editorial boards. A number of students
have received dissertation fellowships, research awards, and minority fellowships
both from the university and various APA divisions.
The program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner program
primarily by Dr.Stone and Dr.Goodyear although none of the training directors who
were previously contacted nominated this program.
University o f Descartes (Balanced Program)
The doctoral program is one of the older programs in counseling psychology
and has been continuously accredited by APA since 1957. The program is part of
the department of educational psychology in the school of education and is housed
in a state university. There are nine faculty members in the program and there are
approximately 55 graduate students in the program.
The program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner program
twice and Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone chose this program in this category as well.
University o f Hume (Practice-Oriented Program)
The program is housed in the college of education in a major state
university. The program adheres to the scientist-professional model of training and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
admits only master’s level students into the program. Multicultural awareness and
training is a major component of the doctoral program. The program was
established in the 1940s and, over the years, it underwent a series of changes
(Doctoral Student Handbook, p.4; Website). Finally, the program received full APA
accreditation in 2000. The program consists of five core faculty members and seven
affiliated faculty members. Currently, there are approximately 41 students in the
program.
The program was nominated in the practice-oriented category four times and
Dr.Goodyear and Dr.Stone agreed with the program’s nomination in this category.
They also endorsed the inclusion of this program in the collective case study in
spite of the program adhering to the scientist-professional model of training.
The next subsection describes the various data sources utilized for gathering
data.
Sources o f Data
Qualitative researchers are interested in any data that contribute to
knowledge of the situation they are studying (Polkinghome & Gribbons, 1998,
p.l 18). According to Polkinghome (1991), “qualitative researchers are data
scavengers” (p. 182). Polkinghome & Gribbons (1998) stated that the primary
function of participants in qualitative inquiry is to be sources of rich data (p.l 18).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Therefore, training programs were chosen selectively so that they provided “intense
descriptions of the situation under investigation” and added “enough variation in the
data to develop a comprehensive structural description” (Polkinghome, 1998,
p.l 19). According to Stake (1995), “choosing issues helps to define data sources
and data gathering activities” (p. 133). Multiple sources of data were used to gather
information about the cases and these sources were chosen because they provide
information about programs’ training policies. Data sources consisted of
information from the program’s website, the program’s current self-study,
dissertation abstracts from the past seven years, and interviews with the program’s
current training director. I now provide my rationale for choosing these sources of
data for my study.
Program Website
Information from the program website was used as one of the sources to
gather information about a training program. Such information is easily accessible
and provides preliminary data on a program’s specific training philosophy,
programmatic details, and occasionally information about coursework. However,
because websites are typically developed with the goal of marketing and advertising
a program, information relating to challenges in integration would not be available.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Programs also vary in how much information they provide on their program
websites.
All the eight training programs had accessible website information related to
doctoral training. I printed out all the information including data from web links in
each program website.
Self-Study
Self-study is a document written by the program for the purpose of
accreditation by APA and it contains detailed information about a program’s
training philosophy, conceptual approach to training, strategies of implementing the
training model, faculty vitae, coursework syllabi, and alumni and current student
survey data about their satisfaction with training. Typically, a self-study consists of
a narrative portion and a non-narrative portion consisting of tables and appendices.
Training programs varied in their policy of providing access to their self-study
documents. Of the selected eight training programs, one program (University of
Plato) refused to provide any access to the self-study while the rest differed in how
much access they were willing to provide me. The remaining seven programs
provided access to the narrative portion of the self-study; four programs did not
provide access to all the tables and appendices that constitute the complete self-
study. Consequently, information such as course syllabi, faculty vitae, graduate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
employment statistics and other related information was not always available.
Programs also varied on how current the self-studies were because they were
prepared during different APA site visit schedules.
Dissertation Abstracts
Dissertation abstracts of students from the selected training programs were
accessed from Proquest Dissertation Abstract Database. This information is easily
accessible and I chose to examine dissertation abstracts from 1997.1 chose the year
1997 because the oldest self-study was written in that year. The research methods
used in dissertations provide a concise view of the conceptual approach to
psychological science and research programs espouse. Hence, dissertation abstracts
were used as a data source. However, a few programs listed inexplicably small
number of dissertation abstracts in the database.
Interviews
The rationale for conducting interviews was to capture information that is
not evident or mentioned in other data sources. According to Patton (1987), “The
fundamental principle of qualitative interviewing is to provide a framework within
which respondents can express their own understandings in their own terms”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
(p.l 15). As mentioned previously, data sources such as program website
information and self-studies can be biased and limited in providing information
about the challenges of integrating science and practice. They are predominantly
descriptive. Interviews with training directors are also vulnerable to problems
relating to time constraints of the training director, willingness of the training
director to openly discuss training issues, and biases of the training director. In spite
of these limitations, interviews can provide valuable data and they can be helpful in
getting access to the evaluative component as well the training director’s
perspective on the subject of study. Training directors can share their evaluations of
training policies rather than provide mere descriptions of what is operational in
training programs. Thus, the main goal of conducting these interviews was to gain
access to information that was not easily accessible from the other data sources.
I conducted interviews of current training directors of the selected training
programs in order to get their perspective on the subject of this study. Five
interviews were conducted over the telephone and audio-taped while two interviews
were conducted face-to-face and these interviews were also audio-taped. Consent
for conducting the interview as well as permission to audiotape the interview was
sought from the training director prior to the interview. The relevant details were
included in the IRB paperwork that was sent to each training director. One training
director (University of Aristotle) never responded to my request to conduct an
interview and, therefore, this interview did not take place.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Wolcott (1994) identifies “three major modes through which qualitative
researchers gather their data: participant observation (experiencing), interviewing
(enquiring), and studying materials prepared by others (examining)” (p. 10). The
other sources I utilized until now fall under the last category of materials prepared
by others that I examined. Interviews fall under the second category wherein I
inquired about the research questions I was seeking to answer by conducting
interviews of training directors. Interviews provide the pathway to discovering and
portraying multiple realities (Stake, 1995, p.64). Ideally, I would have preferred to
access these multiple realities by interviewing individuals who play different roles
and possibly have different perspectives on training-related issues. For example,
current faculty members in these training programs, past training directors, adjunct
faculty members, clinical supervisors in practicum sites, current graduate students
and alumni, members of the APA Committee on Accreditation and other members
of the training program could provide varying perspectives about training and the
integration of science and practice. Due to limitation of time and resources as well
as constraints of access to these individuals, I limited my interviews to current
training directors.
Interviews can be approached through various strategies. Patton (1987)
differentiates between three kinds of approaches: “(1) the informal conversational
interview, (2) the general interview guide approach, and (3) the standardized open-
ended interview” (p. 109). The informal conversational interview is spontaneous and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
is shaped by the natural flow of the conversation and the questions are responsive to
individual interviewees (p.l 10). The interview guide approach entails having a
prepared list of questions or issues prior to the interview and, hence, the interview is
not as spontaneous. However, the interviewer has the option “to build a
conversation within a particular subject area, and to establish a conversation style -
but with the focus on a particular predetermined subject” (p.l 11). The standardized
open-ended interview is more structured and consists of a set of questions carefully
worded and arranged and these questions are posed in the same order to all the
respondents (p.l 12). This style of interviewing is primarily “used when it is
important to minimize variation in the questions posed to interviewees” (p.l 13).
For my study, I adopted the interview guide approach. This approach is
neither as unstructured as an informal conversational interview nor is it as
structured as the standardized open-ended interview. Based on the research
questions and issues to be explored, a preliminary list of questions was formulated
(See Appendix C). The main purpose of these questions was to be certain that all
the relevant topics were covered during the interview. In addition, training
directors’ time is valuable and I wanted to maximize the information gathered by
using the interview time economically. According to Patton (1987):
The advantage of an interview guide is that it makes sure the
interviewer has carefully decided on how best to use the limited
time available in an interview situation. The interview guide helps
to make interviewing different people more systematic and
comprehensive by delimiting the issues to be discussed in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
interview. The interview guide approach is especially useful in
conducting group interviews. A guide keeps the interaction
focused, but allows individual perspectives and experiences to
emerge (p.111).
As the data gathering process evolved, I added more questions to the interview
relating to how training directors described the programs’ strategies of integration
as well as various factors, internal and external to the program, that they deemed as
influential in the implementation of the model. These questions are also mentioned
in Appendix C.
According to Kvale (1996), there are seven stages in an interview
investigation (p.88). These stages are thematizing, designing, interviewing,
transcribing, analyzing, verifying, and reporting (p.88). The first three stages have
already been discussed including the relevance and need for the study, the method
used in the study, and the rationale and approach to conducting interviews with
training directors. The fourth stage involves transcribing. I transcribed all
interviews verbatim using a transcribing machine in order to transform the oral
speech to written text for the purpose of analysis. I transcribed each interview
immediately after the interview was completed so that I could use the information
gathered to inform my future interviews. The next subsection on data analysis
describes my approach to data analysis in depth. The sixth stage of interview
investigation is identified as verifying (p.88). I emailed verbatim transcripts of
interviews to respective training directors and sought their feedback. None of the
training directors made any additional comments and all of them affirmed the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
accuracy of the transcript content. The next chapter on Findings reports the findings
of the study through individual case descriptions.
It is critical that the quality of the interview is excellent because “the quality
of the original interview is decisive for the quality of the later analysis, verification,
and reporting of the interviews” (Kvale, 1996, p. 144). There are three important
components that determine the quality of the interview - the interviewer’s skill, the
interview subject or the interviewee, and how “self-communicating” the interview
is (p.145).
With regards to the interviewer’s skill, I believe that my experience for three
years as a research assistant in a multi-site, large scale ethnography study and my
clinical training have honed my interview skills - framing questions, establishing
rapport with the interviewee, picking up nuances, verifying interpretations, and
getting maximum information. In addition, I was also aware of my biases that could
influence the interview process and the overall study itself. My opinion on this
subject was based primarily on two experiences - reading the existing literature and
my current experiences as a doctoral student in an APA accredited doctoral
counseling psychology program. As a result of reading the literature and my current
student status, I was more skeptical about the feasibility of integrating science and
practice and also questioned the fundamental assumption that an individual could be
competent in both science and practice. In addition, I also questioned the notion of
the scientist-practitioner, trying to understand what the term meant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
I was acutely sensitive to how this bias could influence the interview or data
analysis process and I assiduously kept analytic memos in order to be constantly
aware of my biases while conducting interviews and interpreting data. These
particular memos helped me appropriately word my interview questions and
informed the kind of details I sought from training directors. Finally, I assumed a
reflective stance to the task at hand so that I could remain open to the complexity
within the data. Being self-reflective and maintaining memos were especially
helpful during interviews because I could carefully phrase inquiries and
clarifications in a manner that would not foreclose training directors’ responses. My
preferences for methodological diversity in research training and practitioner-based
inquiry as approaches to integrating science and practice informed how I interpreted
the selected programs’ approach to integration.
The interview subjects in this study were the current training directors of the
selected training programs. Of the eight selected programs, the training director of
one program (University of Aristotle) never responded to my request for an
interview. The remaining seven training directors responded positively but all of
them committed to a single interview for a span of about 45 minutes. One training
director (University of Heidegger) was available locally and, hence, I chose to
conduct a face-to-face interview. Another training director (University of Hegel)
informed me while I was trying to get access to the program’s self-study that the
document was loosely bound and it would be difficult for him to photocopy such
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
large amounts and send them to me. Consequently, I offered to drive down (about
400 miles) and photocopy the materials. We decided to schedule a face-to-face
interview during my visit to photocopy the self-study. All the seven training
directors who consented to interview were friendly, forthcoming, and honest about
their evaluations of the training programs and the challenges involved in integrating
science and practice. Many training directors candidly admitted to problems in
training and discussed the gap between what the self-study stated as a particular
strategy of integration and the actual implementation of the strategy.
A “self-communicating” interview is self-contained (Kvale, 1996, p. 145).
That is, the interview data reveals important information as well as remains open to
further interpretations. All the interviews reveal the information I sought and they
also facilitated interpretations by enabling the creation of links between conceptual
approaches and functional implementation of strategies. It also facilitated the
understanding of factors, internal and external to the program, that impacted
doctoral training.
Conducting interviews entails following certain ethical guidelines. The two
main ethical concerns that I addressed were informed consent and confidentiality.
Consent to conduct audio-taped telephone interviews were sought at two junctures.
Prior to conducting the study, I got approval from the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) to conduct my study and the IRB application for my study’s approval
included details regarding the interview process. The IRB approval paperwork was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
mailed to all the training directors who were interviewed so that they are aware of
the details of my study prior to giving consent. I provided detailed information
about the goal of my study, the data gathering, data analysis, and data storage
policies. They were informed that the interview would be conducted over the
telephone unless face-to-face interview was feasible and that all interviews would
be audiotaped. In addition, I informed them that the interview would take 45-60
minutes approximately and I might request an additional interview time, if needed.
The second juncture for getting consent was just prior to beginning the interview. I
explained the goal of my study and described the interview process briefly and
explicitly sought their consent to audiotape before switching the record button on.
The second ethical issue concerned confidentiality. Common etiquette of
ethics and IRB rules both dictated that I protect the identity of a training program
and the training director. Details regarding how confidentiality would be protected
were mentioned in detail in the IRB paperwork that was mailed to them. The
safeguards included using a pseudonym of philosopher’s name for each training
institution and not providing any identifying information about a training program
or a training director while describing the cases or analyzing them. In addition, I did
not provide website references or specific self-study references to protect
confidentiality. Similarly, while quoting excerpts from any data source, all
identifying information such as another faculty member’s name or complete titles of
presentations and publications were replaced by an ellipsis. All the data stored in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
my personal laptop computer are password protected and hard copies of data are
stored in a locked cabinet in my personal library. The audiotapes are coded, with no
identifying information present, and are also placed in the locked cabinet. The
protection of confidentiality of training directors and their respective training
institutions is not limited to the dissertation alone but it extends to any publication
arising from this research in the future. Self-studies will be identified with a prefix
of SS followed by the pseudonym. For example, the self-study of University of
Aristotle will be identified as SS Aristotle. Similarly, interviews of training directors
will be identified using a prefix I. For example, interview of the training director
from University of Hume will be identified as IHume. Dissertation abstracts will
identified with a prefix DA. For example, dissertation abstracts from University of
Husserl will be identified as DAHusserl. Specific page numbers and line numbers
will also be provided, the latter for interviews only.
Summary o f Data Collected
I discussed the various data sources and the kinds of data I gathered for this
study in detail. In summary, the data sources for the study included program
website information, self-studies from the selected cases, dissertation abstracts from
1998, and interview transcripts based on interviews with training directors of the
selected programs. In order to provide a sense of the quantity of information
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
gathered, I mention the number of pages of data I gathered from each data source
for each selected case or training program. This information is presented in Table 4
below. Most of this data is single-spaced.
Table 4. Quantitative Summary of Gathered Data from Different Data Sources.
Program Website Self-Study Dissertation
Abstracts
Interview
Transcripts
University of Aristotle 50 36 41 -
University of Plato 92 - 38 6
University of Socrates 67 68 26 5
University of Heidegger 46 214 13 11
University of Hegel 35 191 29 10
University of Husserl 118 85 25 10
University of Descartes 119 119 12 9
University of Hume 232 68 8 12
Total # of pages 759 791 192 58
Note: Dashes indicate that the data source was not accessible.
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, “there is typically not a precise point at which data
collection ends and analysis begins” (Patton, 1987, p. 144). In fact, qualitative data
analysis is typically a reiterative process of data gathering and data analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
Polkinghome (1991) explains that qualitative approach is based on the principles of
“gestalt logic” or “hermeneutic circle” which conceptualizes understanding as “a
reciprocal interaction of the whole schema and its parts” (p. 179). This study is no
exception. I now describe how I approached the task of data analysis in detail.
Data analysis roughly began after I gained access to two self-studies and
after I completed two interviews with training directors. Prior to that I had
arbitrarily divided training programs into three categories - science-oriented,
balanced, and practice-oriented and based on these categories, I had selected eight
programs for the case study. In addition, I had tentatively formulated interview
questions based on information gleaned from the existing literature (See Appendix
C), which I used during the first two interviews.
Upon reading the interview transcripts and the two self-studies, I made two
observations. First, there appeared to be a gap and a disconnection between what
programs’ self-studies describe as their philosophies of training versus how training
directors viewed the program philosophies and how they evaluated the success and
quality of training. Reading self-studies gave me the impression that the task of
training a student to be a scientist-practitioner is well understood and easily carried
out. The oft-repeated theme in self-studies while describing the scientist-
practitioner was the use of critical thinking in research and practice. On the other
hand, although training directors sounded sanguine about the goal of integration,
they shared their reservations and conceded to problems in attempting to integrate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
science and practice in training. My second observation was that training directors’
notions of what a scientist-practitioner meant was not uniform. For example, some
training directors viewed a scientist-practitioner as an individual who spends equal
time engaging in both activities while others viewed the scientist-practitioner as an
individual who applies science during the therapeutic process. As I became aware
of these disconnections between the self-studies and interview content, I decided to
revisit the literature once again.
There had been a gap of approximately five months since I read the
academic literature, while preparing the literature review for the dissertation
proposal. As I started reading the articles again, I realized that I had an extensive
number of articles and book chapters but the articles and book chapters were
disorganized and so I had to first organize the literature. While writing the literature
review, I had spiral bound all the articles and book chapters for ease in handling. I
had 15 spiral bound volumes. However, I could not easily remember or trace any
particular article unless I perused through all the 15 volumes. This was a time-
consuming, inefficient, and frustrating process. Consequently, I decided to make a
table of contents for each volume so that I could easily trace articles and I also used
red plastic tabs to demarcate each individual article so that I reduce time spent
turning pages searching for a particular article in a volume. To further organize the
spiral bound volumes, I labeled each article using the red tabs by a code I had
created - “Science”, “Practice”, “S-P”, and “Functional”. “Science” and “Practice”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
were articles discussing conceptual problems. “S-P” identified articles that
discussed the notion of scientist-practitioner and “Functional” related to articles on
implementation of the model. Having organized the articles, I used the structure in
the literature review and read articles relating to conceptual issues in science and
practice followed by articles that discussed functional problems in the model.
At this stage, the “S-P” articles proved helpful because these articles
discussed what I had observed in my preliminary reading of the data - two self-
studies and two interview transcripts. My observations were that there are different
interpretations of the scientist-practitioner model and programs train scientist-
practitioners of different hues. Based on this new insight, I added two questions to
the interview - How do you define a scientist-practitioner? How does your program
train students to become scientist-practitioners (as per the definition)?
Equipped with this new insight, I was looking forward to the next interview
and incoming data but the next set of self-studies took a few weeks to arrive and
many training directors scheduled interviews in June/July, due to varying summer
schedules. I used this waiting period to read all the articles once again and I also re
read the self-studies and interview transcripts I already had. I made a rough outline
of different definitions of psychological science - natural and human science
approaches, different definitions of practice - various theoretical orientations,
different definitions of the scientist-practitioner - critical thinker, competent in
research and practice, competent in ESTs, and knowledgeable in research and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
practice. I also listed different strategies of integration - mentoring/role modeling,
taking coursework in research and practice in every semester, and participating in
faculty research groups. I made notes and summaries of most articles during this
stage. This process helped me in developing a conceptual understanding of what I
was finding although, at this stage, it merely translated into numerous pages of
hand-written notes and memos.
As I was completing the reading and note-taking exercise, more self-studies
came in and so did training directors become available for interviews. These
subsequent interviews had the two additional questions I mentioned above. After I
completed the fourth interview, I also observed that external factors impacted
training. For example, one of the training directors described how the existence of a
well-funded, highly respected research center in the department that conducted
research on psychometric issues in counseling influenced the tenure process and the
kind of research conducted in the program. Because the faculty members involved
in this research center adopted highly traditional notions of psychological science,
qualitative research appeared to be frowned upon. Thus, many faculty members as
well as graduate students were encouraged to engage in positivistic, quantitative
research. Similarly, another training director described how the merging of two
state universities about two decades ago, led to the creation of the current university
structure. The merger also led to the integration of a clinical psychology and
counseling psychology program. Faculty members from the former program were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
quantitatively-oriented and they changed the flavor of the counseling psychology
program by conducting more positivistic research. Such observations led me to pay
more attention to various influences a program is vulnerable to.
Consequently, following the fourth interview, I added more questions during
my interviews seeking information on these influencing factors. At this stage, I
added the final question in my section on research questions. I asked training
directors the following questions - Are there any factors within the program or
outside that influence training? How do these factors impact training, especially the
science and practice components? How do these factors influence the development
of the scientist-practitioners in the program? According to Stake (1995), “in a
qualitative research project, issues emerge, grow, and die” (p.21). The evolution of
these questions is an example of such emergence of issues.
By mid-July, I had all the data I hoped to gather and I began a more formal
stage of data analysis which mainly entailed using the constant comparison method
of case analysis. This process began with reading all the self-studies and interview
transcripts a number of times. I began making notes and creating categories in the
margins. However, I soon realized that accessing the notes and categories was not
feasible as I was once again turning pages looking for a small notation. Having
learned more user-friendly approaches while reading the articles two months prior, I
abandoned writing notes in the margins. Instead, I purchased numerous plastic tabs
in different colors. Green tabs were for science, blue tabs for practice, pink tabs for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
integration, yellow tabs for influences, and orange tabs for miscellaneous
observations.
As I completed this exercise of placing color tabs, I had developed a more
detailed understanding of the eight training programs. To further the analytic
process, I re-examined the interview transcripts and self-studies each color code at a
time. This examination entailed understanding each training program as well as
making comparisons across training programs. The color-coding was particularly
helpful because I could compare all the main categories across training programs.
However, before comparing training programs, I developed a brief description for
each training program with the goal of answering the research questions for each
individual case. While creating this description, I further labeled each plastic tab
with the theme that each tab identified. For example, I differentiated among
different kinds of influences (school of education, faculty attitude, managed care
etc) in the yellow tabs and differentiated between the concept and strategies of
integration in the pink tabs with a “C” and “S” respectively. Then, I embarked on
the cross-comparison process.
By the time I was ready to compare cases, I had read the academic literature,
the self-studies, and the interview transcripts more than 10 times and I had become
very familiar with the data such that I could remember where different themes were
present easily. However, ideas, statements, quotes, and categories still seemed
elusive and lost in the data. To make the analysis manageable, I created a visual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
representation using Microsoft Visio software. I re-named influences as Contextual
Factors and this representation is presented in Figure 1 below.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Core I
Faculty
Managed
Care
>
Job Market
Variables
Practice
Vague
Quantitative
Program
Qualitative
APA
ESTs
- ► Integrative
History
Faculty
Attitude
Coursework
University
Adjunct
Faculty
External
Influences
Substantive
Areas
Science/
Methodology
Internal
Influences
Theoretical
Orientation
Supervisor
Influence
School of
Education
Pre-
Doctoral
Internship
Clinical
Supervision
University
Counseling
Center
Contextual
Factors
Conceptual
Framework
Figure 1. Working Flowchart of Themes and Categories.
Research
Groups
Faculty
Activity
Content-!
Skill-!
Knowledge
'>1 Portfolio
Dissertation
Thinking/
Attitude
^ Practicum
Training
Coursework
Clinical
Supervisor
Qualifying
Examination
Parallel
Training
Knowledge
ofESTs
Consultation
Project
Periodic
Evaluations
Science-
Practice
Role
Modeling/
Mentoring
Strategies of
Integrating
Science and
Practice
Concept of
Scientist-
Practitioner -
Reciprocal
Relationship
124
The creation of the flow chart proved immensely helpful as I progressed
through data analysis. The flow chart continuously evolved and changed during
data analysis as new insights, questions, and themes emerged. Although I felt
equipped to engage in cross-case comparison, I chose to complete writing the
description for each training program before proceeding to case comparison
because it helped me become more familiar with the data and I could easily identify
how programs were similar or distinct in the strategies they used to integrate
science and practice.
This exercise of comparing color tabbed themes, reflecting on the evolving
flow chart, and preparing individual case descriptions continued throughout the data
analysis phase, which included writing multiple drafts of the next chapter on the
findings of this study. This exercise essentially helped me develop case descriptions
from the available collective case study data of more than 1800 pages. The next
chapter on Findings provides detailed case descriptions of six training programs out
of the eight training programs I examined.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
The goal of my study was to describe the differences in the interpretation
and implementation of the scientist-practitioner training model by examining
selected counseling psychology programs. Eight training programs constituted the
cases for the collective case study. My goal was to develop a thorough
understanding of each program per se and identify and describe the differences
among programs, in terms of their interpretation and implementation of the
scientist-practitioner model. For this purpose, I developed detailed case descriptions
of the selected programs. The available data from program websites, self-studies,
dissertation abstracts, and interviews with training directors were used for this
purpose. In order to manage the length of this chapter, I provide six detailed case
descriptions from the eight cases that were examined. The six cases selected for the
detailed description represent the widest variations among the cases and, hence,
were selected for developing the detailed case descriptions. Most of these programs
are housed in Research I universities that emphasize research productivity. The
universities’ emphasis on research productivity parallels the programs’ emphasis on
research as well. However, I incorporate data from all the cases, including the two
cases that were not described, while conducting comparative case analysis in the
next chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
As I describe the cases, I use an ellipsis when I need to exclude any
identifying information in statements I quote in order to protect the confidentiality
of the participating institutions. This notation follows the APA Publication Manual
guidelines when parts of a quote need to be excluded.
Individual Case Descriptions
In this section, I provide detailed descriptions of six individual cases from
the eight cases that constituted the collective case study and the descriptions focus
on how each training program’s strategies of integration looks in operation. Each
case description consists of three sections - (1) the program’s concept of science
and practice; (2) the program’s concept or definition of the scientist-practitioner,
and its strategies of integration, and finally; (3) factors, internal and external to the
program, that might impact doctoral training. For the first section, my focus is not
on the content of science training but my focus is on the methods of scientific
inquiry as described in training in research methods. The kind of training provided
in research methodology is indicative of how programs define psychological
science. For the third section, I define “internal factors” as factors operating within
the department where the program is housed and I define “external factors” as
factors operating beyond the department level (e.g. university-level, APA, health
care system, change in population demographics and so forth).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
University o f Aristotle
The program was nominated as a science-oriented scientist-practitioner
counseling psychology doctoral program. Because I could not interview the current
training director, the case description is solely based on secondary data gathered
from the other three data sources - the program website, the narrative portion of the
self-study, and dissertation abstracts since 1997.
Concept o f Science and Practice
As mentioned previously, the program was nominated as a science-oriented
scientist-practitioner program and I attempted to understand the program
characteristics that led to such a perception by various training directors. My first
goal was to understand the program’s view of psychological science and practice.
Three themes emerged in this regard. The first theme was the departmental
emphasis on science, the second theme related to the counseling psychology
program’s emphasis on science, specifically the program’s adoption of natural
science, positivistic notions of psychological science. Finally, the third theme
related to program’s view of psychotherapy practice as being empirically based and
this translated to a specific focus on training in ESTs. The term “empirical” is
defined as experiment-based knowledge and I adopt this definition while using this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
term in the future. However, I do not subscribe to such a limited definition of this
term.
The first theme that emerged from the program website and self-study was
that the department of psychology proudly values the science and research
component of doctoral training and provides detailed information about this
component. For instance, the section on “A Synopsis of our History” shares the
contributions of various pioneering leaders in the field of psychology who were part
of the department faculty since 1919 and these contributions are predominantly
scientific in nature. Scientific contributions are limited to research conducted using
the natural science, positivistic approach to psychological science, which is
operationalized as quantitative research. The prestige of the department is tied to the
prolific research productivity and visibility of the faculty members in the field
(Synopsis, p.l; Website). The main areas of research focused in the department are
biological bases of behavior, psychological measurement and psychometric
research, rise of theory and application of behaviorism, vocational issues, and
interface between counseling psychology and social psychology (Synopsis, pp. 1-4;
Website). More recently, the department has begun to conduct research on
multicultural issues related to mental health and counseling (Counseling
Psychology, p.l; Website).
Although the “Synopsis” section states that the department is characterized
by a parallel commitment to “pure science” and “practical application”, the major
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
portion of the Synopsis focuses on the achievements related to “pure science”. The
section concludes with the following statement as characterizing the psychologists
in the department, “The tendency to ask critical questions, to challenge
unquestioned assumptions, and, perhaps most characteristically, to press for
quantification and measurement is now, as always, the hallmark of the ...
psychologist” (Synopsis, p.4; Website).
The department’s emphasis on science and research appears to be mirrored
in the counseling psychology program’s emphasis on science and research as well
(Synopsis of our History, pp. 1-4; Website). The Counseling Psychology program is
defined as providing a “broad foundation in the science of psychology and takes an
empirical-research [sic] viewpoint toward counseling psychology” (Counseling
Psychology, p.l; Website).
The second theme that emerged with regard to the predominant focus on
psychological science was that the program typically defines psychological science
based on traditional positivistic notions of science. The definition is evident in
multiple ways - the kind of research being conducted by faculty members; high
visibility of faculty members in terms of their academic achievements; the qualities
emphasized while admitting students into the program; the kind of research centers
supported within the program where counseling psychology students are actively
engaged in research; the research-related coursework that students complete as part
of following the program curriculum, and the kind of dissertations produced by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
students. I now describe each of these program characteristics in greater depth in
order to provide evidence for the program’s commitment to the natural science view
of psychological science and research.
The program website includes a link titled “Faculty” which contains
information about each core faculty members’ research interests, ongoing research
projects, and recent publications. I describe some of the faculty research interests
from the “Faculty” link without identifying individual faculty by name or by
providing other identifying information while describing publication areas. The
publication areas are examples of faculty members’ positivistic approach to
psychological research.
One professor’s research interests lie at the interface of counseling
psychology and social psychology, especially the application of social
psychological theory to problems concerning counseling psychologists. Her major
focus within this area is the study of adjustment to stressful or traumatic life events.
An example of one of her recent publications is about correlates of posttraumatic
growth among a specific population. Another faculty member is interested in
studying various aspects of career development including conducting research on
relevant psychological assessment tools used in the area of vocational counseling.
Her research has a strong emphasis on psychometric variables and she endorses the
empirical tradition that the department has historically been committed to. She
recently published an article on discriminant functions related to a vocational test.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
The third faculty member conducts research on multicultural issues and social
connectedness including the study of psychological measures related to ethnic
identity. One of his recent publications is about the measurement of ethnic identity
of a specific ethnic group. The fourth faculty member focuses on various issues
related to computerized adaptive testing and his research is heavily psychometric in
nature. For instance, he recently published an article about effective and efficient
measurement of psychological variables using computer technology.
Thus, research conducted by faculty members appears to be predominantly
based on natural science approach to psychological science and use positivistic
ideas of human behavior to inform their research. This conclusion is based on the
various publication titles that describe research studies with a predominant focus on
psychometrics and quantifying and measuring different psychological variables.
In addition to the nature of faculty research, faculty members are highly
visible in the field in terms of the number and rate of publications and the various
journal editorial boards they currently serve on. One faculty member is the editor of
a premier peer-reviewed journal in counseling psychology and also serves on the
APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs. According to the program’s self study
(SS Aristotle):
As a group, the faculty have high visibility within the profession
through their publications (e.g. refereed journal articles, book
chapters, and books); frequent presentations at state, national, and
international professional meetings; committee service; elected
positions held within the state and national professional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
organizations; Fellow status within the American Psychological
Association (APA), the American Psychological Society (APS), and
the America Association for Applied and Preventive Psychology
(AAAP), and their service as editors and associate editors of
journals, as journal editorial board members, and as journal
reviewers (p. 16).
High visibility in the profession is probably an indirect example of the
program’s approach to psychological science. It is possible that their academic
success is translated as role modeling experiences for graduate students, as they are
socialized into the academic world of research and publications. Because faculty
members excel in quantitative research, students might define academic success as
conducting quantitative research and becoming visible in the field in a manner
similar to the faculty. However, it was not possible to verify with the training
director if faculty members’ high visibility is, in fact, translated into role modeling
experiences for students. Instead, I attempted to examine information related to
student publications and presentations as a possible evidence of this link.
A review of recent student presentations and publications seems to support
the notion of students modeling faculty members’ view of research. In addition, the
detailed inclusion of students’ research achievements in the program website can be
viewed as a way of increasing students’ visibility with regard to their research
achievements. The program website has a link to student and faculty achievements
(Highlights from the Counseling Psychology Program, pp. 1-2; Website). Student
achievements fall under three categories - highlighting recipients of grants and
fellowships, student presentations, and publications. From the year 2000 to 2003,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
88% of the students were authors or co-authors of convention papers and 75% of
the students were authors or co-authors of journal articles and book chapters
(Highlights from the Counseling Psychology Program, p.l; Website).
Another link titled “Student Presentations and Student Publications”
provides a list of references of student presentations and publications. Most of the
references appear to be heavily quantitative-research driven, based on the titles of
students’ presentations and publications. For example, some of the student
publications relate to psychometric aspects of psychological tests, biological
underpinnings of human behavior, and quantitative measurement of psychological
variables related to behavior change (Student Publications, pp. 1-8; Website).
Similarly, some student presentations focus on validity of psychological tests,
determining biological causes of human behavior, and on experimental results
based on tests conducted on rats (Student Presentations, pp. 1-8; Website). The
research areas seem indicative that students also engage in research using
quantitative methods and they adopt the natural science approach to psychological
science, similar to faculty members. I discuss the relevance of role modeling and
mentoring in greater depth later in the subsection on the strategies of integration.
Another exam ple o f the program’s commitment to natural science-based
psychological research is that the program em phasizes interest and skills in conducting
quantitative research as a desired prerequisite for being admitted into the program.
According to the self-study (SSAristotle):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
The goal of the Counseling Psychology faculty is to admit students
into the program who want broad, scholarly training in the science of
psychology and specializations in the area of counseling psychology.
We admit those applicants who have demonstrated analytical,
quantitative, and verbal skills as undergraduates at a level that
suggests they are adequately prepared for graduate school (p.2).
It is possible that the program attracts students who already subscribe to the natural
science view of psychology and hence are a good fit with the program. On the other
hand, if incoming students do not subscribe to this view or if students are inclined
toward psychotherapy practice, they might experience a dissonance with their
personal views and interests and the program’s training philosophy. Consequently,
the students might find the natural science-based training philosophy as a barrier to
integrating science and practice. However, it was not possible to verify the issue
with the training director.
In addition to the kind of faculty and student research and student admission
policies, positivistic notions of psychological science are further reinforced by the
two research centers housed in the department of psychology, both relating to
vocational and career development issues. Although the research centers are
administratively housed in the department of psychology, the counseling
psychology program faculty members and students play a relatively more active
role in the cen ters’ fu n ction in g. O ne o f the research centers co n d u cts p sych om etric
research and the other center operates as a research center on career issues and
functions as an advanced practicum site providing training in career counseling as
well. Both centers encourage graduate students in the program to get actively
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
involved in the centers’ research as well as its practicum component. The centers
provide dissertation fellowships and research assistantships in order to encourage
students to conduct research in the area of vocational and career development. Both
research centers focus on psychological assessment, psychometric aspects of
assessment tools, and quantitative measurement and comparison of psychological
variables related to career development and vocational issues (Ongoing Research
Projects, p.l; Website). The research foci are examples of the natural science view
of psychological research supported by the program.
Coursework related to research are important indicators of what kind of
research training and definition of psychological science a program adopts. In the
program, training in research design and methodology takes place primarily through
coursework such as Design and Analysis of Experiments, Research Methods in
Social Psychology, Statistical Analysis Using Structural Equation Modeling,
Advanced Multiple Regression, Regression and Linear Modeling, Factor Analysis,
Psychological Scaling, Advanced Statistical Computing, Structural Equation
Modeling, and Latent Variable Models (SSAristotle, pp.6-7). Although some of the
courses are taken electively, the conspicuous absence of qualitative research courses
and the emphasis on quantitative methods and statistical data analysis can be taken
as another example of the natural science view of psychology that the program
adopts during research training.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Student dissertations can be viewed as a product of their research training,
faculty mentoring, and the prevailing views of acceptable topics of research and
acceptable methods of conducting research. Four dissertations completed by
students in the program are available in the Proquest database. The four dissertation
abstracts indicate that students used only quantitative research methods in their
dissertation research, which can be taken as another instance of the natural science
view of psychology that the program subscribes to. The intriguingly small number
of dissertation abstracts available in the database surprised me but I could not
determine the reasons for the small number of dissertation abstracts.
Because the program also aims to train students in psychotherapy practice as
part of implementing the scientist-practitioner model, I now describe how the
program defines psychotherapy practice. The self-study and the website do not
provide extensive information on the practice component of the program. It is
limited to information about coursework related to psychotherapy practice,
practicum and internship training. The main focus of psychotherapy training
appears to be student exposure to different theoretical orientations and supervised
practicum and advanced placements culminating in the pre-doctoral internship.
During the theories course, guest lectures by “practitioners who adhere to a full
range of theoretical orientations (e.g. psychodynamic, Adlerian, cognitive,
behavioral, rational-emotive, solution-focused, Gestalt, feminist, family systems,
client-centered, Jungian, and existential)” are organized (SSAristotle, p.4). There is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
also an emphasis on integrating assessment with practice during didactic
coursework and the availability of the in-house research center that also conducts
career-related assessment and vocational counseling facilitates the integration of
practice and assessment (SSAristotle, p.9).
Finally, the third theme relates to how psychotherapy practice is viewed in
the program as an empirically supported endeavor. Although the program attempts
to expose students to a variety of theoretical orientations, greater emphasis in
psychotherapy training appears to be on the value of developing empirical support
to practice and becoming competent in the use of ESTs. For instance, “in-class
discussion focuses on empirical [sic] support for each theory” (SSAristotle, p.4).
During training, “skills necessary for evaluating the efficacy of interventions are
taught in both research and advanced practicum seminars” [underline in original]
(SSAristotle, pp.7-8). The program also purchased a set of treatment manuals that
students use during psychotherapy training (SSAristotle, p. 12). These include
“manuals describing empirically supported treatments for anger, depression,
anxiety, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These manuals are also discussed in
the seminar” (SSAristotle, pp.12-13). It is not clear if the potential incompatibility
of some theoretical orientations such as gestalt therapy and ESTs are examined
during psychotherapy training. Thus, the program appears to adopt positivistic
notions of psychological science and an experiment-based empirically supported
view of psychological practice. I define this view of practice as natural science-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
based practice. The next subsection examines the program’s concept of the
scientist-practitioner.
Concept o f Scientist-Practitioner
In a generic sense, a scientist-practitioner integrates science and practice.
My goal was to glean the meanings of three critically important terms -
psychological science, psychotherapy practice, and integration. The previous
subsection focused on the concepts of psychological science and psychotherapy
practice adopted by the training program. Psychological science appears to be
defined using the natural science approach while psychotherapy practice is defined
using a positivistic scientific approach to psychotherapy practice and developing
competence in the use of ESTs. The concept of integration is based on the
program’s description of the scientist-practitioner model and the strategies it uses to
implement the model.
The training philosophy of the program is “based upon the scientist-
practitioner training model, which emphasizes that students should be broadly
trained in the science of psychology, in the conviction that a full-spectrum grasp of
the field is necessary for the fullest understanding of the area of specialization,
which is counseling psychology” (SSAristotle, p.4). The integration of science and
practice is conceived as a “blending of science and practice” through the “reciprocal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
relationship between science and practice” (SSAristotle, p.4) so that graduates
become competent practicing counseling psychologists as well as researchers and/or
academicians. Ideally, I would have liked to discuss the nature of the reciprocal
relationship and what the process of blending science and practice entails with the
training director during an interview. Because the interview did not materialize, I
have gleaned the meaning of these statements based on the strategies of integration
described in the self-study.
Strategies o f Integration
The program appears to implement multiple strategies for integrating of
science and practice. The strategies aim to blend science and practice through “the
reciprocal relationship between science and practice” (SSAristotle, p.4). However,
an examination of the program strategies reveals a more unilateral approach, which
I already termed as natural science-based practice. Natural science-based practice
focuses on the application of positivistic scientific approach and experiment-based
empirical research in psychotherapy practice. The complementary approach of
practice informing research, which I call practice-based science, is indirectly
evident in how one of the research centers also functions as a practicum site and the
organization of seminars with practica. However, I could not gather sufficient
evidence of how practice-based science is operational in the program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
The strategies of integration include the curriculum structure, the emphasis
on scientifically approaching psychotherapy practice during coursework, focus on
developing competence in the use of ESTs, incorporation of General and Practicum
Seminars during practica, the availability of two in-house department research
centers that facilitate research and psychotherapy training, the nature of faculty
mentoring, the focus of Comprehensive examinations, and the evaluation criteria
developed to assess a student’s performance in the Comprehensive examinations.
Core curriculum courses are organized such that students take research as
well as practice courses every semester (Six Year Plan, Entering Class o f2004-
2005; Website). The main theme that emerged in the description of coursework is
that “in-class discussions focus on the empirical [sic] support for each theory”
(SSAristotle, p.4). The statement is made in the context of the different guest
lecturers who are invited to share their knowledge of various theoretical
orientations. This approach of establishing scientific basis for psychotherapy
practice is an instance of natural science-based practice.
Similarly, while describing what the program expects graduate students to
complete during their doctoral training, the program website states that, “Through
structured experiences, students are able to apply the science of psychology to their
counseling. The practice experiences subsequently inform the types of research
conducted by students and faculty” (Curriculum, p.l; Website). The first statement
appears to be an instance of science-based practice, the second statement describes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
the reciprocal relationship of science and practice where practice also informs
research. Once again, it was not possible to elicit more information about how
practice-based science takes place and it would have been helpful to clarify the
issue with the training director.
Core curriculum courses are complemented with seminar and practicum
experiences. The inclusion of General and Advanced Practicum Seminars reinforce
the connection between science and practice through approaching psychotherapy
practice issues from a scientific viewpoint (SSAristotle, p. 12). According to
SSAristotle, “In addition to core curriculum courses that provide the foundation of
future learning, students participate in seminars and advanced practicum
experiences that emphasize scholarship, scholarly inquiry, and problem solving
based on scientific knowledge and empirical [s/c] data” (p. 10). For example, “The
General seminar approaches practice issues from a scholarly perspective and
explores topics such as theoretical and ethical issues, counseling techniques,
empirically supported interventions, and client populations” (SSAristotle, p.12).
Advanced Practicum Seminars are held concurrently with practica.
Practicum training also reinforces the relationship between science and
practice. For instance, during the first practicum that is traditionally completed at
the University Counseling and Consulting Services (UCCS), students are “required
to demonstrate increasing competence in the application of counseling theory to
practice, discrimination in selection of theory, and increasing awareness of their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
own preferences for models of counseling. Use of measurement tools is integrated
to the Practicum...” (SSAristotle, p.10). Among the five goals of the practicum
seminars, one goal is to “(a) to teach students to integrate scientific and scholarly
literature with their current practice experiences” (p. 12). Typical Advanced
Practicum seminar topics include use of tests and testing, application of counseling
theories, and empirical supported intervention procedures (p. 10). Thus, the
curriculum structure of including research and practice courses in every semester
and organizing General and Practicum Seminars with a focus on advancing the goal
of science-based practice can be viewed as strategies of integration.
Another strategy for integration is evident in how the in-house department
research centers function. As mentioned previously, the department supports two
research centers and one of them also functions as an in-house advanced practicum
site (SSAristotle, p.9). This is a “career counseling clinic staffed by graduate
students in counseling psychology that provides comprehensive assessment, test
interpretation, and planning services for individuals who want to learn more about
their vocational potential” (Ongoing Research Projects, p.l; Website). Although the
operation of such a clinic can be understood as an example of a strategy to integrate
science and practice, the written literature in the website and the self-study
emphasizes the research component only. Information about the center is mentioned
in the section on “Ongoing Research Projects” with a focus on how the research
conducted in the clinic and the clinical data gathered is used for longitudinal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
research as well as other graduate research projects (Ongoing Research Projects,
p.l; Website). An instance of science-based practice is that students are encouraged
to use the accumulated psychometric data to inform their practicum work (Ongoing
Research Projects, p.l; Website). The emphasis on psychological research might
support the program’s nomination as a science-oriented program because although
these research centers have a practicum component, the emphasis is on the research
component.
Faculty mentoring is considered a strategy to facilitate integration. Research
training primarily entails students’ participation in various Reading and Research
Groups conducted by faculty members and becoming involved in the different
research centers located within the department (SSAristotle, p.6). Psychotherapy
training entails completing relevant coursework, practica, and the pre-doctoral
internship. During doctoral training, faculty and supervisor mentoring play a critical
role because “close working relationships with faculty provide students with
opportunities for research experiences and professional development activities”
(SSAristotle, p.4). However, core faculty members seem to model science and
research while adjunct faculty members and field supervisors model the practice of
psychotherapy. For instance, “The Budgeted Faculty (Core Faculty) provide the
preliminary influence vis-a-vis the scientist component of the scientist-practitioner
model of a counseling psychologist” (SSAristotle, p. 16). The core faculty members’
mentoring role might include how they model academic success through the kind of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
research they conduct, their high visibility in terms of their publications, serving on
journal editorial boards, and actively participating in various national professional
organizations.
On the other hand, adjunct faculty members and field supervisors play a
major role in psychotherapy training. According to the self-study, “The Adjunct and
Clinical Adjunct Faculty and other Contributors are all involved in the training and
supervision of our students. They demonstrate for students what it means to be a
practicing counseling psychologist in settings within and outside the University”
(SSAristotle, p. 16). It is not clear if adjunct faculty members share a similar
philosophy of training as the program. A gap between core and adj unct faculty
members’ training philosophy can significantly challenge the implementation of the
goal of integration because students might experience dissonance in doctoral
training from these two sets of faculty members.
Integration of science and practice is evaluated through various milestones
students need to successfully navigate. These milestones include completion of
coursework, completion of the Counseling Written Special Preliminary
Examination (SSAristotle, p.14). The examination is designed so that the student
can demonstrate (SSAristotle):
detailed knowledge of research methodology and of the empirical
literature; to demonstrate originality and rigorous thinking in
developing research designs and research ideas; to exhibit
knowledge of counseling theory, history, and its applications, to
show expertise in testing and assessment; to exhibit knowledge of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
empirically supported interventions, and to demonstrate sensitivity to
and knowledge about ethical issues and cultural diversity (pp.14-15).
As the above quote states, “originality and rigorous thinking” entails the
development of critical thinking. The conceptual definition of the scientist-
practitioner does not explicitly state the importance of critical thinking. However, it
is a theme that emerges frequently in how the program attempts to implement the
goal of natural science-based practice by inculcating strong research competence
and an attitude of scholarly inquiry.
Thus, it appears as though the reciprocal relationship of science and practice
is less reciprocal and most strategies of integration approach the task of integration
as natural science-based practice. The next subsection focuses on internal and
external factors that impact doctoral training. It was not possible to develop a clear
description of these factors because the available data did not directly address such
factors. Because I could not interview the training director, I attempted to identify
factors that I deemed influential in the program.
Internal and External Factors
There are three main internal factors that appear to play important roles in
doctoral training. First, the department’s historical emphasis on science and
research is mirrored in the counseling psychology program’s focus on science and
research. Second, the presence of faculty members who are highly visible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
professionally and are successful in various facets of conducting research probably
plays a pivotal role in providing successful academic role models for students. The
core faculty members, however, model a specific approach to psychological science
- natural science, positivistic notions of psychological operationalized through
quantitative research and statistical data analysis. Third, the presence of the two in-
house research centers drives the kind of research typically conducted in the
program.
Although no external factors could be clearly delineated as playing a role
during doctoral training, two factors emerge as possibly playing influential roles.
First, the university’s status as a Research I University could inform program
policies and the value placed on research and publications. The Research I status
could also influence the kind of scientific research conducted in the program
because most research universities subscribe to the natural science, positivistic
approach to research. Second, it could be surmised that the emphasis on ESTs
reflects a response to the changing health care delivery system, especially managed
care. With the advent of managed care and its demand for accountability and
experiment-based empirical support, the program might be focusing on training
students in empirically supported interventions so that they are competitive in the
current job market. Once again, 1 could not further corroborate with the training
director about these observations. It was also not possible to identify other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
influential factors that might be operational in doctoral training but were not evident
in the available data.
Summary
Based on information from the available data sources, the program can be
described as a science-oriented scientist-practitioner program. The program
espouses positivistic notions of psychological science and conceptualizes practice
of psychotherapy as an experiment-based empirical endeavor. The concept of
scientist-practitioner “emphasizes that students should be trained broadly in the
science of psychology” (SSAristotle, p.4). Although training in psychotherapy
takes place, the predominant focus in psychotherapy training relates to adopting
“an empirical [sic\ research viewpoint toward counseling psychology” (SSAristotle,
p.4). The integration of science and practice is implemented through multiple
strategies. Curriculum structure, the focus of General and Practicum Seminars on
science-based practice, the emphasis on ESTs, the role of the in-house Department
research centers, faculty mentoring, and evaluation of students’ competence are
examples of strategies of integration.
The predominant notion of integration emerges as natural science-based
practice with minimal information about practice-based science. Although the
research centers conduct applied research and provide psychotherapy training, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
exact nature of practice-based research remains unclear. Another issue that could
not be further clarified entails the nature of faculty mentoring. As mentioned in the
self-study, core faculty members appear to be role models and provide mentoring in
research while clinical adjunct faculty members and field supervisors tend to role
model and provide mentoring for psychotherapy practice. It is not clear if clinical
adjunct faculty members and various supervisors in practicum training also espouse
the natural science view of psychological science and the experimental-based
empirical view of psychotherapy practice. If clinical adjunct faculty members and
field supervisors adopt a human science view of research and psychotherapy
practice or fail to subscribe to the overall program philosophy, the integration of
science and practice could be disjunctive and students might receive conflicting
mentoring about notions of science and practice and how they are integrated.
Finally, I include a flow chart below (Figure 2) that provides a visual
representation of the program’s case description.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
\ Science
Practice
Scientist-
Praetitioner
Managed Care
Faculty
Mentoring
Curriculum
Structure
Competence
in ESTs
External
Factors
Research I
University
Internal Factors
Empirically-
based
Natural Science-
based Practice
Strategies of
Integration
In-House
Research
Centers
Faculty Members’
Academic Success
In-House Research
Centers
General &
Advanced
Practicum
Seminars
Natural
Science
Approach
Evaluation
Criteria of
Student
Competence
Department’s
Historical Research
Focus
Core
[-► Faculty for
Science
Adjunct
L 5, Faculty for
Practice
Figure 2. Visual Representation o f Case Description for University of Aristotle
- P > .
VD
150
University o f Plato
The program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner counseling
psychology doctoral program. The data for the case consisted of the program
website information, dissertation abstracts since 1997, and interview with the
current training director. The program refused to provide access to its self-study.
However, the training director emailed me selected sections of the self-study
relating to initial and subsequent employment statistics of the program’s graduates.
Concept o f Science and Practice
The program’s concept of psychological science was derived mainly from
the program’s training goals and the kind of research methods that are taught during
research training. The criteria used to evaluate research training through satisfactory
completion of the doctoral portfolio and fulfilling the research assistantship
requirement are also informative in how the program conceptualizes psychological
science. The program’s approach to psychotherapy practice involves an emphasis
on training in ESTs and most faculty members subscribe to an integrative
theoretical orientation. I discuss the incompatibility of ESTs with an integrative
theoretical orientation later when I describe the program’s concept of
psychotherapy practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
The first program training goal is to “Educate Counseling Psychologists
who can think scientifically in both research and applied settings” (Student
Handbook, p.8; Website). The goal is descriptive of science-based practice. The
Student Handbook also states that students are expected to “acquire research
competence that ensures a broad and sophisticated knowledge of research design
and quantitative and/or qualitative methods” (Student Handbook, p.4; Website).
During the interview with the current training director, I inquired about the
program’s approach to science and research and I quote the training director’s
response (IPlato):
Sujatha Ramesh (SR): Let me start with exploring how you approach
science in your program?
Training Director (TD): Well, that is a very good question. Basically,
when we talk about science, 1 don’t know if you found the link to
goals for the program but that defines it a little bit more. We are
talking about both research and knowledge in general and thinking
scientifically even about practice.
SR: So would that be more traditional notions of psychological
science...?
TD: A little more broad in terms of different questions one might ask
etc.
SR: You mean critical thinking?
TD: Yes. Although we do have a strong emphasis on research, we
are also talking about a critical thinking approach.
SR: Given that scenario, what kind of scientific research do you
think is going on in the program?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
TD: That is a good question. I would say may be 90% of students
and faculty are doing pretty traditional research... But I would also
say that more and more students are doing qualitative research and I
would say that I have seen it increase even in the last few years
(11.16-32,39-43,50-51).
On further inquiring if courses on qualitative research are offered, she responded,
“We do but that person who taught left and we hired somebody else who should be
able to teach those courses” (IPlato, 11.60-61). However, based on the curriculum,
the qualitative research method course is not mandatory but it is taken as an elective
(Counseling Psychology Program, p.9; Website). The research foundations
coursework consists of a prerequisite graduate level statistics course followed by
three courses titled “Quantitative Methods in Educational Research I”,
“Quantitative Methods in Educational Research II”, and “Application of
Multivariate Analysis in Educational Research” (Student Handbook, p.7; Website).
Because the qualitative research methods course is not mentioned in the mandatory
research foundations coursework, students probably take the elective course outside
the program.
Based on the program’s training goals, information on research training, and
the interview with the training director, the program appears to adopt a broad
definition of psychological science that encourages critical and scientific thinking
as well as methodological diversity while conducting research.
The program adopts the completion of a doctoral portfolio for student
evaluation purposes. Instead of a comprehensive examination, the satisfactory
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
completion of the doctoral portfolio and the oral examination are used to evaluate
students (Doctoral Portfolio Guidelines, Introductory page; Website). One of the
competency areas includes “Research and Statistics” (Doctoral Portfolio
Guidelines, p.8; Website). The quality indicator for this area states, “The doctoral
candidate understands quantitative and qualitative research methodologies and a
wide range of approaches to data analysis. S/he can apply this knowledge to
designing his/her own research or evaluation project and to critically evaluate
research produced by others” (Doctoral Portfolio Guidelines, p.8; Website). The
portfolio requirements for this competency provide further support for the
program’s emphasis on methodological diversity and the importance of critical
thinking by requiring students “to critically evaluate research” (p.8).
As mentioned previously while describing the previous case, dissertation
abstracts provide an overview of the kind of research methods used by students for
their dissertation studies. All the 26 dissertation abstracts used quantitative research
methods and none employed qualitative research methods for their dissertations
(DAPlato, pp. 1-38). Although the program is open to qualitative research, students
seem to continue conducting dissertation research using quantitative research
methods only. Thus, promoting methodological diversity appears to be at a nascent
stage of development.
Research proficiency is also assessed through the Research Assistantship
requirement, which requires that students make a “major contribution on a study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
accepted for presentation at an annual conference of a regional or national
organization in education or psychology” (Student Handbook, p.8; Website). In
addition, the “presentation/publication must be data-based, and the presentation
must be submitted to a conference that employs refereed, blind reviews as part of its
screening process” (Student Handbook, p.9; Website). The criteria for research
proficiency indicates a strategy for socializing students in the academic world but it
does not reveal any clear indicators of how psychological science and research are
defined for this purpose.
A review of the available data including information from the interview with
the current training director revealed that the program primarily subscribes to the
natural science, positivistic approach to psychological science. The approach is
evident in the required research-related coursework and the pattern of quantitative
research methods used in dissertation research. However, the program supports
methodological diversity as an approach to psychological research and the training
director acknowledged a recent increase in qualitative research conducted by
students. Training in qualitative research methods is, however, limited because
relevant coursework is not mandatory.
The concept of psychotherapy practice appears to be defined through an
integrative theoretical orientation coupled with a focus on ESTs. According to the
program website, “Courses on several forms of practice (e.g., individual, group,
supervision) are available, and a variety of theoretical orientations are represented,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
although a clear focus on integrative therapy and empirically supported treatments
exists” (Counseling Psychology Program, p.27; Website). The training director
described the psychotherapy practice orientation in the program as follows (IPlato):
TD: I would say integrative is the word we use rather than eclectic. I
think we have a couple of faculty who might endorse one perspective
more but most of us are integrative and I think it has shown to work
and I think we have a very strong integrative multicultural approach
(11.66-69).
Typically, the incorporation of an integrative approach in psychotherapy
training with training in ESTs would be incompatible and potentially problematic.
ESTs impose specific guidelines about how psychotherapy should be conducted for
a specific presenting problem or diagnostic presentation. It is derived from a
medical model approach to intervention and espouses the notion of natural science-
based practice. On the other hand, an integrative theoretical approach to practice
utilizes theoretical concepts from a variety of theoretical orientations and it does not
lend itself to the tight structure of ESTs or necessarily to the medical model
approach. It is possible that the inclusion of ESTs in training is a result of recent
changes in the mental health care delivery system rather than a result of deliberate
reflection using the integrative theoretical approach. In addition, students in
psychotherapy training who perceive this incompatibility might struggle not only in
developing their own theoretical orientations but also struggle with understanding
the rationales used to integrate science and practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Thus, the program appears to adopt broad definitions of psychological
science and psychotherapy practice. Psychological science is conceptualized
through an emphasis on critical thinking and methodological diversity and
psychotherapy practice is defined incorporating an integrative theoretical
orientation with an emphasis on ESTs. Such broad definitions of psychological
science and psychotherapy practice among faculty members could lend itself to
varied conceptualizations of the scientist-practitioner among faculty members.
Interviews with the rest of the faculty members might have provided more
information on these possible individual interpretations of the scientist-practitioner.
I did not interview the remaining faculty members due to time constraints and
limited resources.
Concept o f Scientist-Practitioner
The doctoral program aims at achieving four goals in doctoral training. The
first goal relates to the integration of science and practice. This goal attempts to
(Counseling Psychology Program; Website):
Educate Counseling Psychologists who can think scientifically in
both research and applied settings.
(a) Acquire a wide range of professional and psychological
knowledge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
(b) Obtain a wide range of applied skills relevant for the
practice of counseling psychology.
(c) Acquire a thorough grounding in the scientific method.
(d) Acquire the skills that will allow trainees to make
theoretical and empirical contributions that further the
understanding of counseling psychology issues and
concerns through data-based and scholarly publications
as well as professional presentation.
(e) Have many opportunities to integrate factual knowledge
and learning skills in both scientific and practice arenas
(p.8).
The above statement describes the scientist-practitioner as a professional
who acquires a body of knowledge in psychological science and psychotherapy
practice, has skills in psychological research and psychotherapy practice, and has
the ability to critically evaluate and conduct research and practice psychotherapy.
However, one statement in the website describes science-based practice, a term I
used while describing the previous case. According to the program website,
“Practica are taught from a multi-theoretical and integrative perspective, making
use of scientific knowledge on treatment efficacy” (Counseling Psychology
Program, p.28; Website). As stated previously, scientific knowledge on treatment
efficacy is limited and an integrative approach is not always conducive to
incorporating the available scientific research on treatment efficacy.
The training director’s view of the scientist-practitioner is similar. She stated
that the program reinforces critical thinking and “thinking scientifically even about
practice” (IPlato, 11.20-21), a comment resembling notions of science-based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
practice. I quote an excerpt from the interview where she shared her views on the
scientist-practitioner (IPlato):
SR: So would you consider yourself a scientist-practitioner?
TD: I definitely would be. I am an academic - 1 teach, I research and
I always had a private practice from the day I graduated.
SR: And how did you manage that since people tend to go toward
one or the other?
TD: Because I really really really enjoy both. I have an unusual
career path and I really enjoy both and I really feel like... I teach
practicum and feminist therapy. And I feel so strongly that I need to
do what I am teaching. And I love doing therapy, I don’t think I
would enjoy it as much if I had a full-time practice but I really enjoy
the balance. And we have got a lot of faculty, not a ton, but we have
got four faculty who have private practices (11.178-189).
During the later part of the interview, while discussing the pitfalls in
training, she further described the scientist-practitioner as a professional who
embodies integration by engaging in both activities. She stated, “I was definitely
sort of of the mindset that we need somebody who can do both” (IPlato, 11.244-245).
Thus, she described the importance of critical thinking but, in addition, she also
viewed the scientist-practitioner as an individual who has positive attitudes toward
research and psychotherapy practice and also engages in both activities in his/her
professional career.
The program’s training goals and the training director both describe a range
of criteria while defining the scientist-practitioner. According to the program’s first
training goal, a scientist-practitioner has the knowledge- and skill-base in research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
and practice and also has the ability to consume and conduct research by thinking
scientifically. Because the program emphasizes positivistic approach to
psychological science, thinking scientifically would entail using notions of natural
science approach in research and psychotherapy practice. The training director
additionally emphasized the value of having a positive attitude toward research and
practice and engaging in both as part of one’s professional development. I now
describe the various strategies of integration used by the program.
Strategies o f Integration
Encouraging discussions on research and psychotherapy practice during
coursework, mentoring and role modeling by faculty members, the availability of
joint faculty members from the university counseling center, and the successful
completion of the doctoral portfolio are the main strategies of integration used by
the program.
Incorporation of discussion of practicum experiences in coursework and
vice versa is a primary mode of facilitating the integration of science and practice
during training. The program website states that all practicum classes provide
(Counseling Psychology Program; Website):
... students with the opportunity to discuss the practicum experience
and to integrate it with their learning with other parts of the program.
One example would be discussions in practicum concerning how
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
what students are doing with a particular client fits with the theories
and techniques presented in A420, a pre-requisite class. (Please note
that the opposite also occurs. Specifically, other classes provide
opportunities for students to discuss their practicum experiences.
One example would be discussions in Advanced Counseling
Theories in which students discuss current and former clients in light
of the theories and techniques they are learning) (p.28-29).
The training director elaborated on specific modes of integration during
coursework and practicum stating (IPlato):
... faculty who teach practicum will sometimes bring in research
studies, efficacy studies about things. There is something called the
Clinician’s Research Digest and I know that some faculty have
shown that to their students in their practice courses and in the
research classes, there is discussion of and encouragement of doing
clinical research and that kind of thing. And we have students who
do that kind of thing (11.76-81).
Thus, a deliberate attempt is made to incorporate research and discuss its relevance
in practicum as well as generate research questions based on clinical work.
The latter is akin to practice-based science. The success of integration would, then,
depend on how successfully students learn to incorporate research and practice,
both in their research and practice endeavors.
In addition to classroom discussions, mentoring and role-modeling
experiences provided by faculty members also facilitate the integration of science
and practice. The program website states (Counseling Psychology Program;
Website):
Our faculty are committed to students’ personal development as well
as their development as professionals. Mentoring is a strong value
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
among our faculty and we take the time to foster students’ growth in
terms of professional identification, involvement in professional
organizations, and networking with colleagues across the country
and internationally (p.2).
The training director endorsed this value although she had some reservations
about the kind of mentoring bias that is operational in the program, a theme I
discuss in the next subsection on problems in integration. Briefly put, the training
director was concerned that students who were mentored by faculty members who
had a negative attitude toward psychotherapy practice would adopt the same bias.
Or if students were interested in psychotherapy practice, they would feel penalized
and silenced by the particular faculty member for evincing such an interest.
On the other hand, the program actively collaborates with the university
counseling center and the nature of this collaboration might be conducive to
facilitating an integration of science and practice. According to the program website
(Counseling Psychology Program; Website):
The Counseling Center Director (Dr...) has a joint academic
appointment with the Department, and most of the psychologists
have adjunct faculty appointments. Several of the Counseling Center
psychologists teach in the Department, serve on master’s and
doctoral committees, and conduct research with faculty (p.34).
Joint appointments by university counseling center psychologists, who are actively
involved in psychotherapy practice and also actively collaborate in the program in
teaching and research, could be viewed as positive role models who navigate both
arenas of research and practice successfully. Although the training director did not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
specifically mention these joint faculty members during the interview, faculty
members who hold joint appointments embody the notion of the scientist-
practitioner who engages in research and practice, a quality valued by the current
training director.
The kind of careers graduates seek might be partially informed by faculty
mentoring experiences. The alumni employment survey statistics provides data in
this regard (Training Director, personal communication, July 1, 2004). Postgraduate
employment of graduates in the last seven years indicates that 26% account for
faculty appointments, 12% for none-tenure track academic appointments, 39% in
clinical positions including staff positions in university counseling centers, and 23%
in administrative positions in practice settings. Thus, 38% of graduates are in
different academic positions while 62% gained employment primarily in clinical
settings. Employment patterns of senior alumni (>7 years post graduation) show
that 28% are in academic positions and an additional 3% in administrative positions
in academic settings. In terms of practice-related employment, 41% are in private
practice and an additional 28% in various consultation, in-patient, military
institutions, and other administrative positions in practice settings. Overall, the
employment patterns of recent and senior alumni show that a greater percentage of
alumni are working in practice settings. However, the survey did not reveal how
many alumni in academic positions engage in practice and vice versa. Availability
of this data would have indicated if graduates engage in science and practice as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
their professional careers evolved or if they tended to gravitate toward research or
practice, rather than both.
The final strategy of integration entails the successful completion of the
doctoral portfolio. The requirement is considered a proof of competence in multiple
areas. The training director described the doctoral portfolio as follows (IPlato):
SR: That is what I am trying to tease apart. How does the portfolio
fit in to this?
TD: That is kind of a unique thing. That is our comprehensive
program and instead of having them sit for an exam or write some
kind of comprehensive paper like some places do, we have them, it
is really, it shows, it so hard to explain, I think I will have to email it
to you. But it is basically, a big notebook that they put together and
they write eight narratives across eight different areas of research,
practice, ethics, multicultural etc. And in that they demonstrate, we
have listed competencies, so basically they write papers and there are
appendices to those papers. So for example, if it is ethics, there
might include how they met the competencies and sometimes they
might include a paper they wrote in ethics. But it is not supposed to
be just a rehash of what is learned in the program. Instead it is
supposed to really show integration of what they have learned across
different topics (11.97-109).
I have already mentioned the research and statistics component while discussing the
program’s concept of psychological science. Another area of competence is
“Counseling Theories and Practice” (Portfolio Guidelines, Introductory Page;
Website). The competency area requires students to demonstrate that they can
defend a personal theory of client problems and mechanisms of change that is
derived from existing theories and integrated with the student’s personal theory of
counseling (Portfolio Guidelines, p.3; Website). Although integration of science
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
and practice is not explicitly stated, meeting the competency requires critical
thinking, knowledge of theories and research, and understanding of counseling
theories. A defendable personal theory of change also requires an element of
integration of science and practice. It is not clear, however, how ESTs are
incorporated in this competency area, especially if the student adopts an integrative
theoretical approach.
The above strategies are not devoid of problems. During the interview, the
training director acknowledged problems that she viewed as barriers to
implementing strategies of integration. The next subsection focuses on the problems
in integration.
Problems in Integration
Two themes relating to challenges in the implementation of the strategies of
integration surfaced during the interview with the training director. The two themes
that emerged were implicitness among faculty members about their views on
integration of science and practice and faculty bias against psychotherapy practice.
Although the primary goal of facilitating an integration of science and
practice is acknowledged by the program faculty, it is unclear as to how much
explicit and deliberate attention is given to the goal of integration during doctoral
training. In this regard, the training director acknowledged that (IPlato):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
SR: And so do you think integration is happening mostly at the
coursework level where in the research course there is talk of clinical
issues and vice versa?
TD: I think so but you know faculty vary. I think in some
[coursework] there is an attempt to do that but I don’t think we have
honestly said, “let us do this as a program and talked about it” but
certainly there is an awareness of it that we are a scientist-
practitioner model and our faculty endorse it and so I think there is
general awareness and that it is important to do and attend to (11.83-
90).
Such implicit understanding among faculty members could act as barriers to
integration because there is no acknowledged strategy to determine how invested
faculty members are in specifically addressing integration of science and practice
during doctoral training.
It was, therefore, not surprising when the training director further
acknowledged that some faculty members have a negative opinion of
psychotherapy practice. According to her (IPlato):
SR: And why do you think that is the case [faculty bias] given that a
scientist-practitioner model requires an interest and competence in
both?
TD: Well, I have very strong feelings on this. I think that a lot of
faculty.. .1 think a part of that honestly is some faculty just say that
and give lip service to it [psychotherapy practice] and honestly they
value science more than anything and they also think that it
[research] is the best thing and they want that. Their success depends
on how many academics they placed, if that makes sense and so I
think... I think it is a faculty bias and many faculty think that
research is the best thing and it is harder than practice. I remember
sitting in an oral exam once at a dissertation and the faculty asked
the student, it was actually a student of mine, what she planned to do
and she planned to go into practice and the committee member said
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
“Uh, what a waste of a great mind”. I said, “Really, I could see quite
the opposite”. So I think some faculty really have this bias that
[research] is the best thing and that [research] is what the smarter
people do and that research is hard and not everyone can do it and I
actually think the opposite from that. Not completely but we as a
faculty really need to value practice and part of it is because we have
a bunch of researchers training people. I mean if you had a bunch of
clinicians training people, you might get the opposite (11.151-164).
Later, during the interview, she explicitly endorsed faculty bias as a barrier to
integration stating (IPlato):
SR: Do you see a difference between students with you or these
faculty [who have a positive attitude toward practice] and those that
work with faculty from the old school?
TD: You are not going to associate my name with any of this? Yes,
that is true.
SR: Why do you think integrating science and practice has been so
difficult for the whole field as such?
TD: I think it goes back to the role model issue we talked about.
When our faculty members are hired, they are hired for their interest
in research and they are the ones who teach students and so I think it
is really hard because you don’t have mentors who are doing both.
And their mentors in internships are practitioners and they get one or
the other all the time. So I think it is really hard because there are not
many people who can or want to do both (11.199-212).
The concerns voiced by the training director prompted me to seek her
evaluation of how successful the program has been in implementing the strategies
of integration and in providing integrated training. On further inquiry, she stated
(IPlato):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
SR: So when you look at your program, how would you evaluate
your program in terms of integration?
TD: Honestly, we have got great practice training, we have got great
science training and I am not really sure that we integrate actually.
We do some integration but I don’t think it is all weaved well
together. I think of it as two overlapping circles then our programs
overlap more than most programs but they are not completely
overlapping. Does that make sense?
SR: So it sounds like a few of the faculty role model that one can do
both and have positive attitudes toward both and also some of the
coursework and practicum try to integrate the two during classroom
discussions.
TD: So we do but I still think the training in both is somewhat
separate (11.214-227).
Thus, the training director concluded that the program primarily offers
parallel training in research and practice although the ideal goal to aspire for is that
of integration of research and practice. It is possible that many training directors
view integration akin to parallel training in research and practice and the parallel
view of integration probably led training directors to nominate the program in the
balanced category. It is also conceivable that students internalize different notions
of science, practice, and integration depending on their individual role modeling
experiences. The next subsection describes internal and external factors that impact
doctoral training.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
Internal and External Factors
The main internal factor that impacts training is the provision of joint
faculty appointments of university counseling center staff psychologists. Two
external factors also emerged. The first factor relates to competencies valued in the
faculty hiring process. The second factor involves the recent increase in research
using qualitative research methods in response to larger trends in the field.
The provision of joint faculty appointments in the program for university
counseling center psychologists is a major internal factor that probably enhances the
integration of science and practice. Such a provision might facilitate positive role
modeling experiences for students as they work with professionals who engage in
research and practice, rather than gravitating toward one of them.
In terms of external factors, the training director stated that barriers to
integration exist because of the kind of hiring policies departments and programs
adopt. Because most counseling psychology programs are housed in Research I
Universities, including this program, research productivity and scholarly
contributions are valued more than clinical expertise and interest in psychotherapy
training. In this regard, the training director stated (IPlato):
SR: What do you think can be done to improve that (integration of
science and practice)? If you could make changes, what do you think
would be the changes?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
TD: That is interesting. We have clinical faculty but they are not
tenure track and I think a whole overhaul of the whole system is
needed where clinical faculty are also as valued as tenured folks. So
a whole system kind of thing or you know, if you are really a
scientist-practitioner program then hires need to made not on science
but on balance and integration. I don’t think that is going happen.
We are talking a huge system overhaul. I think just.. .1 don’t know
what is going to help.
SR: So you say we should recruit folks who are balanced in their
approach and reward them for it.
TD: Yes. We just recruited somebody to teach. And it was for
practicum. I knew that I needed somebody who can teach practicum
and so I was asking candidates “do you like to practice? How do you
feel about practice?” I was definitely sort of of the mindset that we
need somebody who can do both.
SR: But that is a minority.
TD: Yes, those kind of folks are a minority in the country and even
within our own program (11.229-250).
Consequently, programs tend to hire faculty members who have research expertise
and who value research over psychotherapy practice.
The issue of hiring faculty members with an integrative view of science and
practice is problematic for programs housed in Research I universities. Academic
institutions are primarily focused and dedicated to research production and
generation of research grants that enhance the academic prestige and financial
health of the institution respectively. An investment in psychotherapy training
contributes to neither of these factors. Consequently, programs housed in Research I
universities have to grapple with the logistics of adopting a scientist-practitioner
training model. University hiring policies will be biased toward research production
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
and grant generation. The prestige and power gained through such academic
success is also likely to foster a bias against psychotherapy practice. And finally,
students who expect integrated training might face challenges as they experience
the bias of faculty members against psychotherapy practice, both in terms of
available resources as well as investment in psychotherapy training.
In terms of external factors, the program is predominantly quantitatively
driven in its research. However, qualitative research methods are taught as an
elective course outside the program. The move to teach and subscribe to qualitative
research methodology appears to be motivated by noticeable trends in the field. I
quote a relevant excerpt from the interview (IPlato):
TD: Yeah, I would say 90% or above of our faculty are doing that
kind of research honestly. But I would also say that more and more
students are doing qualitative research and I would say that I have
seen it increase even in the last few years.
SR: And why do you think that is happening?
TD: I think it is a movement in the field to be honest with you. And
so it is getting much more attention and press in the field in general
(11.49-56).
The shift toward qualitative research appears similar to University of
Aristotle’s counseling psychology program’s shift toward training in ESTs, as a
response to broader trends in the field. Thus, the inclusion of ESTs and increasing
methodological diversity are moves that are more externally driven rather than
theoretically based. I have not included this theme as a separate external factor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
because it did not surface clearly enough as an external factor but the pattern is
becoming more evident.
Summary
The program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner program.
The program predominantly adopts positivistic notions of psychological science
although it is gradually tending toward methodological diversity by offering an
elective course in qualitative research methods. Psychotherapy practice is not
clearly defined and it is typically described as faculty members adopting an
integrative approach with an emphasis on ESTs, a potentially incompatible
approach to integration of science and practice. The scientist-practitioner is defined
as a professional knowledgeable and skilled in science and practice, as per the
program website and student handbook. Developing knowledge- and skill-base is
definitional of the scientist-practitioner as a professional who consumes and
generates research. The training director defines the scientist-practitioner as a
professional who has a positive valence toward science and practice and also
engages in both activities. The program implements its strategies of integration
through incorporation of coursework and practicum content during didactic and
practicum training, providing faculty mentoring to students, encouraging joint
faculty appointments, and requiring the completion of the doctoral portfolio.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
However, the training director conceded to problems in successfully
integrating science and practice in doctoral training citing implicitness among
faculty members about their training priorities and faculty bias toward research. She
also acknowledged that the program provides training that is akin to parallel
training in research and psychotherapy practice rather than integrative training in
psychological science and psychotherapy practice. It is possible that the reason the
program was nominated in this category was because training directors defined
balanced training as parallel and equal training, instead of integrative training.
The provision of joint faculty appointments probably plays a positive role by
creating ideal role models for students. On the other hand, the core faculty hiring
process values research competence and proof of research productivity over clinical
expertise and, thus, compromises integration of science and practice. Valuing
research over practice appears symptomatic of Research I Universities that focus on
research productivity and do not appreciate the value of psychotherapy training.
According to the training director, core faculty members who have a specific bias
against psychotherapy practice devalue students’ interest in psychotherapy practice.
In addition, the program is gradually leaning toward increasing methodological
diversity in research training in response to larger but similar trends in the field. The
flowchart (Figure 3) below provides a visual representation of the program’s case
description.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I Joint Faculty
j Appointments
Faculty Hiring
Policies
Increase in
Qualitative
Research
Science
Internal Factor
> Skill Base
Practice
Knowledge
Base
Critical
Thinking
Joint Faculty
Mentoring
Doctoral
Portfolio
External Factors
Curriculum
Structure
Faculty
Mentoring
Natural Science
Approach
Evaluate &
Conduct
Research
Emphasis on
ESTs
Faculty bias
Implicitness
among
Faculty
Increasing
Methodological
Diversity
Integrative
Theoretical
Orientation
Positive
Attitude
toward
research 6
practice
Figure 3. Visual Representation o f Case Description for University o f Plato
174
University o f Hegel
The program was nominated as a balanced counseling psychology doctoral
program. Data sources for the case include information from the program website,
the complete self-study, dissertation abstracts since 1997, and interview with the
training director. The training director informed me that an electronic copy of the
complete self-study was not available and I offered to drive down to the university
to photocopy it. During the visit to get a copy of the self-study, I scheduled a time
with the training director to conduct a face-to-face interview. Because this interview
was conducted in person, it was longer and richer in content and explains the
lengthier quotes I include in the case description. The self-study was written in
1998 and since then some of the program statistics have changed and some faculty
turnover has taken place.
Concept o f Science and Practice
The program adopts a broad definition of psychological science and a
cognitive-behavioral approach to psychotherapy practice because most core faculty
members subscribe to this theoretical orientation. The training director added that
adj unct faculty members and fieldwork supervisors, who are more active in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
psychotherapy practice compared to core faculty members, tend to be more eclectic
in their theoretical orientations.
Research-related coursework aims at training students in an array of
research methods. Methodological diversity is evident in the training objective that,
“Students will acquire knowledge and skill in quantitative and qualitative research
and evaluation methods” (SSHegel, p.4). Thus, students are required to complete
the equivalent of 15 credits of graduate-level coursework in quantitative methods,
and a course each in qualitative methods and research methods in counseling
psychology (SSHegel, p.4). The Research Methods in counseling psychology
course focuses on the “experimental evaluation of treatment outcomes” (SSHegel,
p.7), a focus akin to natural science-based practice. One of the training goals of the
program is that “Students will acquire the knowledge and skill to conduct
independent scholarly inquiry in psychology and to evaluate the processes and
outcomes of professional practice in psychology” (SSHegel, p.4). The goal is
implemented primarily through coursework and socialization of students in the
academic world through faculty mentoring. The comprehensive examination
evaluates students’ research competence in all these methods (SSHegel, p.4).
The training director endorsed a similar view on research training and
reinforced the importance of encouraging methodological diversity, participating in
research assistantships, and completing the dissertation. He stated (IHegel):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
SR: So when you look at this program, how would you describe the
scientist component of it?
TD: Well, it is defined by the research method courses and the
statistics and students involved in research projects either through
research assistantships and in thesis and dissertations. Those are all
the scientist components.
SR: Would you include more recent trends like qualitative
research...?
TD: Yeah, I would. Sure.
SR: So you have a broad definition of science?
TD: I would definitely not limit to quantitative. And I would see
practice as the practicum, field placements, the internships etc
(11.170-184).
The training director also provided a brief historical perspective on how the
program evolved. A major part of the program history related to faculty members
resolving differences about organizational affiliations and the relative emphasis on
science and practice. I discuss the historical issue in depth in the later subsection on
internal and external factors. However, I quote a brief excerpt from the interview
where the training director discussed the shift toward research from an emphasis on
psychotherapy practice in the program (IHegel):
SR: Basically what I want to do is get some information about the
program, how it started. Basically, the training aspects of it. History,
how it came about etc.
TD: I am not very knowledgeable about the history, I came here in
1982 but I think it started up in the late 60s, a guy named ... came
here, started the counseling program. I think it got APA approval
sometime in 1970, pretty early for a program to get approval and it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
was very practitioner oriented in the beginning and there were very
few researchers here and then ... came here. He was retiring and he
came here. He was a major figure in counseling and the program
started getting more reputation, national reputation. And it was in the
80s that some big time hires were made. That is when I was hired.
Just kidding (laughs). People with national reputation like ..., ...
came on later. ... was another hire.
SR: Did that change the practitioner focus?
TD: Yeah, over the years. As I said, in the 60s it was very
practitioner oriented through the 70s and then starting in the late 70s,
there were more hires of folks with more of a research background.
Fairly, as the 80s progressed, it became more and more research
oriented and we present ourselves as a program that is balanced. We
try to do a good job in training with practice and research but I think
more of the faculty have a research bent (11.1-20).
The training director’s description of how the program evolved reveals the
importance of faculty recruitment. The nature of the faculty pool in a program
informs the kind of doctoral training provided to students. The change from
practice-oriented faculty, prior to 1980s, to a more research-oriented faculty later on
changed the flavor of the program. The faculty turnover was a consequence of a
conscious shift in the program to affiliate itself more with APA rather than AC A.
Original faculty members affiliated themselves more with the latter while the new
faculty members affiliated themselves with the former. Tension among faculty
members about organizational affiliations is an internal factor that impacted the
evolution of the program. I now discuss the concept of psychotherapy practice
adopted by the program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
Among the four goals of training, the third and fourth goals relate to
psychotherapy training. According to the self-study, “The third and fourth goals,
which involve training in the specialty of counseling psychology, have as a general
outcome competence in the assessment and treatment of psychological problems”
(SSHegel, p.3). The goals are achieved through relevant coursework so that
students “acquire a thorough knowledge of the theory and method of psychological
assessment and intervention, including the knowledge essential for the application
of these tools to practice” (SSHegel, p.5). Two courses taken in order to meet this
goal focus on the “empirical [sic] evaluation of treatment outcomes” (SSHegel,
p. 8). The first course introduces students to “outcome and process research and
survey the literature that establishes empirical [sic] support for major psychological
treatments” (SSHegel, p.8) and the second course examines in detail “how
experimental methods are used in treatment evaluation”. The focus of these two
courses on how science informs practice is an example of natural science-based
practice.
While discussing the historical shift in emphasis from training in
psychotherapy practice to research, the training director added that the theoretical
orientations of faculty members also shifted because of faculty turnover. He stated
(IHegel):
SR: And when the practitioner bent was operational, was there a
particular bent in terms of theoretical orientation?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
TD: Pretty eclectic and humanistic as the practitioners were.
SR: And how has that changed?
TD: Well, the researchers are more cognitive-behavioral.
SR: How is the practice end of it right now?
TD: Several of our faculty have a private practice on the side but
everybody is doing some kind of publishing. Some much more than
others ranging anywhere from once every 2-3 years to publishing 5-6
times a year (11.22-35).
Thus, current faculty members have a more cognitive-behavioral bent in contrast to
the eclectic and humanistic orientations previous faculty members subscribed to.
In terms of psychotherapy training, the practicum sequence involves a
beginning level master’s practicum (mandatory for students without equivalent
prior experience) that takes place in the Counseling Training Center housed in the
division (SSHegel, p.9). Program faculty members and other faculty associates
serve as supervisors (p.9). The self-study states that “models of supervision vary
among faculty and sites” (p. 10) but it does not elaborate on how the models of
supervision differ and how the differences impact psychotherapy training. The
training director made the observation that the core faculty members’ cognitive-
behavioral approach to clinical work might not always be conducive to appreciating
clinical reality. In this context, he also stated that field supervisors subscribe to a
wider range of theoretical orientations. He stated (IHegel):
SR: Is there any cross-pollination where in the research classes
clinical issues are discussed or in practicum research is discussed?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
TD: Yeah. I think we are committed to that. Most of us, as faculty,
do that. When I teach a research course, I talk about real life
situations - people with these kind of problems, how would you
study it, which interventions work or don’t work. And in practicum I
encourage students to read the literature dealing with various kinds
of problems. Again, I do think that most people are cognitive-
behavioral. In the past, we have had more humanistic.
SR: That is interesting since I noticed your interest in meaning of life
issues...
TD: Yeah, I personally am eclectic but not too many are. But I think
the practicum supervisors tend to be more eclectic - the real world
people are more eclectic!
SR: What an interesting observation! Why do you think researchers
are more cognitive-behavioral?
TD: It is a simpler view of life and in the real world you recognize
that you need to understand different things and different ways to
help people. I think in the real world you have got to be little more
flexible and open-minded (11.185-205).
I sought further clarification from the training director about faculty
member’s affinity to the cognitive-behavioral approach and I quote his response
(IHegel):
SR: I think that is where integration issues come up, isn’t it? Since it
is difficult to scientifically study anything in the realm of humanistic,
psychodynamic, existential etc. At least using traditional research
methods, I wonder...
TD: Well, for some faculty. While some other faculty are more
flexible and open-minded. For example, a lot of my research is
humanistic, descriptive. So I don’t tend to confine myself to the
cognitive-behavioral framework in my research. But as I say my
work is more descriptive but I guess most of the research done here
is more cognitive-behavioral framework. I think in the 80s they hired
more cognitive-behavioral kind of people.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
SR: Or may be people who are into research prefer cognitive-
behavioral...
TD: I think you are right. That is a good part of it (11.207-220).
The goals of psychotherapy training, the program’s implementation of the
goals, and the training director’s views on the subject appear to reveal a gap. Most
core faculty members subscribe to the cognitive-behavioral approach and a
significant part of psychotherapy training involves developing an appreciation for
empirical support to psychotherapy practice. On the other hand, the training
director’s stated that the real world of the clinician is more complicated than how
core faculty members view clinical reality. He also observed that adjunct faculty
members and fieldwork supervisors are more eclectic in their theoretical
orientations. The differences between core faculty members and adjunct faculty
members’ approach to psychotherapy and supervision raises questions of feasibility
about integration of science and practice. Conflicting models of supervision can
contribute to confusion among students about how they conceptualize psychological
science, psychotherapy practice, and integration. The next subsection describes the
concept of the scientist-practitioner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
Concept o f Scientist-Practitioner
According to the self-study, based on the program’s adoption of the
scientist-practitioner model of training, “Students are taught (a) to employ scientific
knowledge and critical inquiry in their professional practice and (b) to use scientific
methods (that is, conduct research) to better understand and improve professional
practice (SSHegel, p.2). The four goals of the scientist-practitioner training are
(SSHegel):
The first goal, which involves general training in scientific
psychology, is intended to insure that professional practice is based
on current psychological knowledge. The second goal, which
involves training in empirical [sz'c] foundations, is concerned with
instilling in students the values and skills of science. The third and
fourth goals, which involve training in the specialty of counseling
psychology, have as a general outcome competence in the
assessment and treatment of psychological problems (p.2).
The training director endorsed these training goals although he described the
program’s training as providing parallel training in research and practice with some
integrative aspects in how research is utilized in practice. He stated (IHegel):
SR: How do you describe the program right now as it is? So you are
saying it is balanced now?
TD: You mean the doctoral program?
SR: Yeah.
TD: Yeah, we call ourselves research-practitioners, sorry scientist-
practitioners. Again, these names are silly to me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
SR: I am curious to find out why you find it silly because I am trying
to figure out what the scientist-practitioner means?
TD: Right. Well, I think we are committed to training people to be
either researchers or practitioners and I think we do both pretty well
but clearly as I said a while back, we are research-oriented but that
makes sense to me. And it makes sense to me, to try and create a
balanced program.
SR: So when you say balanced, you really mean getting adequate
research training and adequate practice training and if you choose
either part, you are adequately prepared to do that?
TD: Yes. Yes.
SR: Well, how would you view the aspect of integration since that is
the buzz word for the model? I am trying to figure that out for my
dissertation.
TD: Good luck! I think that integration just means that when you
looking at research, you also consider the real world and what it is
like for real-life clients and when you are in the practice world, you
are able to read the journals and know that a certain intervention has
good evidence or other interventions have some problems, that you
are discriminating and a critical thinker (11.115-146).
Thus, the training director defines a balanced scientist-practitioner training program
as providing adequate, albeit parallel, training in research and practice. He views
integration of science and practice as the ability to think critically so that a
professional incorporates research findings in practice and he/she is aware of the
clinical context w hile engaging in research.
The training director was also critical of official training model terms such
as scientist-practitioner andpractitioner-scholar. I quote an excerpt (IHegel):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
SR: How would you finally describe the training program since you
are not very happy about the training terms that are used? Would you
reject the term, scientist-practitioner?
TD: I think there are those two components - research and clinical
and just describing where you are regarding those two components.
For instance, Psy.D programs can say, well, we are mainly
practitioner-oriented people and we don’t require any research so
using the word “mainly”, I think, would help. I would hope that even
the Psy.D programs would say that they don’t totally disagree with
this and they don’t disregard all kind of research and that they would
read a journal once in a while. So using the word “mainly” would do
it. And they are programs like clinical psych programs here that, as
described to me by their students, I don’t really know, that they have
a real small practice focus and a big science focus so then I would
call that mainly a research program. I don’t see any need for words
like scholar, hyphens etc (11.373-385).
In the self-study, the scientist-practitioner is defined using notions of natural
science-based practice with a focus on research informing psychotherapy practice.
The training director endorsed this definition but unlike the self-study narrative, he
also acknowledged the complexity of the task. He stated that the reality of clinical
work might not always be conducive for integration. Most core faculty members
approach integration as natural science-based practice where practice is understood
using a cognitive-behavioral orientation. However, the training director views such
an approach as simplistic and he added that adjunct faculty members and fieldwork
supervisors who might be more attuned to clinical reality tend to adopt more
complex eclectic approaches in their psychotherapy practice and in psychotherapy
training. The training director was also critical of technical training terms used
while describing training models. He defines integration or balanced training as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
akin to providing parallel training in research and practice, with the added
component of critical thinking as facilitating the integration of science and practice.
It is noteworthy, however, that the emphasis on natural science-based practice as
defining the scientist-practitioner continues to be a consistent theme.
Strategies o f Integration
The crux of the different strategies of integration implemented in the
program is the “emphasis on empirical [sic] data as the basis for professional
practice” (Psychology in Education, p.l). Curriculum structure and focus, practicum
training, and faculty role modeling are the primary strategies of integration used by
the program. The curriculum is designed such that students take research and
practice-related courses every semester (Counseling Psychology Ph.D. Program,
Curriculum Perspective, p.l). The main focus during coursework is on facilitating
students’ critical thinking skills while conducting, evaluating, and applying research
in psychotherapy practice. For instance, one of the training goals’ objectives is that
“Students will acquire skill in reading the psychological literature critically and
synthesizing the results of library research” (SSHegel, p.4). The objective is met by
students satisfactorily completing coursework in the Science and Practice of
Counseling Psychology, Research Methods in Counseling Psychology, producing a
satisfactory independent critical review of literature, demonstrating competence in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
choosing and administering empirically supported treatments in practicum, and
demonstrating similar competence during comprehensive examinations (SSHegel,
pp.4-5). In addition, students are expected to acquire skills related to designing and
conducting original research and acquire skills in reporting such research in a
professional forum (SSHegel, p.5). These skills are evaluated in coursework, an
independent research project that students are encouraged to present or publish, and
the satisfactory completion of a dissertation (SSHegel, p.5).
The curriculum and practicum training also emphasize the importance of
critically evaluating and utilizing research through specific coursework related to
“experimental evaluation of treatment outcomes” (SSHegel, p.7) and these skills are
specifically evaluated in the comprehensive examinations where “knowledge of and
competence in scientific methods” are assessed (p.8). The self-study also states that
(SSHegel):
... all doctoral courses, including those with a strongly applied
focus, emphasize scientific attitudes to some extent, in that students
are exposed to the research base relevant to the topic at hand.
Students learn through all of these courses to approach questions
about human behavior with appropriate skepticism and caution; to
identify their biases and to reduce the possibility of bias through
systematic inquiry; and to express their curiosities as research
questions (p.9).
The doctoral training, thus, aims to train students in conducting, evaluating
and applying research in psychotherapy practice. Curriculum structure, classroom
discussions, and research competency requirements are tools to help students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
develop these skills. Similar to other cases described so far, these goals are
descriptive of natural science-based practice as definitional of the scientist-
practitioner.
Faculty role modeling is another strategy used to implement the integration
of science and practice. According to the self-study, “About one-half [of core
faculty members] also have active clinical practices. Thus, in their own careers, as
well as in their teaching, faculty provide diverse models of science-practice
integration in counseling psychology” (SSHegel, p.l 1). The self-study does not
elaborate further on the nature of the diverse models of science-practice integration.
The training director also added that adjunct faculty members play a more active
role in supervising practicum. According to him (IHegel):
SR: When students go through practicum, internships and things like
that who monitors their progress?
TD: We have an instructor. The supervising faculty most of them are
adjunct faculty who monitor it.
SR: Is there a difference then in training between full-time faculty
and adjunct faculty?
TD: I think, if anything, may be adjunct faculty feel like second class
citizens and don’t feel like they are faculty but they probably feel
many times that they are more competent in practitioner stuff than
faculty. But a lot of us as faculty too supervise practicum and the
field placement which is the next thing which is outside, we have a
faculty instructor who oversees it, the instructor is on faculty but he
just oversees it, communicates with the site supervisor and makes
sure that everything is going okay and sometimes the instructor will
have a few meetings with the students coming off the field into the
classroom to talk about their experience but the main work is out
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
there. It is still a course, faculty are overseeing it and get course
credit for it. But during internships, they are much further away and
there is much less intervention with us as faculty here which is a
problem (11.338-355).
Thus, he described the training provided by the program as akin to parallel
training in research and practice and he described integration as the ability to
critically use research in psychotherapy practice. During the latter part of the
interview, I summarized his viewpoints and sought further information on the topic
of integration. He responded saying (IHegel):
SR: So, on the whole, it sounds like there are two separate tracks -
the research training in the department by full time faculty in terms
of coursework, research assistantships, and dissertation, and clinical
training during practicum, field placement, and internship mostly
outside the department. And integration mostly happens during
coursework and faculty discuss things. Is there any other way you
would operationalize integration during graduate training?
TD: Again, when we supervise practicum we do look up journals
and look up literature on this and that and then some of our research
courses we bring up real life examples. But I think there is
integration throughout like that. When I supervise practicum and we
talk about a client and as we are going, we might integrate
knowledge of both literature and experience. It is more of my belief
that when treating things like anxiety and depression, there are things
that are out there that can help this individual and there are times
when I recognize that the research on the subject is not very useful. I
think there are lots of relevant things like the stuff that Barlow has
done that I will use (11.357-371).
As mentioned previously, the training director was critical about the various
terms used to describe training models and he was also partially critical about the
way the task of integration is attempted by most programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
Internal and External Factors
The training director discussed internal and external factors that impact
doctoral training, in depth. He identified three internal factors - the historical
faculty conflict due to differing organizational affiliations and training philosophies,
faculty bias toward research, and student bias toward practice and confusion about
career options. He also identified four external factors that impact doctoral training
- the influence of APA, the struggle to engage in research as well as practice
following graduation, the training program being housed in the school of education,
and the influence of managed care.
The training program instituted significant changes in the 1980s when many
existing faculty members retired or were forced to retire. The changes in the
program resulted in its changing training focus from being more practice-oriented to
becoming more research-oriented, as the new faculty members joined the program.
The former faculty members were affiliated with ACA while the new faculty
members identified with APA. The training director provided a description of what
took place although he was critical of the turf wars and interpersonal conflict that it
resulted in (IHegel):
SR: So was it a conscious policy to shift the emphasis of the program
in the 1980s or it just happened that way?
TD: I think the people hiring in the 1980s, it was a good time to hire
because they were lots of freezes on and so it was a buyer’s market.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
So faculty could get some very strong people. The strong people
were research-oriented but as they come in, they took more power,
they started making more research-oriented decisions about the
program. There was a period when there was some conflict because
the old guard and the new guard clashed. The new researchers were
very APA oriented and invested in keeping APA approval, national
reputation etc. The old guard were practitioners, more counselor
educators so it was a problem. It was again the new hires wanting
national reputation, wanting closer affiliation with APA, seeing the
old guard as not as nationally oriented, not trained in research, not
caring that much about the APA and the old guard felt that.. .well, ...
University was going through a similar change in terms of becoming
a research I institution so the old guard were feeling that they were
hired during a different time and the rules had changed. And now
they weren’t valued as much so it was very hurtful and some of these
older people were very resentful to have the younger people, the new
kid on the block, come along and in some cases, they were the cause
of retirement deals and it was clear that the old folks were no longer
wanted so they were resentful understandably.
SR: And they were more inclined toward counselor education...?
TD: Yeah. ACA etc.
SR: Because I noticed there is still a master’s counselor education
program? So are some of those folks still there?
TD: Well, for a while, we were split as a faculty. Some of the
research oriented, APA oriented people felt that our accreditation
was in jeopardy because of some of the ACA people. In my opinion,
it was a very silly APA-AC A thing.
SR: Why do you say that?
TD: Well, I can appreciate the need for standards. I want some kind
of uniformity across the country, kind of psychologists have these
skills. I can’t argue with that but the competition with ACA and
APA is silly. It is just like clinical versus counseling which I think is
silly. We as counseling psychologists have spent too much time
talking about who we are, identity etc. It is just silly stuff, it is more
political and power. I don’t think there is any substantive differences
between counselor ed, counseling psych, clinical psych. I think as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
profession, mental health professionals got to act together and really
need just a major overhaul of what our profession and how it defines
itself, it is embarrassing. When an outsider says what is difference
between clinical and counseling psych, it makes no sense. We all
used the buzz word, developmental versus pathological, that doesn’t
make sense in the real world.
SR: You don’t care for these differences but the turf war was real?
TD: Oh yeah, the turf war was real. Very hurt feelings. I think now
ACA requires more supervised hours for their master’s students and
I remember even some faculty saying “We require as much as APA
does of the doctoral students” as if it was impressive. So it is
bragging and putting the students through more hours so that they
can just say “we are as good as you”. It is really immature. But I
think things have gotten better in the past 7 years because we
decided some years ago to become one faculty again. We don’t make
such distinctions. We all taught master’s level, we all taught doctoral
level and it wasn’t a problem. Part of the reason is that some of the
APA oriented people said the identity is too diluted with people with
ACA affiliation and I think we feel strongly about the fact now that
we have an APA identity and credentials so that APA is not going to
zing us again for that.
SR: And the zinging is more because of the research-practice rift
between the affiliated groups?
TD: Well, APA in terms of its criteria for identity had to do with
psychologists and member of APA, licensed, and active in
conventions and presenting and all those things. And a lot of ACA
folks didn’t go to APA, weren’t members, didn’t get licensed as
psychologists and so APA did zing us when they came a few years
ago. But that problem is largely solved. We are not having that fight
anymore.
SR: People have made peace with that...?
TD: A lot of them retired (laughs). So to some extent that is what
happened and the people who are left over that are on the other side
just got absorbed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
SR: So, the ACA folks teach the master’s program and the APA
folks teach the doctoral program?
TD: Yeah. Yeah, that is where we are now (11.37-113).
The training director’s description of the historical conflict among faculty
members also revealed that as the program attracted more research-oriented faculty,
the bias in the program shifted toward research with a concurrent bias against
practice. According to the training director (IHegel):
SR: Going back to students who have conflict about their careers, do
they ever go to faculty in terms of seeking advice?
TD: I think they are very selective whom they go to. They don’t go
to some people because they know faculty will be disappointed.
Because they do perceive that there is a little bias toward research
and they say they are thinking about practice and some of the faculty
will say, “we failed with this student”. They go to other faculty
whom they recognize to be more balanced or more open. I have had
some people come to me and say that they are having this conflict
and I am open to it.
SR: Why do you think there is this disdain for practice among
faculty?
TD: I don’t know if I would call it disdain. I think there are some
faculty that see it as not as prestigious, I think that is the main
reason.
SR: I just wonder where that attitude comes from?
TD: Well, I think there is a medical world that we psychologists
have kind of followed. They are has been that notion that medical
researchers are at the top of the heap, they are coming with great
cures. I have some evidence of that bias which I think we have
adopted. First started in clinical and when counseling grew, we
adopted it too. And then there is the hierarchy of sciences, hierarchy
of soft sciences and that this where the problem of qualitative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
research comes in. I think this bias exists among some faculty. Some
faculty are open to both and some faculty are even of the opinion
that qualitative is more useful than quantitative for social sciences.
But there is a good number of people who realize the benefit of both.
They are flexible (11.305-330).
In contrast to a pattern of core faculty members’ bias toward research,
students admitted to the program seemed to vacillate about their research and
practice interests and students who were inclined toward psychotherapy practice as
a career option experience conflict in their doctoral training. In this context, the
training director also described the crossover of students from the clinical
psychology program to the counseling psychology program because the latter was
perceived as being more practice-oriented than the former. Thus, there appeared to
be a tension within the program between core faculty members and students when
students evinced an interest in practice. In contrast, the program was perceived as
more practice-oriented by other students who had transferred from a research-
oriented clinical psychology program. I quote a relevant excerpt from the interview
(IHegel):
SR: How about the student population? What are their attitude and
interests in science and practice?
TD: Yeah, people do try to “talk the talk”. I tell them that I am not
just impressed by people talking the talk, you know. But other
faculty are impressed with the talk. Some people come in knowing
exactly what their dissertation is going to be and others think that is
impressive. But I don’t. I think first year students should be open and
try different things before they focus. I was just talking to somebody
over at the clinical psych the other day and they have a perception
we are much more practice-oriented over here because they are even
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
more research-oriented whereby they have clearly, according to
some students, a real animosity and hostility toward students who are
thinking of practice. They are just downgraded plus their practicum,
the students told me that they saw only one client in a semester. And
they didn’t compete well for internships because the faculty didn’t
care much about the practice part. So they had this idea that we were
very practice oriented.
SR: So does that impact training or lead to clinical versus counseling
turf wars?
TD: That part doesn’t, I don’t think so. That makes some clinical
psych people think that “I should have gone over to counseling” but
when they come over here I tell them that “don’t get the idea that
were are all practice oriented and they are all research based”
SR: So do you think people burnt out by publishing and research are
trying to find their way here for an easier process?
TD: I don’t know about easy. Some of them are real starved for
mentoring and seeing “real” people because they feel stuck in a lab.
The ones who came here saw this place as having students who are
much more well-rounded and liked to talk about client issues and
open to different interventions and they were very behavioral over
there. Very science only. People who have visited from over there,
think of transferring say that [balanced training] is what they are
looking for here. But I had to clarify to them that they have this
perception that we are very touchy-feely and practice-oriented and
we are not. There is some bias toward research over here too, not
perhaps as much.
SR: So how do students who talk the talk but don’t really mean it
cope?
TD: I think they suffer some conflict about it. As a student myself
where I was, it was very research oriented and the way I looked at it
was I wanted to get... this is a place to get really good research
training and get it from here and when I do my practicum and
internship, that is where I will get good practice supervision. So I
didn’t think why don’t they offer equal balance over here or why
they didn’t respect practitioners.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
SR: So you had it demarcated as here I get good research training
and there I get good practice training.
TD: Yeah, yeah. And I think that is being pretty realistic. And I tell
students here that you can get a good strong research background
here and you can go into practice later for the rest of your life and
you can get supervision in different places, you have workshops, and
you are constantly improving your skills. So look at this as an
opportunity for 3-4 years where you get really strong research
background.
SR: So do they accept that?
TD: I think they do. Most of us who go into the Ph.D program value
the Ph.D, that is a valuable degree and the sacrifices are worth that.
SR: So you describe the 3-4 years of research training as a kind of
useful sacrifice?
TD: Uhm. Yes. They see it as valuable and I do hear them discussing
their conflict about whether I should go this way or should I go that
way. I feel a push to go this way and I am conflicted in my own
mind. But I say prepare yourself for both and if you decide to go on
the research route, you haven’t stopped learning. As a matter of fact,
... once told me as I was doing my dissertation, “you know, almost
all dissertations are crap”. Here I am trying to feel good about my
dissertation and he is saying this that no matter what you do, it is not
going to be very good. He said, of course it is because not all people
who do dissertations want to become researchers. Only the ones who
do the best dissertations tend to be researchers later on and that is
their first shot. They will get better as time goes on so dissertations
are not very good. I think he was right. When you go in the academic
world, you get better as a teacher and better as a researcher as time
goes on (11.222-290).
The training director’s description of conflicting faculty and student bias
toward research and practice respectively is evident in his description of clinical
psychology students in the university being attracted to the counseling psychology
program. These students appear to be disillusioned by the strong research focus in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
the clinical psychology program as well as by the faculty’s rejection of
psychotherapy practice as an acceptable and respectable goal of training and
professional growth. However, the training director conceded that similar biases are
operational in the counseling psychology program as well, even if the bias was not
as pervasive. As programs strive for APA accreditation and attempt to fulfill
requisite academic demands, faculty members and students in the program are faced
with conflicting biases regarding the relative value of research and practice. I now
discuss external factors that impact training.
The training director stated that APA plays a major role determining a
program’s training policies because programs place a premium in getting and
maintaining APA accreditation. He stated (IHegel):
SR: What do you think are some external factors that might have
influenced training?
TD: I think APA has much more power over us than anybody else.
Nobody can really have a non-APA program, really, it is death.
SR: In that case, APA’s criteria drive programs’ decisions regarding
training including the criterion that says the program would integrate
science and practice, whatever that means. Would you agree with
that?
TD: Yes. Pretty much. I think we do have values of appreciating
science and practice. I think we would describe ourselves much more
simply and clearly if it wasn’t for the political stuff from APA. We
don’t want to lose our approval so we look at what categories they
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
are creating these days and try to abide by it. I don’t think we are
that influenced by the college of education although many of our
programs have been kicked out.
SR: I know (11.401-416).
Most counseling psychology programs are traditionally housed in schools of
education. However, the fit between counseling psychology programs in schools of
education has not always been good. Although the program is not facing any
significant threat in this regard, the training director acknowledged that tensions
between the two simmer (IHegel):
TD: I think a lot of counseling psych programs have a certain
arrogance that they are the best thing in this college and they are.
SR: Is it justified?
TD: They are. I think by the number of people that apply and their
GRE scores, we are much stronger.
SR: Why do you think this is so?
TD: Well, I think counseling psychology is extremely popular. A lot
of people want to become psychologists. Few people want to become
ed administrators or go back to school and get a Ph.D. in Secondary
Education. I don’t even know what that is. So that might be the
reason for some resentment toward our field because most deans
come from the college and they are not counseling psychologists and
they probably hate us. So, may be some counseling psychology
programs are worried that they would get kicked out because of the
dean’s resentment. At ..., when I was a student there, the Dean
would raise the question “why are you doing marriage and family
counseling, you are in the college of education so I don’t
understand”. So they would always go “what are you doing here”.
My attitude was I don’t care where we are, I would be just as happy
in Liberal Arts or anywhere else. I don’t feel connected here and
may be that is some of that tension. We could always make the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
argument that, as Krumboltz used to say, we are teachers, we teach
people how to live well so... we are not just in the classroom, we are
in the school, there is a link there and extend it beyond that. If I were
a dean, I would say counseling programs belong here (11.418-443).
Thus, although the fit between the school of education and the counseling
psychology program is not ideal, the program is not currently threatened by being
housed in the school of education.
The training director also believes that full-time practitioners gradually lose
interest in keeping up to date with research while academicians struggle to balance
tenure demands with maintaining a private practice. Consequently, the goal of
integrating science and practice in terms of investing time in both activities
eventually gets compromised after graduation. Such compromises might not bode
well in the quality of role modeling experiences students might receive. Thus,
programs can provide training in research and psychotherapy practice and hope that
the program graduates continue to integrate the two aspects as their careers evolve.
According to the training director (IHegel):
SR: Does that actually happen in reality? Sounds more like what
should be the case than what is the case?
TD: Well, to some extent. I think some practitioners are good
consumers of research and know how to discriminate between good
and bad research to some extent. It falls downward in full-time
private practice when you get lazy about reading journals and going
to conferences and then as far as our academic graduates go, they
still try to have some practice outside but the truth is that they are
trying to get tenure somewhere then it is hard to practice on the side.
So, there are some people who are totally balanced but our job is to
make sure that they graduate with at least minimal competencies in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
both areas and if you call that scientist-practitioner or whatever, that
is fine. These other terms, I don’t know what they mean. A pure
practitioner is fine. A pure researcher is fine but some of the other
terms professional-practitioner-scholar... (11.148-160).
Finally, managed care emerged as a factor that is currently influencing
doctoral training. The training director conceded that the program has been slow to
cater to the changing market demands as a result of managed care (IHegel):
SR: Shifting gears, what do you think about things like managed
care? Do you think it impacts training?
TD: I don’t think we are keeping up with that as much as we should.
Students have criticized us for that, saying we should be training
them in brief therapy since that is what is going on out there. We are
still living in the past. We have been a little slow to adopt to the
managed care stuff. I think we should be more attuned to it, we
shouldn’t take our direction from managed care but we should know
what the real world is like and certainly brief therapy is a reality and
when I do practicum, you got to deal with the real world so when I
teach them, I tell them to do their paperwork really fast, on the run,
because that is what you would have to do in the real world (11.445-
455).
In summary, the program’s history reveals a significant shift, in the 1980s,
from a practice focus to an emphasis on research as newer faculty members
affiliated with APA replaced older faculty members affiliated with ACA. The shift
in focus has brought to the forefront biases among faculty members and students
about the relative value and emphasis on science and practice respectively. Faculty
members tend to value research while students tend to be interested in practice or
they vacillate about their professional interests. In addition to internal factors that
possibly impact faculty mentoring of research and psychotherapy practice, external
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 00
factors such as the role of APA, the program’s housing in the school of education,
academicians struggling to maintain a private practice in addition to seeking tenure
and clinicians trying to engage in research in clinical settings, and the influence of
managed care play important roles in doctoral training.
Summary
The program was nominated as a balanced scientist-practitioner program.
The program encourages methodological diversity and emphasizes the importance
of developing critical thinking skills in research and psychotherapy training. Most
core faculty members subscribe to a cognitive-behavioral orientation in
psychotherapy practice and use different models of supervision in psychotherapy
training. The training director added that adjunct faculty members and fieldwork
supervisors tend to be more eclectic in their orientations possibly because they have
a better appreciation for the complexity of clinical work.
The scientist-practitioner is defined in terms of the oft-repeated theme of
natural science-based practice. The self-study repeatedly emphasizes the importance
of helping students to learn think critically and develop empirical support for
practice. Although the training director agreed with the definition, he was critical of
terms such as scientist-practitioner and the approach to the task of integration. He
agrees with the goal of helping students become critical thinkers as they engage in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
science and practice. However, he describes balanced training as akin to parallel
training in research and practice. According to the training director, the integrative
aspect involves students developing an appreciation for the complex nature of
clinical work and learning to incorporate research findings while engaging in
practice.
The curriculum structure, faculty members focusing on integration during
coursework, clinical supervision, and faculty mentoring are the main strategies of
integration adopted by the program. The training director acknowledged that faculty
bias against psychotherapy practice sometimes limits the amount of integration
taking place during coursework. He also added that core faculty members tended to
adopt less complex views of psychotherapy practice whereas adjunct faculty
members and fieldwork supervisors are more attuned to clinical complexity and
tended to adopt more eclectic theoretical orientations.
The historical shift from practice to science and faculty and student bias
have led to simmering conflicts about the relative value of science and practice
within the program. External factors such as the powerful role played by APA for
purposes of maintaining accreditation, the uncomfortable fit of the program within
the school of education, the struggle of core faculty members and practitioners
(typically adjunct faculty members and fieldwork supervisors) to balance their
research and practice foci, and the influence of managed care also play critical roles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
in training. The flowchart (Figure 4) below provides a visual representation of the
program’s case description.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Program
History
Student
I Bias
Science
Methodological
Diversity
Critical
Thinking
J Curriculum
i Structure
Critical [
Thinking j
— ►
Managed Care
Practice '
Faculty
Bias
APA
Internal Factors
Faculty
Mentoring
External Factors
Science-based
Practice
School of
Education
Scientist-
practitioner
Clinical
Supervision
Strategies of
Integration
Empirically
supported
endeavor
Cognitive-
Behavioral
Orientation
Demands of
Tenure and
Clinical work
Figure 4. Visual Representation of Case Description for University of Hegel.
Core
Faculty
Adjunct
Faculty
203
204
University o f Heidegger
The counseling psychology doctoral program is relatively unique as
compared to the other programs in the collective case study because it is one of the
programs currently being phased out in the country. However, both Dr. Stone and
Dr. Goodyear nominated this program in the balanced category and, hence, it was
included in the study. The case study description is based on program website
information, the complete self-study, dissertation abstracts since 1997, and
interview with the training director. Upon my request following the interview, the
training director emailed me additional data about the history of the program.
Concept o f Science and Practice
The program has undergone major changes over the decades. Two phases
could be broadly delineated in the last two decades based on faculty orientation
toward science or practice. Until 1986, the program’s faculty members were
predominantly practice-oriented with an existential orientation in psychotherapy
practice. The faculty members were also not inclined toward scientific endeavors.
According to the training director, “The earlier group had bordered on being
“antiscience”. With new faculty who understood/appreciated empirical [sz'c]
research, the tenor of the place changed” (Training Director, personal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
communication, July 7, 2004). In 1986, there was a major turnover in faculty and
the new faculty members tended toward a more moderate view of science and
practice and the program gradually evolved to become an accredited doctoral
program.
In the last couple of years, the program began to be phased out “in the
context of broad programmatic and structural changes within the School of
Education” (SSHeidegger, Preface). The phasing out process has not directly
impacted how psychological science and psychotherapy practice training is
operationalized in the program; instead, it has challenged the program and its
students as they are making adjustments to major changes resulting from the
phasing out process. I discuss the impact of phasing out on the program’s training
later in the subsection on internal and external factors.
The concept of psychological science is broadly defined in the program. In
terms of research, the program subscribes to methodological diversity and the
mission statement states that students are trained to be “prepared to make scholarly
contributions to psychology’s knowledge base, having an appreciation for and
competence in diverse methods of inquiry,...” (SSHeidegger, p.7). The second
training goal of the program is “To develop broadly competent, critically thoughtful
psychological scientists who have the knowledge of and the ability to apply basic
and advanced research methods” (p.8). Coursework in research includes statistics,
measurement, research methods, including a qualitative research course (p.8). With
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
the exception of University of Hegel, this is the only program where qualitative
research method course is mandatory for students to complete. The training director
also confirmed that the program adopts methodological diversity as part of research
training (IHeidegger):
SR: I mean how is science defined in this model?
TD: Aah. I would say most of us adopt the traditional notions of
positivistic, quantitative approach. Now, broader definitions are
becoming more common.
SR: So do you think in the program a broader definition is
operational?
TD: Oh yeah (11.44-51).
Dissertation abstracts since 1997 indicate that most students conduct research using
quantitative research methods. Out of the 13 abstracts available, 10 abstracts
described studies using quantitative research methods. In addition, one dissertation
used a qualitative research method while two dissertations were theoretical in
nature.
Thus, psychological science is conceptualized in terms of methodological
diversity with the goal of training students to think critically in order to make
scholarly contributions and meaningfully evaluate research.
The goal of psychotherapy training is to inculcate a certain attitude toward
practice rather than train students in various theoretical orientations. According to
the training director (IHeidegger):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
SR: How do you define the practice component?
TD: I don’t think there is any one way to do practice in the scientist-
practitioner. I think that is where scientific skepticism and that sort
of thing helps, it is the attitudinal, critical thinking kind of thing that
helps (11.59-63).
Psychotherapy training takes place through coursework and practicum
training and it is evaluated in qualifying examinations, practicum, and internship
evaluations (SSHeidegger, p.9). Practicum training includes a beginning-level
counseling skills laboratory course (SSHeidegger, p. 16). According to the self-
study, the course is “grounded in the assumptions that there is both (1) a “common
clinical wisdom” that guides practice and (2) common factors (such as certain
relationship qualities; client expectations; and so on) that transcend particular
theory” (SSHeidegger, p. 16). Following this course, the first practicum is taught at
a community mental health facility where one of the core faculty members teaches
and supervises practicum students. Thus, the site is considered analogous to an in-
house clinic (SSHeidegger, p. 16). Following the first practicum, students complete
their first field placement at an appropriate site in the local community. Then,
students take the second practicum which is taught by a faculty member who
conducts research in assessment-related topics and supervises practicum students.
He is identified as an ideal scientist-practitioner who integrates research with
practice in practicum and provides role modeling as a scientist-practitioner to
students (SSHeidegger, p. 17). The second practicum and the second field placement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
both emphasize assessment training. Practicum and field placement experiences
finally culminate in students applying for pre-doctoral internships.
Thus, the program adopts a broad definition of psychological science and
psychotherapy practice. The self-study as well as the training director both
emphasized the importance of developing an attitude of scientific skepticism and
critical thinking skills while engaging in research and psychotherapy practice. In
addition to these attitudinal and cognitive components, methodological diversity in
research training and the appreciation for clinical wisdom and assessment training
are also focused upon during doctoral training.
Concept o f Scientist-Practitioner
The self-study acknowledges the fundamental tenet for this dissertation
study of the scientist-practitioner training model, “that the large majority of
counseling psychology programs claim adherence to this model suggests that there
are multiple understanding of it” (SSHeidegger, p.7). According to the self-study,
the program’s definition of the scientist-practitioner is drawn from Pepinsky and
Pepinsky (1954) which states that a scientist-practitioner is someone who is
prepared to be a (SSHeidegger):
(a) critical and skeptical consumer of current and future theory and
research in applied psychology; (b) professional who is able (upon
review of theory and research) to tailor, implement, and evaluate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
clinical applications of such theory and research; and, (c)
professional who is able to formulate and conduct meaningful
research in areas pertinent to the science and practice of counseling
psychology (p.7).
The training director viewed the concept of scientist-practitioner as having multiple
definitions (IHeidegger):
SR: Let me start with asking you how you would describe the
scientist-practitioner program.
TD: How you would describe the scientist-practitioner. There are
multiple definitions of the scientist-practitioner. One version has to
do with doing practice and doing research. I think there are two other
notions of the scientist-practitioner - one will be that people, the
graduates, are good consumers of research, to use critical thinking so
that as they enter practice, they are able to use their judgment well. I
think the whole notion of skepticism defines science and as a
practitioner if they adopt that skepticism, I think it helps to question,
“where are the data”? I think the other sense of it is that the way of
thinking as a scientist that gets translated into the practitioner side.
So you get hypothesis testing, significance testing, so you gradually
test all sorts of hypotheses about your clients and gradually build a
theory. So those are two main ways that scientist-practitioner
applies. I think there is another sense that they want to see data and a
lot of that is through stat [statistical] method courses, how to make
sense of the literature, and also there is also the notion that simply
taking stat [statistical] courses changes our view of problems. To
some extent that models how faculty model their thinking in their
courses and how they link it to existing literature to find answers.
(11.1-19).
The qualities attributed to the scientist-practitioner in the self-study, thus,
include the ability to consume and conduct research and also apply research in
psychotherapy practice. The training director elaborated on these qualities by
stating that a scientist-practitioner could be defined using three broad concepts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
First, a scientist-practitioner could be defined as a professional who engages in both
science and practice. Second, a scientist-practitioner could be defined as embodying
the qualities of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. Finally, the scientist-
practitioner applies research in psychotherapy practice using the notion of science-
based practice. In this instance, psychological science entails adopting a positivistic
stance and utilizing statistical tools in clinical endeavors. Thus, both the self-study
and the training director adopt the notion of integration akin to the theme of natural
science-based practice.
Strategies o f Integration
The three main strategies of integrating science and practice is developing
the ability to critically think through problems, have an attitude of scientific
skepticism, and develop the ability to apply research in psychotherapy practice.
According to the training director (IHeidegger):
SR: So it sounds like there are two things - one is critical thinking in
science and practice and the other is more like an application of
research methodology...
TD: There is a bridge there. The problem I think is that scientist-
practitioner programs struggle with how do we do it. But I think
some programs struggle more but I think the majority of programs
teach science and translate that in practice so that the graduates they
turn out do think like that and certainly when we do practicum, for
the few of us who do, we try to do that. So there are two
definitions...
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
SR: So it is a way of thinking...
TD: It is a way of thinking in terms of critical thinking while looking
at the literature, while solving problems, being skeptical. I certainly
hope we do that here with our students (11.21-33).
The primary modes of inculcating such attitudes such as scientific
skepticism and ability to think critically takes place through faculty modeling and
discussion of research and clinical data in coursework and practicum. According to
the training director (IHeidegger):
SR: Talking about integration, one of things you said because
programs are sequential, it is hard for integration to happen. How
does this program attempt integration?
TD: Strategies?
SR: Yeah.
TD: I think, I would like to think that faculty model that with their
thinking in everything that they do. In coursework, looking at the
literature, answering students’ questions, practicum, where they talk
about what the literature tells you and what the data tell you. So it is
always going back to the thinking that way, as a source of authority,
that people begin to pick up on that. I don’t know if we always
succeed though.
SR: What do you think are other possible strategies other than a way
of thinking communicated in classes?
TD: The other strategies would be to have all faculty take turn as
practicum supervisors and to know more about who is supervising in
their field placements. Clinical psych [psychology] farms all their
students to sites where the supervisors are the program graduates so
they have more control over what is happening there. So it is much
more tightly monitored. So there is more control over what they are
modeling and how they are shaping the students during their clinical
training. Also, those supervisors are paid a small reimbursement for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
their services which we don’t do. Ultimately, students anyway go to
internships where there is very little control from the department but
by then one hopes to have achieved all this.
SR: Would you adopt the same model in terms of supervision?
TD: Oh yeah, without a doubt if we had the resources (11.76-87, 99-
114).
The goals of inculcating scientific skepticism, developing critical thinking
skills, and incorporating research in practice are achieved through faculty modeling
these ways of thinking and through the interweaving of research and clinical issues
in didactic coursework and practicum training. I discuss the lack of resources in
depth later in the subsection on internal and external factors.
In order to get a better understanding of how interweaving of research and
clinical issues takes place, I examined course syllabi. For example, the syllabus for
“Theories of Counseling Psychology II” states that the course aims “to develop a
contextual and critical understanding of major contemporary models of
psychotherapy” (Theories of Counseling Psychology II Syllabus, p.2;
SSHeidegger). Understanding psychotherapy theories also involves students writing
a research proposal, an example of integrating science and practice. In contrast, the
research course on “Multiple Regression” aims to develop students’ statistical skills
in order to carry out quantitative research (Multiple Regression Syllabus, p.l;
SSHeidegger) but the course objective does not mention utilizing research and
statistics in practice contexts. Thus, the interweaving of research and practice does
not appear to be consistent through all coursework. One possible explanation could
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
be that faculty members outside the counseling psychology program teach most
research methodology courses and these faculty members might not necessarily
subscribe to the goal of integration.
During the interview, the training director also discussed some of the
difficulties inherent in successfully implementing the strategies of integration.
Problems in Integration
I asked the training director if different notions of science and practice
manifest in different interpretations and strategies of integration. His response
focused on some of the challenges relating to integration that were both program-
specific and also related to issues external to the program. I discuss the latter in the
next subsection on internal and external factors. While discussing the various
manifestations of the scientist-practitioner model, he stated (IHeidegger):
SR: Do you think programs that adopt different definitions of
science or varied definitions of practice will be different in terms of
the products, their graduates?
TD: I would think so although.. .oh yeah, I would definitely think so.
I would think of the three things I talked about. I am not sure how
good a job we do here. The thinking, the attitude, and skepticism.
[In] Many programs the science loads heavily in the scientist-
practitioner than the seeing the clients part. In most counseling
psychology programs, there is the notion that doing research is
followed by clinical training and it happens in a sequential manner
and this is where integration becomes a challenge (11.65-74).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
In addition to the problems of sequential training, another issue that emerged was
that core faculty members tend to be tacit about their individual training approaches
to research and psychotherapy practice. According to the training director
(IHeidegger):
SR: Why do you question and wonder if it is always possible [for
mentoring to be successful]?
TD: We have never really talked about this actually in the program.
Each of us teaches our classes and there is a tacit, unspoken contract
that we are doing the right thing but it has never been discussed.
SR: Is that because everybody is busy doing their part of the load?
TD: I think so (11.89-97).
The program is similar to some of the other programs described so far, in
terms of the emerging theme of faculty members choosing to remain tacit about
their training philosophies. The implicitness among faculty members is, however,
viewed as problematic. Implicitness among faculty members is viewed as
problematic because faculty members might not be aware of other faculty members’
training philosophy, training strategies, and biases. Instead, the lack of awareness is
expressed in faculty members remaining silent about these issues. Thus, faculty
members remaining tacit might actually disguise ignorance about other faculty
members’ approach to training. It might also serve in avoiding possible
interpersonal conflict that might arise from articulating conflicting training
philosophies and biases. Faculty members might remain tacit in order to preserve
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
academic freedom in teaching as well. I discuss the theme of implicitness among
faculty members in greater detail in the next subsection on internal and external
factors.
Following the discussion on the challenges in doctoral training, I sought the
training director’s view on what solutions could be instituted. I quote an excerpt
from the interview (IHeidegger):
SR: What is your overall opinion about the goal of integrating
science and practice? Is it working? What is your take on it?
TD: I think it is hard to argue that the original thinkers hadn’t gotten
it. There is certain broad level of agreement but because it is kind of
projective, each person takes their own version of it. One reason this
model has persisted is that it is subject to multiple interpretations, a
whole bunch of us could be scientist-practitioners and we will look
very different.
SR: Well, it brings me back to my reason for choosing this
dissertation since in the literature it is talked about as a single entity
as though there is only one interpretation of it.
TD: I think we have two issues - one is very abstract in terms how
you think about it and then next level that is further out is how do
you go from this abstract level and operationalize it.
SR: Yet, there isn’t a complete agreement on the strategies.. .1
wonder because we came up with ESTs as manuals on how to do
therapy but we never came up with a manual about how to
implement this model.
TD: That is really a cool idea, I never thought about it. Sometimes I
feel that APA can play a bigger role. If they were to say during a site
visit, we want you to do this or that, it would happen immediately. If
they were to say, all faculty take turns teaching practicum, it would
be happening now. The one thing in the equation I left out earlier
was about whether students go into Psy.D programs or Ph.D.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
programs is about Holland codes that could be used in selecting
students into programs. The whole P-E code. I would think scientist-
practitioner programs will get a lot more I types and practitioner
programs get more E types. So let me back up to the question of how
do we train scientist-practitioners - one is student selection, it is
something we have talked about for years but we have never gotten
around to doing it, it is pre-testing the students with things like a
Strong, just anything that is a quick measure of that. I think we do
some of that in terms of selecting students who have some evidence
of being interested in research - past research. Behaviorally, they
have shown indications of interest.
SR: If you could, would you do things differently in terms of this
training model?
TD: What I would want more is that as faculty we talk about this
specifically rather than leave it as an implicit goal. Also, we need to
pay more attention to practice in terms of the scientific data-based
stuff during practicum etc. One thing that would definitely help is...
in a lot of programs, all faculty are required to supervise practicum
so that everyone gets a chance to do it and it forces you to stay in
that camp. Here, it was more o f ... and ... do it and we all have our
stuff. We never thought of structuring differently.
SR: Do you think being tenure-track makes one less inclined to do
anything that won’t help with tenure?
TD: Well, that is true... it was just one of those things of department
culture and we never talked about it. As a training director, it is hard
to juggle all of it, the administrative stuff. So there were lots of
forces that were in the equation. In retrospect, to answer your
question, forcing faculty to do science-practice integration
themselves helps. So force everyone to take turns teaching practicum
(11.216-248, 197-214).
The training director suggested various changes that could be instituted in
order to further facilitate the integration of science and practice in doctoral training.
He suggested that doctoral program applicants be screened using vocational tests in
order to identify students who have an interest in research and practice. During
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
psychotherapy training, he suggested that all core faculty members take turns
supervising practicum so that they are attuned to psychotherapy and integrative
components. More incorporation of research in psychotherapy training would also
assist in facilitating integration. Finally, he stated that if APA made changes in
training policies (e.g. requiring all faculty members to take turns supervising
practicum students), these policies would get instituted in programs more easily
because programs are keen to maintain APA accreditation.
Internal and External Factors
Three main internal factors that impact training were identified. These
factors were program’s housing, phasing out of the program, and less than ideal
communication among faculty members. In terms of external factors, the training
director identified the influence of state psychology boards, licensure, and
internship hours as major influential factors.
The training director described the program’s struggle with the school of
education as follows (IHeidegger):
SR: W hy do you think resources are a problem?
TD: Well, we are in schools of education and there is a problem of
fit, especially in graduate schools of education where we hardly have
any undergraduate courses. So I think the three factors of being in a
graduate school, not having money for supervision, and being in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
private university that has its own culture create problems of
resources. So those three things explain why it is tough (11.116-122).
The problem of fit has played a critical role in precipitating the phasing-out of the
program because the major programmatic and structural changes could not preserve
the program in the school of education.
Although the phasing out of the program has not entailed significant
changes in how the scientist-practitioner training model is interpreted and
implemented, it has shifted the focus of the program toward urban education in
order to reflect the changing emphasis of the school of education (SSHeidegger,
p.6). Consequently, more recent cohorts are increasingly focusing on “work with
children in urban contexts; several are picking up a school counseling credential as
a tool that will give them credibility in school settings” (SSHeidegger, p.6).
Another consequence of the phasing out has been the challenge of having
adequate resources, especially in terms of faculty-student research collaboration.
According to the training director (IHeidegger):
SR: How does the program attempt to meet the research part of
training?
TD: We have lost a few faculty for some time - ..., ..., and ... not
getting tenure etc. We used to have a research practicum requirement
of 45 hours of research with a faculty but that has kind of fallen apart
recently with all the changes. In the past, faculty had active research
groups where students actively participated but now that isn’t
working anymore. So, we lost faculty, we lost administrative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
support, we have been moved around within the school, there is no
place for everybody.
SR: Any other factors you can think of?
TD: I think the issues we have with School of Ed [Education] is a
big one and I am not sure we will be able to resolve it as a field.
Stanford struggled with it and failed (11.150-162).
The lack of adequate communication among faculty members was identified
as another internal problem in the program. The decision of faculty members to
remain tacit about their respective training philosophies is one instance of poor
communication. In addition, the training director acknowledged (IHeidegger):
SR: What about internal factors within the program?
TD: I think, we as a faculty, have had our share our problems.
Communication has been an issue. We don’t always see eye to eye
and that impacts how we train. Secondarily, students have suffered
in the sense, students were attracted to faculty interests. For instance,
... and ... had lots of students interested in multicultural so ...
leaving and with ... becoming a clinical faculty was tough. Faculty
size is an issue in terms of faculty-student ratio. So we try to get by.
Research by student-faculty collaboration still happens though
(11.164-171).
The challenges resulting from the phasing out are program-specific but the implicit
agreement among faculty members to remain tacit about their training philosophies
and biases seems to surface as a more common issue among different programs.
With regard to external factors, I could not successfully transcribe the
portion on state psychology boards and licensure. I quote the training director’s
response about external factors impacting doctoral training (EHeidgger):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
SR: What are the other external factors that impact training? Do you
think APA impacts things in terms of accreditation criteria?
TD: The other thing that impacts is the internship. Students are
always struggling for more hours and so that tips the balance because
of them doing things based on their perception. So it is very difficult
to get students to do anything other than practicum and field
placement because students need to do this many practicums and
field placements to get internships and if you try to tell them that you
are supposed to do this research or present [in conferences], it is
really internship as the external factor is even bigger in some ways
than APA and licensure. Internship competition has a lot to do with
how much students are able to have time for science-related
activities. They only have so many hours a week.
SR: So the number of hours required keeps increasing in terms of
what students believe is most important?
TD: It is crazy. But I think that has calmed down a little bit (11.124-
141).
However, unlike a few training directors I interviewed, the influence of
managed care on training was not seen as a major component. According to the
training director (IHeidegger):
SR: How about managed care impacting training?
TD: Yeah, managed care comes in to the equation. The way I would
see it as we have been doing the things they have wanted all along.
We have espoused brief therapy all along so it is not new to us. It is
just bigger now. I am not sure how else it really changes things. We
do talk in ethics classes about insurance, brief therapy etc (11.143-
148).
Thus, the training director identified the pressure to accumulate sufficient clinical
hours in order to successfully compete in the pre-doctoral internship match process
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
led many students to focus more on practicum training and less on engaging in
research endeavors.
Summary
The program adopts broad definitions of psychological science and
psychotherapy practice. In research training, methodological diversity is actively
encouraged and the course in qualitative research methods is mandatory for students
to complete. Psychotherapy practice is defined typically in terms of inculcating
personal qualities of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, qualities valued in
research as well.
The scientist-practitioner is defined as an individual who has the ability to
evaluate, conduct, and utilize research both in research and practice contexts. For
this purpose, the program adopts the definition of scientist-practitioner proposed by
Pepinsky & Pepinsky (1954). The self-study as well as the training director
acknowledged that there are multiple interpretations of the scientist-practitioner
model. However, the training director’s description of the scientist-practitioner
described a professional who has an attitude of scientific skepticism, engaged in
natural science-based practice, and utilized skills learned in research methods in
practice contexts as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
The program adopts multiple strategies of integration with a focus on
facilitating critical thinking skills and developing an attitude of scientific skepticism
in research and practice. The curriculum structure, faculty mentoring, active
supervision provided by a couple of core faculty members during practicum training
are some of the strategies of integration. The training director also acknowledged
that APA could play a more proactive role in facilitating the implementation of
strategies of integration. Finally, according to the training director, better
communication between faculty members and a more equitable participation of
other core faculty members in practicum supervision would also assist in training.
The flowchart below (Figure 5) provides a visual representation of the case
description.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Science
Methodological
Diversity
Scientific
Skepticism
Practice
Scientist- Strategies of
Critical
►
Practitioner Integration
Thinking
j Internal Factors
Program
Housing in SOE
Out
I Faculty
Communication
Pepinsky &
Pepinsky’s (1954)
Definition
Evaluate & Conduct
Research
Science-based
Practice
Engage in Research
& Practice
External
Factor
Internship
Curriculum
Structure
Faculty
Mentoring
Utilize Statistical &
Quantitative Skills
Scientific
Skepticism
Figure 5. Visual Representation of Case Description for University o f Heidegger.
223
224
University o f Socrates
The program was nominated in the balanced category. Data sources used for
developing the case description include information from the program website,
narrative portion of the self-study, annual report of year 2003-2004, dissertation
abstracts since 1997, and interview with the training director.
Concept o f Science and Practice
The concept of psychological science adopted by the program is primarily
derived from the training director’s definition of psychological science. The
program appears to adopt broad definitions of psychological science and
psychotherapy practice. Methodological diversity in research is encouraged and
faculty members adopt a variety of theoretical orientations in psychotherapy
practice.
The self-study and website information focus on the ways research training
takes place rather than the conceptual definition of psychological science.
According to the training director (ISocrates):
SR: In terms of the science component of the model, would you
define it more in traditional natural science modes or would it be
different?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
TD: Definitely broader than that. We certainly think that discovery
oriented research and qualitative research which is really uncovering,
you know understanding human experiences particularly related to
clinical issues is important. Certainly. Our program has evolved over
the last 25 years but definitely in the last 10 years we have seen more
non-traditional discovery oriented designs (11.16-23).
Thus, the program adopts a broad definition of psychological science that includes
research training in quantitative and qualitative research methods.
Research training takes place through three modes - completion of research
methodology and techniques of data analysis coursework, participating in research
teams/research assistantships, and demonstration of research competence in a
research tool beyond the required coursework (SSSocrates, p. 12). Research
methodology courses include introductory research methodology, statistical
methods (bivariate regression, significance tests), research principles and methods
in counseling, regression analysis for counseling research, and an elective course in
psychological measurement, research design, or a statistics course (Coursework
Requirements, p.2; Website). However, qualitative research courses are not
mandatory. The self-study and the program website provide no information about
where students take the qualitative research course. The self-study states that
research methods are critically examined, especially in the clinical context
(SSSocrates):
... in the intervention domain, for example, students in their second
year critique existing psychotherapy outcomes and process studies,
examine alternate quantitative and qualitative methodologies
relevant to the conduct of such studies, and drawing on current
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
clinical practice, design a comparative treatment study for a specific
client population (p.21).
In addition, some faculty members and graduate students are increasingly leaning
toward qualitative research. For example, one faculty member’s recent publication
is about experiences of psychotherapists and another study uses the
narrative/constructionist approach to understand a specific kind of psychotherapy.
(Faculty and Staff, p.4; Website). A review of the 12 dissertation abstracts indicates
that 10 abstracts used quantitative methods while one used a qualitative approach
and another a mixed-method approach, indicating that quantitative research is the
predominant type of research conducted in the program (DASocrates, pp. 1-26).
Participating in faculty research teams and working as research assistants
are valued experiences in the program. The training director stated that, “With
respect to scholarship, we are active researchers, nationally and internationally
recognized. We offer research assistantships to all incoming doctoral students, and
the mentorship that takes place in these research teams is invaluable” (A Message
from the Training Director, p. 1; Website). Being part of such a research team
exposes students to various stages of research from conceptualization to
publication/presentation and also facilitates the evolution of their individual
research interests (SSSocrates, p.22). In addition to research teams, a range of co-
curricular activities such as professional development activities, colloquia, special
seminars and other related activities promote co-authoring and convention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
attendance in order to “promote the identification, creation, evaluation, and
dissemination of new ideas, programs, and findings” (SSSocrates, p.23).
The demonstration of competence in a research tool is the last requirement
in research training prior to embarking on the dissertation. The demonstration of
competence entails either completing additional research-related coursework or
creating an individualized plan with the training director. The former requires
students to take coursework beyond the required research coursework and the latter
requires a clear plan of the competence to be acquired and the method of acquiring
it. This plan has to be approved by the training director before the student completes
the requirement. However, the requirement does not provide any additional
information about the conceptual definition of psychological science. An
examination of the strategies of research training indicates that the program
encourages methodological diversity although most students continue to use
quantitative research methods for their dissertation studies. The training program
also emphasizes the development of critical thinking by requiring students to
critique and design research.
The program’s approach to psychotherapy training is also broad-based.
Faculty members subscribe to a variety of theoretical orientations including
“cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, systems, gestalt, humanistic,
developmental, feminist, and interpersonal points of view” (Frequently Asked
Questions, p.2; Website). The training director endorsed this view but she also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
acknowledged that discussions among faculty members about theoretical
orientations and philosophy of practice training remain tacit and implicit. She stated
that (ISocrates):
SR: Regarding the practice part of it, I want to know the kind of
theoretical orientations that is typical in the program?
TD: Well, we don’t sit around talking about theory and orientations.
So I am not sure about our three new assistant professors because I
haven’t heard a lot from the students about their supervision with
them although I think one of them is very cognitive-behavioral and
the other two might be more interpersonal. I am not sure. But I think
we, as a faculty, have a broad theoretical view. But what is more
important to us is that our philosophy of training is that we
encourage our students to learn as much about various orientations
and develop... (11.38-47).
In addition to the diversity of theoretical orientations that are operational
among faculty members, core faculty members also play a critical role in
psychotherapy training. In this context, the program website states (Message from
the Training Director; Website):
With respect to clinical training, not only do we personally supervise
students’ first practica (in vivo and on video), but most of us are
practicing psychologists ourselves - therapists in private practice and
consultants to community agencies. Thus, we bring not only
expertise but also an understanding of the health care system to our
work with students (p.l).
Thus, the program adopts a broad definition of psychological science and
psychotherapy practice. Methodological diversity in research and faculty members
subscribing to a variety of theoretical orientations could lead to differing notions of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
the scientist-practitioner model among faculty members. The breadth of science and
practice viewpoints among faculty members is similar to one of the previous cases,
University of Plato, whose program faculty members also subscribe to a broad
definition of science and practice. Therefore, varying interpretations of the scientist-
practitioner among different faculty members is a distinct possibility.
Concept o f Scientist-Practitioner
The program defines the scientist-practitioner model as a model
(SSSocrates):
... in which training is undertaken in both intervention methods and
scientific inquiry, and in which the practice of the profession
involves both being informed by and contributing to scientific
knowledge. In our program, questions of science and practice are
viewed as complementary and interdependent (p.4).
Thus, the program defines the scientist-practitioner as an individual who has the
requisite skills, awareness, and knowledge for engaging in psychotherapy practice,
skilled in the interface between science, theory, and practice, and has the ability to
evaluate and design research (SSSocrates, p.6).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
The training director further elaborated on the nature of science and practice
as complementary and interdependent by stating (ISocrates):
SR: How would you define the scientist-practitioner model as such?
TD: Well, I think it is more than just a person doing research and
seeing clients. That is the way some people see the model as can you
both be a practitioner and a researcher. But what we try to do is try
to say that we are trying to blur the boundaries between science and
practice so that a practitioner uses scientific, logical reasoning and
develops their own hypotheses, tries to disconfirm those hypotheses
but also tries to integrate the literature into their treatment, using
evidence-based intervention, not just interventions but also in
understanding clients from an empirical basis. For example, if there
are attachment issues, then they read the literature on attachment not
necessarily just the research on attachment-based therapy. So, you
know, doing that and then research really being very clinically
meaningful and some of the designs coming out of clinical questions
and answering clinical questions that are meaningful and enhancing
practice with meaningful information. I don’t know if that is the
answer you wanted.
SR: So when you look into the integration of science and practice,
you think through the notion of blurring the boundaries, critical
thinking, and being aware.
TD: Yes. And not feeling like when you are doing research, you are
not considering theory or considering clinical practice. And when
you are doing clinical practice, you are looking into research. And
when you are developing theory, you need to consider research. That
is what I mean by that (11.1-14, 90-96).
Thus, the self-study describes the scientist-practitioner akin to science-based
practice wherein the individual utilizes research in practice and conducts research.
The training director defined the integration of science and practice by a Scientist-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
practitioner more inclusively as a “blurring of boundaries” that includes both
science-based practice and practice-based science.
Strategies o f Integration
The program utilizes multiple strategies to implement the integration of
science and practice, “through coursework in basic psychological foundations,
research methods, developmental and intervention theory and assessment, and by
practice opportunities in both research and clinical activities via assistantships,
professional developmental activities, practica, specialized coursework, and
independent study” (SSSocrates, p.4). Specifically, the consultation project,
interweaving coursework with practica, faculty mentoring, and research and
practice assistantships all play critical roles in facilitating the integration of science
and practice.
The importance of integrating science and practice is evident even prior to
the start of doctoral training. According to the program website, “We are looking
for students who have research experience, experience in an applied setting,...”
(Admissions Information, p.l; Website). Thus, the program seeks students who
have prior experience in research as well as practice.
Coursework and practica are deliberately interwoven. According to the self-
study, “the sequencing of both course work and practica is organized so that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
student is involved in either observational or supervised direct counseling practice
during each year in the program” (SSSocrates, p.27). Practice-related coursework
include four domains - group, career, intervention, and assessment (SSSocrates,
p.20). The self-study further elaborated that, “the review and critique of these
domains emphasizes scientific merit, attention to diverse applications, and an
awareness of the need to balance experimental rigor with the applied demands of
practice” (SSSocrates, p.20). Similarly, as mentioned previously, students “critique
existing psychotherapy outcome and process studies, examine alternate quantitative
and qualitative methodologies relevant to the conduct of such studies, and drawing
on current clinical practice, design a comparative treatment study for a specific
client population” (SSSocrates, p.21). Such endeavors attempt to incorporate
clinical experiences and realities of clinical work with theory and science and vice
versa.
Practicum training appears attuned to the scientific aspect of the field. For
example, “Students are encouraged in practica to generate researchable questions
from their clinical work” (SSSocrates, p.21). In addition, the self-study states that
(SSSocrates):
... while students are in their first counseling practicum, they are
also enrolled in the year-long seminar on counseling theory,
research, and practice. This seminar, which serves as the prototype
for the recent Division 17 Project to Integrate Science and Practice,
provides a structure opportunity (a) to integrate theory, research, and
practice (including historical, sociological, and political factors
influencing the emergence of theoretical and research paradigms),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
(b) to study alternative methods of inquiry for counseling research
(from comparative efficacy research to qualitative methods), and (c)
to review and analyze existing psychotherapy research from the
perspectives of conceptual and methodological rigor as well as
relevance to practice (p.27).
The training director endorsed these strategies and termed the integration of
science and practice as a “blurring of the boundaries”. She stated (ISocrates):
SR: In terms of the program, where are the places where integration
takes place?
TD: Throughout. Even in the research groups that students are
encouraged to be in during their first year, we talk about issues
related to clients we see, people that we know and but I think that
probably it is most prominent in second year during practicum and
the doctoral seminar which is theory, research, and practice and
blurring the boundaries between all of that.
SR: How exactly does blurring the boundaries happen?
TD: Well, what I mean is we talk about not keeping them as separate
things but that the research needs to be informed by clinical practice
so for example, we talk to students about... Once I gave a final exam
and it was about a group therapy proposal that people had to write.
Somebody wrote a proposal for treating people for anxiety, giving a
pre-test and have people that were low anxiety and high anxiety in
two groups. It looked like a great design but why would you do a
group for anxiety for someone who has low anxiety. It was like, it
didn’t even occur to them that it didn’t make sense clinically.
SR: A lot of it is coursework, the practicum, and the consultation
project...?
TD: Yes. And in practicum certainly when the students are
presenting a case, they have to go through the literature and see what
is the support for this direction with your client (11.53-69,11.77-80).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
Thus, “blurring of boundaries” can be understood as the need for students to
become aware of the clinical relevance of research and practice that is informed by
research. Thus, the program attempts a more bilateral integration of science and
practice by encouraging both these aspects of integration.
Supervision plays an important role in psychotherapy training. In the
program, faculty members supervise beginning-level practice training while third
and fourth year graduate students work in the community to gain clinical
experience. During the early phase of psychotherapy training (SSSocrates):
... supervisors in the initial (second year) doctoral practicum are the
same faculty who teach many of the core courses in counseling
psychology. These faculty supervisors are licensed psychologists.
This involvement of faculty in theoretical, empirical, and applied
training provides innumerable opportunities to relate theoretical
concepts and empirical [sic\ paradigms to applied problems and to
use actual samples of client behavior to illustrate theoretical issues
and to generate researchable questions (p.27).
The training director while describing how she would approach an issue that has not
been adequately studied in research provided an example of her approach to
psychotherapy training. She stated (ISocrates):
SR: What about areas where there doesn’t seem to be much support
in research?
TD: Well, maybe to recognize that. A lot of the multicultural stuff is
still evolving, the research and the theory, and when students present
theory and we say what is multicultural and they usually say that
there has been a study on this but then I say let us look at the tenet of
the theory. They support use with non-White, western middle class
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
male and heterosexual. So they need to think outside the box about
what kind of research would be needed (11.82-88).
Her example identifies the importance of critical thinking in research and practice, a
skill considered as a requisite for integration of science and practice.
During advanced training, field supervisors and adjunct faculty members
tend to take over the task of supervision (Message from the Training Director, p.2;
Website). According to the self-study (SSSocrates):
The core faculty of the Ph.D. Program in Counseling Psychology are
the nine faculty members who comprise the Department of
Counseling Psychology (8.25 FTE). Adjunct faculty - primarily
those involved in advanced practicum supervision and those who
teach specialized courses - serve to complement the core faculty
(p.29).
Unlike the previous two programs (University of Aristotle and University of Plato),
the core faculty members in the program play a relatively more active role in
providing psychotherapy training. However, adjunct faculty members play a critical
role in providing clinical supervision as well. Assistantships for students are
considered another resource in facilitating integration.
The availability of assistantships is closely linked with mentoring because it
facilitates faculty mentoring. With regard to research training, “...
assistantship/fellowship opportunities provide for early and constant exposure to
and experience in the scientific role of the psychologist. As a result, a healthy
portion of our graduates who have been, and continue to be, involved in empirical
[.sz'c] efforts and publications” (Frequently Asked Questions, p.4; Website). In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236
psychotherapy training, faculty members also model to students by providing
various co-curricular activities and “continuing education” opportunities to
students. According to the self-study, “As a faculty, we model pursuing these
activities for professional renewal, and provide mentoring and advice about
opportunities that students might pursue” (SSSocrates, p.23). Faculty members,
thus, model academic and clinical growth by providing opportunities for
collaborative research and participating in “continuing education” and other related
activities.
The completion of a consultation project serves as another strategy of
integration. Following the first year coursework on intervention theories, “Further
examination of intervention theories occurs next, where empirical [sz'c] literature
concerning intervention process and outcome is extensively reviewed, and a
resulting consultation project is executed in which empirically supported methods
are identified for use for specific situations and problems” (SSSocrates, p. 15). The
consultation project involves students approaching various local community
agencies that might be facing problems with interventions. Students are expected to
work in these agencies as consultants and develop their individual projects aimed at
helping the agency. The training director described the consultation project as
follows (ISocrates):
TD: We also have a consultation project where we send them out to
agencies and they read the literature about some clinical problem
that is going on, develop an assessment tool, or develop a workshop
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237
or do a needs assessment and interview other clinicians about what
they are doing to deal with this problem. So they see how research
can actually be used in a clinical setting... (11.70-75).
The exercise of students immersed in a clinical setting with the goal of providing
consultations using a scientific approach provides an opportunity for integrating
science and practice. From the above description of the strategies of integration, it
appears that the program makes specific, concerted efforts for integrating science
and practice. However, the task of integration is not completely devoid of problems.
Problems in Integration
Alumni employment patterns indicate that a greater proportion of graduates
of the program tend to gravitate toward practice-oriented jobs. The description of
graduates’ employment patterns, based on a recent alumni survey, revealed
(Frequently Asked Questions; Website):
Most of our graduates work in clinical settings, but quite a few have
taken academic positions. In a recent alumni survey, we estimated
that about almost half our alumni teach either full- or part-time and
about 50% do full-time or part-time independent practice. About
60% are regularly involved in developing innovative programs and
services. Some are in nontraditional jobs, such as consultants to
police departments (p.3).
For example, according to the annual report 203-2004, two graduates work in a
community mental health center, one each in a private general hospital and state or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
238
county hospital, and finally, one graduate works in a 4-year college (Annual Report
2003-2004).
Because the scientist-practitioner is viewed as an individual who is
knowledgeable and skilled in evaluating research and practice, graduate
employment settings and employment patterns might not necessarily indicate the
success or failure of the training model. However, I sought the training director’s
view on why graduates tend to seek practice-oriented jobs following graduation.
According to the training director (ISocrates):
SR: How successful is the program in training scientist-
practitioners?
TD: I think we are very successful. In fact, we do alumni surveys
every 3 years for our self-study for APA and the students say they
get a fantastic research background. It doesn’t mean they go and do
research but they are very attuned to it. For example, I had a
conversation with a student who recently became alumnus. She
works in the Department of Probation and she was telling me about
one of the high profile evidence-based family therapy with juvenile
delinquents. But she doesn’t feel that the research really mirrors
what goes on in clinical practice because it is one size fits all. So,
you know, students learn to think critically about what they are
doing and to consider the research but also to consider the limitations
of the research. That is the experience of students who have never
been particularly research oriented. They go look for jobs and they
decide they want to be an academic or they get a job like one person
got a job in a research consulting firm in psychology. So they learn
the skills and a lot of them are very academically oriented when they
start out, but they realize that it is a whole different mindset for
being a researcher than being a clinician. As a clinician, very often
you can leave your job at the door and it gets very seductive doing
clinical work and there is such an incredible range in terms of
practicum and internships. Students get a lot of immediate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
239
gratification from that but gratification from research is harder and
takes longer.
SR: So practice is more immediate and seductive in terms of its
gratification?
TD: Yeah (11.105-127).
If psychotherapy practice was viewed as more seductive and conducive for
immediate gratification and graduates are gravitating toward practice jobs, I further
inquired how she evaluates the model per se (ISocrates):
SR: How would you evaluate this model on the whole? There is a
continuing debate about how well the model has worked or not.
What are your thoughts on this?
TD: Oh boy! That is a wonderful question. I think because of
managed care and the difficulties of actually practicing in a setting,
people are very concerned about a lot of issues that are peripheral to
theory and research such as risk management and seeing many
people in a short period of time. They don’t have the leeway and
they don’t create the leeway, even in private practice, people might
go to workshops and when they are being paid by the hour, they are
not going to take three hours of their work to read a journal. So it is
kind of the way it is set up.
SR: So it is the job market and the expectations...?
TD: Yeah, but I think if people work in agencies in which there is a
commitment to evidence-based work and empirical supported work,
then that will happen. In fact, there is one placement we have that
closed and the director of that program is a graduate of our program
from 20 years ago. It is a community agency for kids and adolescents
and they are really trying to make it psychology-heavy and doing a
lot of assessments and looking for the evidence in outcomes-based
treatment. But that is not always the case, especially when these are
multidisciplinary settings where there are psychiatrists, social
workers, and nurses. There is always politics and things that take up
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
240
time. Doing research in a clinical setting is extremely difficult
(11.129-150).
The training director’s view that psychotherapy practice is more seductive
than research and conducting research in clinical settings is challenging led me to
seek her opinion on how the model implementation could be improved. She
responded by stating (ISocrates):
SR: But, on the other hand, I wonder if that is what is actually
needed for this model to work [conducting research in practice
settings]?
TD: Absolutely. I have a small grant in a community agency
involving the therapist and learning about what is going on, there is
no deception, there is no hidden hypothesis. It is a discovery-
oriented study, they are very involved - not in the planning of it but
in participating, in revision, feedback on what we are finding.
SR: What do you think can be done to facilitate this model further?
TD: I think have clinicians come and talk to researchers and
researchers talk to clinicians and getting some of the outcome studies
out of the lab and doing more effectiveness studies, insisting that
credentialing and continuing ed be not just clinically-based
workshops but it has some research. I think it is a shame in our field
because a lot of people see it as an art and whereas in other fields
like medicine or dentistry, they really can’t avoid reading the
literature otherwise their clients are going to have serious health
risks. They have to do it.
SR: I agree, I wouldn’t want to go to a dentist who thinks it is an art.
TD: Right. You would go to someone who is up to date on avoiding
pain and doing the root canal right! So, somehow we seem to think
that just talking to people about one’s problems will work. Even
though the relationship is critically important and all the non
specifics are important, I think it sometimes gives people a false
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
241
sense that just by having a good relationship, you will be able to
figure out what to do (11.152-176).
Her evaluation of the scientist-practitioner model appeared to point out the
gap between what the training model aims to achieve and the reality of what
students get from training as well as the constraints they face in practice settings.
The training model, as defined by the program, emphasizes knowledge, skills,
critical thinking, and competency in both research and practice. It expects students
to be competent consumers and producers of research. However, many graduates
seem to narrow their focus on acquiring clinical skills wherein psychotherapy
practice is typically viewed as an art at the cost of science and research. In addition,
students might be seduced by the advantages of engaging in psychotherapy practice
during clinical training and, therefore, gravitate toward practice-oriented jobs
following graduation. The ideal goals of the training model and the reality of job
market demands appear to partially conflict in successfully integrating science and
practice.
Internal and External Factors
The main internal factor influencing training in the program is that most of
the faculty members are practicing psychologists (A Message from the Training
Director, p.l; Website). Because core faculty members play an active role in
psychotherapy training, their clinical expertise and understanding of the health care
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
system coupled with their academic roles could play a facilitative role in
implementing the task of integration.
In terms of external factors, the training director identified the constraints of
working in managed care settings as limiting resources for psychologists to remain
active in research. She also stated that the communication gap between researchers
and clinicians, who tend to work in different settings, as a barrier to integration.
However, these external factors related to vocational realities and they do not
directly impact doctoral training per se.
Summary
The program adopts a broad definition of psychological science and
psychotherapy practice. Methodological diversity in research is encouraged and
faculty members subscribe to a variety of theoretical orientations in psychotherapy
practice. The scientist-practitioner is defined as an individual who has the
knowledge- and skill-base in research and practice and who thinks critically in both
arenas. The training director defined integration as “blurring the boundaries” or the
ability to critically think and carry out science-based practice as well as practice-
based science. However, she also identified some problems while integrating
science and practice. She stated that the seductiveness and immediate gratification
of clinical work tended to draw students away from research. The tendency to view
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
psychotherapy more as an art and less as a science tends to limit the incorporation
of research in psychotherapy practice. In addition, she views practice settings as not
being conducive to research, which limits the possibility of integrating science and
practice following graduation. The flowchart (Figure 6) below provides a visual
representation of the case description.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Internal Faculty Members
Factor in Private Practice
Science as
Methodological
Diversity
Scientist- Strategies of
Practitioner Integration
Practice as diverse
theoretical
orientations
External Factors
Practice as Art
Seductiveness of
Practice
Lack of
Effectiveness
Studies
Poor
Communication
between
Researchers &
Practitioners
“Blurring the
Boundaries”
Knowledge
Base
> Skill Base
Evaluating &
Conducting
Research
Science-based
Practice
Practice-based
Science
Critical
Thinking
Figure 6. Visual Representation of Case Description for University of Socrates.
Didactic
Supervision
Supervision
Core
Faculty
Doctoral
Seminar
Curriculum
Structure
Adjunct
Faculty
Faculty
Mentoring
Consultation
Project
Discussion of
Science &
Practice
245
University o f Hume
The program was nominated four times as a practice-oriented counseling
psychology doctoral program. Unlike other programs in the collective case study,
the program adopts the scientist-professional training model. However, the
difference between scientist-professional and scientist-practitioner training models
was not considered wide enough to exclude the program from the collective case
study. The data for the program consisted of the narrative portion of the self-study,
program website information, dissertation abstracts since 1997, and an interview
with the training director.
Concept o f Science and Practice
The counseling psychology doctoral program adopts broad definitions of
science and practice. Research methodology coursework, pre-dissertation research,
faculty modeling, and an emphasis on applied research are some of the methods
used to train students in research. Methodological diversity is encouraged in
research training.
During the interview, the training director defined psychological science
very broadly. According to her (IHume):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
246
SR: And, when you say scientific stance, how would you describe it?
TD: I would have to think about that. We are generally referring to
any research as being science.
SR: As I was going through the self-study, I noticed that one of the
goals described things like hypothesis testing and it sounded much
more like traditional psychological science.
TD: And yet it is not necessarily so.
SR: Yes, it also had information about qualitative research...
TD: It is not just your empirical [sic]. It is quite a wide variety (11.13-
24).
Defining science as “any research being science” (IHume, 1.15) was difficult
to understand. However, further inquiry appeared to indicate that the program is
open to methodological diversity. An examination of dissertation abstracts since
1997 revealed that the six available abstracts describe dissertations completed using
quantitative research methods only (DAHume, pp. 1-9). The training director stated
that the qualitative research course is an elective that is taken toward the end of
didactic training. Students, however, have advanced to the stage of writing a
dissertation proposal by the time the course is offered and, hence, design
quantitative research-based dissertation studies. The program recently decided to
schedule the qualitative research course during the second year of didactic training
so that students have a practical opportunity to pursue qualitative research-driven
dissertations, if they chose to. The training director described the process of
research training as follows (IHume):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
247
SR: And what kind of research do they tend to gravitate towards? Is
it more traditional quantitative kind of things or is it much more
determined by topics? How does that work?
TD: I think, I suppose it is a little bit of both. ... State University is
historically a black state university and the graduate program has
very diverse faculty, less so with students but a lot of the students
come in with interests that are related to diversity so they tend to
gravitate towards those topics and yet, there is I would say, they
initially do more quantitative research and then once they take the
qualitative class and they get excited about qualitative. And so a
number of them that are late in the dissertation [process] and we do
require that they finish their dissertation proposal prior to applying
for internship so those that are post-decision on internship then end
up spending the spring and summer before they leave on internship
involved in qualitative research and they are excited about it. And
going, “Gosh, I wish I had done this sooner”. And I am going but I
wanted to get this [internship match] done too.
SR: So in many ways, dissertations could adopt quantitative designs,
qualitative designs, and any kind of methodology is acceptable?
TD: Yes.
SR: Is there any particular pattern you do notice?
TD: Most of the dissertations end up to be quantitative not
qualitative and I think part of that is a function of - in the past, they
haven’t taken qualitative research and so they were in their third year
and it was an elective and now we have made a change in the
curriculum and they will be introduced to qualitative during their
second year in the program.
SR: Would it still be an elective or would it be a mandatory course?
TD: It w ill be an elective still.
SR: Is there a reason for the class being elective rather than being
mandatory?
TD: It is just a matter of the faculty feeling guilty that we already
require so much based on what accreditation says we need to have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
248
that this [elective course] at least gives them some option and even
though this semester I am finishing the qualitative class and they
could have taken another course and they were eleven students and I
was going why are you all here? The last time I taught this class they
were three students in it. So it is really become much more popular.
Right now, the other course, they have one out of two courses that
are required for them. They could have taken a Consultation and
Program Evaluation course and they elected to take Qualitative
instead which I thought was pretty surprising.
SR: So they are gravitating toward qualitative research gradually?
TD: Uhm (11.84-142).
Thus, students are gradually gravitating toward using qualitative research methods
in their dissertation research although the predominant trend is to conduct
quantitative research.
Research training typically consists of research-related coursework, actively
participating in faculty research teams, engaging in a pre-dissertation research
experience before completing the dissertation. According to the self-study
(SSHume):
Upon completion of the first three doctoral required research and
statistics courses, students enroll in PSY 763 Qualitative Research
with Diverse Populations and/or PSY 753 Consultation and Program
Evaluation to fulfill their research requirements. During PSY 763, a
class research project dedicated to a topic related to a special
population is designed and conducted through qualitative data
analysis. In PSY 753, consultation and program evaluations are
conducted throughout metropolitan ... County under the supervision
of the course faculty (p.9).
In addition to completion of research-related coursework, students are encouraged
to actively participate in faculty research teams and conduct pre-dissertation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
249
research. Many of the pre-dissertation projects result in presentations at national
and regional conferences (SSHume, p.7). In addition, applied research is
encouraged with the goal of integrating science and practice. I discuss the role of
applied research in greater depth in the subsection on strategies of integration.
The training director described the faculty research teams as being diverse in
the kind of team activity offered. According to her (IHume):
SR: So when students get involved in research, do you find that
students get involved at the presentation, publication level in terms
of science rather than being involved in research seminars that are
much more discussion focused.
TD: They tend to... they start with a hesitant stance and some come
in with master’s programs with publications and they are going full
time. But some come in and they haven’t had that experience, we
don’t require a thesis for them to be admitted so this is frequently
other than course papers or may be a final project, this is their first
research orientation. So some of them will come in and they
gravitate more toward the discussion and then because the research
team format is across the years, they may start in a hesitant stance
but the more advanced students drag them kicking and screaming
sometimes into more of the data collection, the writing, the research.
So by the time they are into their third year, they are advocating to
becoming involved in things and even at the second year. And so we
are having to say, let us look at what you can realistically accomplish
given your load because they get very excited about it (11.84-97).
Participating in faculty research teams also facilitates meeting the requirement for
conducting pre-dissertation research. The program further encourages student
participation in research by providing research assistantships. According to the self-
study, “Faculty are encouraged to include assistantships for doctoral students in all
grants written within the area” (SSHume, p. 14). Thus, the program is open to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
250
research using a variety of research methods and attempts to facilitate student
participation in research throughout their tenure in doctoral training.
A noteworthy observation relates to the diversity of faculty members in the
program. The historical merger of universities led to merger of psychology
programs and resulted in clinical and counseling psychology faculty members
functioning within a single program. I discuss this issue in greater depth later in the
subsection on internal and external factors. However, the merger influenced the
kind of research conducted within the program. According to the training director,
the clinical psychology faculty members tend to focus on psychopathology and tend
to adopt quantitative research methods in comparison to counseling psychology
faculty members who differ by focusing on a wider range of research areas and who
tend toward methodological diversity. The training director described the process in
the following manner (IHume):
SR: Are the clinical psychology faculty more quantitatively
oriented?
TD: Yes. [One of the clinical psychology faculty members] She
actually has two Ph.D. So there is maybe... the concepts they are
interested in researching tend to be more clinical populations, more
clinical issues. Whereas I mean, I am interested in regrets and
decision-making. Another one of our counseling faculty is a career
person and she has interests in all these career issues and life-
developmental adjustments and things related to it. And another
counseling psychologist is into teaching psychology issues. It is a
real different flavor in that respect.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
251
SR: So it is not like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder kind of stuff?
TD: Right. Whereas one of the clinical people, she has a study that is
very much looking at that and I did some research couple of years
ago collaborating with one of them and three of the doctoral students
looking at complementary and alternative medicines and HIV
patients. And it was like, “OK, I feel like a duck out of water on this
one” which are very, very different populations and ways of thinking
about things. They are talking very clear protocols that have to be
followed working with medications and treatments. And I thought
this isn’t something I have done (11.398-415).
The program’s concept of psychotherapy practice could be described as
broad and core faculty members subscribe to a variety of theoretical orientations.
Practice-related coursework, graduated practicum experiences, and the pre-doctoral
internship are some of the modes of psychotherapy training. The training director
described faculty members’ theoretical orientation as being diverse although many
appeared to share a dynamic orientation (IHume):
SR: How is the practice part of it? Is there a particular theoretical
orientation...?
TD: I would have to say most of the students or may be it is a
statement on master’s training, because our students all come in
post-master’s, they seem to come in either being Rogerian or from a
cognitive behavioral standpoint. Now, we do have a faculty member
who is cognitive behavioral and we have another one who will
define himself as phenomenological, probably little more existential
than Rogerian. But much of the practicum training that is
coordinated by faculty, the class portion of the practicum versus
when they are on site, much of that supervision is either
interpersonal or object relations and some existential. Some are hard
core and stick with the cognitive behavioral but they tend to move
more toward a dynamic frame (11.26-35).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
252
Prior to starting the practicum sequence, the students are expected to
complete two courses on Change Processes and Psychopathology in addition to an
internal pre-practicum experience. Students are also exposed to ESTs and they
evaluate the effectiveness and efficacy of treatment interventions (SSHume, p. 8).
Following the completion of these requirements, students complete a minimum of
four semesters of practicum prior to internship (SSHume, p.8). The first half of the
sequence is described as internal practicum experience and core faculty members
supervise internal practicum. The second half is described as external practicum
experience and field supervisors are primarily responsible for supervision.
Thus, a variety of theoretical orientations are represented among faculty
members although the dynamic orientation appears dominant and students are also
exposed to the rationales and utilization of ESTs. Similar to University of Plato
doctoral program, the potential incompatibility of dynamic/integrative therapies and
ESTs remains unexamined.
Concept o f Scientist-Professional Model
Unlike other cases described so far, the program adopted the scientist-
professional training model. The self-study described the scientist-professional
training model in the following manner (SSHume):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
253
We believe that our Concentration’s approach to graduate education
and training is best described as reflecting a “ scientist-professional ”
model of training. Housed in a diverse urban setting, we educate
graduates to practice professional activities, irrespective of settings,
with a scientific attitude. We believe that our clinical work (broadly
defined) should be informed by knowledge procured through science
and our science should be informed by the needs and lessons of the
clinic (broadly defined). The Concentration is sequential and
cumulative in design, emphasizing the role of lifelong professional
learning in general practice and as health service providers within a
variety of settings [italics in original] (p.4).
During the interview, the training director offered to send me additional documents
that would provide more information on how this model differs from the scientist-
practitioner model but I did not receive these documents after multiple requests. Her
description of the model was very similar to the theme of science-based practice as
the primary descriptor of the model. According to her (IHume):
SR: I wanted to know more about why the program is called scientist-
professional and how it is different from scientist-practitioner.
TD: I actually have a document that I can send you about that. I will make a
note of that. Basically, we train people to go into a wide range of areas not
just faculty positions, not just practice positions. Also as a faculty, we are
clinical psychologists, counseling psychologists, some of us are human
developmentalists as well as [we subscribe to] different ranges of theoretical
orientations. It is mostly a philosophy that we embrace. We want our
students to be consumers of research and would also like them to be
producers and they seem to do an excellent job of that. But the emphasis is
that regardless of what profession they go into, that they approach it from a
scientific stance (11.1-11).
The difference between the scientist-practitioner model and the scientist-
practitioner model was difficult to decipher. For instance, the Student Handbook
describes the goal of the scientist-professional model as, “The integration of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
254
research and practice is a central theme of counseling psychology. Problems in
professional practice stimulate the need for systematic inquiry through research, the
results of which then lead to modification of both theory and practice” (Student
Handbook, 2003; Website). This description is very similar to how the scientist-
practitioner model is typically described. The only difference appears to be a greater
emphasis on psychotherapy training as per the description provided in the self-study
(SSHume):
To facilitate the development of future Counseling Psychologists
who possess knowledge of the science of Psychology and
Counseling Psychology as a profession from a diversity of foci.
Objectives:
- To develop the capacity to apply data collection and
hypothesis testing to the diagnostic and treatment planning process
in clinical work, psychological assessment, and supervision.
- To develop theoretical knowledge and understanding of
intermediate to advanced clinical skills.
- To develop theoretical knowledge and understanding of
beginning to intermediate psychological assessment procedures to
further the psychotherapeutic process.
- To develop beginning and intermediate skills in assessing
and implementing basic services that incorporate preventative and
developmental interventions.
- To developing theoretical knowledge and understanding of
systems and organizations.
- To develop beginning to intermediate skills required to
provide consultation and outreach services.
- To develop the knowledge, understanding and application
of beginning and intermediate supervisory skills for providing
clinical supervision [bold in original] (p.4-5).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
255
The training director also added that the model differs from the scientist-practitioner
model due to the program being housed in this particular university. According to
her (IHume):
SR: Right. End of the day, if you were to distinguish between your
program and traditional scientist-practitioner program, what would
you say is the major difference? Because to me what you are
describing sounds a lot of like a traditional scientist-practitioner
program.
TD: I think it is. It is probably... I think .. .University is unique in
that where other programs that call themselves scientist-practitioner
programs have focused very much on getting things published,
because of the historical roots o f.. .University, the focus here has
been on grant work and so...
SR: Sorry, on what?
TD: On grants. And so unlike traditional counseling psychology
programs that have traditionally not gotten much of grant money, we
tended to over the years focus more on grants and not on getting
published research out.
SR: That is interesting because most programs that get lots of grants
are also very focused on getting publications.
TD: Right. And that has not been the emphasis within the entire
university here.
SR: Why is that?
TD: I haven’t a clue. I think part of it is that when you are coming
out of a ... background, you get a different pool of money federally
than you do if you are in some of the other universities and so it has
not been a demand within that grant structure.
SR: So have many of the grants been less about active research and
more about service delivery or program evaluation kind of things?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
256
TD: Much of it is. Much of it is. A lot of it is program evaluation
kind of grants (11.206-234).
Thus, the training director described the university and the program’s focus in areas
such as service delivery and program evaluation, led the program to adopt the
scientist-professional model rather than the scientist-practitioner model of training.
Strategies o f Integration
The main strategies of integration used by the program are curriculum
structure, classroom discussion related to integration of science and practice, and
encouraging students to engage in applied research. The training director mentioned
that students are informed about the importance of research in training during the
admissions process itself. According to her (IHume):
SR: Now when you say that irrespective of what students go out and
what kind of employment they get, they need to have a scientific
stance, how do you approach that during training? This notion of
being scientific...
TD: Sure. At the time we interview them before they are admitted,
we let them know that they are expected to be involved in research,
they are supposed to be involved in research teams. And, that some
of the research teams while they are faculty sponsored, they are more
topical than anything and they might be teams that do nothing but
discuss the area or it might be some that are very actively research
production teams in different areas and that they are expected to be
involved in whatever level they are comfortable with, to stretch and
grow and develop along the way, try out and sample the different
teams, and we also speak with them from the application point about
the fact that the students are very active in research production
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
257
independent of the faculty so that they know that... but the students
are occasionally gracious enough to ask the faculty to collaborate
and not just do all on their own but that they are very prolific and
that is a value of the students in the program and part of being
actively involved in the graduate program is not only being in
research teams and independent research experiences and go into
conferences and doing all of that but its part of being in the program
and having to match so if their values are not for those things then
may be we are not a good match for them. So, we start at that point.
SR: So even while selecting students you check that.
TD: Exactly.
SR: It is an interesting thing because some of the literature I read
talks about the discordance between students’ interests and program
philosophy. It talks about the fact that many students are more
interested in clinical work solely and kind of talk the talk of being
interested in science just to get into the program...
TD: And we will tell them as early as the application process that
this [research] is what we believe is important and that integration of
science is important and if they really want to be just be
practitioners, they should and that is not to say anything negative
about being a practitioner, but they should go someplace else and
that we are not a match and we often tell them that if their interest is
in child [research interests focusing on children], they should go
someplace else (11.41-73).
The training director’s description of the strategies is akin to science-based practice
with a focus on producing and consuming research.
The curriculum structure is such that students take research-related and
practice-related coursework every semester (Student Handbook, p.13; Website).
This structure is designed to facilitate an integration of science and practice. In
addition, I sought the training director’s views on how integration takes place
during coursework. She stated (IHume):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
258
SR: I see. Now that they participate in research teams and they go
through different course work in terms of learning methodology and
things like that and they have the practicum part of for the practice
component. How do they integrate the two then?
TD: I think because of all of the classes, they take the theory courses
that they take, I shouldn’t call them theory courses, content courses
would be a better name for them. In all of them content classes, they
are reading the science, the published science and they are
encouraged to also discuss not only that but also the application of
that in terms of what is happening with the clinical work.
SR: So it happens at the coursework level.
TD: Yes. It happens in the coursework level (11.144-156).
It is also mandatory for students to participate in a pre-dissertation research
experience (Student Handbook, p. 18; Website). As I described earlier while
describing the program’s research training, students participate at varying levels in
faculty research teams where faculty members mentor students in the research
process. Many students succeed in making presentations in regional and national
conferences as an outcome of participating in these research teams (SSHume, p.7).
While participating in research teams, “Students are encouraged to formulate
research projects around their applied interest to reinforce the interconnection of
science and practice” (SSHume, p. 10).
Thus, the program attempts to integrate science and practice by encouraging
students to participate in research teams that culminate frequently in applied
research and the curriculum structure and classroom discussion focus on the
integrative aspects of science and practice as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
259
In terms of postgraduate employment, majority of graduates tend to seek
practice-oriented positions. According to the training director (IHume):
SR: So when you look at the graduates from your program typically
what kind of jobs do they seem to be taking? Is it more tenure-track
kind of things or is much more of clinical work, practice-oriented...?
TD: It is a wide range. I would say that probably, and I hate to give
percentages because I don’t have the numbers right in front of me.
But my sense is that it is probably about 60% in practice positions
clearly. The other 40% probably, the majority of those are going to
faculty or administrative positions. We have a few that are doing
things like coordinating missionary services in Africa - some very
non-traditional jobs. We have one that is a FBI agent.
SR: Wow!
TD: I mean they have taken it in different directions. We had a
number of students who have gone through the program who have an
interest in forensics and so they have tended to go into the prison
system whether it is the federal level or the state level (11.190-204).
Similar to programs described so far, graduates tend to seek practice-related
employment more frequently than academic or research-oriented employment.
Based on the overall description so far, the strategies of integration adopted by the
program do not appear to differ significantly from other scientist-practitioner
programs in the collective case study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
260
Problems in Integration
The training director also acknowledged that although the strategies of
integrations adopted by the program are successful, problems in integration
continue to be a challenge. The training director acknowledged differing attitudes
about research and psychotherapy practice among faculty members and students.
This theme is very similar to the faculty and student bias that other programs also
encounter. Tenure-track faculty members seem to be so consumed by research that,
consequently, psychotherapy training is undermined. Students, on the other hand,
tend to be more inclined toward psychotherapy practice rather than research. Such a
clash in priorities and interests makes integration of science and practice
challenging. I quote an excerpt where the training director describes this challenge
(IHume):
SR: End of the day, when you look at the task of integrating science
and practice, why do you think it is such a difficult goal for many
programs? Where do you think the struggle come in?
TD: I think that science isn’t as sexy as practice is. That students get
an impression of what it is to be a psychologist and it is a practice
concept that they can help and it plays into their own need for power
and the belief that they can change the world and it also plays into
them feeling good about themselves and helping, whatever that
means. And I think that they get that image early on that is even if
you look at undergraduate curriculum and abnormal psychology
being the more popular class.
SR: Yeah, nobody typically gets excited about the experimental
psych class.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TD: Exactly. Unless you have had a experience in research class or
research format and the person who is teaching it is excited about it,
they could teach it in a way that is interesting and exciting and you
can see where you can really make a difference by being involved in
research, that wasn’t where you went.
SR: You are talking about this at the undergraduate level?
TD: Yes. But I think it extends. Because they come in with that bias
and it just stays. From my experience, when I first came here I ended
up teaching the research courses because the faculty that had been
here were like “hey, we don’t want to teach those” and the students
coming in, you know, biting their nails and for me it was to get them
excited, desensitize them and teach them about the fact that they
could have passion for research just like they can have passion for
practice.
SR: And do you think this is not happening on a larger scale?
TD: Right. Exactly. Especially in institutions were faculty are more
focused on their own publication record.
SR: So the more research oriented a program becomes, the less
research oriented the students are? That is an irony, isn’t it?
TD: Yes, it is. I think because the faculty may be very passionate
about their own research and if they don’t take the time to inculcate
that with their own students... you know. When I was a doctoral
student, there was a faculty member in my program that was very
very well known nationally and he was furious because I didn’t want
to do research with him and finally he called me in and said that he
was very glad that I didn’t. Because if I had done research with him,
I would have done his research and I would not have developed my
own thinking and my own passion for different areas and as a
consequence would not have probably done what I did. And I
thought that it was an incredible awareness on his part and probably
gave me far more credit than I deserved but... (laughs).
SR: So you are saying that when programs are much more science-
focused or publication focused, especially in terms of faculty, that it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
262
is so time and energy consuming that it doesn’t pass on as a positive
attitude toward research to students?
TD: I think so. Because the student ends up, either they end up
surely adopting the research of that faculty member and that
approach to research and they don’t expand beyond that or they
externalize as being “this is something I am going to do within this
time frame of my career but that is it”. So they don’t internalize the
fact that this might be something they might really be interested in
and grow from that point (11.432-484).
The notion that science and research are not as attractive, rewarding, and interesting
as psychotherapy practice for students is a theme that has surfaced in multiple
cases. In contrast, the related theme that has surfaced is that many core faculty
members seem to adopt a negative attitude about psychotherapy practice as a less
worthwhile professional endeavor in comparison to conducting research. The gap
between faculty and students interests creates the potential for conflict in training
priorities and might work as a barrier to integrating science and practice. I now
discuss some of the internal and external factors that the training director described
as influencing doctoral training.
Internal and External Factors
The training director identified one single internal factor relating to not
having an internal clinic for psychotherapy training and multiple external factors
such as the historical merger of universities, the prevailing attitude in the university
community about mental health, the fit with the school of education, the influential
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
263
role of APA, and the influence of managed care as impacting doctoral training
within the program.
Currently, the program does not support an internal clinic for the purpose of
psychotherapy training. The training director identified the internal clinic as a
resource she would like to have in order to enhance psychotherapy training. The
reasons for not supporting such a clinic are linked to the attitude university officials
and administrators seem to have toward mental health and illness. According to the
training director (IHume):
SR: That is an interesting viewpoint. Never thought about it that
way. Under ideal circumstances, would you approach this task of
integration in any different way or would you continue with the
present strategies?
TD: We have been given a lot of administrative support to do our
research as faculty and that includes course release beyond what
anyone else at the university gets. So that has been very nice. Ideally,
if we had our own clinic where we could, I am not going to say teach
empirically supported treatments, but where we could have more
access to the clients that our students work with and first-hand
knowledge, I should say, of those clients and being able to therefore
to integrate more of what is coming out of research rather than
having it one step removed. That would be my ideal (11.486-496).
While discussing the kind of faculty research being conducted, the training
director described the historical merger of two universities that led to the creation of
the current educational institution. In the process of merger, the clinical psychology
program from one university was merged with the counseling psychology program
in the other university. Such a merger led to multiple outcomes. A racial dynamic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
264
came into play because one university was historically black while the other was
not. Currently, this dynamic is evident in the commitment the program has toward
promoting cultural diversity among faculty and students. In addition, the merger
also led to diversification in faculty research interests ranging from severe mental
illness to mental health and wellness-related research. The training described the
history as follows (IHume):
SR: I also wanted to know more about when the programs started,
you said you had mixed clinical and counseling faculty. How did the
clinical psychology faculty get here and do you see any similarities
or differences between the two faculty that impacts training?
TD: Initially, when the program was founded and everything is
historical here, when the program was founded there was ... State
University which was historically a black University and there was
the University o f ... a t .... and they merged the two of them. And the
University o f ... a t ... was a white institution. They merged the two.
The clinical psychologists were employed at the U o f ... school. The
counseling psychologists were employed at the ...SU school. That is
how they ended up with a combined program.
SR: Is there some sort of racial dynamic because of that?
TD: There was at that point but what has happened since then is that
really all of the faculty involved then, the original group have all
retired and the subsequent faculty that have come in, we have
maintained the integration of both clinical and counseling to the
point that now our ads when we have positions read clinical or
counseling. We just try and make sure that there is at least 50%
counseling psychologists. There is a difference certainly in terms of
their interests. Philosophically, their students have to match. In terms
of interests, one of the faculty that is clinical is very interested in
more depression in minorities and more heavily looking at
psychometric properties and various tests. Another clinical faculty
member’s interest is clearly having to do with AIDS and HIV,
multicultural interests. She is also a help trainer for APA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
265
SR: Given that you talked a lot about the history of the university
and the merger of departments, there seems to be race variable in
there, do you think that in some ways plays into science and practice
etc or is that just part of history?
TD: I think it plays into the kinds of research that get conducted, in
terms of programs to be evaluated. It certainly plays into some of the
practice settings some of our students go to as well as the fact th a t...
is very interested in having our students there for practicum because
they have lots of diversity among their staff (11.375-396; 526-533).
Another aspect of the program history relates to the prevailing attitude of
denial about mental health issues in the university. It appears as though university
officials are willing to support the counseling psychology program but they are not
willing to provide extensive support to the program. Their ambivalence is evident in
the university’s lack of support for a full-fledged university counseling center as
well as not supporting an internal clinic in the counseling psychology program. The
training director described the attitude as follows (IHume):
SR: And why is having a department clinic not that typical now? Is it
funding, administrative?
TD: I think it is, you are going to love this, I am going back to
history. Historically, in the United States, African-Americans have
not sought psychological services so we do have a counseling center
on campus but it is totally, how do I say this, there is one person who
has a Ph.D. in teaching and learning or something but it is run by
master’s level people, it is basically deals with disciplinary problems
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
266
and deals with students when they want to drop out of the
university...
SR: So it is more like student conduct kind of things?
TD: Yes. So it is not a focus on this campus for there being any kind
of mental health concerns so a lot of what our students will do during
their first year of practicum is educating the university population or
the student body during outreach presentations as to what are normal
psychological concerns. As a consequence of that [negative attitude
toward mental health and illness], you keep your mental health in the
church, in your immediate family and things like that. There hasn’t
been, I believe, a support in the higher levels in the University with
our needing a counseling clinic. Our department was supportive of
having a department clinic and we have talked about doing grant
writing to try and find startup money for that. And it has been more
of an issue of not having enough time with re-accreditation and
things like that to make that happen.
SR: So people in the department agree that it is needed? It is not an
attitude problem?
TD: Yeah. It is not at the department level. I don’t know what kind
of resistance we will get up the administrative food chain. And the
state o f... is not financially the wealthiest state so that also becomes
an issue when we start talking about allocation of funds, I think we
really have to be looking at external grant money (11.498-524).
The training director also identified the program’s fit with the school of
education as an issue that impacts training. According to her (IHume):
SR: I see. That is interesting, that never would have occurred to me
in terms of grants. So when you look historically at the university,
the school of education, how would you describe the department’s
residence in the school of education? How do they fit within that
structure?
TD: (Laughs). That is what we talked about with Rod Goodyear at
AERA. There are four departments here in the College of Education
and we are the largest. The other departments are all, even though it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
267
is the College of Education and you did think that Teacher Education
would be housed here, the educational core is a major outside the
College of Education. That is where they live so to speak. So, the
programs are all graduate programs except for the department of
psychology and so in addition to the graduate programs, we have
over 400 undergraduate majors. So we have a lot of other faculties,
other departments might have as many as, anywhere from 6-10
faculty, we have at this point 27 lines now in psychology. So it is a
big department.
SR: So within that there is clinical, counseling, school - all the
different specialties?
TD: Not clinical. We don’t have clinical. Counseling psychology,
pre K-12, counseling which is just a master’s program, and then in
addition to the counseling psych master’s and doctoral training, there
is also school psych which is master’s educational specialist and
Ph.D.
SR: How do you fit in within the philosophy of the College of
Education since programs sometimes struggle with that? Since we
tend to focus more on psychology and less on education and there
are problems of fit.
TD: Right. [Laughs]. And there was a question there?! The program,
our dean died in December and he had a very hard time
understanding counseling psychology. He understood school
psychology of course because it had school in the title and he
understood pre K-12 counseling but he didn’t understand the
difference between school psychology and school counseling and he
didn’t understand counseling psychology other than he thought we
were primarily practitioners and when the president of the university
made his statements 5 years ago that he wanted to move up in
standing in terms of research university status, suddenly, we became
a valuable commodity because we produced research at a higher
levels than anyone else did so he didn’t want us to go away. But he
didn’t know what we were doing but also when we decided we will
apply for APA accreditation and we were granted our initial
accreditation, he definitely liked the bragging rights that went with
that and so in that respect since Colleges of Education traditionally
are not the premier colleges on campuses and that gave him some
status so in that respect we are a petite program, we are an expensive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
268
program and only one person out of our faculty has any experience
as a classroom teacher and so a lot of what our relationship been, it is
a long winded answer to your question, though... a lot of the
relationship has been building one with the dean’s office and letting
them know what we can do and can’t do and how there are areas that
the college of education gets involved in that may be appropriate for
counseling psych to be involved in. They just don’t think about it
that there are couple of different drives going on. One having to do
with more online classes and there are something there. The
department of psychology doesn’t let us service classes for
undergraduates in other areas that the undergraduate faculty are very
involved in. But in terms of our area, there is a professional school
and while we don’t work with children, there are frequently issues
related to family systems or to program development, program
evaluation, faculty staffing issues in-group dynamic kind of things
that we can be beneficial and contribute.
SR: So it sounds more like organizational behavior, personnel
management kind of thing?
TD: Right. Right.
SR: And so it is in a consulting kind of position is how you fit in
with the larger school?
TD: Uhm (11.236-290).
Another influential external factor relates to the role of APA. The program
seems to constantly balance the priorities of the university and the student body
with the accreditation demands made by APA. According to the training director
(IHume):
SR: That is interesting. If you look at the whole scientist-practitioner
history and how these things take place, what do you think are
external versus internal factors that might influence training. For
example, APA comes up with something that influences training
philosophy, curriculum etc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
269
TD: APA is certainly a factor that gets considered. A large factor for
us is looking at the philosophy of the institution so that we don’t go
too far from that. That is part of what attracts students to our
program so we are very aware of how that influences everything. We
attempt to integrate what APA asks for. If at all possible within our
existing structure because one of the things we did about 7 years ago
was, we took the entire graduate training in the department and we
evaluated it. We dropped majors, very productive majors because we
can’t... we don’t have the resources to meet the need and we
actually cut the student body by about 75% at the graduate level
(11.292-304).
Managed care also plays a major role in training due to state licensing laws
that encourage master’s level practitioners and the program only admits students
who have completed their master’s degrees. The training described the challenge as
follows (IHume):
SR: Any other external factors that might influence how programs
are run, the policies and things like that? Maybe managed care,
licensing requirements and things like that?
TD: Licensing in ... tracks right along with APA says and so that
doesn’t become an issue. Probably the biggest additional factor for
us is we don’t have an internal clinic and so what is happening is
with managed care is our students, probably half of our students end
up doing their practicum a t.. .University through their student
counseling services or at... through adult psychiatry or adolescent
psychiatry or they go into the prison system where managed care
isn’t such an issue or they go into community mental health where
they already want them to, if at all possible, to have master’s level
licensing so that they can claim reimbursement. So, that becomes a
concern where we will tell students that in this state because there is
master’s level licensing, you can take the triple P, they use the same
thing, it is just a different cutoff. You can take it, you can get the
master’s level license here so that you can work in a practicum site
and they get reimbursed but it does open door to the Pandora’s box
to them deciding that they want to do some practice...
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
270
SR: And not finish their Ph.D.?
TD: Right or even do a concurrently. And we don’t want our
students to necessarily to be doing that [engaging in private practice
at the master’s level] so we have them file employment forms and
tell us what their activities are and providing documentation about
licensing and hours to supervisors and all that kind of stuff. It just
kind of grows and grows like a big balloon (11.352-373).
Thus, the program attempts to maintain a fit with the school of education
and balance the needs of the university with the demands placed by APA for
accreditation purposes.
Summary
The program was nominated as a practice-oriented counseling psychology
program and the program subscribes to the scientist-professional model of training.
This model of training does not appear to be substantively different from the
scientist-practitioner model of training except for the self-study’s explicit statement
about training students as health care service providers. The greater emphasis on
service delivery probably led many training directors to nominate the program as a
practice-oriented counseling psychology program. However, the program
description does not support its nomination as a practice-oriented program. The
program does not appear to differ significantly from other programs in the
collective case study, which were not nominated as practice-oriented. The program
defines psychological science and psychotherapy practice broadly and encourages
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
271
methodological diversity in research training and subscribes to dynamically
orientated psychotherapy training.
The scientist-professional model of training espouses the importance of
integrating science and practice in doctoral training including the importance of
approaching practice with a scientific stance. However, the model also emphasizes
the training as preparing professionals in the practice arena. Curriculum structure,
classroom discussion of science and practice, students participating in pre
dissertation research with a focus on applied research are some of the strategies
used to integrate science and practice.
The training director also acknowledged that the absence of support for an
internal clinic limits the possibilities of integration and explained the lack of
support as a result of the university’s attitude toward mental health-related issues.
She also identified various internal and external factors influencing doctoral
training. She believes that tenure-track faculty members and academic institutions’
primary focus on research tends to overwhelm students with pressure to engage in
research. In contrast, students tend to view psychotherapy practice activities as
attractive and rewarding. The conflict between faculty and student attitudes makes
integration of science and practice challenging. In addition, problems with arriving
at a comfortable fit between the program and the school of education, the influential
role of APA, and the demands of managed care also influence doctoral training. The
flowchart (Figure 7) below provides a visual representation of the case description.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
External Factors
Historical Merger
of Universities
Attitude of
University
Administrators
Fit with School of
Education
APA
Influence of
Managed Care
Science
Methodological
Diversity
Practice
Internal Factor
Absence of
Internal Clinic
Scientist- Strategies of Problems in
Professional Integration Integration
Science-based
Practice
Psychodynamic
Emphasis on
Orientation
Practice
Curriculum
Structure
— ►
Faculty Attitude
toward Practice
Classroom
Students’
Discussion
----- ►Attitude toward
Research
Applied
Research
(Pre-
Dissertation
Research
Teams)
Figure 7. Visual Representation o f Case Description for University of Hume.
272
273
In order to conserve the length of this chapter, I provided detailed case descriptions
of six out of the eight cases in the collective case study. The next chapter on
Discussion focuses on the comparative case analysis and training alternatives I
suggest for the specialty to consider in order to facilitate integration of science and
practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
274
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The review of the literature in chapter two outlined the various conceptual
and functional problems relating to the scientist-practitioner training model. The
ambiguity in the conceptualization of scientist-practitioner model (Zachar & Leong,
2000) allows for variations in the interpretation and programmatic implementation
of the model (Peterson, 2000; Stoltenberg, et al. 2000). The theoretical literature
identifies ambiguities in several areas: (a) the relative emphasis placed on science
or practice (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001), (b) the appropriate definition of
psychological science and the scientific method (Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992;
Howard, 1985, 1993; Kanfer, 1990; Klien, 1995; Linden & Wen, 1990; Page, 1996;
Polkinghome, 1984; Rychlak, 1998; Ussher, 1991), and (c) the functional
challenges in integrating science and practice in training programs (Bernstein &
Kerr, 1993; Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Frank, 1984; Goldfried, 1984; Halgin &
Murphy, 1995, p.441; Hayes, et al. 1999, pp. 11-12; Hoshmand, 1991; Sprinthall,
1990).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
275
Comparative Case Analysis
The purpose of the comparative case analysis was to understand how
programs in the collective case study differ in their interpretation and
implementation of the scientist-practitioner training model. For this purpose, I used
the training programs in the collective case study as an evidentiary base in order to
understand the differences in the interpretation and implementation of the scientist-
practitioner training model. Having described six cases in detail, I now analyze all
the eight cases (including University of Husserl and University of Descartes) in the
collective case study by using the method of constant comparison. As mentioned
earlier, I did not provide detailed case descriptions of Universities of Husserl and
Descartes in order to manage the length of the previous chapter. However, data
from these two cases are incorporated in the comparative case analysis and I include
relevant quotes from these two cases as well. I used the theoretical underpinnings of
theories of action as a template to conduct the comparative case analysis and
incorporated findings from the review of the academic literature relating to the
scientist-practitioner model, which I previously discussed in chapter two.
There are two kinds of theories of action - espoused theory and theory-in-
use. Espoused theories are described as “those that an individual claims to follow”
(Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985, p.81) and theories-in-use are “those that can be
inferred from action” (p.82) and frequently there is a discrepancy between the two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
276
theories. Individuals and institutions are typically aware of their espoused theories
in terms of their expressed motives for a decision or a program philosophy
respectively. However, neither individuals not institutions are typically aware of
their theories-in-use because these theories often remain “tacit cognitive maps by
which human beings design action” (p.82). The tacit mode extends to organizations
including educational institutions. Although individuals and organizations struggle
to describe their theories-in-use by virtue of the theories being tacit, individual
behavior and program implementation are typically informed by the theories-in-use
rather than espoused theories.
My goal in the comparative case analysis was to distinguish between the
espoused theories and theories-in-use in the eight programs that constituted the
collective case study. Such a distinction would help in understanding why the eight
training programs in the collective case study that attempt the task of integrating
science and practice differ in their interpretation and implementation of the
scientist-practitioner model.
Espoused theories are derived from formal official documents from the eight
cases - self-studies, program websites, program handbooks, and dissertation
abstracts. Formal documents provide information on what training goals programs
say they aim to achieve and how they propose to achieve the training goals through
their actual implementation of strategies. Theories-in-use are derived from
interviews with the training directors and my analysis of gaps between what I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
277
perceived the programs’ “formal goals and strategies” were and what I encountered
as the “actual implementation of these goals”. Training directors’ views and my
analysis are both equally susceptible to merely describing and identifying espoused
theories. However, training directors frequently reiterated the program’s espoused
theories as well as identified various problems in implementing the goal of
integration. Differentiating between the training directors’ espoused theories and
their identification of problems in the implementation of the task of integration
facilitated my identifying the programs’ theories-in-use. While conducting the
analysis, I keenly and consciously attempted to differentiate between what the
formal text content stated or espoused theories and action or actual implementation
of strategies that represented theories-in-use.
I use the thematic structure I used in the case descriptions. I begin with an
analysis of the concept of psychological science and psychotherapy practice
followed by an analysis of the concept of scientist-practitioner. Analysis of
concepts of psychological science, psychotherapy practice, and the scientist-
practitioner model adopted by the eight training programs facilitate developing an
understanding of the different interpretations of the scientist-practitioner training
model. Analysis of research training, psychotherapy training, and the strategies of
integration and their implementation by the eight training programs facilitate
developing an understanding of the different ways the scientist-practitioner training
model is implemented in practice. As I analyze the programs’ espoused theories and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
278
theories-in-use, I include programs’ conceptual definitions and their training
strategies in order to describe the differences in the interpretation and
implementation of the scientist-practitioner model. I start with the analysis of the
concept of psychological science in the eight programs that constituted the
collective case study.
Espoused Theories o f Psychological Science
The espoused theories of psychological science are based on how different
programs define psychological science and the different strategies they describe for
conducting research training. The term psychological science is a broad term and I
use the term specifically to describe and analyze how programs conceptually
approach the task of generating knowledge and the methods they value for
knowledge generation. Thus, the philosophy of science which programs adopt, the
research methods they teach, and the strategies of research training espoused in the
programs constitute psychological science in the comparative case analysis. Data
from self-studies, program websites, and program handbooks were used to glean
programs’ espoused theories of psychological science.
There are primarily three approaches to defining psychological science and
training in psychological research. First, the natural science approach defines
psychological science by adopting natural science methodologies using the tenets of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
279
positivism and trains students in quantitative research methods. Second, the human
science approach defines psychological science by adopting human science
methodologies using tenets of constructivism and trains students in qualitative
research methods. Third, the approach of methodological diversity acknowledges
the validity of different definitions of psychological science and uses different
methods in research, both quantitative and qualitative, and students are trained in
diverse research methods. Methodological diversity is also an outcome of
constructivism. I discuss each approach briefly in order to lay the context for the
programs’ espoused theories of psychological science.
The field of psychology has broadly taken up three different positions
regarding the nature of a methodology for social sciences. One position has been
that social sciences adopt the methodology of natural sciences while the other
position has been that social sciences need to develop methodologies that are more
attuned to the human subject and experience. The latter position has typically
espoused the notion that human sciences are closer to the discipline of history rather
than physical sciences (Howard, 1986). Psychology has tended to adopt the former
position and adopted natural sciences methodologies as the appropriate approach to
scientific endeavors in psychological research. According to Polkinghome (1984):
The original question concerning the nature of a methodology for the
human sciences was put forth in clear form by Mill: Should human
science adopt the methodology of the physical sciences? Mill took
the affirmative side of the question, while Dilthey took the negative
side. Those who have stood with Mill have won the debate, and their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
280
position has been adopted as the standard methodology for the
human sciences by university departments, textbooks, and journals.
There are still a few supporters for Dilthey’s side of the debate, but
they argue from a minority position and can hope only that the
victorious side will pay them some attention and respond to their
critiques (p.59).
The natural science approach in psychological science has a long history in
the philosophy of science and I will not provide a detailed account of its history.
However, the main tenet of the natural science approach is the “claim that the laws
of nature are general, [they] dictate the phenomena of the universe and are
‘necessary and constant’ [and this approach] ushers in a naturalistic idea of
scientific knowledge and how to acquire it” (Hollis, 1996, p.361). When this tenet is
extended to understanding human behavior and the social world, psychological
science would then strive to identify laws of human behavior that are universally
generalizable. Thus, “a so-called law of nature is simply a well enough confirmed
hypothesis and the only test of a hypothesis is its predictive success” (p.364).
Various terms have been used to describe the natural science approach in
psychology and I use the term positivism to denote natural science approach and
research methodologies. Polkinghome (1991) differentiates between mathematical
and linguistic positivism. I focus on the former. Mathematical positivism “holds
that regularities in reality are mathematical in form” and “new knowledge is gained
by devising hypothetical logical relations among the categories of reality and then
testing the hypotheses by observation to see if the proposed relations hold” (p. 172).
Research methods are, therefore, quantitatively and mathematically driven. Most
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
281
doctoral programs in counseling psychology train students in quantitative research
methods and statistical data analysis.
The natural science approach to psychological science was prevalent even
prior to the inception of the scientist-practitioner model in 1949. As early as 1945,
Thome (1945) described American psychology as “dominated by an
experimentalism interested more in the discovery of general laws rather than the
study of individual cases” (p.2). Six decades after the inception of the scientist-
practitioner model, the hegemony of natural science approaches continues. Until the
1980s, most counseling psychology research used quantitative research methods in
their research (Polkinghome, 1991, p. 165). In the last two decades, there has been a
significant shift in the discipline of counseling psychology as it gradually attempted
to embrace alternative approaches to psychological research. Because the
professional identity of counseling psychology is linked with education and
psychology, programs tend to be either housed in schools of education or in
departments of psychology. Programs in schools of education have been relatively
more open to using qualitative research methods than programs housed in
departments of psychology (Polkinghome, 1991, p. 167). Academic psychology has
traditionally equated scientific rigor with research using the natural science
approach and counseling psychology’s stronger identification with psychology,
rather than education, has led to a greater resistance in the discipline in adopting
human science approaches (p. 167).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
282
The human science approach, in stark contrast to the natural science
approach, conceptualizes the researcher, the research subject, and the subject under
study in very different terms. The human science approach does not subscribe to the
view that absolute certain knowledge of reality can be gained. Instead it relies on
making knowledge claims “through innate and universal reasonableness, through a
universal trial-and-error learning, and through the use of pluralistic epistemologies”
(Polkinghome, 1984, p.244). This approach to knowledge generation relies on
ordinary language systems rather than logical mathematical systems. Qualitative
research methods using the human science approach “mimic the constructive
processes that humans ordinarily use to understand their experience” (Polkinghome,
1991, p.178). Although the discipline of counseling psychology has resisted use of
qualitative research, these research procedures have significantly increased in use in
the last two decades. Very few programs of psychology train students primarily in
qualitative research though. The few exceptions are Duquesne University (p. 168)
and West Georgia State University.
In the past few decades, the hegemony of the natural science approach to
psychological research has come under increasing criticism. As a response to these
questions and debates about the nature of psychological science, many programs
began to espouse the importance of methodological diversity in research training.
According to Heppner, et al. (2000), “As a whole, methodological pluralism,
enhanced sophistication of both qualitative and quantitative methods, and multi -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
283
study articles have significantly enhanced the knowledge bases within counseling
literature in the last two decades (p.32).
Thus, the third approach to psychological science incorporates diverse
approaches to psychological science and research, both natural science and human
science approaches, and is termed as methodological pluralism or methodological
diversity. This approach acknowledges that there is no single appropriate approach
to defining psychological science or conducting research and, hence, supports
research training in diverse research methods, both quantitative and qualitative. The
rise of constructivism, a philosophy of science, questions the possibility of gaining
knowledge independent of human knowing. Because any approach to knowledge
generation can only produce limited understanding of reality, diverse research
methods are argued as justified in producing knowledge of equal scientific
legitimacy. According to Polkinghome (1991), “because all analytics construe
experience in a partial way, the use of a number of organizing systems provides a
more extensive understanding than does any one alone” (p. 175). During the Third
National Conference of Counseling Psychology held in 1987, conference
participants suggested that the trend toward methodological diversity in research
training is a positive and necessary one and the trend should be supported by
universities, journal editors, and by the discipline as a whole (Gelso, et al. 1988,
p.395).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
284
The human science approach and methodological diversity are relatively
recent developments in the history of the discipline. Consequently, the evolving
debate about the nature of appropriate scientific method has also led to confusion
among academic researchers regarding the epistemologies and methodologies of
psychological science. According to Hoshmand (1991), “the most fundamental
problem in current discourse about scientist-practitioner training for psychology is
the lack of a shared definition of psychological science. There are different
assumptions held about what it means to be scientific” (p.432). The field of
psychology has struggled and debated over what constitutes psychological science
and these debates continue until the present day. According to Page (1996), “the
term science does not describe a single doctrine, domain of knowledge, or
methodology. In contrast, it describes something that is at best multifaceted” [italics
in original] (p. 103). Consequently, psychologists vary in their philosophies of
science resulting in an “abundance of theories and minimal consensual knowledge”
(p. 105).
The debates relating to the appropriate scientific method in psychological
science is also evident in the programs examined in the collective case study.
Among the eight cases, University of Aristotle and University of Husserl explicitly
adopt the natural science approach to studying human behavior. Research training
in these two programs involves completing core courses in quantitative research
methods and statistical data analysis and use faculty research teams to encourage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
285
students to conduct quantitative research. For example, the second goal of training
for University Husserl involves training students to “demonstrate competence in the
areas of research design, implementation, and evaluation” (SSHusserl, p.7).
Research training in the program involves completing relevant coursework and
participating in faculty research teams in order to develop the required knowledge
base, the ability to critique research, and conduct independent research (SSHusserl,
p.7). The coursework on research methods and techniques of data analysis are
quantitative in orientation and there is no mention of students taking qualitative
research courses (SSHusserl, p. 14). In both these programs, all available
dissertation abstracts since 1997 describe dissertation studies using quantitative
research methods only. Thus, both programs espouse the natural science approach
to psychological science and provide research training in quantitative research and
statistical data analysis only.
On the other hand, the remaining six cases in the collective case study
espouse the importance of increasing methodological diversity in research training.
Research training in the six programs includes completing relevant coursework in
research design and data analysis, mostly quantitative in approach, and participating
in research teams at a pre-dissertation level. Coursework also includes the
completion of a single course in qualitative research, although only two programs
(University of Heidegger and Hegel) mandate the completion of this course. The
remaining four programs offer the course on qualitative research methods as an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
286
elective course. I now discuss the theories-in-use of psychological science based on
the eight programs in the collective case study.
Theories-in-use o f Psychological Science
The previous subsection on espoused theories of psychological science
pointed out that all programs, with the exception of Universities of Aristotle and
Husserl, espoused the importance of methodological diversity in research training.
However, a closer inspection of how the six programs approach the task of
increasing methodological diversity reveals a gap between the espoused theory and
the programs’ theories-in-use.
As mentioned previously, Universities of Aristotle and Husserl espouse the
natural science approach to psychological science and offer research training in
quantitative research methods only. The two programs have faculty research teams
where faculty members conduct quantitative research and mentor students in
developing expertise in quantitative research methods and statistical data analysis.
The dissertation abstracts describe dissertation research conducted using
quantitative research methods only. Thus, in both programs there is congruence
between the espoused theory of psychological science and the kind of research
training provided.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
287
The remaining six programs espouse methodological diversity in research
training. Methodological diversity is defined as teaching courses and conducting
research using quantitative and qualitative research methods. Thus, the programs
espouse the legitimacy and value of knowledge generation using diverse research
methods. A closer examination of the nature of research training reveals that the six
programs that espouse methodological diversity emphasize quantitative research
methods in research training and research-related coursework focuses on
quantitative methods and statistical data analysis. All the training directors
interviewed described their respective programs as being primarily quantitative in
research orientation and most dissertation abstracts of the selected training
programs describe research using only quantitative research methods. For example,
the training director of the University of Heidegger program described core faculty
members as adopting mostly “traditional notions of positivistic, quantitative
approach” although he acknowledged, “broader definitions are becoming more
common” (IHeidegger, 11.45-46).
The six programs, however, do offer students a single course in qualitative
research methods. The course is typically offered as an elective (except for
University of Hegel and Heidegger). University of Descartes requires students
intending to conduct a qualitative method-driven dissertation to complete the course
on qualitative research and the course is elective for the remaining students in the
program. The training director of University of Hume’s counseling psychology
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
288
program acknowledged that the qualitative course was typically offered when
students were at an advanced stage of completing coursework and they had already
completed their dissertation proposal. Thus, it was not feasible for students to
explore the option of a qualitative dissertation. Recently this course is being offered
during the second year of doctoral training to give students the option of using
qualitative research methods for their dissertation studies. The course, however,
remains an elective course.
I believe that developing research competence in quantitative or qualitative
research methods is a challenging process for most students and completing one
graduate-level course, mandatory or elective, is not sufficient for this purpose.
Thus, although programs espouse the importance of methodological diversity,
programs do not effectively translate this policy by providing adequate research
training in diverse research methods. Research training usually entails completing
multiple courses in quantitative research designs and statistical data analysis. The
single course in qualitative research methods is mandatory for students to complete
in two programs (Universities of Hegel and Heidegger) and it is an elective course
in four programs in the collective study. This pattern reveals a gap between
programs’ espousal of methodological diversity and programs’ research training
implementation that clearly values a single approach to science - positivistic,
quantitative research. This gap reveals a theory-in-use where programs value
natural science approach to psychological science and positivistic research, in spite
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
289
of espousing the importance of methodological diversity in research training. I
elaborate on the theory-in-use in greater depth now.
The tendency to emphasize quantitative research in spite of espousing
methodological diversity can be explained in various ways. First, programs’
espousal of methodological diversity is more a response to external pressures rather
than an outcome of core faculty members truly valuing methodological diversity.
Second, the definition and criteria used for scientific rigor are based on natural
science methodologies and this definition and criteria are deeply entrenched in the
academic discipline, leading to the hegemony of the natural science approach in
psychology. Third, the academy and core faculty members associate success in
conducting positivistic research with prestige, power, and peer acceptance in the
academy. Consequently, core faculty members resist embracing qualitative research
methods and methodological diversity while conducting research. I discuss each of
these explanations in greater depth now.
As mentioned in the review of literature in chapter two, critiques of natural
science methodologies in psychology have grown stronger in the past two decades
(Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; Howard, 1985, 1993; Kanfer, 1990; Klien,
1995; Linden & Wen, 1990; Page, 1996; Polkinghome, 1984; Rychlak, 1998;
Ussher, 1991). Interviews with training directors indicate that the decision to
include a qualitative research course is relatively recent (typically from the 1980s)
and the decision was taken more in response to recent external trends in the field
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
290
where methodological diversity was being widely propagated. Thus, it appears as
though programs espouse methodological diversity in response to external trends
and pressures rather than as an outcome of espousing diverse research approaches
as legitimate ways to knowledge generation. The training director of University of
Plato’s program described the trend as follows (IPlato):
SR: I am defining traditional as more quantitative, natural science,
statistics kind of things.
TD: Yeah, I would say 90% or above of our faculty are doing that
kind of research honestly. But I would also say that more and more
students are doing qualitative research and I would say that I have
seen it increase even in the last few years.
SR: And why do you think that is happening?
TD: I think it is a movement in the field to be honest with you. And
so it is getting much more attention and press in the field in general
(11.46-56).
Similarly, the University of Socrates training director responded by stating
(ISocrates):
SR: In terms of the science component of the model, would you
define it more in traditional natural science modes or would it be
different?
TD: Definitely broader than that. We certainly think that discovery
oriented research and qualitative research which is really uncovering,
you know understanding human experiences particularly related to
clinical issues. Certainly. Our program has evolved over the last 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
291
years but definitely in the last 10 years we have seen more non-
traditional discovery oriented designs.
SR: And the reason for this shift...?
TD: This is where the field is going. I think so. Also, there has been
a big interest in multicultural which lends itself very well to
qualitative research and there is so much to learn about people.
Experiences that we don’t even have constructs for. Also, because
qualitative research mirrors and reflects the clinician’s thinking
process. And that attracts students (11.16-31).
The gap between espoused theory and theory-in-use exists as programs
implicitly make value judgments about what constitutes legitimate scientific
knowledge, which is knowledge generated using natural science methodologies. I
use the term preference while discussing a program’s espousal of a certain concept
or strategy related to the scientist-practitioner model. On the other hand, I use the
term bias while pointing out the gap between a program’s espoused theory and
theory-in-use because this gap represents the tacit approach of how program
implementation takes place. The bias favoring positivistic research as representing
legitimate psychological science is evident in how training directors equate the term
empirical with positivistic psychological research. I believe that programs include a
single course in qualitative research but they probably do not consider it empirical
and respectable enough while describing sound research. Such a bias is
symptomatic of the positivistic stance that is deeply entrenched in the discipline and
continues to dominate the kind of research conducted by core faculty members and
students. Relevant quotes from interview transcripts reveals this bias toward
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
292
positivistic research. The training director of the program at University of Hume
espoused methodological diversity but used the term empirical to imply traditional
quantitative research, indicating a value that quantitative research is superior or
more legitimate than other research approaches (IHume):
SR: And, when you say scientific stance, how would you describe it?
TD: I would have to think about that. We are generally referring to
any research as being science.
SR: As I was going through the self-study, I noticed that one of the
goals described things like hypothesis testing and it sounded much
more like traditional psychological science.
TD: And yet it is not necessarily so.
SR: Yes, it also had information about qualitative research...
TD: It is not just your empirical [ .sic]. It is quite a wide variety (11.13-
24).
Similarly, the training director of University of Hegel’s counseling
psychology program stated (IHegel):
TD: Well, I think there is a medical world that we psychologists
have kind of followed. They has been that notion that medical
researchers are at the top of the heap, they are coming with great
cures. I have some evidence of that bias which I think we have
adopted. First started in clinical and when counseling grew, we
adopted it too. And then there is the hierarchy of sciences, hierarchy
of soft sciences and that this where the problem of qualitative
research comes in. I think this bias exists among some faculty
(11.322-327).
The hierarchy of sciences as described by the University of Hegel training director
is also evident in how core faculty members evaluate the scientific legitimacy of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
293
qualitative research. In this context, the training director at University of Descartes
described the qualitative research conducted by students and supervised by core
faculty members in the program in the following manner (IDescartes):
SR: You mentioned that the educational psychology department is
very positivistic, do they in some ways inform the kind of science
that is practiced in the counseling psych program?
TD: How they effect us? It is kind of weird. I am the only, with a
couple of recent retirees, I am the only qualitative researcher in the
faculty and although our brand new hire is going to take advantage
of his one course release and sit in on my qualitative class, he wants
to become a multimethod researcher and I am so excited because we
really need someone else to get in there and advise students. Well, I
have found.. .it is kind of a difficult situation here for me as a
qualitative researcher, as a well known qualitative researcher that
students who come here do want to do qualitative research but I
can’t certainly work with them all and recently a couple of my other
colleagues, quantitative folks, have chaired qualitative dissertations
and they have been horrible. And they have no idea about rigor in
qualitative research so they will let someone do a thesis and
interview 5 people. I am like “no, how are you going to get any kind
of saturation or redundancy from that” and when I say that, they look
at me like I have green skin or something. And so, they don’t
understand and they haven’t taken the steps to read. You know they
could just read my handbook of counseling psych chapter and they
would know a bunch of stuff that they don’t know now. I need to
talk with my chair and see if we can influence some awareness here
(11.92-111).
Most core faculty members, thus, resist learning about qualitative research
and core faculty members who mentor dissertation research using qualitative
methods frequently adopt positivistic criteria of scientific rigor to evaluate
qualitative research. The resistance against learning and embracing qualitative
research methods is possibly due to the association of prestige and power with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
294
conducting positivistic, quantitative research. The training director of University of
Husserl’s counseling psychology program described the association of positivistic
research with power and prestige. I quote a relevant excerpt from the interview
(IHusserl):
TD: I think we are probably fairly mathematically oriented although
over the time I have been here, we have been doing more qualitative
type research. But really, the measurement and statistics people in
our program loom very, very large for various reasons. One is they
are the folks who publish and I think they are the largest educational
testing group in the world. So, they have a tremendous amount of
prestige, nationally and internationally, for their work. On top of
that, they have a very large foundation that is used to support many
of our students. They get special grad assistantships, half-time
positions and they can go to choose to work whomever they want or
whatever they want as long as it is related to developing their
professional careers. 95% of the time that is research related. That is
part of it. The other part of it is that they have grants built for faculty
as long as their research is related to measurement and statistics in
some way. So, in order to get $20-50,000 is really pretty easy, it
takes a few pages and a couple of days. So what that means is that
faculty do research in areas that qualify them for that kind of funding
(11.147-159).
The training directors’ statements describe a distinct hierarchical value
placed on positivistic research as the most legitimate and acceptable approach to
psychological research. Alternate approaches to psychological science and research
are acknowledged but they are viewed as less empirical and having less scientific
rigor. Conducting positivistic research also provides status and power in academic
institutions. Consequently, many core faculty members resist exploring alternate
philosophies of psychological science and resist accepting diverse research
methods. They also prefer to adopt the criteria of scientific rigor based solely on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
295
assumptions of positivistic science even while evaluating research methods that are
not based on positivistic assumptions of science.
According to Polkinghome (1991), academic psychology has limited itself
to equating scientific rigor with research approaches “that use numerical data and
statistical analysis and base their designs on the experimental method” (p. 167).
Consequently, methodological diversity in research is implemented in a manner
where non-positivistic research is marginalized in terms of its value and focus in
research training. Research training in the programs, therefore, tacitly reinforces the
value placed on positivistic research. I believe such tacit reinforcement of value
placed on a particular approach in psychological science and knowledge generation
to be a theory-in-use.
The academic literature offers an explanation to understand the hegemony
of positivistic bent in psychological research that explains programs’ theories-in-use
regarding research training. Historically, the discipline of psychology made a
deliberate attempt to establish itself as a scientific discipline and consequently
chose to adopt the methodology of natural sciences for this purpose. I discussed this
issue in the previous subsection as well. John (1998) provides an explanation for the
hegemony of natural science approaches in psychology even as alternative
philosophies of social science like the human science approach have distinctly
emerged as being more appropriate for understanding human behavior. According
to John (1998):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
296
The positivistic program had been driven by the assumption that
there is a kind of knowledge that is conclusive and incontrovertible
and that science has a method for unfailingly producing it.
Ultimately the philosophy of science was to prove unequal to the
task of providing a rational reconstruction of any method for
producing knowledge of this description (Chalmer, 1990) but,
confident in their conviction that there must be such a method,
psychologists sought uncritically to emulate those science which, by
common consent, were the most scientific, and so presumably
embodied the method, even though it was not possible to say exactly
what it was. Various incidental features of scientific practice in the
physical sciences were mistakenly assumed to be essential and thus
came to be emphasized as appropriate, and even imperative, for the
conduct of scientific inquiry in psychology.... Any number of these
particularities, such as quantification, operationalism, and
experimentation, in this way became incorporated in scientist-
practitioner discourse and employed as metonyms for science, or
signifiers of scientificity. A particular emphasis was laid on
empirical evidence as an ostensibly unassailable and decisive arbiter
of contested knowledge claims, rather as if the evidentiary value of
any set of empirical data and the conclusions which are, or might
properly be, drawn from it could ever be problematic (pp.25-26).
I believe the above quote eloquently explains why training directors tend to
equate positivistic research with the term empirical. The espousal of methodological
diversity in research training and theories-in-use reinforcing positivistic research are
also indicative of confusion about how the discipline defines the nature of
psychological science. According to Wittgenstein (1953), “in psychology there are
experimental methods and conceptual confusion.... The existence of the
experimental method makes us think w e have the means o f solving the problems
which trouble us; though problem and method pass one another by” [italics in
original] (p.232). Thus, according to Klien (1995), “By adopting positivism as its
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
297
official paradigm, American psychology has become fixated in the regressive
ideological assumptions of Cartesian metaphysics” (p.306).
In spite of simmering confusion about how psychological science should be
defined, academic institutions legitimized natural science methodologies and, thus,
provided greater legitimacy to the discipline’s espousing a particular view of
psychological science and research. Hoshmand & Polkinghome (1992) described
the discipline’s commitment to positivistic science at an institutional level as
follows:
A science-based profession is in a better position to assert its
legitimacy (Goldfried, 1984). Academic psychology and university
training programs for the practice of psychology generally share the
same foundational assumptions. Theory and research are expected to
be the primary means of producing such knowledge base that is then
translated into techniques used by practitioners. Other institutional
structures such as accreditation and licensing bodies also support the
dominant model of knowledge by requiring a core curriculum
intended to impart theory-tested knowledge and hypothetico-
deductive methods of scientific inquiry (p.56).
In a similar vein, Heppner, et al. (1992) stated that programs adopted natural
science methodologies in order to “compete in academic environments that lean
toward natural science, faculty have tended to emulate basic research, resulting in
research that is less naturalistic and less transferable to practice” (p. 109).
Although positivistic science might be of value in natural sciences and
accepted in academic institutions, adopting this particular philosophy of science in
human sciences has proven to be problematic (Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
298
Howard, 1985; Kanfer, 1990; Klein, 1995; Rychlak, 1998). According to
Hoshmand (1991):
There are many in the profession who do not perceive themselves as
extremists in the positivistic tradition but remain highly skeptical
toward suggestion of alternative models of knowledge for the
discipline. This lack of unity in the definition of our science and the
choice of scientific method creates an ambiguous context for
discussions about scientific training (p.432-433).
The creation of this ambiguous context for discussing scientific training has
probably also created the possibility for alternate research methodologies to
develop, even as academic institutions and faculty members are resistant to change.
In a Delphi poll conducted by Neimeyer & Diamond (2001) the single greatest
increases were predicted “in relation to the development of ‘descriptive and
qualitative sophistication’ (M=4.43) in research methodology, followed closed by
‘attention to methodological diversity and triangulation’ (M=4.35)” (p.58). The
Delphi poll, thus, shows that members of the discipline are in a state of flux
regarding research training. On one hand, there is a deeply entrenched value and
prestige placed on quantitative research. On the other hand, there is growing
acknowledgement of the conceptual limitations of the positivistic approach to
psychological science for purposes of understanding human behavior and
experience. This acknowledgement has probably led qualitative research methods to
gain in prominence in the academy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
299
A few training directors also acknowledged that students seemed to evince a
greater interest in qualitative research because they chose to complete the elective
course and a few students attempted qualitative research-driven dissertations. It is
possible that students graduating from these programs adopt the natural science
approach to human behavior and research because that is the predominant message
communicated during doctoral training and they are biased against qualitative
research as they tacitly internalize the program’s bias toward quantitative research.
Or, they remain intrigued and confused by what they learned in the single course in
qualitative research that was distinctly different from the other courses in research
methods. How the next generation of core faculty members resolves the conceptual
confusion with regard to the nature of psychological science would determine the
kind of research training provided in the future and possibly influence a change in
programs’ theories-in-use of psychological science.
Espoused Theories o f Psychotherapy Practice
The evolution of modem psychotherapy practice can be traced from the
dominance of Freudian psychoanalysis in the early part of the nineteenth century to
the growth of different theoretical orientations such as psychodynamic orientations,
Rogers’ client-centered therapy, behavior therapies, and cognitive-behavioral
therapies. In the last three decades or so, integrative therapy or eclectic therapy has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
300
become more common. Eclectic or integrative approaches synthesize diverse
elements into flexible multifaceted orientations (Garfield & Bergin, 1986, p.7).
However, the main tenet of the eclectic approach is the lack of strict allegiance to
any single theoretical system (p.8). Thus, practitioners vary widely with regard to
their theoretical orientations in psychotherapy practice. I do not undertake providing
a detailed overview of the evolution of modem psychotherapy practice because it is
not directly pertinent to my dissertation study relating to doctoral training using the
scientist-practitioner model.
With regard to psychotherapy research, Eysenck’s critical review of existing
research in 1952 questioned the efficacy of psychotherapy per se (Garfield &
Bergin, p.5). Following his critical review of the existing literature, there was a
surge in psychotherapy research. Numerous psychotherapy process and outcome
studies have examined various aspects of psychotherapy and an extensive academic
literature exists on the subject of psychotherapy research. In chapter two, I reviewed
the academic literature on a specific aspect of psychotherapy research concerning
the prevalence of natural science research methodologies used in psychotherapy
research and the lack of clinical relevance of positivistic psychotherapy research.
This particular issue surfaced frequently with regard to integration of science and
practice using the scientist-practitioner model. Critiques of research methodologies
used in psychotherapy research have focused on lack of clinical relevance of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
301
positivistic psychotherapy research. In addition, practitioners deem such research as
not clinically relevant.
The academic literature suggested using alternate research methods such as
qualitative research methods and more sophisticated quantitative research methods
so that psychotherapy research is more clinically relevant for the practitioner
(Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996; Hayes, et al. 1999, p. 15; Snyder & Ingram, 2000, p.723;
Strieker, 1975). Implementing methodological diversity in doctoral research
training is one way to remedy the dominance of positivistic psychotherapy research
but as the theories-in-use of psychological science indicate, programs resist
adopting methodological diversity. Thus, the hegemony of natural science
methodologies continues and concerns about lack of clinically relevant research
remain, for the most part, unaddressed.
Because the focus of the dissertation study is on doctoral training of
counseling psychologists using the scientist-practitioner model, I focus my
discussion on issues related to psychotherapy training and clinical supervision. The
practice of psychotherapy is not the sole domain of any specific mental health
profession. Psychiatrists, applied psychologists, social workers, and masters’ level
practitioners practice psychotherapy after receiving “initial and basic training in
diverse settings with different disciplinary and value emphases” (Garfield & Bergin,
1986, p.l 1). Surprisingly, the criteria of successful psychotherapy training are not
based on competence in psychotherapy (p.l 1). Typically, academic and intellectual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
302
criteria are used that “do not necessarily bear a direct relationship to skills in
psychotherapy practice (p. 11). Counseling psychology training programs that
provide psychotherapy training also adopt similar academic and intellectual criteria
to evaluate competence in psychotherapy practice (p.l 1).
Thus, a range of theoretical orientations in psychotherapy practice, including
eclectic or integrative orientations, is currently operational. In addition, the criteria
for successful psychotherapy training does not appear to relate to skills required in
psychotherapy practice. The range of supervision models adopted by multiple
supervisors during doctoral training in psychotherapy practice also adds to the
diversity of psychotherapy training approaches. As a result of diversity in the
practice and training of psychotherapy practice, it is difficult to evaluate the
adequacy of psychotherapy training. The statement below is applicable to all
programs in the collective case study as well. According to Page (1996):
The diversity of approaches to training psychologists leads to
fundamental differences in opinion about the core skills of clinical
psychologists. For some, the core skills are techniques (e.g. knowing
the treatments within the dominant paradigm); for others, the core
skills are methodologies (e.g. knowing how to select and reject
theories and treatments). Interestingly, staff from radically different
philosophies of science can coexist within the same department,
teaching the same students two philosophically incompatible
approaches to scientific practice, and at the end o f the day, agree that
they are teaching according to a scientist-practitioner model (p. 105).
However, supervision during psychotherapy training is a consistent strategy
used by training programs. Numerous models of supervision are currently
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
303
operational, which can be broadly categorized into two categories. The first
category includes supervision models that extrapolate “counseling theory to the
supervisory experience” (Holloway, 1987). Such models of supervision include
psychodynamic supervision, rational-emotive theory supervision, and behavioral
supervision (Goodyear, Bradley, & Bartlett, 1983). The second category includes
developmental supervision models that “apply theories of psychosocial
development” and 18 developmental models of supervision were identified as of
1987 (Holloway, 1987). Thus, supervisors could approach psychotherapy
supervision using a multitude of supervision models.
Two espoused theories of psychotherapy practice emerge from the collective
case study. First, all programs espouse natural science-based practice as the
scientific approach to psychotherapy practice. Core faculty members encourage
establishing scientific basis for psychotherapy practice using positivistic notions of
psychological science. Second, strategies of psychotherapy training mainly include
exposing students to multiple theoretical orientations with an equal emphasis placed
on training students in the use of ESTs. The latter fits the first espoused theory of
natural science-based practice.
Psychotherapy training involves students completing relevant coursework,
practica, and the pre-doctoral internship. This psychotherapy training format is
typically known as the “tripartite model” (Binder, 1993). All training programs in
the collective case study adopt the tripartite model. According to Binder (1993),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
304
such a curriculum structure is a positive trend because “training programs that are
characterized by a combination of structured didactic and experiential components
designed to teach specific procedures and skills in a progression from simple to
more complex performances tend to be more effective” (p.302).
Training programs, however, do not articulate the conceptual rationales for
how they conduct psychotherapy training. It is not surprising that conceptual
rationales are not clearly articulated because a clear consensus about how
psychotherapy training should take place does not emerge in the academic literature
either (Binder, 1993).
Psychotherapy training can be delineated into its didactic and clinical
components. Didactic psychotherapy training includes coursework related to
psychotherapy. However, individual core faculty members probably differ not only
in their theoretical orientations but also in their specific approach to teaching
psychotherapy during didactic training. According to Page (1996):
Some will argue that since, for example, cognitive-behavioral
therapy (CBT) is the dominant paradigm in clinical psychology, a
scientist-practitioner model of training should provide a solid
foundation in the theory and techniques of CBT only.... Still others
will argue that the only way to steer a path through the proliferation
of theories and techniques in clinical psychology is to teach students
to begin with the client’s problem and examine the empirical
evidence for theories and treatments. Alternatively, others will argue
that the only way to navigate through the vast array of theories and
associated treatment is to teach students to adopt a theoretical
orientation, test it, and reject it in favour of an alternative approach
when it is falsified (p. 105).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
305
The above statement holds true for the specialty of counseling psychology and
extends to the programs in the collective case study as well.
The clinical component includes practicum training where students learn
psychotherapy skills primarily through clinical supervision. The supervisory
process primarily entails learning through role modeling and through apprenticeship
with the supervisor. Students in all the eight programs engage in the supervisory
process with multiple supervisors. Core faculty and adjunct faculty members
conduct supervision during practica. Typically, core faculty members supervise the
beginning-level practicum and adjunct faculty members and field supervisors
supervise advanced practica and field placements. Universities of Hume and Plato
did not make such explicit distinctions among supervisors although students receive
supervision by core and adjunct faculty members in these programs as well.
Core faculty members frequently supervise beginning level-practicum
emphasize the importance of establishing a scientific basis for psychotherapy
practice during supervision. The scientific basis for psychotherapy practice is
typically taught using four approaches. These include reinforcing positivistic
thinking in psychotherapy practice (e.g. hypothesis testing, collecting data),
utilizing positivistic research to inform psychotherapy practice (e.g. efficacy
studies, evidence-based interventions), supervision using the cognitive-behavioral
orientation in psychotherapy practice (although other theoretical orientations are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
306
also used), and didactic and practicum training in the use of ESTs. I discuss these
four approaches in greater depth now.
Scientific thinking in psychotherapy practice is defined using positivistic
assumptions of psychological science. For example, the training director of the
University of Heidegger program defined the scientist-practitioner as a professional
who thinks like a scientist in psychotherapy practice (IHeidegger):
TD: I think the whole notion of skepticism defines science and as a
practitioner if they adopt that skepticism, I think it helps to question
“where are the data?” I think the other sense of it is that the way of
thinking as a scientist that gets translated into the practitioner side.
So you get hypothesis testing, significance testing, so you gradually
test all sorts of hypotheses about your clients and gradually build a
theory. So those two main ways that scientist-practitioner applies. I
think there is another sense that they want to see data and a lot of
that is through stat [statistics] method courses, how to make sense of
the literature, and there is also the notion that simply taking stat
[statistics] courses changes our view of problems.
I think the majority of programs teach science and translate that in
practice so that when they graduate, they turn out and do think like
that and certainly when we do practicum, for the few of us who do,
we try to do that. I think the majority of programs teach science and
translate that [thinking scientifically] in practice so that the graduate
they turn out does think like that [like a scientist] and certainly when
we do practicum, for the few of us who do, we try to do that ( 1 1 . 8-
16; 25-28).
Similarly, the training director of the University of Socrates program described
positivistic thinking in psychotherapy practice as (ISocrates):
... a practitioner [who] uses scientific, logical reasoning and
develops their own hypotheses, tries to disconfirm those hypotheses
but also tries to integrate the literature into their treatment, using
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
307
evidence-based intervention, not just interventions but also in
understanding clients from an empirical basis (11.6-9).
The notion of applying positivistic thinking in psychotherapy practice is one of the
training objectives of the University of Hume’s training program as well. According
to the self-study, the training goal is “to develop the capacity to apply data
collection and hypothesis testing to the diagnostic and treatment planning process in
clinical work, psychological assessment, and supervision” (SSHume, p.4).
The second approach utilizes positivistic research-based knowledge in
psychotherapy practice. For example, among the five goals of the practicum
seminars, one goal is to “(a) to teach students to integrate scientific and scholarly
literature with their current practice experiences” (SSAristotle, p. 12). The
University of Hegel training director described one of his supervisory approaches
as, “in practicum I encourage students to read the literature dealing with various
kinds of problems” (11.190-191). Similarly, the University of Socrates training
director provided the following example and stated, “For example, if there are
attachment issues, then they read the literature on attachment not necessarily just
the research on attachment-based therapy” (ISocrates, 11.9-11). Finally, the
University of Hume training director stated (IHume):
In all the content classes, they are reading the science, the published
science and they are encouraged to also discuss not only that
[research] but also the application of that [research] in terms of what
is happening with the clinical work (11.149-152).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
308
Thus, scientific knowledge base, which is positivistic research-based knowledge, is
used to justify psychotherapy practice.
The third approach relates to the predominant theoretical orientation adopted
by core faculty members. Most core faculty members adopt the cognitive-
behavioral orientation in psychotherapy practice. For example, the training director
at University of Hegel described the core faculty members’ theoretical orientations
as follows (IHegel):
SR: And when the practitioner bent was operational, was there a
particular bent in terms of theoretical orientation?
TD: Pretty eclectic and humanistic as the practitioners were.
SR: And how has that changed?
TD: Well, the researchers are more cognitive-behavioral (11.22-29).
Similarly, the training director at the University of Husserl described core faculty
members’ theoretical orientations in psychotherapy practice as follows (IHusserl):
SR: In terms of the practice component, theoretical orientation kind
of things, how would you describe the spread in the department?
TD: I think that.. .if I have to pick one philosophy, it would be
cognitive-behavioral. That, of course, is not an adequate
representation of what everybody does. Frankly, each of us adopts
different approaches. Like in my area, of course, we do a lot of
cognitive-behavioral stuff because of working in patient
consultations in hospitals, given the medical procedures and stuff
like that. But I also use a lot of attachment-based conceptualizations,
family systems-related stuff. So I know some of the faculty use
psychodynamic concepts in their conceptualizations, interpersonal
approaches in their clinical work (11.174-183).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
309
Core faculty members’ favoring cognitive-behavioral orientation is congruent with
the importance core faculty members place on ESTs. Except for specific brief
dynamic therapies, most ESTs are based on cognitive-behavioral theoretical
orientation (Chambless, et al. 1996).
Finally, core faculty members and program objectives in all the programs
espouse the importance of didactic and practicum training in ESTs. Emphasis on
training in ESTs appears to be a result of changing job market needs, resulting from
the advent of managed care. More importantly, core faculty members view ESTs as
psychotherapy that has a positivistic scientific basis. University of Descartes’
training program director stated that core faculty members emphasized the need for
psychological science to inform psychotherapy practice during supervision,
although she did not subscribe to an absolute reliance on ESTs. According to her
(IDescartes):
SR: How about the practice component? ESTs, theoretical
orientation etc.
TD: We do teach ESTs and predominantly that they get... well, they
get a little introduction in the foundations in the counseling psych
class and they get some exposure in the practicum because both of us
who are practicum instructors are aware of ESTs. I am personally do
not overwhelm them with it, I use it to help them understand that we
support our work with research, but I don’t think ESTs is necessarily
the way to go but I will say something like this in the practicum,
“What will you do with this depressed client?” and we will have a
conversation about it and the students will go real humanistic on me
and I will go, “What is the best known EST for depression?” and the
student will not remember and I will say CBT and let us talk about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
310
that. So they are getting some awareness from the beginning and
then they take a course on research in counseling psychology and
that is where they get the heavy duty focus on process and outcome
research and ESTs (11.144-157).
The University of Husserl program training director described the emphasis placed
on training in ESTs as a way of utilizing scientific knowledge in psychotherapy
practice. I quote a relevant excerpt from the interview (IHusserl):
TD: One is clearly we have an emphasis on empirically or evidence-
based treatments. So in our pre-practicum, in our practicum, in our
advanced practicum, in our theories courses, we are always urging
students to look at the data, see what the data is telling you about
these particular issues, with this particular type of client or both. So,
for example, in the advanced practicum when they do their case
presentation, they also have to talk about the empirical [s/c] research
that supports what they are doing with the client (11.195-200).
I discuss the role of adjunct faculty members and field supervisors later in
the subsection on the theories-in-use of the scientist-practitioner model because
adjunct faculty members do not constitute the core membership of a training
program.
The second espoused theory of psychotherapy practice relates to strategies
of psychotherapy training. Most programs espouse the importance of students being
exposed and knowledgeable of different theoretical orientations as well as
becoming competent in the use of ESTs. According to the training director of the
program at University of Husserl (IHusserl):
SR: In terms of the practice component, theoretical orientation kind
of things, how would you describe the spread in the department?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
311
TD: I think that.. .if I have to pick one philosophy, it would be
cognitive-behavioral. That, of course, is not an adequate
representation of what everybody does. Frankly, each of us adopts
different approaches. Like in my area, of course, we do a lot of
cognitive-behavioral stuff because of working in patient
consultations in hospitals, given the medical procedures and stuff
like that. But I also use a lot of attachment-based conceptualizations,
family systems-related stuff. So I know some of the faculty use
psychodynamic concepts in their conceptualizations, interpersonal
approaches in their clinical work.
I think we do a pretty thorough job of integrating the two. I think
there are two main components to that. One is clearly we have an
emphasis on empirically or evidence-based treatments. So in our pre-
practicum, in our practicum, in our advanced practicum, in our
theories courses, we are always urging students to look at the data,
see what the data is telling you about these particular issues, with
this particular type of client or both. So, for example, in the
advanced practicum when they do their case presentation, they also
have to talk about the empirical research that supports what they are
doing with the client (11.174-183; 195-200).
Similarly, according to the program website of the University of Plato
program, “Courses on several forms of practice (e.g., individual, group,
supervision) are available, and a variety of theoretical orientations are represented,
although a clear focus on integrative therapy and empirically supported treatments
exists” (Counseling Psychology Program, p.27; Website).
Thus, programs’ espoused theories of psychotherapy practice can be
described as espousing the importance of educating students in diverse theoretical
orientations in psychotherapy and also training them in the use of ESTs. Core
faculty members typically supervise beginning level practica and they emphasize
the importance of establishing a scientific basis for psychotherapy practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
312
However, core faculty members’ criteria for establishing scientific basis for
psychotherapy practice are mostly limited to positivistic notions of psychological
science. The next subsection analyzes programs’ theories-in-use in psychotherapy
practice.
Theories-in-use o f Psychotherapy Practice
All the programs in the collective case study espoused the importance of
establishing scientific basis for psychotherapy practice. As mentioned previously,
core faculty members use positivistic notions of psychological science to establish
the scientific basis for psychotherapy practice. Consequently, programs in the
collective case study fail to use the human science approach to establish scientific
basis for psychotherapy practice. Second, they also fail to address the concerns
voiced in the academic literature about the lack of clinical relevance of positivistic
psychotherapy research. The circumscribed approach to establishing scientific basis
for psychotherapy practice, based on using the natural science approach only,
operates as a theory-in-use. Another theory-in-use of psychotherapy practice relates
to the strategies of psychotherapy training used by programs in the collective case
study. Programs encourage students to learn about various theoretical orientations
and they emphasize the use of ESTs during psychotherapy training. However,
theoretical orientations such as psychodynamic and existential orientations are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
313
incompatible with positivistic psychotherapy research, natural science-based
practice, and the rationales used in ESTs. Thus, the failure to address the potential
incompatibility of certain theoretical orientations with natural science-based
practice and ESTs, operates as another theory-in-use of psychotherapy practice. I
discuss each theory-in-use in greater depth now.
Training programs and core faculty members espouse the importance of
establishing a scientific basis for psychotherapy practice. The scientific basis is
operationalized using natural science methodologies and positivistic notions of
psychological science. Thus, encouraging students to think scientifically and utilize
scientific knowledge in psychotherapy practice entails using positivistic notions of
psychological science. The training directors described supervision by core faculty
members as encouraging students to think critically and approach psychotherapy
practice with a positivistic scientific stance. The limitations of natural science
methodologies and positivistic approaches in informing psychotherapy practice are
well documented (Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; Howard, 1985, 1993; Kanfer,
1990; Klien, 1995; Linden & Wen, 1990; Page, 1996; Polkinghome, 1984;
Rychlak, 1998; Ussher, 1991). Human science approaches have been identified as
mirroring psychotherapy practice and, hence, are considered more amenable for
generating clinically relevant research by providing a better link between research
and practice (Beutler, et al. 1995; Claibom, 1987; Hoshmand, 1991; Hoshmand &
Polkinghome, 1992; Stoker & Figg, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
314
However, all the training programs in the collective case study uniformly
failed to adopt the human science approach to psychotherapy practice, which I
define as human science-based practice, while training students to think
scientifically and utilize scientific knowledge in psychotherapy practice. Thus, the
failure of training programs and core faculty members to adopt the human science
approach to inform psychotherapy practice is an outcome of the theory-in-use.
It is not surprising that the human science-based practice is ignored because
of the bias inherent in programs wherein psychological science is defined using
only positivistic assumptions of psychological science. As I discussed in the
theories-in-use of psychological science, most programs espouse methodological
diversity but they value natural science approach to psychological science. On the
other hand, the academic literature on alternative research approaches identifies the
similarities in cognitive processes in human science approaches and psychotherapy
endeavors (Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992). Rennie (1994) described various
characteristics of the human science approach that have close resemblance to the
practice of psychotherapy:
All characteristically use natural language both as data and in
representation of results; all embrace reports on subjective
experience as legitimate data; all typically work with a small number
of selected data sources; all emphasize discovery more than
verification; all recursively combine inquiry and analysis; and all are
interpretive at root (p.237-238).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
315
Hoshmand (1991) made a similar observation that qualitative clinical inquiry is akin
to the nature of psychotherapy practice because of their “direct involvement with
human beings or social systems, commitment to self-scrutiny by the researcher, and
in-depth search for meanings in context” (p.437). University of Husserl program
training director was the only training director who acknowledged the differences in
the kind of thinking involved in positivistic research and psychotherapy practice
(IHusserl):
TD: One of the reasons is I think that it is sometimes very difficult
for people who are very practice-oriented to think like scientists and
it is really hard for science people to think like a practitioner. I mean
those are two very different ways of being, thinking, and learning
and knowing. Practice oriented is often times, it feels more
anecdotal, or intuitive whereas in the science-based approach it is
exactly the opposite. I think it is really very hard to find students that
excel in both ends of that which is why people tend to gravitate
toward one extreme or the other (11.375-381).
In chapter two, I reviewed the academic literature relating to lack of clinical
relevance of positivistic experiment-based psychotherapy research. None of the
programs in the collective case study addressed this issue although they use natural
science-based practice in psychotherapy training. I believe that the failure of
programs to address this issue of clinical relevance of positivistic psychotherapy
research is another outcome of the theory-in-use.
The second theory-in-use of psychotherapy practice relates to strategies of
psychotherapy training. The espoused theory of psychotherapy practice, which
encourages exposure to multiple theoretical orientations as well as learning the use
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
316
of ESTs, fails to acknowledge the potential incompatibility of these two strategies
in psychotherapy training. Although these two aspects of psychotherapy training
(exposure to theoretical orientations and ESTs) can be viewed as important and
necessary, none of the training directors acknowledged that not all theoretical
orientations (e.g. psychodynamic, existential, humanistic) are compatible with the
rationales used in ESTs. For example, core faculty members of the University of
Hume program tend toward a dynamic orientation. Similarly, University of Socrates
self-study states that the program subscribes to an integrative theoretical orientation.
Yet, both these programs also train students in ESTs. According to Binder (1993):
There is no sound evidence that clinical training - regardless of
therapeutic orientation - fosters effective therapeutic performance
(Bootzin & Ruggill, 1988; Schiffman, 1987; Strupp, Butler, &
Rosser, 1988; Wright, Horlick, Bouchard, Mathieu, & Zeichner,
1977). Based on this review of published descriptions of clinical
training in the 1970s, Garfield (1977) concluded: “Students are
taught a variety of theoretical and clinical concepts which are not
well defined or isolated, and comparatively little attention is paid to
learning specifically defined skills” (p.80). From their view of
empirical studies of training programs in the 1980s, Alberts and
Edelstein (1990) concluded that the quality and effectiveness of
clinical training is assumed more often than verified (p.302).
This evaluation of clinical training holds valid in training programs examined in the
collective case study because the trend of assuming the effectiveness of
psychotherapy training remains an assumption rather than a verified fact. I believe
that training programs fail to explicitly address such potential incompatibilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
317
(between different theoretical orientations such as existential or integrative
orientations and ESTs), contributing to a theory-in-use.
Different theoretical orientations in psychotherapy practice have different
theories of human behavior, therapeutic change, and the techniques of
psychotherapy. The mere ability to critically evaluate these differences would not
be sufficient for development in the practice arena. It is necessary for
psychotherapy training to also include a thorough examination of the different
assumptions of human behavior that different theoretical orientations hold and
include an examination of how certain theoretical orientations are not integrative in
their view of human behavior and change. Although some courses on
psychotherapy might include such discussions, the discourse on possible confusion
and contradictions in psychotherapy training is practically absent in the data
collected in the collective case study.
Thus, an examination of psychotherapy training in the eight programs reveal
a pattern where core faculty members emphasize adopting the natural science-based
practice in order to establish the scientific basis of psychotherapy practice. The
programs in the collective case study, consequently, failed to adopt the human
science approach in psychotherapy practice as a form of science-based practice.
Similarly, they also failed to address the concern about lack of clinical relevance of
positivistic psychotherapy research that has been made repeatedly in the academic
literature. The programs also espouse the importance of educating students in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
318
various theoretical orientations and in ESTs. The theories-in-use surfaces in
programs adopting a limited definition of science-based practice and not
questioning the possibility that a mere exposure to such a variety of approaches to
psychotherapy is insufficient and that certain theoretical orientations are not
compatible with the rationales used in natural science-based practice and in ESTs.
Programs espouse methodological diversity in research but they train
students in research using positivistic models of psychological science. Similarly,
psychotherapy training is espoused as establishing scientific basis for
psychotherapy practice and includes students’ exposure to multiple theoretical
orientations. However, core faculty members favor a single approach to
psychotherapy using natural science-based practice and do not examine the
potential incompatibilities of certain theoretical orientations with the rationales of
natural science-based practice. The next subsection describes the espoused theories
of the scientist-practitioner model.
Espoused Theories o f the Scientist-Practitioner Model
In the academic literature, psychological science is defined using natural
science and human science approaches. The former approach conceptualizes
research as entailing quantitative research methods and the latter approach
subscribes to qualitative research methods. In the last two decades, the academic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
319
discipline has espoused the importance of methodological diversity wherein
research training involves teaching quantitative and qualitative research methods.
The rationale of espousing methodological diversity is the equal legitimacy
accorded to different approaches to psychological science and research and the
acknowledgement that no single approach can lead to complete understanding of
the subject under study. Most programs in the collective case study espouse
methodological diversity in research training. However, as the analysis of theories-
in-use of psychological science indicated, all the programs continue to value,
emphasize, and place greater legitimacy in the natural science, positivistic approach
to psychological science and primarily train students in quantitative research
methods.
The conceptual rationales for psychotherapy training are not clearly
articulated in the academic literature (Binder, 1993, p.301) or in the espoused
theories of psychotherapy practice in the collective case study. All the programs in
the collective case study offer psychotherapy training using the “tripartite model”
(Binder, 1993) wherein the didactic and experiential components are combined
during psychotherapy training. Programs primarily rely on didactic coursework on
theories of psychotherapy, practicum training, and the pre-doctoral internship for
providing psychotherapy training. The latter two use the apprenticeship model
where students are expected to acquire psychotherapy skills through role modeling
and supervision provided by supervisors. While discussing the theories-in-use of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
320
psychotherapy practice, I discussed the nature of core faculty supervision. Core
faculty members emphasize the notion of natural science-based practice by
reinforcing students to thinks scientifically in psychotherapy practice, utilize
existing positivistic scientific knowledge to inform psychotherapy practice, and
seek experiment-based empirical evidence for supporting psychotherapy practice.
Emphasis on ESTs fits in the last category. Adjunct faculty members and field
supervisors who provide significant portion of psychotherapy training and
supervision might differ in their supervisory approaches and I discuss the issue in
greater depth in the next subsection on theories-in-use of the scientist-practitioner
model.
The scientist-practitioner training model was adopted by clinical psychology
in 1949 during the Boulder Conference (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001) and
counseling psychology also adopted this model of training during the Northwestern
Conference in 1951 (Whiteley, 1984a, p. 32). The basic crux of the scientist-
practitioner model involves integration of the psychological science and
psychotherapy practice in doctoral training. However, integration of psychological
science and psychotherapy practice has proved to be problematic and the extensive
debates in the academic literature have focused on the conceptual, epistemological,
and methodological issues relating to integration of science and practice (Albee,
1970; Binder, 1993; Hoshmand, 1991; Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; John,
1998; Page, 1996; Rennie, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
321
In addition, the concept of integrating science and practice has been defined
in different ways in the academic literature (Zachar & Leong, 2000). Multiple
interpretations of what integration entails relate to the specific philosophy of
science academicians subscribe to. With regard to the philosophy of science
informing the nature of integration, there are two primary approaches evident in the
literature. First, integration is defined using the natural science approach; second,
integration is defined using the human science approach. When the scientist-
practitioner model was instituted, the natural science approach in psychological
science was dominant and, consequently, programs adopted the natural science
approach to integration. For example, Thome’s description of integration in 1947
(two years prior to the inception of the scientist-practitioner model) describes a
natural science approach to integration. Thome described integration as (Hayes, et
al. 1999):
The increasing application of the experimental approach to the
individual case and to the clinician’s own ‘experience’. Ideally,
diagnosis (description) and treatment of each individual case may be
regarded as a single and well-controlled experiment. The treatment
may be carefully controlled by utilizing single therapeutic factors,
observing and recording results systematically, and checking through
the use of appropriate quantitative laboratory studies (p.3).
The above description closely resembles the notion of natural science-based
practice wherein psychotherapy practice is understood as an extension of the
positivistic-based scientific experiment in the clinical setting. Extending the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
322
positivistic scientific endeavor in psychological practice, thus, defines the nature of
integration.
The human science approach, on the other hand, conceptualizes the
mutuality of science and practice such that, “psychological science as a human
practice and psychological practice as a human science inform each other”
(Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992). The human science approach accords equal
legitimacy to the practical reasoning used by practitioners and employs
practitioners’ contextual understanding and their personal knowledge to inform
psychological research. Human science approach uses qualitative methods that
mirror the practitioner’s cognitive processes. Such an approach defines integration
of science and practice as constituting practitioner-based inquiry that includes the
experientially based body of practitioner knowledge as informing research
(Hoshmand, 1991; Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992). Thus, human science-based
practice would attempt to capture the nature of praxis and phronesis.
It is also important to note that although the natural science and human
science approaches are identified as the two primary competing models of science
and practice, psychologists subscribe to a wider range of philosophies of science.
Thus, the varieties of interpreting the scientist-practitioner are much wider.
According to Page (1996), a scientist-practitioner could adopt an inductive or
empirical, falsificationist, a paradigmatic, an anarchistic, and a variety of other
philosophies of science to define integration of science and practice (p. 105). For
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
323
example, an empirical scientist-practitioner would begin by collecting data in order
to determine universally generalizable statements about a particular disorder and its
treatment. On the other hand, a falsificationist scientist-practitioner “would not
begin with data, but with a theory of the process and outcome of treatment. In order
to put the validity of the theory to the test, data would be collected in an effort to
falsify the theory” (p. 105). Thus, the scientist-practitioner could differ in his/her
approach to integration, depending on the particular philosophy of science he/she
subscribes to.
In addition to the range of conceptualizations of the scientist-practitioner
model, the historical influence of the VA in shaping the nature of doctoral training
played a significant role in the implementation of the scientist-practitioner model.
As mentioned in the review of the literature, the VA created an alliance between the
clinical work being conducted in hospitals with scientific inquiry taking place in
universities (Halgin & Murphy, 1995, p.435). Prior to the inception of the scientist-
practitioner model, professional training of psychotherapists took place in various
institutional settings where psychologists practiced (Mitchell, 1977). In fact, no
formal relationship existed between the academy and professional training (p.89).
But, the Boulder Conference participants decided to implement the scientist-
practitioner model through a PhD degree granted by academic institutions, wherein
psychological science would inform psychotherapy practice as part of the
integrative task.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
324
The decision to train scientist-practitioners in academic institutions has
overlooked the entrenched values of the academy as a research institution.
Consequently, psychotherapy training and integration of science and practice, as
part of implementing the scientist-practitioner model, continues to be a problem.
According to Ellis (1992):
The PhD degree was (and is) a research- and academically oriented
degree; its recipients were trained to teach and do research, and the
major aim of graduate programs was the training of their students so
that they could qualify for academic positions. Research,
publications, and the development of scientific psychology were
major goals of faculty involved in graduate training, and the values
associated with these goals were carefully and jealously transmitted
to the next generation of psychologists, who were instructed to carry
the torch. Students and faculty who deviated substantially from this
view of the psychological world were viewed suspicion;
occasionally they were seen as disloyal or as second-class citizens.
Faculty who showed excessive interest in professional or applied
affairs were frequently excluded from the department power
structure. Similarly, students who indicated that they wanted to do
applied work rather than teach in universities could be made to feel
either disloyal or even incompetent. The value system of the
academic-research-experimental psychologists prevailed largely
intact until about 1960 and is still dominant in many PhD graduate
programs (p.570).
Thus, the combination of hegemony of natural science methodologies coupled with
doctoral training in university settings, that values research (specifically positivistic
research) more than applied practice, has resulted in continuing challenges in
implementing the scientist-practitioner training model.
The espoused theories of the scientist-practitioner is based on information
gathered from self-studies, program website information, program handbooks, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
325
relevant statements from training directors’ interviews. All the programs in the
collective case study espouse the reciprocal relationship between science and
practice, as justifying their adherence to the scientist-practitioner model. University
of Hume adheres to the scientist-professional model but emphasizes the integration
of science and practice as a training goal as well. All programs, however,
emphasize a positivistic scientific approach to psychotherapy practice while
describing the reciprocal relationship between science and practice. I termed this
approach as natural science-based practice. I briefly describe the various conceptual
definitions of the scientist-practitioner model, programs in the collective case study
espoused, before further discussing their espoused theories.
University of Aristotle’s counseling psychology program’s self-study states
that the integration of science and practice is conceived as a “blending of science
and practice” through the “reciprocal relationship between science and practice”
(SSAristotle, p.4). A closer examination of the program’s strategies of integration
revealed a commitment to integration using the notion of natural science-based
practice.
University of Plato’s program website provides a detailed description of its
goals in doctoral training stating that its first goal is to “educate counseling
psychologists who can think scientifically in both research and applied settings”
(Counseling Psychology Program; Website). The training director of the program
espoused the above training goal and added that she views scientist-practitioners as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
326
professionals who engage in research and psychotherapy practice. Her description
defines integration as doing research and practice simultaneously.
University of Hegel training program defines integration as akin to
application of psychological research in psychotherapy practice. The training goals
involve training students in employing, conducting, and utilizing research findings
in practice (SSHegel, p.2). The training director, although critical of official
training-related terms, defined integration of science and practice as balancing the
realities of clinical work with knowledge gained in the research arena (IHegel,
11.141-146). He also acknowledged that the program typically provided parallel
training in research and psychotherapy practice and he viewed integration as a
process wherein students think critically and preserved a scientific attitude in
psychotherapy practice.
University of Heidegger training program describes the scientist-practitioner
as a professional competent in consuming and generating research in applied areas
as well as in formulating research (SSHeidegger, p.7). The training director
espoused this view and emphasized the quality of scientific skepticism and using
critical thinking in research and practice (IHeidegger, 11.1-19). Both descriptions
emphasize the notion of natural science-based practice. The training director also
described the scientist-practitioner as a professional who conducts research and
engages in psychotherapy practice as one of the multiple definitions of the scientist-
practitioner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
327
The University of Socrates training program defines the scientist-
practitioner as “the practice of the profession [that] involves both being informed by
and contributing to scientific knowledge” (SSSocrates, p.4). The training director
used the term “blurring of boundaries between science and practice” and
emphasized the importance of research being meaningful in the clinical context and
clinical work being informed by scientific research (ISocrates, 11.1-14, 90-96).
University of Hume training program adopted the scientist-professional
training model, which does not appear to be substantively different from the
scientist-practitioner model. The main difference between the two training models
relates to the explicit statement that the scientist-professional model trains students
to function as health service providers in addition to being competent in various
aspects of research. However, the scientist-professional model conceptualizes
integration of science and practice as clinical work being informed by positivistic
scientific knowledge (SSHume, p.4). Such a concept is similar to the oft-repeated
theme of natural science-based practice that is evident in other scientist-practitioner
training programs in the collective case study. The training director also espoused
this concept by emphasizing the importance of professionals becoming consumers
and producers of research and approaching psychotherapy practice from a scientific
stance (IHume, 11.1-11).
According to the University of Descartes self-study description of the
scientist-practitioner model, “Science and the professional practice of counseling
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
328
psychology are conceptualized as interdependent processes where science
influences professional practice and, in turn, is influenced by the practice of
psychology and demands from society to meet contemporary public health needs”
(SSDescartes, p.9). The training director stated that integration of science and
practice is a systematic approach to research and psychotherapy practice, which is
taught through various strategies of integration such as the curriculum structure,
faculty modeling, supervision, and classroom discussion (IDescartes, 11.166-183).
All the strategies mentioned emphasize the importance of positivistic scientific
thinking while engaging in psychotherapy practice.
University of Husserl describes the scientist-practitioner as a professional
who has “the ability to integrate science and practice, with science informing
practice and vice versa” (SSHusserl, p.8). The training director described
integration similarly and included the emphasis on training in ESTs and focus on
applied research as ways of integrating science and practice, a description similar to
natural science-based practice (IHusserl, 11.188-200).
The espoused theories of the scientist-practitioner model relates to how
different programs in the collective case study define the scientist-practitioner and
integration of psychological science and psychotherapy practice. A cursory
examination of the above mentioned conceptual definitions reveals two consistent
themes across all the eight programs. First, all programs acknowledge the reciprocal
relationship between science and practice which is described by various terms such
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
329
as “reciprocal relationship”, “blending of science and practice”, “science and
practice as interdependent processes”, and other similar descriptions. Second, all the
programs in the collective case study emphasize the importance of approaching
psychotherapy practice with a scientific stance. Typically, this emphasis relates to
the importance of thinking scientifically, having critical thinking skills or scientific
skepticism, or having a scientific stance in research and practice. Scientific thinking
uses the tenets of positivistic science.
Scientist-practitioner programs are described as operating on science-
practice continuum where in programs vary in their emphasis on science and
practice in doctoral training (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001; Stoltenberg, et al. 2000).
The science-practice continuum is evident in programs in the collective case study
as well. For example, University of Aristotle espouses natural science approaches to
psychological science and psychotherapy practice and offers doctoral training in
congruence with its espoused theories. The program is predominantly research
oriented as described in the case description in the previous chapter. Universities of
Hegel and Heidegger are in the middle position of this continuum. Both these
programs are research oriented but they are relatively more open to methodological
diversity in comparison to other programs in the collective case study. In addition,
both programs concede the differences in the nature of research and practice
activities. University of Heidegger describes psychotherapy training as, “grounded
in the assumptions that there is both (1) a “common clinical wisdom” that guides
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
330
practice and (2) common factors (such as certain relationship qualities; client
expectations; and so on) that transcend particular theory” (SSHeidegger, p. 16).
However, the training director described integration of science and practice using
the notion of natural science-based practice. University of Socrates, on the other
hand, equally emphasizes the importance of practice informing research or practice-
based science. For example, “students are encouraged in practica to generate
researchable questions from their clinical work” (SSSocrates, p.21). In addition, the
self-study states that (SSSocrates):
... while students are in their first counseling practicum, they are
also enrolled in the year-long seminar on counseling theory,
research, and practice. This seminar, which serves as the prototype
for the recent Division 17 Project to Integrate Science and Practice,
provides a structure opportunity (a) to integrate theory, research, and
practice (including historical, sociological, and political factors
influencing the emergence of theoretical and research paradigms),
(b) to study alternative methods of inquiry for counseling research
(from comparative efficacy research to qualitative methods), and (c)
to review and analyze existing psychotherapy research from the
perspectives of conceptual and methodological rigor as well as
relevance to practice (p.27).
The above description from the University of Socrates’ program self-study reveals
an emphasis on generating clinically relevant research. In addition, core faculty
members conduct research using qualitative research methods and areas of research
include developing an understanding of practitioners’ experiences. For example,
one faculty member’s recent publication is about experiences of psychotherapists
and another study uses the narrative/constructionist approach to understand a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
331
specific kind of psychotherapy. (Faculty and Staff, p.4; Website). Thus, University
of Socrates leans toward the practice end of the continuum, both in terms of the
equal legitimacy accorded to psychotherapy practice along with research as well as
using notions of practice-based science.
I define integration of psychological science and psychotherapy practice as a
reciprocal relationship such that psychological science informs psychotherapy
practice and psychotherapy practice informs psychological science. The reciprocity,
however, functions in a manner where the knowledge generated through research
has meaningful utility in psychotherapy practice and practitioners are in a position
to meaningfully critique existing research in order to inform future research. With
the exception of University of Socrates, all the programs in the collective case study
espouse the reciprocal relationship between psychological science and
psychotherapy practice, but with an emphasis on natural science-based practice.
The conceptual basis of psychological science and psychotherapy practice and how
the goals of integration are implemented is the focus of the next subsection on
theories-in-use of the scientist-practitioner model.
Theories-in-use o f the Scientist-Practitioner Model
Theories-in-use of the scientist-practitioner model emerge from multiple
sources. The strategies of integration, training directors’ views on why integration is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
332
problematic, and internal and external factors that influence training all contribute
to programs’ theories-in-use. The case descriptions in the previous chapter
delineated these categories for purposes of clarity. I integrated information from all
these categories in this subsection in order to describe programs’ theories-in-use.
Such an analysis will provide answers to the three research questions posed in the
third chapter about how programs interpret and implement the scientist-practitioner
training model and identify various influential factors that play a critical role in
doctoral training.
Three major theories-in-use emerge from comparative case analysis. First,
no clear consensus exists regarding what integration entails. Second, the reciprocal
relationship between science and practice typically manifests as a separation of
science and practice. Third, various factors - administrative, financial, and
academic - contribute to the development and maintenance of theories-in-use.
Conceptual Definitions o f Integration
Espoused theories of the scientist-practitioner model uniformly
acknowledge the reciprocal relationship between psychological science and
psychotherapy practice. If one merely read the different self-studies, it would create
the impression that all the eight programs are practically identical in their
conceptual approaches to integrating psychological science and psychotherapy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
333
practice. However, programs tend to define the reciprocal relationship between
science and practice in different ways. There are four different approaches to
understanding the integration of psychological science and psychotherapy practice.
First, integration is defined as a way of thinking in research and psychotherapy
practice. Second, integration is viewed as doing research and psychotherapy
practice. Third, integration is understood as having a knowledge-and skill-base in
research and psychotherapy practice. Both these definitions lend themselves to
parallel training in research and psychotherapy practice, with no integrative aspects.
Fourth, integration is defined as application of positivistic research findings in
psychotherapy practice.
Although programs in the collective case study conceptualize the integration
of science and practice differently, all the programs tend to adopt similar strategies
of integration. These strategies typically include the curriculum structure where
students take research and practice-related coursework or practicum every semester,
faculty mentoring, active participation in pre-dissertation research, emphasis on
developing critical thinking skills in research and practice, and comprehensive
examinations or completion of doctoral portfolio as the evaluative component.
Thus, an initial examination of espoused theories would create the impression that
all programs espouse integration of science and practice and use similar strategies
of integration. However, an in depth examination reveals that integration of science
and practice is approached in different ways by programs. Consequently, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
334
implementation of these strategies of integration would create different learning
experiences for students. I now discuss the four different definitions of integration
used by programs in the collective case study.
Four programs - Universities of Heidegger, Socrates, Hume, and Descartes
- define integration of science and practice as entailing a way of thinking in
psychological research and psychotherapy practice. Integration defined as a way of
thinking involves using skills of critical thinking, adopting a positivistic scientific
stance, and having an attitude of scientific skepticism while conducting research
and engaging in psychotherapy practice.
Universities of Plato and Heidegger define integration as doing research as
well as practice. Most programs require students to actively participate in pre
dissertation research, typically with faculty research teams, and engage in
psychotherapy practice through the practicum sequence. Thus, a scientist-
practitioner is defined as a professional who conducts research and engages in
psychotherapy practice. The programs do not explicitly question if the philosophy
of science in research and the philosophy of psychotherapy practice in clinical work
are congruent. Thus, a scientist-practitioner, in theory, could conduct positivistic,
quantitative research and also approach therapy from an existential theoretical
orientation, which are two mutually incompatible approaches to understanding the
human subject.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
335
Universities of Plato and Hegel define integration as having the competency
or having a knowledge- and skill-base in order to conduct research and engage in
psychotherapy practice. Similar to the previous approach, this approach lends itself
to parallel training in research and practice because the conceptual approach to
research and psychotherapy practice might now always be compatible.
Application defined, either as applying scientific thinking or utilizing
scientific knowledge in psychotherapy practice, is the fourth definition of
integration. All the programs in the collective case study espouse the notion of
applying natural science-based practice as defining integration.
Thus, the integration of psychological science and psychotherapy practice is
conceptualized in four different ways by the programs in the collective case study.
The four approaches of thinking, doing, knowing, and applying the positivistic
scientific endeavor in psychotherapy practice define integration. These four
approaches are interrelated and programs differ regarding what aspect of these four
activities they emphasize during doctoral training. However, there is no clear
consensus regarding a single acceptable definition of integration. The next
subsection analyzes how these four different conceptualizations of integration
manifest as a separation of science and practice rather than as an integration of
science and practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
336
Manifestation o f Separation o f Science and Practice
The first conceptual definition of integration of psychological science and
psychotherapy practice is the notion that psychotherapy practice should be
approached scientifically and training involves teaching students the ability to think
scientifically while conducting research as well as in psychotherapy practice. As
mentioned previously, scientific thinking involves utilizing the tenets of positivistic
science and, hence, psychotherapy practice is viewed as an extension of the
scientific experiment conducted in the academy. I quote some relevant excerpts
from interviews with the training directors. According to the training director of
University of Heidegger (IHeidegger):
I think there are two other notions of the scientist-practitioner - one
will be that people, the graduates are good consumers of research,
use critical thinking so that as they enter practice, they are able to
use their judgment well, I think the whole notion of skepticism
defines science and as a practitioner if they adopt that skepticism, I
think it helps to question “where are the data?” I think the other
sense of it is that the way of thinking as a scientist that gets
translated into the practitioner side. So you get hypothesis testing,
significance testing, so you gradually test all sorts of hypotheses
about your clients and gradually build a theory. So those two main
ways that scientist-practitioner applies. I think there is another sense
that they want to see data and a lot of that is through stat [statistics]
method courses, how to make sense o f the literature, and also there is
also the notion that simply taking stat [statistics] courses changes
our view of problems. To some extent that models how faculty
model their thinking in their courses and how they link it to existing
literature to find answers (11.6-18).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
337
Similarly, the training director of the University of Socrates’ doctoral program
emphasized the importance of scientific thinking in informing psychotherapy
practice. According to her (ISocrates):
what we try to do is try to say that we are trying to blur the
boundaries between science and practice so that a practitioner uses
scientific, logical reasoning and develops their own hypotheses, tries
to disconfirm those hypotheses but also tries to integrate the
literature into their treatment, using evidence-based intervention, not
just interventions but also in understanding clients from an empirical
basis (11.5-9).
University of Hume’s program training director also emphasized scientific thinking
and she described the concept of the scientist-practitioner in the following manner
(IHume):
It is mostly a philosophy that we embrace. We want our students to
be consumers of research and we would also like them to be
producers and they seem to do an excellent job of that. But the
emphasis is that regardless of what profession they go into, that they
approach it from a scientific stance (11.8-11).
Finally, the University of Descartes training director described the scientist-
practitioner by sharing her training history and how she learned to integrate
research and practice (IDescartes):
I sort of think back to my own history in my master’s program I
didn’t learn a thing about science but I learned a great deal about
counseling skills. It was a fabulous program and I took a lot of
counseling courses in gestalt and various kind of therapies and I was
never taught really how to look but it was more it feels good to do it
rather does it do anything. And in my Ph.D. program that was in ...
State, I just really learned to think more critically about what was I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
338
was doing and the techniques and approaches to knowing and what
we know about these interventions that validate it as a good thing to
do. And I think we do that really well in our program, not so much
plan-fully but we all sort of think that way (11.175-183).
As I mentioned previously, all the programs adopt a positivistic stance in
research and the assumption is that the tenets of positivistic science can be extended
to psychotherapy practice. A practitioner’s systematic approach in psychotherapy,
on the other hand, is based on personal experience conducting psychotherapy, the
constraints of the clinical setting, and informed by the dynamics and demands of the
therapeutic relationship. Thus, the systematic approach of the practitioner is not
always conducive for positivistic scientific thinking. Thus, the goal of using
positivistic thinking as defining integration typically manifests as a separation of
science and practice.
Integration of psychological science and psychotherapy practice is also
conceptualized as doing research and practice. Such a definition lends itself to
parallel training in psychological science and psychotherapy practice because
students could conduct research and engage in psychotherapy practice, even if
research and psychotherapy are based on different models of human behavior. I
quote some relevant excerpts from interviews where training directors describe this
particular definition o f the scientist-practitioner. University o f Plato training
director stated that an ideal faculty mentor should be actively involved in research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
339
and practice in order to function as role model of a scientist-practitioner. According
to her (IPlato):
SR: So would you consider yourself a scientist-practitioner?
TD: I definitely would be. I am an academic - 1 teach, I research and
I always had a private practice from the day I graduated.... I was
definitely sort of of the mindset that we need somebody who can do
both (11.178-181; 244-245).
Similarly, University of Heidegger’s program training director stated that, “There
are multiple definitions of the scientist-practitioner. One version has to do with
doing practice and doing research...” (IHeidegger, 11.4-5).
Once again, programs and training directors do not question the kind of
research and psychotherapy practice a professional might engage in. It is possible
for a professional to conduct positivistic research and yet subscribe to an integrative
orientation in psychotherapy practice, two mutually incompatible approaches to
understanding the human subject.
The third definition of the scientist-practitioner focuses on acquiring
knowledge and skills in research and psychotherapy practice respectively. Thus,
having a knowledge- and skill-base in psychological science and psychotherapy
practice is viewed as integrative in nature. For example, among the various goals of
training in the University of Plato training program, one of the goals attempts to
“educate Counseling Psychologists who can think scientifically in both research and
applied settings” and requires students to “Acquire a wide range of professional and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
340
psychological knowledge (Counseling Psychology Program; Website). Once again,
whether the knowledge and skills taught are based on similar assumptions of human
behavior is not questioned.
Finally, as described in the espoused theories of the scientist-practitioner,
the eight programs uniformly define integration as the application of scientific
thinking and scientific knowledge in psychotherapy practice. I quote relevant
excerpts from the cases on the application of psychological science in
psychotherapy practice or natural science-based practice before analyzing the
problem of clinical relevance of research in greater detail.
The University of Aristotle’s program self-study described various strategies
of integration including the program’s practicum training goals, which espouses the
notion of application. According to the self-study, (SSAristotle):
... during the first practicum that is traditionally completed at the
University Counseling and Consulting Services (UCCS), students
are required to demonstrate increasing competence in the application
of counseling theory to practice, discrimination in selection of
theory, and increasing awareness of their own preferences for
models of counseling (SSAristotle, p. 10).
Among the five goals of the practicum seminars, one goal is to “(a) to teach
students to integrate scientific and scholarly literature with their current practice
experiences” (p. 12). The University of Plato program training director
acknowledged that integration during training is not always successful and
frequently takes place in the form of parallel training. Her description of practicum
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
341
supervision includes the notion of application, which is not as unilateral as some
other programs’ conceptualizations of integration. Encouraging clinical research
indicates an attempt to implement practice-based science as well (IPlato):
TD: That is a multi-million dollar question. Usually, they say they
integrate and they teach some science and they teach some practice. I
wouldn’t say that every faculty does it successfully but I think, for
example, faculty who teach practicum will sometimes become
research studies, efficacy studies about things. There is something
called the Clinician’s Research Digest and I know that some faculty
have shown that to their students in their practice courses and in the
research classes, there is discussion of and encouragement of doing
clinical research and that kind of thing. And we have students who
do that kind of thing (11.74-81).
I quote a similar comment about practicum supervision by the University of Hegel’s
program training director (IHegel):
TD: Again, when we supervise practicum we do look up journals
and look up literature on this and that and then some of our research
courses we bring up real life examples. But I think there is
integration throughout like that. When I supervise practicum and we
talk about a client and as we are going, we might integrate my
knowledge of both literature and experience. It is more of my belief
that when treating things like anxiety and depression, there are things
that are out there that can help this individual and there are times
when I recognize that the research on the subject is not very useful. I
think there are lots of relevant things like the stuff that Barlow has
done that I will use (11.363-371).
The self-study description o f the scientist-practitioner in the University o f
Heidegger included the notion of application and the self-study states that the goal
of doctoral training is to train a “professional who is able (upon review of theory
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
342
and research) to tailor, implement, and evaluate clinical applications of such theory
and research” (SSHeidegger, p.7).
University of Socrates’ training program also emphasized the importance of
science-based practice using the definition of application. However, compared to
the other programs in the collective case study, the program attempts a bilateral
approach to application wherein insights gleaned from clinical work is also used to
inform research. According to the self-study, “.. .training is undertaken in both
intervention methods and scientific inquiry, and in which the practice of the
profession involves both being informed by and contributing to scientific
knowledge” (SSSocrates, p.4). On the other hand, the University of Hume’s
program self-study clearly articulates a particular notion of application - application
of positivistic research findings and a scientific approach defined by positivism in
clinical practice. The self-study states that one of its training goals is help students,
“develop the capacity to apply data collection and hypothesis testing to the
diagnostic and treatment planning process in clinical work, psychological
assessment, and supervision” (SSHume, p.4).
A similar theme is evident in the description of practicum supervision by the
training director at University of Husserl (EHusserl):
TD: I think we do a pretty thorough job of integrating the two. I
think there are two main components to that. One is clearly we have
an emphasis on empirically or evidence-based treatments. So in our
pre-practicum, in our practicum, in our advanced practicum, in our
theories courses, we are always urging students to look at the data,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
343
see what the data is telling you about these particular issues, with
this particular type of client or both. So, for example, in the
advanced practicum when they do their case presentation, they also
have to talk about the empirical [sic] research that supports what
they are doing with the client (11.194-200).
Programs, however, subscribe to a positivistic model of science and research
while psychotherapy training involves an exposure to multiple theoretical
orientations. Although the additional emphasis on ESTs lends itself to positivistic
tenets, it is unclear if students solely adopt ESTs as their approach to psychotherapy
practice. It is possible that students might experience a separation of science and
practice if their model of psychotherapy does not fit the positivistic models of
psychological science. As mentioned previously, separation of science and practice
takes place because positivistic scientific thinking uses the assumptions of
theorizing while practical thinking in psychotherapy practice uses the assumptions
of praxis.
I believe for effective integration of science and practice to take place,
science-based practice needs to be based on human science-based practice and
complemented with practice-based human science. The latter involves research that
is informed by the realities of the clinical context. In addition, practitioners should
be in a position to critique research and facilitate further refinement of future
research. Conceptual definitions in the self-studies uniformly support the reciprocal
relationship between science and practice, as discussed in the espoused theories of
the scientist-practitioner. However, theories-in-use reveals a unilateral approach in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
344
defining integration. University of Socrates was the single exception to this pattern
in the collective case study. This particular program explicitly espouses the
importance of practice-based science in addition to science-based practice in its
self-study. In addition, doctoral training involves encouraging students to generate
and conduct research that is informed by the clinical context. Programs in the
Universities of Heidegger, Hume, Descartes, and Husserl appear to attempt the task
of practice-based science by emphasizing applied research in doctoral training.
However, most applied research is typically quantitative in orientation and has
limited application in psychotherapy practice.
The review of the literature in chapter two revealed that the clinical
relevance of research is problematic because the methodological approach in
psychological science did not generate clinically relevant research findings that
practitioners could use in their psychotherapy practice (Barlow, 1981a, 1981b;
Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Kanfer, 1990; Persons; 1991).
The theories-in-use of psychological science and the scientist-practitioner
model in the programs examined in the collective case study reveals that most
programs adopt a positivistic model of psychological science and research. This
model of science and research is decontextualized from the clinical context and
practitioners find research findings of limited or no clinical relevance. However,
programs in the collective case study do not question the possibility that natural
science-based practice might not be congruent with practical reasoning used by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
345
practitioners. Neither do programs acknowledge that positivistic psychotherapy
research might have limited clinical relevance, a limitation that has been repeatedly
identified in the academic literature.
Morrow-Bradley & Elliott (1986) listed the possible causes of the research-
practice gap in order to explain why practitioners do not utilize psychotherapy
research. These possible causes include issues such as research questions are not
clinically relevant, variables selected for study are not representative of clinical
reality, the populations are inadequately described and selected, data analysis
overemphasizes statistical information, and researchers make little attempt to
communicate their findings in a manner for psychotherapists can use (p. 188). These
possible causes can be encapsulated as issues relating to methodological approach
used in studying psychotherapy practice.
Goldfried & Wolfe (1996) stated that one reason for the problem of clinical
utility of research is due to “a gap between the global nature of research findings
and the usually specific nature of clinical dilemmas” (p. 1011). This gap is created
because of how research is conducted using experimental designs. According
Drabick & Goldfried (2000):
The group design that characterizes this research typically employs the
application of one “pure form” theoretical approach, which then is compared
to another approach in the treatment of a specific problem (Benson, 1992).
This research design, however, does not reflect accurately the uncontrolled
individual case application that oftentimes characterizes clinical practice
(p.331).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
346
Thus, the approach to knowledge generation and the kind of knowledge
generated are of limited utility to practitioners. Hayes, et al. (1999) concluded that
the primary reason for the science-practice gap is not because the goal of integration
is unattainable but “rather the inability to develop the tools to implement the idea in
a practice context where use of these tools is essential” (p. 16). Consequently,
practitioners prefer to use different kinds of knowledge base to inform their clinical
practice (Barlow, 1981b; Elliott, 1983; Luborsky, 1972; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott,
1986; Orlinsky & Howard, 1978; Parloff, 1980; Polkinghome, 1999; Rausch, 1974;
Rennie, 1994; Sechrest, 1975; Ward, 1964). Practitioners typically rely on personal
experience in conducting psychotherapy, personal theories of human behavior,
clinical case studies, and clinical workshops to inform their psychotherapy practice.
Finally, separation of science and practice also takes place during
supervision. Core faculty members emphasize establishing a positivistic scientific
basis for psychotherapy practice during supervision. It is not clear if adjunct faculty
members and field supervisors also share the same philosophy of psychotherapy
training and supervision. Programs assume that multiple supervisors approach
psychotherapy training and supervision in a uniform manner, which contributes to
another theory-in-use.
In most programs, core faculty members supervise beginning-level
practicum and adjunct faculty members and field supervisors provide supervision
for subsequent advanced-level practica and field placements. One training director
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
347
(University of Hegel) acknowledged that field supervisors approach clinical work
and supervision differently from core faculty members wherein the former tended
toward a more eclectic and experiential approach. He also stated that core faculty
members tended toward a cognitive-behavioral orientation, which he described as a
“simpler view of life” (IHegel, 1.185). A lack of clear understanding of how various
supervisors differ in their approach to supervision and psychotherapy training was
not acknowledged. It was assumed that adjunct faculty members and field
supervisors were uniformly effective in imparting necessary psychotherapy training
and supervision, that is congruent with the program’s training philosophy.
However, this is not the case. According to Binder (1993):
Because empirical data are lacking, any discussion about problems
with the supervisory process is speculative and must be based upon
personal experience and relevant clinical literature. Nevertheless,
such problems are sufficiently critical to the therapy training
endeavor to warrant even speculative discussion. It appears that an
identification process would occur gradually and the time allotted for
supervision during formal training may not provide the trainee
sufficient exposure to the supervisor for adequate consolidation of
his or her learning experiences. On the other hand, relatively limited
exposure to several supervisors (a common situation in most clinical
training programs) may result in a confusing picture of partial
identifications with diverse theoretical and technical approaches
(Dewald, 1987) (p.305).
Programs do not question the possibility o f fragmentation o f psychotherapy
training as a result of multiple supervisors training students in psychotherapy
practice. Instead, programs acknowledge core faculty members as primary mentors
in the scientific endeavor and adjunct faculty members and other field supervisors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
348
serving as role models in the clinical endeavor. According to the self-study of the
University of Aristotle’s program (SSAristotle):
The Budgeted Faculty (Core Faculty) provide the preliminary
influence vis-a-vis the scientist component of the scientist-
practitioner model of a counseling psychologist. The Adjunct and
Clinical Adjunct Faculty and other Contributors are all involved in
the training and supervision of our students. They demonstrate for
students what it means to be a practicing counseling psychologist in
settings within and outside the University (p. 16).
However, the implicit value placed on psychological science over psychotherapy
practice is revealed in the University of Hegel training director’s description of
adjunct faculty members in the program. He stated, “I think, if anything, may be
adjunct faculty feel like second class citizens and don’t feel like they are faculty but
they probably feel many times that they are more competent in practitioner stuff
than faculty” (IHegel, 11.346-348). Programs’ strategy of relying on core faculty
members for research mentoring and adjunct faculty members and field supervisors
for practice-related mentoring serves to separate science and practice rather than
integrate the two.
Thus, defining integration using the approach of natural science-based
practice and the possible differences in how core faculty members and adjunct
faculty members view psychological science, psychotherapy practice, and
integration contribute to a separation of science and practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
349
Factors influencing Doctoral Training
Program training directors frequently acknowledged that integration of
science and practice does not always successfully take place during training and
described the program training as providing parallel training in science and practice.
They also acknowledged various factors that influenced the training process. Internal
factors, within the departments where the programs are housed, included core faculty
members’ bias favoring positivistic research and research per se over psychotherapy
practice, lack of an internal department clinic for purposes of psychotherapy training,
students expressing greater interest in psychotherapy practice rather than research,
and programs’ housing in schools of education. External factors outside the
department also influenced training. These factors included the influence of managed
care in shaping the future job market for students and consequently doctoral training,
the pressure students experience to successfully match in a pre-doctoral internship
site, the academic pressures placed by the university system, and the influential role
of APA due to the accreditation process.
Based on the data collected in the collective case study, I identify two main
factors influencing doctoral training. The influential role of academic institutions in
shaping doctoral training and programs’ struggle to preserve their administrative
housing in the school of education, both influence doctoral training significantly. I
do not focus on the second factor because programs’ fit with the school of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
350
education relates to a problematic match between the professional identity of
counseling psychologists and schools of education’s policies and goals. The
problem of fit, although important for doctoral training, does not relate directly to
the interpretation and implementation of the scientist-practitioner model.
Specifically, it does not relate directly to how programs approach the task of
implementing the goals of integration.
Programs that espouse the scientist-practitioner training model and function
in academic institutions struggle to reconcile the goals and values of the university
institution with that of the training model. Universities are committed to the pursuit
of academic endeavors - generating research and securing research grants. Both
these activities add to the prestige and financial health of the academic institution.
This is especially the case in Research I universities where many accredited
counseling psychology doctoral programs are currently housed. However, the
scientist-practitioner training model aims to integrate science and practice. Thus,
doctoral training includes a practice component wherein students are training in the
practice of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy training does not actively contribute to
the academic pursuits of the academic institution. Psychotherapy training, as part of
implementing the scientist-practitioner model, is difficult in academic institutions
(Ellis, 1992; Halgin & Murphy, 1995, p.435; Mitchell, 1977). Thus, programs tend
to recruit core faculty members who are primarily researchers and who operate with
a clear preference for research and commitment to producing research. Core faculty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
351
members’ preference for research, particularly positivistic research, has already
been discussed in the previous subsection on theories-in-use in psychological
science.
Faculty recruitment is, thus, selective in attracting professionals with a clear
investment in research production. While discussing the various problems in
integrating science and practice, a few training directors acknowledged that
implementing the scientist-practitioner training model in an academic setting
contributed to the separation of science and practice. For example, the University of
Plato training director stated (IPlato):
SR: Why do you think integrating science and practice has been so difficult
for the whole field as such?
TD: I think it goes back to the role model issue we talked about. When our
faculty members are hired, they are hired for their interest in research and
they are the ones who teach students and so I think it is really hard because
you don’t have mentors who are doing both. And their mentors in
internships are practitioners and they get one or the other all the time. So I
think it is really hard because there are not many people who can or want to
do both.
SR: So when you look at your program, how would evaluate your program
in terms of integration?
TD: Honestly, we have got great practice training, we have got great science
training and I am not really sure that we integrate actually. We do some
integration but I don’t think it is all weaved well together. I think of it as two
overlapping circles then our programs overlap more than most programs but
there are not completely overlapping. Does that makes sense (11.204-221)?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
352
However, programs’ overemphasis on research can ironically have a negative
impact on research training if students perceive tenure-track faculty members as
being overburdened or too focused on a particular area of research (IHume):
SR: So you are saying that when programs are much more science-focused
or publication focused, especially in terms of faculty, that it is so time and
energy consuming that it doesn’t pass on as a positive attitude toward
research to students?
TD: I think so. Because the student ends up, either they end up surely
adopting the research of that faculty member and that approach to research
and they don’t expand beyond that or they externalize as being “this is
something I am going to do within this time frame of my career but that is
it”. So they don’t internalize the fact that this might be something they
might really be interested in and grow from that point (11.476-484).
Implementing the scientist-practitioner model in academic institutions
creates clashes of values, priorities, and cultures. These clashes relate to the
different worldviews held by academic researchers and practitioners. Psychotherapy
training is a significant part of implementing the scientist-practitioner model but it
is not an important or valued aspect of the academic endeavor. Thus, balancing the
demands of the training model with the demands of academic institutions will
continue to be a challenge.
Summary o f Comparative Case Analysis
The goal of this dissertation study was to examine how accredited
counseling psychology doctoral programs interpret and implement the Scientist-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
353
practitioner training model in multiple ways. The theoretical literature relating to
the scientist-practitioner model locates ambiguities in several areas: (a) the extent to
which science or practice should be emphasized (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001), (b)
the appropriate definition of psychological science (Hoshmand & Polkinghome,
1992; Howard, 1985, 1993; Kanfer, 1990; Klien, 1995; Linden & Wen, 1990; Page,
1996; Polkinghome, 1984; Rychlak, 1998; Ussher, 1991), and (c) the functional
challenges in integrating science and practice in actual training programs (Bernstein
& Kerr, 1993; Drabick & Goldfried, 2000; Frank, 1984; Goldfried, 1984; Halgin &
Murphy, 1995, p.441; Hayes, et al. 1999, p.11-12; Hoshmand, 1991; Sprinthall,
1990).
In order to examine how programs varied in their training endeavors, I
conducted a collective case study of eight accredited counseling psychology doctoral
programs that espouse the scientist-practitioner training model. One program in this
collective case study adopted the scientist-professional training model. This model
was deemed not to be substantively different from the scientist-practitioner model.
The scientist-professional training model also aims to integrate science and practice
in doctoral training. I posed three research questions that I sought to answer through
the collective case study - how do programs conceptualize the scientist-practitioner
model, what are the different strategies of integration, and what are the influential
factors that impact training?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
354
Data was collected from multiple sources - program self-studies, program
website information, student handbooks, course syllabi, interviews with current
training directors, and dissertation abstracts since 1997.1 analyzed the collected data
using the template of theories of action and differentiated between programs’
“espoused theories” and their “theories-in-use”. Espoused theories relate to
programs’ official statements of what they propose to do in doctoral training, while
theories-in-use relate to what I deemed to be the actual implementation of the
training goals.
The comparative case analysis revealed that most programs espouse the
importance of methodological diversity in research training. The theories-in-use of
psychological science revealed that programs, that espouse methodological diversity
in research training, effectively train students in positivistic psychological science
and quantitative research methods only. Core faculty members are also tacitly biased
against other approaches to psychological science and research and they view
qualitative research methods as not empirical and as having less scientific rigor.
They value knowledge generation primarily through using natural science
methodologies. The bias against non-positivistic research methodologies is evident
in the relatively minor focus placed on research training in qualitative research
methods. Programs typically offer one elective course in qualitative research
methods, which is not sufficient for training students to become competent in the use
of qualitative research methods. Faculty research teams provide student mentoring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
355
primarily in quantitative research. In addition, majority of students continue to
produce positivistic research-based dissertations.
Programs espouse psychotherapy training using three strategies. First, core
faculty members emphasize establishing scientific basis for psychotherapy practice.
For this purpose, they adopted the approach of natural science-based practice.
Second, programs educate students in multiple theoretical orientations and ESTs.
Third, core faculty and adjunct faculty members (including field supervisors)
supervise students during psychotherapy training. Thus, multiple supervisors are
influential in the training process.
Two theories-in-use of psychotherapy practice emerged in the comparative
case analysis. Because core faculty members use natural science-based practice as
the sole template for psychotherapy training, they do not engage in human science-
based practice or conduct research based on practitioner-based inquiry. In the
academic literature, both human science-based practice and practitioner-based
inquiry have been identified as important factors for the successful integration of
science and practice (Hoshmand, 1991; Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; Rennie,
1994). The second theory-in-use of psychotherapy practice relates to the strategies
used in psychotherapy training. Students typically learn about different theoretical
orientations in didactic coursework on psychotherapy and during psychotherapy
supervision. In addition, core faculty members emphasize establishing scientific
basis for psychotherapy practice using notions of natural science-based practice. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
356
potential incompatibility between certain theoretical orientations (such as existential
and gestalt therapies) and natural science-based practice, positivistic psychotherapy
research, and ESTs is not questioned. Instead, the assumption that the two strategies
of exposing students to different theoretical orientations and supervising them using
natural science-based practice are congruent, operates as a theory-in-use.
The main goal of the scientist-practitioner model is integration of science and
practice in doctoral training. All programs in the collective case study conceptualize
science and practice as interrelated and interdependent. However, four different
interrelated definitions of integration emerged in the comparative case analysis.
Integration is viewed as a way of thinking, doing, knowing, and applying. In all these
definitions, greater value and emphasis was placed on positivistic psychological
science informing psychotherapy practice. For example, integration is defined as
thinking scientifically (using positivistic tenets of psychological science) in
psychotherapy practice, doing research and psychotherapy practice (in a systematic,
scientific manner), having competency in research and psychotherapy practice, and
applying scientific knowledge (e.g. positivistic psychotherapy research) in
psychotherapy practice.
However, programs’ conceptualization of psychotherapy practice and their
approach to psychotherapy training, as described in their theories-in-use of
psychotherapy practice, lead to separation of science and practice rather than
integration. Separation of science and practice manifests in three different ways.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
357
First, programs fail to acknowledge that positivistic approaches in psychological
science are not congruent with practical reasoning used by practitioners.
Consequently, human science-based practice and practice-based science are
uniformly ignored in doctoral training. Second, programs do not take into
consideration, the criticisms made in the academic literature about the lack of clinical
relevance of positivistic psychotherapy research. Third, programs assume that
multiple supervisors, who supervise students during psychotherapy training, are
uniform in their approach to psychotherapy training.
In the main, programs interpret the scientist-practitioner model in different
ways using varying definitions of integration. In contrast, all programs in the
collective case study adopt similar strategies of integration such as curriculum
structure that incorporates research and practice-related courses every semester,
organizing faculty research teams for research mentoring, emphasizing the
importance of ESTs, and emphasizing natural science-based practice. However,
because the interpretations of the scientist-practitioner model vary, students’ learning
experiences are also likely to vary. Although programs’ strategies of integration are
similar, the emphasis and foci of strategies of integration are different among the
programs in the collective case study. For example, University of Heidegger
counseling psychology program emphasizes scientific thinking using natural science-
based practice as the primary training template. On the other hand, University of
Hume counseling psychology program emphasizes applying scientific knowledge in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
358
psychotherapy practice. Thus, a science-practice continuum is operational in
programs in the collective case study, depending on the particular interpretation of
the scientist-practitioner model programs adopt.
Among the various factors that influence doctoral training, the primary
influential factor that influences doctoral training appears to be the academic
pressures placed by academic research institutions. Academic institutions, especially
Research I universities, are invested in core faculty members’ research production,
grant generation, and journal publications. As mentioned previously, the prestige and
value placed on research-related activities by the academic culture of universities
preclude many core faculty members from investing time and energy in
psychotherapy training or in engaging in psychotherapy-related activities. In
addition, the internalized bias against psychotherapy practice held by many core
faculty members also serves to maintain the value placed on research, specifically
research using natural science methodologies. As a result, psychotherapy training is
often relegated to adjunct faculty members and field supervisors who do not
constitute core membership in doctoral programs. Two flowcharts (Figures 8 & 9)
detailing the espoused theories and theories-in-use of the scientist-practitioner are
presented below.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Natural Science
Approach
Espoused
i
Theories of
Psychological
Science
........ 1 '
Methodological
Diversity
Espoused
Theories of
Psychological
Practice
Establishing
Scientific Basis for
Psychotherapy
Practice
Exposure to Multiple
» Theoretical
Orientations
Espoused
Theories of
Scientist-
Practitioner
(Integration)
Positivistic Thinking
Utilizing Positivistic
Knowledge-base
Cognitive-
Behavioral
Orientaiton
- > Training in ESTs
Figure 8. Visual Representation of Espoused Theories o f the Scientist-Practitioner Model.
Reciprocal
Relationship
between Science
and Practice
Emphasis on
establishing
*• Scientific basis for
Psychotherapy
Practice
359
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
> [ Applying
Doing
♦ Thinking
Knowing
Response to
External Trends
Use of Natural
Science
Methodologies
Scientific Rigor
defined using
Positivistic Tenets
Theories-in-use of
Psychological
Science
Theories-in-use of
Psychological
Practice
Failure to use
Human Science-
based Practice
Dominance of
Natural Science-
based Practice
No Clear
Definition of
Integration
Separation of
Science and
Practice
Neglect of
Practitioner-Based
Inquiry
Association of
Prestige & Power
with Positivistic
Research
Theories-in-use of
Scientist-
Practitioner Model
(Integration)
Conflicting Models
of Supervision
Natural Science-
based Practice not
congruent with
Psychotherapy
Practice
Role o f Academic
Institution in
reinforcing
Research over
Psychotherapy
Practice
Lack of Clinical
Relevance of
Positivistic
Psychotherapy
Research not
addressed
Lack of Clinical
Relevance of
Positivistic
Psychotherapy
Research not
addressed
Potential
Incompatibility
of Certain
Theoretical
Orientations
with Natural
Science-based
Practice not
addressed
Figure 9. Visual Representation of Theories-in-use o f the Scientist-Practitioner Model.
360
361
I am not sanguine about a possibility that significant systemic changes can be
instituted to facilitate integration of science and practice, at an institutional level. It is
possible that programs and core faculty members will gradually become more open
and accepting of knowledge generation using diverse research methodologies. The
Delphi poll conducted by Neimeyer & Diamond (2001) is indicative of such changes
taking place within the discipline. As programs begin to effectively adopt
methodological diversity in training and research, it is possible for a better
integration of science and practice to take place. Human science methodologies
mirror the kind of thinking and understanding involved in clinical practice. Inclusion
of human science methodologies in doctoral training would, thus, facilitate
integration of science and practice (Hoshmand, 1991; Rennie, 1994). However, the
pressure and value placed on research by universities is unlikely to change.
Universities function primarily for generation of new knowledge and their emphasis
on research production will, therefore, continue.
Alternative Training Approaches to Facilitate Integration
The task of integrating science and practice in psychology training is an
important and necessary one. Currently, most doctoral programs in counseling
psychology adhere to the scientist-practitioner training model in order to achieve
the goal of integration. However, more than five decades after the inception of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
362
model, debates in the academic literature continue to question the success of the
model in integrating science and practice as part of doctoral training (Albee &
Loeffler, 1971; Beutler & Fisher, 1994; Peterson, 1985; Strieker, 1975, 1997;
Strieker & Trierweiler, 1995).
One of the training directors interviewed as part of the collective case study
described the challenge involving implementation of the scientist-practitioner model
eloquently. He stated, “I think we have two issues - one is very abstract in terms
how you think about it and then next level that is further out is how do you go from
this abstract level and operationalize it” (IHeidegger, 11.228-230).
In 1949, when the scientist-practitioner model was conceived as a novel
experiment in doctoral training, the model operationalized integration of science and
practice as natural science-based practice (Raimy, 1950, p.81; Thome, 1947). The
model was implemented in academic institutions that valued and continues to value
research over practice (Ellis, 1992; Halgin & Murphy, 1995; Mitchell, 1977; Raimy,
1950). Problems in integration surfaced soon thereafter. Criticisms in the academic
literature with regard to the model focused on the limitations of positivistic research
methodologies in informing clinical practice (Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996; Hayes, et al.
1999, p. 15; Snyder & Ingram, 2000, p.723; Strieker, 1975). Human science
approaches to psychological science and psychotherapy practice have emerged more
recently, as a viable approach to conducting psychological research and
understanding psychotherapy practice (Heppner, et al. 1992; Hoshmand, 1991;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
363
Hoshmand & Polkinghome, 1992; John, 1986; Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001). But,
the hegemony of natural science methodologies continues and doctoral programs
resist effectively adopting methodological diversity. Part of this resistance includes a
failure of programs to adopt notions of human science-based practice and failure to
conduct practitioner-based inquiry.
Programs in the collective case study are skilled in providing research
training using natural science methodologies. The focus of coursework, faculty
members’ research competence and their research interests, the focus of faculty
research teams, the kind of dissertation research generated, and the overall academic
culture reinforce conducting and training in positivistic research. However,
methodological diversity in research training and effective psychotherapy training
are not successfully accomplished. I believe that two consistent factors contribute to
the separation of science and practice rather than integration. First, the hegemony of
natural science methodologies and the value placed on positivistic research over
psychotherapy practice has led to an inadequate examination and understanding of
psychotherapy practice. Second, academic research institutions are not conducive for
implementing the scientist-practitioner model, which has a significant practice
component in training.
In order to address these two limitations, I suggest three training alternatives
for facilitating the integration of science and practice. However, the three alternatives
I suggest entail making substantial changes in how the scientist-practitioner model is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
364
interpreted and implemented and I am not optimistic that such substantial changes
would take place.
First, the status quo of the scientist-practitioner training model is preserved as
part of the PhD degree granted by universities, but a concerted effort to increase
methodological diversity in research training, generation of clinically relevant
research, and practitioner-based inquiry is made during doctoral training. Second, the
PhD degree is re-conceptualized as a pure research degree and the PsyD degree is
used for providing psychotherapy training. Integration of science and practice would
take place primarily through active collaboration of researchers and practitioners.
Third, students are trained in the practice of psychotherapy in a master’s level degree
and the PhD degree is offered as a research degree in academic institutions. I discuss
each alternative in greater depth now.
Maintaining Status Quo with Some Modifications
Based on the comparative case analysis, it is clear that most programs in the
collective case study espouse methodological diversity in research training but they
provide effective training in positivistic, quantitative research only. Consequently,
the problem of lack of clinical relevance of positivistic psychotherapy research is not
addressed. In addition, the limitations of natural science-based practice as an
approach to integration are not challenged either. The comparative case analysis also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
365
revealed that core faculty members and the academic culture do not value practice of
psychotherapy, in comparison to conducting research, although programs espouse
the scientist-practitioner training model. Thus, psychotherapy training is the primary
domain of adjunct faculty members and field supervisors, who do not constitute core
membership of doctoral programs. In order to facilitate integration of science and
practice, systemic changes need to be instituted to effectively address these
limitations in scientist-practitioner training. The first alternative I suggest involves
maintaining the status quo of the scientist-practitioner training model, as part of a
PhD degree granted by universities. But specific modifications in doctoral training
are necessary.
First, research training needs to include multiple courses in qualitative
research methods, core faculty members who are experts in diverse research methods
need to be recruited, faculty research teams should encourage research using diverse
research methods, and dissertations using diverse research methods need to increase
substantially. Human science research methodologies would generate more clinically
relevant research and would encourage practitioners to be more actively involved in
the critique and application of research in psychotherapy practice. Thus, human
science-based practice and practitioner-based inquiry would get equal emphasis and
facilitate integration of science and practice. However, adding more courses in
doctoral training would also lengthen the time students take to complete the doctoral
degree. Currently, students take an average of six to seven years to complete the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
366
doctoral degree and, hence, adding more research courses might not be feasible.
Programs would also need to make deliberate efforts to recruit faculty members who
are skilled in diverse research methods. Because programs are resistant to effectively
embracing non-positivistic research methods and associate positivistic research with
prestige, power, and acceptance in the academy, recruitment of faculty members
with skills in diverse research methods would not be easy.
Second, adjunct faculty members who provide a significant part of
psychotherapy training need to be included as core faculty members, in order to
restructure the disparate power structure of doctoral programs. However, research
universities are interested in research generation, grant production, and journal
publications by core faculty members and do not view clinical core faculty members
as contributing to the broader research endeavor. In addition, universities and
programs view clinical core faculty members as a financial liability because they do
not generate grant money. A solution to overcoming concerns about financial
liability related to hiring clinical core faculty members is that universities support the
creation of university-based community mental health clinics that cater not only to
the student population but also the larger community. Operating such university-
based community mental health clinics is similar to the role of teaching hospitals in
medicine and dentistry that support clinical core faculty members. Schools of
dentistry and medicine support clinical core faculty members through finance
generated from professional services provided by clinical core faculty members in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
367
the teaching hospitals. Such an arrangement not only eases the financial burdens
related to supporting clinical core faculty members but it also provides an ideal
setting for clinical training for students.
Effective research training in methodological diversity and supporting
clinical core faculty members would also facilitate better collaboration between
researchers and practitioners. However, successful hiring and inclusion of clinical
core faculty members would depend on how receptive academic core faculty
members and administrators of academic institutions are for supporting such large
systemic changes. In addition, the systemic demands of creating a university-based
community mental health clinic are substantial. However, universities do have
available templates for making such changes if they model the creation of such a
clinic using similar functional models in dentistry and medicine.
Separation o f Research and Psychotherapy Training
The second alternative involves restructuring the PhD degree as purely a
research degree so that the PsyD degree caters to the need of individuals seeking to
become practitioners. Providing separate doctoral degrees with distinct focus on
research or practice would allow students who have an interest in research or practice
to pursue their interests, without the added burden of completing training in areas
they are not interested in. Disconnecting the link between psychotherapy training and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
368
academic institutions would overcome the cultural conflicts and clashes between
researchers and practitioners. Separation of research and psychotherapy training into
two doctoral degree programs and separating the setting in which psychotherapy
training takes place would, thus, ease the challenge of providing psychotherapy
training in academic institutions.
In addition, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide adequate research
and psychotherapy training as part of a single doctoral degree. According to Yalof
(1997):
The training of psychologists at the doctoral level has evolved to a
point where there is growing consensus within the profession that the
comprehensive nature of training in research and practice can not be
accomplished equally within one degree program and that programs
can best serve students when defined by one or two different training
emphases (p.6).
If research training takes place in academic institutions and psychotherapy
training takes place in professional schools, integration of science and practice would
take place primarily through active collaboration between researchers and
practitioners. In order to facilitate this kind of collaboration, PhD research training in
universities need to train students comprehensively in diverse research methods.
Research training would also need emphasize the differences between natural
science-based practice and human science-based practice. Coursework relating to
clinically relevant research needs to specifically examine practitioners’ concerns and
educate students on the nature of psychotherapy practice. However, educating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
369
students about the nature of psychotherapy practice does not require students to be
skilled in the practice of psychotherapy.
PsyD practitioner degree programs have been in operation since mid-1960s.
The early formulations and rationales for creating PsyD doctoral programs was based
on dissatisfaction with the scientist-practitioner training in providing effective
psychotherapy training and due to conflicts of culture between academic researchers
and psychotherapy practitioners (Peterson, 1966). During the inception of the
practitioner training model, the differences between research programs and
practitioner programs were clear cut. According to Peterson (1985), “practitioners
were educated for the intelligent consumption of research, but the early program
proposals contained no dissertation requirements at all” (p.447). Twenty years after
practitioner programs have been in operation, one of the founding members of the
practitioner training model, compared traditional scientist-practitioner programs with
practitioner programs. He concluded that curricula of professional schools and
scientist-professional programs “are more alike than different”, APA accreditation
criteria strongly influence professional school criteria, and all (with one single
exception) professional programs require completion of a dissertation (Peterson,
1985, p.446-447). Although professional PsyD practitioner programs aimed to train
practitioners by hiring faculty members who were primarily practitioners and by
emphasizing psychotherapy skills in training, it appears as though the difference
between the two training models are no longer significant (Peterson, 1985). The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
370
main difference appears to lie in the attitude and interests of faculty members and
students (p.447).
Thus, demarcating research and practitioner training in separate doctoral
degree programs would not necessarily lead to better quality of training in research
or practice (Strieker, 1975). The evolution of practitioner programs indicates that the
discipline of psychology has not been successful in its attempts to provide separate
training research and psychotherapy. In addition, the notion that academic
researchers and practitioners would actively collaborate in generating clinically
relevant research has remained a challenge in the history of the specialty (Belar &
Perry, 1992; Bernstein & Kerr, 1993; Beutler, et al. 1995; Borders, et al. 1994;
Frank, 1986; Gelso, 1993; Heppner, et al. 1992; Hoshmand, 1991). I am, therefore,
not optimistic that this alternative for integrating science and practice would be
successful.
Adopting the Occupational Therapy Training Model
The third alternative adopts the occupational therapy training model.
Occupational therapy offers two kinds of doctoral degrees. According to the website
of University of Southern California’s doctoral program in occupational therapy
(Doctor of Occupational Therapy):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
371
The Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.) program prepares
occupational therapists for leadership positions in health care, with a
focus on applying knowledge developed in occupational science to
practice health care policy and health care management. The O.T.D.
program is designed to complement the Ph.D. program in
occupational science. The Ph.D. degree is an academic degree that
prepares students to conduct original research that will expand the
knowledge base regarding occupation; the O.T.D. degree is a
professional degree that focuses on the practical application of
knowledge about occupation in order to solve real-world health care
problems in clinical and community settings (If 1).
The admission criteria for the OTD program includes “a baccalaureate degree from
an accredited college or university and must be certified or licensed as an
occupational therapist, or be eligible to sit for the examination administered by the
National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT)” (Admission
Requirements, f 2). Thus, the doctoral program focuses on applied research in
occupational therapy and admits licensed occupational therapists for doctoral
training.
The current Master’s degree in Marriage and Family Therapy offered by
counseling psychology programs could be the uniform entry-level professional
training students receive. Following the completion of the master’s program and
licensure requirements, students interested in pursuing a research career could pursue
doctoral studies in counseling psychology. The advantage of making masters’ level
practitioner training as a minimal admission requirement for doctoral education is
that students would already be trained and licensed to engage in psychotherapy
practice when they embark on doctoral education. Thus, they would be more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
372
informed about the needs, constraints, and demands of psychotherapy practice as
they engage in psychotherapy research. Researchers with prior practitioner training
would, thus, be in a better position to generate clinically relevant research and
facilitate integration of science and practice. Generation of practice-based science
and practitioner-based inquiry would be easier because students have a grounding in
psychotherapy practice and the nature of practitioner inquiry. In order for this
training model to be successful, faculty members also need to have a similar training
background in psychotherapy practice so that they can mentor and facilitate students’
research training in clinically relevant research.
Conclusion
The three alternatives I suggested above involve instituting significant
systemic changes in how the scientist-practitioner model is implemented. Bias
against non-positivistic research and psychotherapy practice is not easy to overcome.
Neither is it easy to balance the demands of psychotherapy training in academic
institutions that values research-related activities and relegates psychotherapy
training to adjunct core faculty members and field supervisors. I am not optimistic
that such entrenched values and priorities of the academic culture can be easily and
quickly overcome. It is clear that integration of science and practice continues to be a
challenge. According to Wittgenstein (1953), “in psychology there are experimental
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
373
methods and conceptual confusion.... The existence of the experimental method
makes us think we have the means of solving the problems which trouble us; though
problem and method pass one another by” [italics in original] (p.232). The specialty
of counseling psychology is not an exception in this regard. The only effective
solution lies in the specialty developing an appreciation for the differences in
scientific thinking in research and practical thinking in psychotherapy practice.
Using Aristotle’s distinction of three ways of thinking, positivistic research uses
theorizing, which aims at arriving at certain knowledge; psychotherapists practice
using practical understanding. I do not believe that the two ways of thinking can be
reconciled. Neither do I believe that theorizing can be used to understand the nature
of practical thinking or vice versa.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
374
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, D J. & Pearlman, L.A. (1993). The Need for Scientist-Practitioner
Employment Settings. American Psychologist, 48, 1, 59-60.
Albee, G.W. (1970). The Uncertain Future of Clinical Psychology. American
Psychologist, 225, 1071-1080.
Albee, G.W. (2000). The Boulder Models’s Fatal Flaw. American Psychologist, 55,
2, 247-248.
Albee, G.W. & Loeffler, E. (1971). Role Conflicts in Psychology and their
Implications for a Reevaluation of Training Models. The Canadian
Psychologist, 12, 4, 465-481.
American Psychological Association (1952a). Recommended Standards for
Training Counseling Psychologists at the Doctorate Level. American
Psychologist, 7 , 175-181. Also in J.M.Whiteley (Ed.) (1980), The History o f
Counseling Psychology, (pp.70-80). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
American Psychological Association (1952b). The Practicum Training of
Counseling Psychologists. American Psychologist, 7 , 182-188. Also in
J.M.Whiteley (Ed.) (1980), The History o f Counseling Psychology, (pp.81-
91). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
American Psychological Association (1967). The scientific and professional aims of
psychology. American Psychologist, 22, 1, 49-76.
American Psychological Association (1978). Accredited doctoral programs in
professional psychology: 1978. American Psychologist, 33, 1127-1128.
American Psychological Association (1987). Resolutions Approved by the National
Conference on Graduate Education in Psychology. American Psychologist,
42, 12, 1070-1084.
American Psychological Association (2002). Accredited Doctoral Programs in
Professional Psychology: 2002. American Psychologist, 57, 12, 1096-1109.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., Smith, D.M. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
375
Baker, D.B. & Benjamin, Jr., L.T. (2000). The Affirmation of the Scientist-
Practitioner: A Look Back at the Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 2,
241-247.
Barlow, D.H. (1981a). A Role for Clinicians in the Research Process. Behavioral
Assessment, 3, 227-233.
Barlow, D. H. (1981b). On the Relation of Clinical Research to Clinical Practice:
Current Issues, New Directions. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 49, 2, 147-155.
Barlow, D.H. (1996). Health Care Policy, Psychotherapy Research, and the Future
of Psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 51, 10,1050-1058.
Barlow, D.H., Hayes, S.C., & Nelson, R.O. (1984). The Scientist-Practitioner:
Origins and Current Status. In The Scientist-Practitioner: Research and
Accountability in Clinical & Educational Settings (pp.3-37). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Belar, C.D. (2000). Scientist-Practitioner ^ Science + Practice. American
Psychologist, 55, 2, 249-250.
Belar, C.D., & Perry, N.W. (1992). National Conference on Scientist-Practitioner
Education and Training for the Professional Practice of Psychology. The
American Psychologist, 47, 1, 71-75.
Berg, B.L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods fo r the Social Sciences. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Bergin, A. & Strupp, H.H. (1972). Changing frontiers in the science o f
psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine.
Bernstein, B.L. & Kerr, B. (1993). Counseling Psychology and the Scientist-
Practitioner Model: Implementation and Implications. The Counseling
Psychologist, 21, 1, 136-151.
Betz, N.E. (1986). Research Training in Counseling Psychology: Have we
Addressed the Real Issues? The Counseling Psychologist, 14, 1, 107-113.
Beutler, L.E. & Fisher, D. (1994). Combined Specialty Training in Counseling,
Clinical, and School Psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 25, 1, 62-69.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
376
Beutler, L.E., Williams, R.E., Wakefield, P.J., & Entwistle, S.R. (1995). Bridging
Scientist and Practitioner Perspectives in Clinical Psychology. American
Psychologist, 50, 12, 984-994.
Bibace, R. & Walsh, M.E. (1982). Conflict of Roles: On the Difficulties of Being
Both Scientist and Practitioner in One Life. Professional Psychology, 13, 2,
389-396.
Binder, J.L. (1993). Is it time to improve Psychotherapy Training? Clinical
Psychology Review, 13, 301-318.
Blocher, D.H. (2000). The Evolution o f Counseling Psychology. New York:
Springer.
Borders, D.L., Bloss, K.K., Cashwell, C.S., & Rainey, L.M. (1994). Helping
Students Apply the Scientist-Practitioner Model: A Teaching Approach.
Counselor Education & Supervision, 34, 172-129.
Bourg, E.F., Bent, R.J., McHolland, J., Strieker, G. (1989). Standards and
Evaluation in the Education and Training of Professional Psychology.
American Psychologist, 44, 1, 66-72.
Chambless, D.L., Sanderson, W.C., Shoham, V., Johnson, S.B., Pope, K.S., Crits-
Christoph, P., Baker, M., Johnson, B., Woody, S.R., Sue, S., Beutler, L.,
Williams, D.A., & McCurry, S. (1996). An Update on Empirically Validated
Therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 2, 5-18.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In
N.K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f Qualitative Research,
(pp.509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cherry, D.K., Messenger, L.C., & Jacoby, A.M. (2000). An Examination of
Training Model Outcomes in Clinical Psychology Programs. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 5, 562-568.
Claibom, C.D. (1987). Science and Practice: Reconsidering the Pepinskys. Journal
o f Counseling and Development, 65, 6, 28-288.
Counseling/Clinical/School Psychology Program. (2004, October). CCSP Program
Philosophy and Goals. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from University of
California at Santa Barbara, School of Education Website:
http://education.ucsb.edU/ccsp/phd.html#characteristics
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
377
Committee on Accreditation (1996). Guidelines and principles fo r accreditation o f
programs in professional psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Cook, S., Bibace, R., Garfield, S., Kelly, G., & Wexler, M. (1965). Issues in the
Professional Training of Clinical Psychologists. In C.N.Zimet &
F.M.Thome (Staff), Preconference Materials. Conference on the
Professional Preparation o f Clinical Psychologists, (pp. 17-30).
Washington, D.C.: APA.
Dana, R.H. (1987). Training for Professional Psychology: Science, Practice, and
Identity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 1, 9-16.
Davis, K.L., Alcorn J.D., Brooks, L., & Meara, N.M. (1992). Crystal Ball Gazing:
Training and Accreditation in 2000 A.D. The Counseling Psychologist, 20,
2,352-371.
Davis, K.L. & Meara, N.M. (1995). Students’ perceptions of their future
professional behavior. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 131-140.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative
Research. In N.K.Denzin & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook o f Qualitative
Research, (pp. 1-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doctor of Occupational Therapy.(2004, October). Doctor of Occupational Therapy.
Retrieved October 12, 2004, from University of Southern California Web
site:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/cat2004/schools/ind_health/ot_otd.ht
ml
Drabick, A.G. & Goldfried, M.R. (2000). Training the Scientist-Practitioner for the
21st Century: Putting the Bloom Back on the Rose. Journal o f Clinical
Psychology, 56, 3, 327-340.
Elliot, R. (1983). Fitting process research to the practicing psychotherapist.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 47-55.
Elliot, T.R. & Klapow, J.C. (1997). Training Psychologists for a Future in Evolving
Health Care Delivery Systems: Building a Better Boulder Model. Journal o f
Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 4, 2, 255-267.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
378
Ellis, H.C. (1992). Graduate Education in Psychology. The American Psychologist,
47, 4, 570-576.
Etherington, K. (1996). The counsellor as researcher: boundary issues and critical
dilemmas. British Journal o f Guidance and Counselling, 24, 3, 339-346.
Fitzgerald, L.F. & Osipow, S.H. (1986). An occupational analysis of counseling
psychology: How special is the specialty? American Psychologist, 41, 535-
544.
Foreman, M. (1974). Counseling Psychology and the Vail Conference: Analysis of
Issues in the Training of Professional Psychologists -Training and Settings.
The Counseling Psychologist, 4, 3, 69.
Fouad, N.A., McPherson, R.H., Gerstein, L., Blustein, D.L., Elman, N.S., Helledy,
K.I., & Metz, A.J. (2004). Houston, 2001: Context and Legacy. The
Counseling Psychologist, 32, 1, 15-77.
Fowler, R.D. (1996). Preface. In D.A.Dewsbury (Ed.), Unification through Division
- Histories o f the Divisions o f the American Psychological Association
(Vol.l). Washington, D.C.: APA.
Frank, G. (1984). The Boulder Model: History, Rationale, and Critique.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 3, 417-435.
Frank, G. (1986). The Boulder Model Revisited. Psychological Reports, 59, 407-
413.
Fretz, B.R. (1974). Counseling Psychology and the Vail Conference: Analysis of
Issues in the Training of Professional Psychologists. The Counseling
Psychologist, 4, 3, 64-66.
Fretz, B.R. & Mills, D.H. (1980). Professional Certification in Counseling
Psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 1,2-17.
Gaddy, C.D., Charlot-Swilley, D., Nelson, P.D., & Reich, J.N. (1995). Selected
Outcomes of Accredited Programs. Professional Psychology: Research &
Practice, 26, 5, 507-513.
Galassi, J.P. (1989). Maintaining the Viability of Counselling Psychology: the role
of research training. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 2, 4, 465-474.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
379
Galassi, J.P. & Moss, N.L. (1986). Training in Counseling Psychology: 1985 data
and trends. The Counseling Psychologist, 14, 471-477.
Gallessich, J. & Olmstead, K.M. (1987). Training in Counseling Psychology: Issues
and Trends in 1986. The Counseling Psychologist, 15, 4, 596-600.
Gardner, L. (1980). Racial, ethnic, and social class considerations in psychotherapy
supervision. In A.K.Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory,
research, and practice (pp.474-508). New York: Wiley.
Garfield, S.L. & Bergin, A.E. (1986). Introduction and Historical Overview. In
S.L.Garfield & A.E.Bergin (Eds.), Handbook o f Psychotherapy and
Behavior Change, pp.3-22. New York: John Wiley.
Gelso, C.J. (1979). Research in counseling: Methodological and professional issues.
The Counseling Psychologist, 8, 7-35.
Gelso, C.J. (1993). On the Making of a Scientist-Practitioner: A Theory of Research
Training in Professional Psychology. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 24, 4, 468-476.
Gelso, C.J., Betz, N.E., Friedlander, M.L., Helms, J.E., Hill.C.E., Patton, M.J.,
Super, D.E., & Wampold, B.E. (1988). Research in Counseling Psychology:
Prospects and Recommendations. The Counseling Psychologist, 16, 385-
406.
Gelso, C.J. & Lent, R.W. (2000). Scientific Training and Scholarly Productivity:
The Person, the Training Environment, and Their Interaction. In S.D.Brown
& R.W.Lent (Eds.), Handbook o f Counseling Psychology, pp.109-139. New
York: John Wiley.
Goldfried, M.R. (1984). Training the Clinician as Scientist-Professional.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 4, 477- 481.
Goldfried, M.R. & Wolfe, B.E. (1996). Psychotherapy Practice and Research:
Repairing a Strained Alliance. American Psychologist, 51, 10, 1007-1016.
Goodyear, R.K., Bradley, F.O., & Bartlett, W.E. (1983). An introduction to theories
of counselor supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 1, 19-20.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
380
Goodyear, R.K., Cortese, J.R., Guzzardo, C.R., Allison, R.D., Claibom, C.D., &
Packard, T. (2000). Factors, Trends, and Topics in the Evolution of
Counseling Psychology Training. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 5, 603-
621.
Halgin, R.P. & Murphy, R.A. (1995). Issues in the Training of Psychotherapists. In
B.Bongar & L.E.Beutler (Eds.), Comprehensive Textbook o f Psychotherapy
Theory & Practice, pp.434-455. New York: Oxford University Press.
Halgin, R.P. & Struckus, J.E. (1985). Perspectives on the Utility of Boulder Model
Training. The Clinical Psychologist, 38, 3, 61-64.
Hayes, S.C., Barlow, D.H., & Nelson-Gray, R.O. (1999). The Scientist-Practitioner.
In The Scientist-Practitioner: Research and Accountability in the Age o f
Managed Care, pp. 1-28. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Heppner, P.P., Carter, J.A., Claibom, C.D., Brooks, L., Gelso, C.J., Fassinger, R.E.,
Holloway, E.L., Stone, G.L., Wampold, B.E., & Galassi, J.P. (1992). A
Proposal to Integrate Science and Practice in Counseling Psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 20, 1, 107-122.
Heppner, P.P., Casas, J.M., Carter, J., & Stone, G.L. (2000). The Maturation of
Counseling Psychology: Multifaceted Perspectives, 1978-1998. In
S.D.Brown & R.W.Lent (Eds.), Handbook o f Counseling Psychology, pp.3-
49. New York: John Wiley.
Hill, C.E. (1997). The Effects of My Research Training Environment: Where are
my students now? The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 1, 74-81.
Hoch, E.L., Ross, A.O., & Winder, C.L. (1966). Professional Preparation o f
Clinical Psychologists. Washington, DC: APA.
Hollis, M. (1996). Philosophy of social science. In N.Bunnin & E.P.Tsui-James
(Eds.), The Blackwell Companion o f Philosophy (pp.358-387). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Holloway, E.L. (1987). Development Models of Supervision: Is it Development?
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 3, 209-216.
Hoshmand, L.T. (1991). Clinical Inquiry as Scientific Thinking. The Counseling
Psychologist, 19, 3,431-453.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
381
Hoshmand, L.T. & Polkinghome, D.E. (1992). Redefining the Science-Practice
Relationship and Professional Training. American Psychologist, 47, 1, 55-
66.
Howard, G.S. (1985). Can Research in the Human Sciences become more Relevant
to Practice? Journal o f Counseling and Development, 63, 9, 539-544.
Howard, G.S. (1986). The Scientist-Practitioner in Counseling Psychology: Toward
a Deeper Integration of Theory, Research, and Practice. The Counseling
Psychologist, 14, 1, 61-105.
Howard, G.S. (1993). Why William James Might Be Considered the Founder of the
Scientist-Practitioner Model. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 1, 118-135.
John, I.D. (1986). “The Scientist” as Role Model for “The Psychologist”.
Australian Psychologist, 21, 2, 219-240.
John, I. (1998). The Scientist-Practitioner Model: A Critical Examination.
Australian Psychologist, 33, 1,24-30.
Kalinkowitz, B. (1978). Scientist-Practitioner - The Widening Schism. The Clinical
Psychologist, 32, 1,4-5.
Kanfer, F.H. (1990). The Scientist-Practitioner Connection: A Bridge in Need of
Constant Attention. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 4,
264-270.
Klein M.H. (1995). Between a Boulder and a Hard Place: The Dialectics of
Positivism, Constructivism and Hermeneutics. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 23, 3, 305-320.
Kohut, J. & Wicherski, M. (1993). 1991 doctorate employment survey. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kordy, H. (1995). Does Psychotherapy Research answer the questions of
Practitioners and should it? Psychotherapy Research, 5, 2, 128-130.
Korman, M. (Ed.) (1973). Levels and patterns ofprofessional training in
psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
382
Kozak, A. (1996). Local Clinicians Need Knowledge Tools. The American
Psychologist, 51, 12, 1335-1336.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: A Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lazarus, A.A. & Davison, G.C. (1971). Clinical innovation in research and practice.
In A.A.Bergin & S.L.Garfield (Eds.), Handbook o f psychotherapy and
behavior change (pp.196-213). New York: Wiley.
LeCompte, M.D. & Priessle, J. (with Tesch, R.). (1993). Ethnography and
qualitative design in educational research (2n d ed.). New York: Academic
Press.
Levy, R.L. (1981). On the Nature of the Clinical-Research Gap: The Problems with
Some Solutions. Behavioral Assessment, 3, 235-242.
Linden, W. & Wen, F.K. (1990). Therapy Outcome Research, Health Care Policy,
and the Continuing Lack of Accumulated Knowledge. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 6, 482-488.
Luborsky, L. (1972). Research cannot yet influence clinical practice. In A.Bergin &
H.H. Strupp (Eds.), Changing frontiers in the science o f psychotherapy
(pp. 120-127). Chicago: Aldine.
Lyddon, W.J. (1989). Personal epistemology and preference for counseling. Journal
o f Counseling Psychology, 36, 423-429.
MacDonald, G. (1996). Inferences in Therapy: Processes and Hazard. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 6, 600-603.
MacEachron, A.E. & Gustavsson, N.S. (1997). Reframing Practitioner Research.
Families in Society: The Journal o f Contemporary Human Services, 78, 6,
651-656.
McGaha, S. & Minder, C. (1993). Factors influencing performance on the
Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 107-109.
Meara, N.M. (1987). Taking the Lead in Issues of Education and Training. The
Counseling Psychologist, 15, 2, 275-279.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
383
Mitchell, K.R. (1977). Professional Training in Psychology: Some History, Themes,
and Comment. Australian Psychologist, 12, 1, 89-94.
Mittelstaedt, W. & Tasca, G. (1988). Contradictions in Clinical Psychology
Training: A Trainees’ Perspective of the Boulder Model. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 3, 353-355.
Morrow-Bradley, C. & Elliott, R. (1986). Utilization of Psychotherapy Research by
Practicing Psychotherapists. American Psychologist, 41, 2, 188-197.
Morse, J.M. & Richards, L. (2002). Readme First for a User’ s Guide to Qualitative
Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murdock, N.L. & Brooks, R.P. (1993). Some Scientist-Practitioners Do. American
Psychologist, 48, 12, 1293-1294.
Murdock, N.L., Alcorn, J., Heesacker, M., & Stoltenberg, C. (1998). Model
Training Program in Counseling Psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,
26, 4, 658-672.
Neimeyer, G.J. & Diamond, A.K. (2001). The anticipated future of counselling
psychology in the United States: a Delphi poll. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 14, 1, 49-65.
Norcoss, J.C., Gallagher, K.M., & Prochaska, J.O. (1989). The Boulder and/or the
Vail Model: Training Preferences of Clinical Psychologists. Journal o f
Clinical Psychology, 45, 5, 822-828.
O’Donohue, W. & Halsey, L. (1997). The Substance of the Scientist-Practitioner
Relation: Freud, Rogers, Skinner and Ellis. New Ideas in Psychology, 15, 1,
35-53.
Orlinsky, D. & Howard, K. (1978). The relation of process to outcome in
psychotherapy. In S.Garfield & A.Bergin (Eds.), Handbook o f
psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis (pp.283-330).
New York: Wiley.
O’Sullivan, J.J. & Quevillon, R.P. (1992). 40 Years Later: Is the Boulder Model
Still Alive? American Psychologist, 47, 1, 67-70.
Page, A.C. (1996). The Scientist-Practitioner Model: More Faces than Eve.
Australian Psychologist, 31, 2, 103-108.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
384
Parker, L.E., & Detterman, D.K. (1988). The Balance between Clinical and
Research Interests among Boulder Model Graduate Students. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 3, 342-344.
Parloff, M.B. (1980). Psychotherapy and research: An anaclitic depression.
Psychiatry, 43, 279-293.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perry, N. (1987). The New Boulder Model: Critical Element. The Clinical
Psychologist, 40, 1, 9-11.
Persons, J.B. (1991). Psychotherapy Outcome Studies Do Not Accurately Represent
Current Models of Psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 46, 2, 99-106.
Peterson, D.R. (1966). Professional program in an academic psychology
department. In E.L.Roch, A.O.Ross, & C.L.Winder (Eds.), Professional
Preparation o f clinical psychologists. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Peterson, D.R. (1985). Twenty Years of Practitioner Training in Psychology.
American Psychologist, 40, 4, 441-451.
Peterson, D.R. (2000). Scientist-Practitioner or Scientific Practitioner? American
Psychologist, 55, 2, 252-253.
Polkinghome, D.E. (1984). Methodology fo r the Human Sciences. Albany: SUNY.
Polkinghome, D. E. (1991). Qualitative procedures for counseling research. In C. E.
Watkins & L. J. Schneider (Eds.), Research in counseling (pp. 163-207).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Polkinghome, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis.
International Journal o f Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 1, 12-28. Also
in Hatch, J. A. & Wisniewski, R. (Eds.) (1995), Life history and narrative
(pp. 5-23). London: Falmer.
Polkinghome, D.E. (1999). Traditional Research and Psychotherapy Practice.
Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 55, 12, 1-12.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
385
Polkinghome, D.E. (2000). Psychological Inquiry and the Pragmatic and
Hermeneutic Traditions. Theory and Psychology, 10, 4,453-479.
Polkinghome, D. E., & Gribbons, B. C. (1998). Applications of qualitative research
strategies to school psychology research problems. In C. R. Reynolds & T.
B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook o f school psychology (3rd.ed.) (pp. 108-136).
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Raimy, V.C. (1950). Training in Clinical Psychology (Boulder Conference). New
York: Prentice Hall.
Ramirez, D.E. (1994). Toward a Concept of the Counselor as
Philosopher/Practitioner: Commentary on Whitaker, Geller, and Webb.
Journal o f College Student Psychotherapy, 9, 2, 63-74.
Rausch, H.L. (1974). Research, practice, and accountability. American
Psychologist, 29, 678-681.
Rennie, D.L. (1994). Human science and counseling psychology: closing the gap
between research and practice. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 7 , 3,235-
250.
Rickard, H.C. & Clements, C.B. (1985). Compared to What? A Frank Discussion of
the Boulder Model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 4,
472-473.
Robertson, M.H. (1995). Review of Psychotherapy Training with Implications for
Integrative Training. In Psychotherapy Education and Training: An
Integrative Perspective (pp. 17-39). Connecticut: International Universities.
Roe, A., Gustad, J.W., Moore, B.V., Ross, S., & Skodak, M. (1959). Graduate
Education in Psychology. Washington, DC: APA.
Ross, M.J., Holzman, L.A., Handal, P.J., & Gilner, F.H. (1991). Performance on the
Examination for the Professional Practice of Psychology as a Function of
Specialty, Degree, Administrative Housing, and Accreditation Status.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 5, 347-350.
Routh, D.K. (1994). Education and Training: The Boulder Model. In Clinical
Psychology since 1917: Science, Practice, and Organization (pp.123-130).
New York: Plenum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
386
Routh, D.K. (2000). Clinical Psychology Training: A History of Ideas and Practices
Prior to 1946. American Psychologist, 55, 2, 236-241.
Royalty, G.M., Gelso, C.J., Mallinckrodt, B., & Garrett, K.D. (1986). The
environment and the student in counseling psychology: Does the research
training environment influence graduate students’ attitudes toward research?
The Counseling Psychologist, 14, 9-30.
Rychlak, J.F. (1998). How Boulder biases have limited possible Theoretical
Contributions of Psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology, 5, 2, 233-241.
Sargent, M. & Cohen, L.H. (1983). Influence of Psychotherapy Research on
Clinical Practice: An Experimental Survey. Journal o f Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51, 5, 718-720.
Sechrest, L. (1975). Research contributions of practicing clinical psychologists.
Professional Psychology, 6, 413-419.
Snyder, C.R. & Ingram, R.E. (2000). Psychotherapy: Questions for an Evolving
Field. In C.R.Snyder & R.E.Ingram (Eds.), Handbook o f Psychological
Change: Psychotherapy Processes and Practices fo r the 21st century
(pp.707-726). New York: John Wiley.
Spengler, P.M., Strohmer, D.C., Dixon, D.N., & Shivy, V.A. (1995). A Scientist-
Practitioner Model of Psychological Assessment: Implications for Training,
Practice, and Research. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 3, 506-534.
Sprinthall, N.A. (1990). Counseling Psychology from Greyston to Atlanta: On the
Road to Armageddon? The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 3, 455-463.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art o f Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (2000). Case Studies. InN.K.Denzin & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook
o f Qualitative Research, (pp.435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steenbarger, B.N., Smith, H.B., & Budman, S.H. (1996). Integrating Science and
Practice in Outcomes Assessment: A Bolder Model for a Managed Era.
Psychotherapy, 33, 2, 246-253.
Stoker, R. & Figg, J. (1998). Action Research: redefining the term ‘scientist-
practitioner’. Educational and Child Psychology, 15, 3, 55-64.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
387
Stoltenberg, C.D., Pace, T.M., Kashubeck-West, S., Biever, J.L., Patterson, T., &
Welch, I.D. (2000). Training models in counseling psychology: Scientist-
practitioner versus Practitioner-scholar. The Counseling Psychologist, 28,
622-640.
Stone, G.L. & Vespia, K.M. (1999). Counseling Psychology Students and
Professionals: Scientist and Practitioner Orientations and Work
Environments. Journal o f College Student Psychotherapy, 14, 1, 23-41.
Strieker, G. (1975). On Professional Schools and Professional Degrees. American
Psychologist, 30, 11, 1062-1066.
Strieker, G. (1997). Are Science and Practice Commensurable? American
Psychologist, 52, 4, 442-448.
Strieker, G. & Keisner, R.H. (1985). The Relationship between Research and
Practice. In G.Stricker & R.H.Keisner (Eds.), From Research to Clinical
Practice: The Implications o f Social and Developmental Research for
Psychotherapy (pp.3-13). New York: Plenum Press.
Strieker, G. & Trierweiler, S.J. (1995). The Local Clinical Scientist: A Bridge
Between Science and Practice. American Psychologist, 50, 12, 995-1002.
Strupp, H.H. (1989). Can the Practitioner learn from the Researcher? American
Psychologist, 44, 4, 717-724.
Tedlock, B. (2000). Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation. In N.K.Denzin
& Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook o f Qualitative Research, (pp.455-486).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thelen, M.H. & Ewing, D.R. (1970) Roles, functions, and training in clinical
psychology: A survey of academic clinicians. American Psychologist, 25, 6,
550-554.
Thompson, A.S. & Super, D.E. (1964). Recommendations of the 1964 Greyston
Conference. In A.S.Thompson & D.E.Super (Eds.), The professional
preparation o f counseling psychologists: Report o f the 1964 Greyston
Conference. New York: Teachers College Press. Also in J.M.Whiteley (Ed.)
(1980), The History o f Counseling Psychology, (pp.174-178). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Thome, F.C. (1945). The Field of Clinical Psychology: Past, Present, and Future.
Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 1, 1-20.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
388
Tipton, R.M., & White, G.L. (1988). Factors relating to professional development
in beginning graduate students in counseling psychology. The Counseling
Psychologist, 16, 111-127.
Ussher, J.M. (1991). Positivistic Psychology and Social Policy: A Contradiction in
Terms? Educational and Child Psychology, 8, 1, 23-35.
Vachon, D.O., Susman, M., Wynne, M.E., Birringer, J., Olshefsky, L., & Cox, K.
(1995). Reasons Therapists give for Refusing to Participate in
Psychotherapy Process Research. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 42, 3,
380-382.
Wakefield, J.C. & Kirk, S.A. (1996). Unscientific thinking about scientific practice:
Evaluating the scientist-practitioner model. Social Work Research, 20, 2, 83-
95.
Wampold, B.E., Ahn, H., & Coleman, H.L.K. (2001). Medical Model as Metaphor:
Old Habits Die Hard. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 48, 3, 268-273.
Ward, C.H. (1964). Psychotherapy Research: Dilemmas and Directions. Archives o f
General Psychiatry, 10, 6, 596-622.
Watkins, Jr. C.E. (1987). On myopia, rhetoric, and reality in counseling
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 15, 332-336.
Watkins, Jr. C.E. (1997). Reflection on Contemporary Psychotherapy Practice,
Research, and Training. Journal o f Contemporary Psychotherapy, 27, 1,5-
22.
Watkins, Jr. C.E., Lopez, F.G., Campbell, V.L., & Himmell, C.D. (1986).
Contemporary counseling psychology: Results of a national survey. Journal
o f Counseling Psychology, 33, 3, 301-309.
Watkins, Jr. C.E., Lopez, F.G., Campbell, V.L., & Himmell, C.D. (1987). What do
Counseling Psychologists Think about their Graduate Training? Some
Positive and Negative Reflections. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 18, 6, 550-552.
Watson, L.C. & Watson-Franke, M. (1985). Interpreting life histories. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
389
Whiteley, J.M. (1984a). Counseling Psychology: A Historical Perspective. New
York: Character Research Press.
Whiteley, J.M. (1984b). A Historical Perspective on the Development of
Counseling Psychology as a Profession. In S.D.Brown & R.W.Lent (Eds.),
Handbook o f Counseling Psychology, (pp.3-55). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yalof, J.A. (1997). Consolidating a Professional Identity in the 21st Century: The
Changing Landscape of Education and Training in Psychology and Its
Implications for Counseling Centers. Journal o f College Student
Psychotherapy, 12, 2, 3-22.
Zachar, P. & Leong, F.T.L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and
practitioner differences in psychology. Journal o f Personality, 60, 665-677.
Zachar, P. & Leong, F.T.L. (2000). A 10-year Longitudinal Study of Scientist and
Practitioner Interests in Psychology: Assessing the Boulder Model.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 5, 575-580.
Zimpfer, D.G. & DeTrude, J.C. (1990). Follow-up of doctoral graduates in
counseling. Journal o f Counseling and Development, 69, 51-69.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
390
APPENDIX A
Letter Requesting Nomination of Counseling Psychology Programs
The IRB paperwork included following this letter does not have the IRB approval
stamp. The photocopies of the stamped approval papers were sent to the training
directors. The copy of the letter is included below:
Dear Training Director,
I am a doctoral candidate in the Ph.D. program in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. My dissertation chair is Donald
Polkinghome, Ph.D. Professors Rod Goodyear, Gerald Stone, and Dallas Willard
constitute the rest of my dissertation committee. My dissertation will examine
strategies APA accredited counseling psychology programs use to integrate science
and practice in training. Given that the integration of science and practice is an
explicit aim of the guiding principles of accreditation, it is unclear what specific
strategies training programs use to facilitate this integration. I am limiting my study
to APA accredited counseling psychology programs that espouse the scientist-
practitioner model of training.
The first step involves identifying a few select training programs that will
constitute my collective case study sample. To identify various scientist-practitioner
training programs that use different strategies to integrate science and practice, I
request your assistance by nominating from that attached list at least two programs
that are predominantly science-focused, two that are predominantly practice-focused,
and two that you consider to be especially balanced with respect to their science and
practice focus. You can respond by email or by phone to communicate your choices.
Your feedback will be held in absolute confidentiality and it will not be shared with
any program I contact at the next stage of the case study investigation.
Dr.Polkinghome, the principal investigator, can be contacted at (213) 740-
3256, emailed at polkingh@usc.edu and his mailing address is WPH 702E, Rossier
School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.1 ,
Sujatha Ramesh (co-investigator), can be contacted at (310) 621-0184, emailed at
sramesh@usc.edu and my mailing address is C/O Ms.Tamara Mckenzie, WPH 703,
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
90089.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in my dissertation work. I would like to
inform you that by agreeing to share your choices of training programs, you
voluntarily participate in my dissertation research without any remuneration. You
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
391
can also choose not to provide me with these choices. However, I hope that you
would agree to assist me.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Sujatha Ramesh, M.A.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
392
List of Accredited Programs in Counseling Psychology
Please nominate the six programs from the following list. Thank you.
1. University of Akron
2. University of Albany/ SUNY
3. Arizona State University
4. Ball State University
5. Boston College
6. Brigham Young University
7. University of Denver
8. University of Florida
9. Fordham University
10. University of Georgia
11. Georgia State University
12. University of Houston
13. Howard University
14. University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
15. Indiana State University
16. Indiana University
17. University of Iowa
18. Iowa State University
19. University of Kansas
20. University of Kentucky
21. Lehigh University
22. Louisiana Tech University
23. University of Louisville
24. Loyola University of Chicago
25. Marquette University
26. University of Maryland College Park
27. The University of Memphis
28. University of Miami
29. Michigan State University
30. University of Minnesota - Counseling & Personnel Psychology Program
31. University of Minnesota - Psychology Program
32. University of Missouri Columbia
33. University of Missouri Kansas City
34. University of Nebraska Lincoln
35. New Mexico State University
36. New York University
37. University of North Dakota
38. University of North Texas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
393
39. University of Notre Dame
40. Ohio State University
41. University of Oklahoma
42. Oklahoma State University
43. University of Oregon
44. Auburn University
45. Pennsylvania State University
46. Purdue University
47. Seton Hall University
48. University of Southern California
49. Colorado State University
50. Southern Illinois University
51. University of Southern Mississippi
52. Teachers College
53. Temple University
54. Tennessee State University
55. Texas A&M University
56. University of Texas at Austin
57. Texas Tech University
58. Texas Woman’s University
59. University of Utah
60. Virginia Commonwealth University
61. Washington State University
62. West Virginia University
63. Western Michigan University
64. University of Wisconsin- Madison
65. University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
394
University of Southern California
Rossier School o f Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Intra-model Differences within the Scientist-Practitioner Model of
Training based on Strategies of Integration
Stage 1 Data Collection
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Ms.Sujatha Ramesh,
M.A., doctoral candidate, and Donald E. Polkinghome, Ph.D., faculty sponsor, from
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The results
of this study will be contributed to the doctoral candidate’s dissertation. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because you are currently a training
director of an APA-accredited doctoral program in counseling psychology and you
can identify training programs that can constitute the case study research. A total of
70 training programs subjects will be selected from currently accredited doctoral
programs in counseling psychology to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to leam
more about how different scientist-practitioner training programs define concepts
such as science, practice, and the integration of science and practice. In addition, we
are trying to leam more about how these concepts, as operationalized in the training
model, inform the program curriculum, research experience requirements, and
clinical training requirements.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions will
constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to nominate two programs that are science-focused, two that
practice-focused, and two that you consider to be balanced in their science-practice
focus in response to the email recmitment letter. You can email your response to me
or mail to me by U.S. mail by stating the programs you nominated in each of these
categories at your convenience. The estimated time to respond to this request will be
5-10 minutes on a single occasion. You can chose to respond at any site of your
choice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
395
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
No reasonable foreseeable risks, discomforts, inconveniences are anticipated or
expected as a result of participating in this research project.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Participation in this study will be of no direct benefit to the subject.
This dissertation seeks to leam more about the different strategies for science-
practice integration used by accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology.
Integration of science and practice has been an idea that has remained predominantly
problematic although most training programs aim to train professionals who
integrate them in their professional activities. The results of this dissertation will
provide insight concerning the nuances that exist in the operationalization of this
singular concept.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Other than my dissertation committee, nobody else will have any access to the
dissertation data. The dissertation committee will have access to this data for the
purposes of mentoring the co-investigator.
The data will be stored in this locked cabinet for a period of 36 months, following
dissertation defense, after which all documents will be shredded. Data that exists in
the form of content analysis on the co-investigator’s personal laptop computer will
be password-protected and these documents will be permanently deleted 36 months
following dissertation defense. No other use of this data is currently contemplated.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Responses to the
recruitment letter will be stored in a locked cabinet which only the co-investigator
will have access to.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
396
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr.Donald E.Polkighome, the principal investigator. His business address is WPH
702E, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA 90089. His telephone number is (213) 740-3256 and email is polkingh@usc.edu.
The co-investigator, Sujatha Ramesh, can be contacted at (310) 621-0184, her email
is sramesh@usc.edu, and her mailing address is C/O Ms.Tamara Mckenzie, WPH
703, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA 90089.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
397
APPENDIX B
Letter requesting Case Data and Consent to Interview
The IRB paperwork included following this letter does not have the IRB approval
stamp. The photocopies of the stamped approval papers were sent to the training
directors. The copy of the letter is included below:
Dear Training Director,
I am a doctoral candidate in the Ph.D. program in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. My dissertation chair is Donald
Polkinghome, Ph.D. Professors Rod Goodyear, Gerald Stone, and Dallas Willard
constitute the rest of my dissertation committee. My dissertation will examine of the
strategies used by APA accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology in
order to integrate science and practice in training. Because the integration of science
and practice is an explicit aim of the guiding principles of accreditation, it is unclear
what specific strategies training programs use to facilitate this integration. I am
limiting my study to APA accredited counseling psychology programs that espouse
the scientist-practitioner model of training. For the purposes of case study selection, I
had sought feedback from all current training directors of APA accredited counseling
psychology doctoral programs requesting them to identify training programs that
they deemed use different strategies for integrating science and practice. On the basis
of that feedback, your program was chosen for inclusion in this study.
To gain an in-depth understanding of your training program as part of the
case study investigation, I would like to conduct a telephone interview that might
take about 45-60 minutes. This interview can be arranged at a time that is suitable for
you. I shall audiotape this interview and transcribe the interview verbatim. You have
the right to review and edit the content the transcript which will be sent to you; both
the audiotape and transcript will be coded numerically in order to protect identifying
information.
The interview will consist of questions relating to the training program,
specifically regarding the integration of science and practice during training. I might
contact you again if I need additional information. If you would prefer a face-to-face
interview, I shall gladly schedule such an interview. In addition, I also request you to
provide me with additional information that would help my case study including a
copy of the narrative portion of the self-study your program prepared for
accreditation purposes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
398
The self-study, the audiotapes, the transcripts, and the master document that
links the transcripts and tapes with the individual program will all be stored in a
locked cabinet in the co-investigator’s personal library. All data-related documents
present in the co-investigator’s personal laptop computer will be password-protected.
Raw data that are numerically coded and devoid of identifying information will be
shared only with dissertation committee members for the specific purpose of
dissertation-related mentoring. Nobody else will have access to this data. No
identifying information or related information that can identify a particular training
program or training director will be used in the dissertation or in any publication in
the future arising from this dissertation research. All dissertation data will be
shredded and audiotapes destroyed after 36 months of co-investigator’s dissertation
defense.
Dr.Polkinghome, the principal investigator, can be contacted at (213) 740-
3256, emailed at polkingh@usc.edu and his mailing address is WPH 702E, Rossier
School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
Sujatha Ramesh, the co-investigator can be contacted at (310) 621-0184, emailed at
sramesh@usc.edu and her mailing address is C/O Ms.Tamara Mckenzie, WPH 703,
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
90089.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in my dissertation work. I would like to
inform you that by agreeing to be interviewed, share the self-study report, and
additional training-related information, you voluntarily participate in my dissertation
research without any remuneration. If you prefer, you could decline to participate in
this study. However, I hope that you would agree to assist me to.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Sujatha Ramesh, M.A.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
399
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Intra-model Differences within the Scientist-Practitioner Model of
Training based on Strategies of Integration
Stage 2 Data Collection
You are asked to participate in a dissertation research study conducted by Ms.Sujatha
Ramesh, M.A., doctoral candidate in counseling psychology in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. My faculty sponsor or
dissertation chair is Donald E. Polkinghome, Ph.D. Professors Rodney K.Goodyear,
Gerald Stone, and Dallas Willard constitute the rest of my dissertation committee.
You were selected as a possible source of data as well as participant in the study
because you are currently a training director of an APA-accredited doctoral program
in counseling psychology and your program was identified as employing a particular
type of science-practice integration. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to leam
more about how different scientist-practitioner training programs define concepts
such as science, practice, and the integration of science and practice. In addition, we
are trying to leam more about how these concepts, as operationalized in the training
model, inform the program curriculum, research experience requirements, and
clinical training requirements.
Your willingness to provide me the self-study report and other additional information
related to the training program and/or willingness to be possibly interviewed in a
future date will constitute your consent to participate in this research study.
PROCEDURES
You will be interviewed and requested to provide a copy of your most recent self-
study report as well as additional information related to training. This interview will
be conducted over the telephone and audio-taped. I estimate that the interview will
take between 45-60 minutes. The interview questions will seek in greater detail how
your particular training model has been conceptualized, defined, and implemented in
the training program. Specifically, questions relating to the definition of science and
practice and its integration in the context of the particular training model will be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
400
asked. If you prefer to be interviewed face-to-face, such an interview will be
arranged.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
No reasonable foreseeable risks, discomforts, inconveniences are anticipated or
expected as a result of participating in this research project.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
This dissertation seeks to leam more about the different strategies for science-
practice integration used by accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology.
Integration of science and practice has been an idea that has remained predominantly
problematic although most training programs aim to train professionals who
integrate them in their professional activities. The results of this dissertation will
provide insight concerning the nuances that exist in the operationalization of this
singular concept.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Training directors will not be paid for participating in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. Other than my
dissertation committee, nobody else will have any access to the dissertation data
including the self-study reports, interview transcripts, and the audiotapes of
interviews. Even the dissertation committee will have access to the raw data only
after I remove all identifying information from the documents, tapes, and transcripts.
Training directors retain the right to review or edit interview tapes that will be
provided to them upon request in the form of verbatim transcripts. Following the
interview, I shall numerically code the audiotape and the transcript so that no
identifying information is present. The audiotapes, transcripts, self-study reports, and
my ongoing data analysis documents including the master documents that links the
numerical coding with identifying information all will be stored in a locked cabinet
in the co-investigator’s personal library. Other than the co-investigator nobody has
any access to these documents and tapes at any point in time except during the times
when the co-investigator shares them with her dissertation committee for a particular
mentoring purpose. The data will be stored in this locked cabinet for a period of 36
months, following dissertation defense, after which all documents will be shredded
and audiotapes destroyed. Data that exists in the form of content analysis on the co
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
401
investigator’s personal laptop computer will be password-protected and these
documents will be permanently deleted 36 months following dissertation defense.
No individual training program or training director will be individually identified and
identifying information will be sufficiently disguised so that such information cannot
be gleaned either in the dissertation or in any publication that might be generated as a
result of this dissertation.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Participation in this dissertation study is voluntary. You can chose to provide the
self-study report and/or agree to be interviewed or decline to do both. I will contact
you through email/phone/mail requesting a suitable time to conduct a telephone
interview. You can refuse to be interviewed at that point even if you chose to provide
the self-study report and other training-related details.
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr.Donald E.Polkighome, the principal investigator. His business address is WPH
702E, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA 90089. His telephone number is (213) 740-3256 and email is polkingh@usc.edu.
The co-investigator, Sujatha Ramesh, can be contacted at (310) 621-0184, my email
is sramesh@usc.edu, and my mailing address is WPH 1003, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 226, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
402
APPENDIX C
Interview Question Guide
These questions were addressed to the training director during the interview:
1. There has been an ongoing debate about the appropriate definition
of science in psychology - whether natural science or human
science models are more appropriate. Which model has your
program adopted?
2. Just as the kind of science that is appropriate for psychology has
been debated about, programs differ in their practice orientations as
well. Which theoretical orientation/s has your program adopted?
3. Do all faculty members endorse this orientation or are there some
variations?
4. Looking at the literature on the scientist-practitioner model, I am
finding that the fundamental goal of integrating science and
practice is quite difficult to achieve. How has your program tried to
achieve this goal?
5. Do you think this goal of integration is realistic?
6. So what kind of strategy does your program use to integrate science
and practice in training?
7. Do you have criteria that evaluate the success of your strategy?
8. What are these criteria? (If the response to # 7 is affirmative)
9. Under ideal circumstances, would you like to do something
differently in training in order to integrate science and practice?
Questions added as data collection and analysis progressed:
10. How do you define a scientist-practitioner?
11. How does your program train students to become scientist-
practitioner as per this definition?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
403
12. Are there any factors within the program or outside that influence
training?
13. How do these factors impact training, especially the science and
practice components?
14. How do these factors influence the development of the scientist-
practitioners in the program?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Gender differences in motivation for sexual intercourse: Implications for risky sexual behavior and substance use in a university and community sample
PDF
Integration of science and practice: A collective case study of scientist-practitioner programs in counseling psychology
PDF
A Positive Psychology goal intervention using strengths and values to enhance goals and increase well -being
PDF
A phenomenological inquiry into the essential meanings of the most intense experience of religiosity and spirituality
PDF
Considering the impact of culture on the therapeutic relationship: A look at Latino school-age children in a special education setting
PDF
Assessment of racial identity and self -esteem in an Armenian American population
PDF
An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample
PDF
An investigation of a new diagnostic sub-type: Post traumatic stress disorder with psychotic features
PDF
Effects of test interpretation style and need for cognition on elaboration, favorability, and recall
PDF
Attachment style, interpersonal guilt, parental alcoholism, parental divorce and eating disordered symptomatology in college women
PDF
Gender differences in symptom presentation of depression in primary care settings
PDF
A daily diary approach to compare the accuracy of depressed and nondepressed participants' estimation of positive and negative mood: A test of the depressive realism hypothesis
PDF
Intergenerational conflict, family functioning, and acculturation experienced by Asian American community college students
PDF
Development and validation of the Cooper Quality of Imagery Scale: A measure of vividness of sporting mental imagery
PDF
Anorexia nervosa: A developmental perspective
PDF
Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics
PDF
Identity in midlife lesbians: A kaleidoscopic view
PDF
Gay men with eating disorders and food, body image, and exercise concerns: A group treatment approach
PDF
Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and the attitude functions they serve: Correlates, stability and gender differences
PDF
An adolescent -parent conflict resolution skills training program for ethnically diverse families: A program evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ramesh, Sujatha
(author)
Core Title
Integration of science and practice: A collective case study of scientist -practitioner programs in counseling psychology
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Counseling Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, educational psychology,education, guidance and counseling,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Polkinghorne, Donald (
committee chair
), Goodyear, Rodney (
committee member
), Stone, Gerald (
committee member
), Willard, Dallas (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-333603
Unique identifier
UC11340343
Identifier
3180311.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-333603 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3180311.pdf
Dmrecord
333603
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ramesh, Sujatha
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, educational psychology
education, guidance and counseling
psychology, clinical