Practitioner-Scholar Paper

Running head: Practitioner-Scholar Paper

U03a1: Practitioner-Scholar Paper

Anthony Rhodes
Psy5002
Orientation to Graduate Learning in Psychology

2911 Hamilton Blvd. 444

Sioux City, Iowa 51104
Telephone: 712-301-9258
Email: anthonyrhodes54@yahoo.com
Instructor: David Chapman, PsyD

Practitioner-Scholar Paper
Abstract

Practitioner-Scholar Paper

This paper reviews a peer-reviewed journal article that examined training model
outcomes in Clinical Psychology programs. The article defines the scholarpractitioner and practitioner-scholar training models and summarizes research that
was conducted to determine the eventual training model outcomes of students,
faculty and graduates in the marketplace. This paper also reflects on which models
best describe the author and how the author as a learner and a professional can
become a better practitioner-scholar.
From the inception and development
of psychological theories, science and practice in the field of psychology were
viewed as fundamental and complementary disciplines. Most psychologists
concurred on the effective inclusion of both in the educational process of training
professional psychologists. However, the inherent tension between science and
clinical practice sparked an ongoing philosophical debate in the quest for the most
effective and appropriate training model. The article I reviewed dealt with these
philosophical differences but not as a reflection of the professions inability to agree
in principle and methodology, but as specific training approaches in accredited
programs as they relate to career training goals and their eventual outcomes in the
marketplace (Cherry, Messenger and Jacoby, 2000).
The training model debate began after the Second World War with the
development of the Boulder or scholar-practitioner model. It provided for the equal
provision of extensive training in psychological research and the applications of that
research to eventual practice (Cherry, Messenger and Jacoby, 2000). It soon
became the dominant training model in university-based PhD programs. A scholarpractitioner is one who researches, quantifies and documents objective, empirically
validated psychological truths and then proceeds to client intervention and
application of those findings.
In the 1970s, the Vail or practitioner-scholar model emerged as an alternative
approach that shifted the primary emphasis from psychological research to clinical
intervention and application. The primary goal behind the training of the
practitioner-scholar psychologist was the preparation for delivering effective
human services as a response to individual needs (Cherry, Messenger and Jacoby,
2000). The practitioner-scholar differs from the scholar-practitioner in that the
starting point is understanding the relevant needs of the client and then bringing
the most useful and available research to bear upon the problem. Psychologists
would be trained to conduct disciplined inquiry beginning at the level of the client
rather than through the conduct of controlled laboratory or field research (Cherry,
Messenger and Jacoby, 2000).
The tension between the two models has led to ensuing debate and
polarization in the area of psychological academic training and methodology. From
the perspective of the scholar-practitioner, one might argue that the practitioner-

Practitioner-Scholar Paper

scholar model relies too heavily on methods and knowledge that have not been
empirically verified. On the other hand, the practitioner-scholar may argue that the
scholar-practitioner model is but a utopian idea that does not meet the relevant
criteria and needs of the client.
The obvious contention in these two seemingly polarizing training
philosophies requires the need for a much broader perspective regarding their
usefulness in accredited training programs as a function of their eventual outcome.
The solution to the unresolved conflict is grounded in the recognition that the
existence of multiple training models is consistent with the apparent diversity in the
field of psychology and the marketplace. Consequently, while espousing the values
of science and practice, there is no one correct philosophy, model, or method of
training for professional psychology practice; rather there are multiple valid ones
(Cherry, Messenger and Jacoby, 2000).

The article I reviewed sought to examine whether the training outcomes for
students, faculty and graduates were indeed a function of their program training
model (Cherry, Messenger and Jacoby, 2000). Scholar-practitioners spent
significantly more time in grant supported research activities, presentations and
authoring journal articles. Conversely, the practitioner-scholar involved themselves
more in professional service delivery (Cherry, Messenger and Jacoby, 2000). The
research indicated that the emphasis in a program training model does consistently
reflect and influence the primary activities of its students, faculty and graduates
among the diverse opportunities available in the field of professional psychology.
Personally, I am more of a practitioner-scholar. Over the past twenty-five
years I have lived in multicultural locations in the United States and abroad. As a
teacher and a counselor, I had to learn how to adapt, understand and empathize
with the apparent socio-economic, cultural and religious differences around me. In
the long process of attempting to identify with those I had chosen to serve, I
became a good listener.
Through that practice I began to apply more of the practitioner-scholar
approach to problem solving and crisis management in counseling. My background
training in cross cultural communications and counseling allowed me to apply
appropriate research, principles and methods based upon the criteria of the clients
or groups needs. As I listened, I found that understanding the problem, the values
and beliefs of the client and formulating a process for healing with an appropriate
objective framework was the most successful practice.

Practitioner-Scholar Paper

Learning how to become a better practitioner with the knowledge and skills to
assess and improve the psychological well being of individuals, families and groups
is a challenging task. I look forward to pursuing coursework at Capella to develop
and internalize the practitioner and scholarly knowledge and skills at my disposal
for preparation in the psychology profession. This would include acquiring and
integrating the most useful information available through library resources. In
addition, conference attendance will assist in providing training and ongoing
discussion with colleagues and faculty on how to improve and implement the
practitioner-scholar model.
As a professional practitioner one of my greatest challenges would be to stay
abreast of the most useful information and research available and seek to integrate it
within the context of the relevant criteria of the clients needs. In all practice settings,
understanding the diversity and complexities of societal issues requires a wide range
of understanding, knowledge and research. As a professional I would need to avail
myself of relevant research findings in journals, articles, reviews and even state and
federal laws and regulations that affect psychological practice. Furthermore, I must
take responsibility as a professional to articulate, document and publish my own
experience, observations and research to inform, educate and promote discussion
within the psychological professional community.

References
Cherry, D., Messenger, L. & Jacoby, A. (2000, October). An examination of training
model outcomes in clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 31(5), 562-568.