Practitioner-Scholar Paper 1

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 2

Abstract

This paper reviews a peer-reviewed journal article that examined training model outcomes in Clinical
Psychology programs. The article defines the scholar-practitioner 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.
 Practitioner-Scholar Paper 3

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
scholar-practitioner 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-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).
 Practitioner-Scholar Paper 4

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.

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.
 Practitioner-Scholar Paper 5

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.