Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The integration of professional practice with scientific thinking and research has been a defining characteristic of professional psychology since its inception, although it was first formally articulated as part of the doctoral training model at the Boulder conference in 1949. The scientist-practitioner model has been central to counseling psychology identity and training since its endorsement at the Greyston conference in 1964 and reaffirmation at the Georgia conference in 1987. In 1990, The National Conference on Scientist-Practitioner Education and Training for the Professional Practice of Psychology reaffirmed the scientist-practitioner model as a true integration of science and practice in which each activity continually informs the other. In spite of the professional consensus that psychologists should approach their practice scientifically and base their practice activities on scientific evidence, there is an equally strong consensus that counseling psychology (and other areas of professional psychology) have fallen short of realizing the scientist-practitioner model.

Now, more than ever, a true integration of science and practice is needed. Changes in the healthcare system, increasingly demanding managed care entities, and competition with other mental health professions have created greater demand for proof that psychologists' activities and interventions are effective. Traditional fee-for-service psychological activities are being replaced by activities such as program development and administration, training and supervision of other mental health professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral healthcare and educational programs, and influencing public policy.

History and Definitions

The scientist-practitioner model, also known as the Boulder model, was developed at the Conference on Graduate Education in Clinical Psychology held at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1949. This 2-week-long conference was the first national meeting held to discuss standards for doctoral training in psychology in the United States. Conference attendees concluded that psychologists should provide both professional services and research contributions. Furthermore, the 1949 Boulder conference attendees endorsed a wide range of psychological practice, including work with more normal clientele and traditional counseling psychology realms such as vocational counseling. In 1954, Pepinsky and Pepinsky further articulated the activities of the counselor-as-scientist. As early as 1961, however, psychologists began to recognize and be concerned about the scientist-practitioner split.

Current Status

Hayes and colleagues, in perhaps the most comprehensive consideration to date of how psychologists enact the scientist-practitioner model, described an integrated model of science-based practice in managed behavioral health care, which includes psychologists' contributions to community-level prevention and health development services, practice guidelines and triage to services provided by different levels of practitioners, evaluation and outcome assessment, and the development of new treatments from innovation through program evaluation and efficacy testing to dissemination. Models such as this show how psychologists can integrate science and practice in a wide variety of ways in the full range of settings in which they work. However, there are still barriers to overcome as counseling psychology moves forward toward science-practice integration.

Training Issues

Many members of the original Boulder delegation questioned whether all graduate students could be trained to do both science and practice. Not only has such integrated training in science and practice been impossible to date, but it has been shown to be unrealistic to expect all psychologists to be both skilled practitioners and productive researchers. The successful conduct of research and practice requires different styles and skills, and individuals seeking a career in professional psychology self-select into professional activities that reflect their unique personalities, aptitudes, and interests. Because of fundamental differences in the demands of science and practice, there are few truly integrated scientist-practitioners, in any setting, to serve as role models. The reality of graduate training in psychology is that science and practice activities are typically separated, with the majority of scientific training and mentoring occurring in classroom settings with faculty and the majority of practice training and mentoring occurring in external practicum settings with psychologists who identify as practitioners.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading