Hi
This is just a short reply to a complicated issue, but ...
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Jim Guinee wrote:
> > This kind of
> > separation is all too prevalent in psychology, including clinical
> > psychology that purports to develop scientist-practitioners.
>
> Are you saying that clinical psych programs do a poor job of this
> (by the way -- most counseling psych programs also endorse the scientist-
> practitioner model)?
>
> Can you explain this further?
Endorsing a scientist-practitioner model does not magically
result in experiences that promote such a model. In part the
problem is understanding properly what it means to be a
scientist. I believe this is getting more and more difficult
with the unwarranted "liberalization" of terms like science and
research. Sage, for example, has a published book on
Transpersonal Research Methods. The book legitimizes as valid
sources of knowledge approaches that are clearly antiscientific
to me (e.g., parapsychological experiences). So is someone
committed to Jungian archetypes by virtue of personal experience
(i.e., a transpersonal research method) and the like now a
legitimate example of a scientist-practitioner?
Even the push for empirically-based treatments is tremendously
inadequate to properly represent a scientific attitude, although
it might count as a preliminary baby-step. For me a
scientist-practioner would desire and seek out mechanistic
explanations for the diverse syndromes and practices that are
encompassed by clinical psychology. Of course, they may have to
depend _now_ on less than ideal techniques (i.e., methods whose
empirical and theoretical foundations are weak), but they would
recognize the inadequacy of those foundations, would practice in
an appropriately cautious manner because of those inadequacies,
and would, wherever possible, actively undertake practice in a
way that would move our scientific knowledge forward. I believe
that psychology right now has sufficient empirical and
theoretical foundations to support a science-minded practice, but
that residual non-scientific influences are still too pervasive
in our discipline.
Good scientist-practioners certainly exist, but I believe that
they are in a minority, especially when the full range of people
providing "psychological" services is considered. Many
disciplines do not even require research to practice (i.e., no
thesis). In many applied programs, I suspect that theses and
research are simply other hurdles that need to be jumped before
getting on to the real business of practice. Coursework in
clinical programs is often so excessive as to not even allow
enough time to participate much in research. Books on effective
therapy seldom cite the evidence for their recommendations.
Clinicians depend more on informal interactions with colleagues
for their knowledge than on relevant empirical studies. Debates
on controversial issues (e.g., repressed memories) often seem
more political than scientific in nature (although that is
certainly not unheard of in the academic community as well). And
so on. Although these and like comments simply summarize my
impressions, I believe that they could be backed up with
empirical evidence.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
