344 Clinical Psychology
confusion and conflict from those of turn-of-the-century
Vienna. Therefore, we see fewer hysterics and more neuroses
of character, whose symptoms involve difficulties in relating
to people effectively. Similar ideas were being expressed by
Franz Alexander, Erich Fromm, and Wilhelm Reich (see
Munroe, 1955).
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUGGLES AND
TRAINING MODELS
Clinicians persisted in trying to get the APA to address their
professional concerns, but the APA still wavered. In 1931, the
Clinical Psychology section of the APA tried to set standards
for a training program in clinical psychology. A committee
was appointed and within 4 years issued its report: Clinical
psychology was defined as “that art and technology which
deals with the adjustment problems of human beings”; it re-
quired of its practitioners the PhD and a year of supervised ex-
perience; an MA and a year’s experience would qualify one to
be an assistant psychologist (Report of Committee, 1935).
Then considering its task finished, this committee disbanded.
Evidently tiring of frustration, in 1937 the Clinical Psy-
chology section of the APA dissolved itself and became in-
stead a section of a new organization known as the American
Association of Applied Psychology (AAAP). This clinical
section had 229 members at its founding (Routh, 1994,
1997). When the clinical section had first affiliated with APA,
part of the agreement had been that the section would be al-
lowed to continue its focus on the professional as well as the
scientific aspects of the field. As time went on, the APA did
not live up to this agreement, and the section’s annual meet-
ing became merely a place to read scientific papers. Also, the
APA had agreed to set up a system for certifying “consulting
psychologists” as qualified to offer their services to the
public. Only 25 persons were ever so certified before the sys-
tem was discontinued in 1927. The AAAP also incorporated
the Association of Consulting Psychologists, which had been
founded in 1931, and began publishing itsJournal of Con-
sulting Psychology.(It continues to enjoy a fine reputation as
a premier publication for clincians’ research as the Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology.)
With all this unrest and with all the excitement psycho-
analysis and its offshoots were generating in psychiatry and
in the culture, it is small wonder that clinicians began to want
to become more involved in treatment and saw their roles as
researchers, psychometricians, and educators to be somewhat
lacking in prestige, status, and pizzazz. Could treating enure-
sis by a bell and pad apparatus (Mowrer & Mowrer, 1938)
compare in sophistication with determining why a child
unconsciously resisted the toilet-training efforts of parents?
World events would shortly push that question a bit to the
side and afford clinicians an unprecedented opportunity for
the growth of their profession. But before we consider the
momentous events that happened—U.S. participation in the
Second World War from 1941 to 1945—let us take a closer
look at the training of clinicians in the prewar period.
If we examine those clinical psychologists who achieved
eminence in the field, as indicated by recognition from their
colleagues through awards or election to office in profes-
sional organizations, we find that many of them earned their
doctorates from only a handful of schools. A list of schools
whose graduates became prominent clinical psychologists is
shown in Table 16.1. As this table shows, the University of
Pennsylvania, Columbia, and Harvard had large numbers of
successful graduates, with Columbia alone accounting for
more than twice as many as any other school (Routh, 2000).
Yet even at many of these universities, such as Harvard, there
was no prescribed course work or training to become a clini-
cal psychologist. David Shakow, for example, took what rel-
evant courses and training he could, which he described as a
“do-it-yourself program” (Shakow, 1976), and his experi-
ences were more the rule than the exception.TABLE 16.1 Officers and Awardees of Clinical Psychology
Organizations with Doctoral Degrees Prior to 1946
University Number Well-Known Examples
Columbia 25 S. J. Beck (1932), John E. Bell (1942),
Augusta Bronner (1914), S. I. Franz
(1899), Leta S. Hollingworth (1917),
Anne Roe (1933), Carl R. Rogers (1931),
David Wechsler (1925), Joseph Zubin
(1932).
Harvard 9 Robert R. Holt (1944), James Grier Miller
(1943), Saul Rosenzweig (1932),
R. Nevitt Sanford (1934), David Shakow
(1942), Robert W. White (1932).
Pennsylvania 9 Francis N. Maxfield (1912), David Mitchell
(1913), Herman H. Young (1916).
Ohio State 6 Victor C. Raimy (1943).
Iowa 5 George A. Kelly (1931), Boyd R.
McCandless (1941), Marie Skodak
(1938).
Stanford 5 Robert G. Bernreuter (1931), E. Lowell Kelly
(1930), Catherine Cox Miles (1925).
Clark 5 Arnold L. Gesell (1906), Frederick
Kuhlmann (1903), Seymour B. Sarason
(1942).
Minnesota 4 Starke R. Hathaway (1932), Carney Landis
(1924), Paul E. Meehl (1945).
Note:The data is from Clinical Psychology since 1917: Science, Practice,
and Organization(pp. 237–255), by D. K. Routh, 1994, New York: Plenum.
Copyright 1994 by Kluwer Academic. Reprinted with permission. This table
is reproduced from D. K. Routh (2000), p. 238.