consumes information or accepts and uses tech-
niques with little support.
The scientist-practitioner model is less a quan-
titative breakdown of one’s daily activities than it is
a state of mind. No one ever intended to have all
clinicians devote exactly 50% of their time to their
clinical practice and 50% to formal research.
Some will be primarily researchers and others pri-
marily clinicians. Rather, it was intended that the
scientist-practitioner model would help students of
clinical psychology“think”like a scientist in what-
ever activities they engaged in. As a clinician, they
would evaluate their clients’progress scientifically
and select treatments that were based on empirical
evidence. Although it is true that practicing clini-
cians do not do much in the way of research,
this may be largely because their work settings
do not permit it and not because they do not
wish to do it.
The scientist-practitioner model is just as appli-
cable to clinical researchers as it is to practicing
clinicians. The former can only produce solid,
meaningful research if they keep their clinical sen-
sitivity and skills honed by continuing to see
patients. Just as practitioners must not forsake their
research training and interests, neither must
researchers ignore their clinical foundation.
The Debate Continues. A series of training con-
ferences culminating in one at Salt Lake City, Utah,
in 1987 eroded any strict interpretation of the
scientist-practitioner model. These conferences rec-
ognized alternative routes to professional compe-
tence. Specifically, they accepted approaches that
deemphasize research experience in favor of more
direct and extensive training in clinical skills.
The Boulder model has been durable, but the
debate continues. The mood of professionalism
seems to grow every year. Increasingly, clinical psy-
chologists are split into two groups: those interested
primarily in clinical practice and those interested
primarily in research. Although many believe that
the scientist-practitioner model has served us well
and successfully, others conclude that it is a poor
educational model that deserves the wrath of its
critics. But the prospect of totally abandoning the
Boulder model is worrisome to many. As Meltzoff
(1984) put it years ago:
To train a new strain of purely applied
psychologists who will be obliged to
accept on faith what is handed down to
them without being able to evaluate it or
advance it, is the certain pathway to
mediocrity. Research training conveys a
mode of thought. It teaches how to be
inquisitive and skeptical, how to think
logically, how to formulate hypotheses and
to test them, how to gather data rather
than opinion, how to analyze those data
and draw inferences from them, and how
to make a balanced presentation of the
findings. These are skills that help...
professional psychologists to rise above
the technician level. (p. 209)The Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) Degree
The foregoing controversy was at least partially
responsible for the emergence ofDoctor of Psychology
(Psy.D.)degrees. The special characteristics of these
degrees are an emphasis on the development of clin-
ical skills and a relative de-emphasis on research
competence. A master’s thesis is not required, and
the dissertation is usually a report on a professional
subject rather than an original research contribution.
The first of these programs was developed at
the University of Illinois in 1968 (D. R. Peterson,
1971), although that school has since closed its pro-
gram. Subsequently, similar programs were devel-
oped at Rutgers, Baylor, and elsewhere. As
Peterson (1968) envisioned them, Psy.D. programs
are not substantially different from Ph.D. programs
during the first two years of training. The real
divergence begins with the third year. At that
point, increasing experience in therapeutic practice
and assessment becomes the rule. The fourth year
continues the clinical emphasis with a series of
internship assignments. More recently, Psy.D. pro-
grams have moved toward compressing formal
coursework into the first year and expandingCURRENT ISSUES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY 61