Prof. David Lane: What does it mean to be a Scientist-Practitioner? Working towards a New Vision
18 March 2009
Professor David Lane has graciously allowed us to reprint this article he co-authored with Sarah Corrie.
I must create a system or be enslaved by another man’s. (William Blake)
You should never belong totally to any cause or system. (John O’Donoghue)
There can be few models of professional practice that have been subjected to such extensive scrutiny, such high levels of endorsement and such severe criticism as the scientist-practitioner model. However, despite the controversy which has surrounded this professional edifice, the last few years have witnessed a renewed interest in what it means to operate as a scientist-practitioner (Corrie and Callanan, 2000, 2001; Kennedy and Llewellyn, 2001; Manafi, 2004; Trierweiler and Stricker, 1998).
This re-emerging interest can be attributed to a number of factors. At the turn of the century, our professional lives are being shaped by an increasingly complex array of social, professional and political forces. These include substantial technological advances, an increased emphasis on consumer rights, the need to revise our theories of human experience in the light of cultural diversity and political issues relating to how (and which) psychological services are funded.
We are, as Drabick and Goldfried (2000) observe, at a crucial point in our history, one which requires us to re-examine our identities, roles and activities in the light of those we work alongside. As part of this process of re-examination, we consider it vital to review our allegiance to the scientist-practitioner model and to ascertain if this framework can contribute to a robust future for our profession.
Of course, it is not the first time that psychology has faced such challenges. Over the course of its history, applied psychology has continually grappled with how best to respond to social need, how to define itself in ways that will ensure long-term survival and the extent to which it should aspire to the status of science or art. To address the questions that face us now, therefore, and to frame the chapters which follow, we begin by revisiting some of the early influences on psychology‟s dialogues with science, dialogues from which a distinct vision of the scientist-practitioner model ultimately emerged. We also consider some of the opportunities and challenges that have arisen from attempting to forge an integrated relationship between science and practice and how a lack of clarity surrounding definition and function have impacted on psychologists at both an individual and collective level.
Although there have been several historical reviews of the scientist-practitioner model (see, Barlow, Hayes and Nelson, 1984; Trierweiler and Stricker, 1998), we make no apologies for revisiting the origins of the debate once again. Psychology is committed to grounding its knowledge within developmental and contextual frameworks. Given that the scientist-practitioner model emerged within a distinct zeitgeist, revisiting its origins can help us appreciate more fully the enormity of the task that faced our predecessors, thus enabling us to see its strengths and limitations in better perspective.
Read on in the attached pdf.
Download Files:
