It’s Time to Sharpen the Role and Purpose of Research and Scientific Training for the Professional Practice of Psychology

Research training has been an integral part of training requirements for the professional practice of psychology since the original scientist-practitioner Boulder model. The field of psychology can attribute its productivity and progress to the systematic empirical study of human behaviour. This unique feature of our discipline ensures that the professional practice of psychology is based on a solid foundation. However, since its inception, the professional practice of psychology has been compelled to manage the dialectical struggle between advancing science and training clinicians. There is also what has come be called the Two Hat Problem, whereby research and clinical training have never been fully integrated in training for professional practice, neither in the original conceptualization of the Boulder model nor in subsequent competency-based models. For example, the conceptual separation of foundational and functional domains of competency-based models may have inadvertently further separated research from clinical training. In addition, several practical considerations have also emerged, such as the growing demands of training programs, absence of evidence showing that research training transfers to clinical practice and concerns regarding shortages in practitioners to meet mental health demands in our society. Given these issues, we need to sharpen our definition of what kinds of scientific and research training best support the professional practice of psychology. This paper proposes several recommendations and a working taxonomy of the types of concepts and illustrative empirical studies that integrate research and scientific thinking with clinical competencies for professional practice. If training integrates research and scientific thinking, it will reveal a unifying strategy to define competencies and coherence in the profession. Such integration will require some new thinking for training programs, but it will preserve our profession’s distinction from other mental health care professions, ones that do not have research and scientific thinking built into the core of their training.