The science-practitioner model, which is also known as the Boulder Model can be termed as a training model for graduate programs which aspires to coach applied psychologists and further to equip them with vast research and scientific practice. This model was initially formed to help guide the clinical psychology graduate programs authorized by the American Psychological Association (APA). The scholar-practitioner model, on the other hand, is an educational as well as an operational model that is very well advanced and focuses on application of scholarly knowledge in a manner that’s practical. This model was initially developed for the sole purpose of training clinical psychologists. However, over the years, the scholar-practitioner model has since been implemented by other different specialty programs such as public health, business and law (Chang, Lee & Ann, 2005). This compendium takes a look at the strength as well as limitations of the two models.
The first version of the scientist-practitioner model was introduced to the general public by David Shakow after having applied it himself. During this time, the model was presented to a number of committees where it was developed further. Over a period of time, the model slowly changed from its original version. The change resulted from the model being exceptionally accepted during all the conferences in which it was presented. During the Boulder conference, this model was purposed. Thereafter, the psychological community as well as the American Psychological Association both accredited the scientist-practitioner model. The aim of the scientific-practitioner model is to significantly increase scientific growth in the United States, within the frameworks of clinical psychology (Benjamin & Baker, 2000). To this end, it is strong since it fronts an approach that gives rise to a basis of understanding and predicting scientific theory as well. The validation of theories can be done externally based on this approach with the facilitation of practice. Despite its productivity, the scientific-practitioner model experiences a number of short comings, for instance, time constraints, a lack of funding, and issues involving research publishing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Scholar-practitioner model came to be in 1973. This model is the most commonly represented in doctoral programs. It mainly focuses on one’s development in terms of being a scholar, and a leader at that. This model is highly innovative and dynamic as it focuses on ways of supporting scholarships and social contributions. As well, it has the ability to apply positive influence in one’s academic, personal and professional life (Buchanan, 2002). This model has several merits that creates a slight difference as compared to the other models. These are:
Training via this model is exceptionally stronger and tends to focus more on clinical practice more keenly that the other models
This model tends to accept a greater number of students compared to the typical Ph.D. degree. A lot if not all of these training programs offer Psy.D. Degree instead of Ed.D. or Ph.D.
Admission criteria mostly puts more emphasis on the applicants personal qualities as well as work experience which is clinically related.
Just like scientist-practitioner training, scholar-practitioner training is usually characterized by core courses. This is both in basic as well as applied psychology, research consumption, together with extensive clinical experience supervision (Benjamin, 2005).
In summation, the scholar-practitioner model should be viewed as a discipline that incorporates science coupled up with practice. Given am a student practicing clinical psychology, I regard the scholar-practitioner model as a highly applicable approach to psychology. My view is that through this model, we can further broaden our comprehension of the human state. The essence of the scholar-practitioner model is its capacity to properly undertake relevant research and also its demonstration of the capacity to produce and report data that is clinically relevant to the scientific community. It is therefore, only natural that I chose to be a scholar-practitioner. This is in order for me to continue informing and changing a system that was clearly never built for people carrying marginalized identities.
References
Chang, K., Lee, I. L., & Ann Hargreaves, T. (2008). Scientist versus Practitioner–An abridged meta-analysis of the changing role of psychologists. Counselling Psychology Quarterly , 21 (3), 267-291.
Benjamin Jr, L. T., & Baker, D. B. (2000). Boulder at 50: Introduction to the section. American Psychologist , 55 (2), 233.
Benjamin Jr, L. T. (2005). A history of clinical psychology as a profession in America (and a glimpse at its future). Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. , 1 , 1-30.
Buchanan, T. (2002). Historically grounding the practice of psychology: Implications for professional training. History of psychology , 5 (3), 240.
