The Concept of the Scientist Practitioner and Its Extension to Behavior Analysis

The Concept of the Scientist Practitioner and Its Extension to Behavior Analysis

The concept of the scientist practitioner has been in place for decades and has been embraced by the fields of clinical psychology and behavior analysis. Initially formulated as the Boulder Model, the model emphasized the need to develop professionals grounded in science, trained in effective treatment methods, and committed to the identification and evolution of the field through empirical research. There are a number of assumptions that form the foundation of this approach, and they all emphasize the integration of practice and research (e.g., Jones & Mehr, 2007). The authors of the articles in the current issue go into details of the history of the model, how it is implemented, potential advantages and disadvantages, and future issues. The model assumes that practice is informed by research, and that clinicians trained in research will pursue scientific solutions to socially relevant problems. Furthermore, research is valued as an avenue for identifying effective treatments (Jones & Mehr, 2007; Stricker, 2000). In recent years, some have suggested modifications in the model, such as calling for the development of evidence-based practitioners. Some have argued that the primary skill set needed for behavior analysis is a clinical one, and that careful clinical supervision is the essential element in training the next generation (Hugh-Pennie, Lee-Park, Luke, & Lee, 2018). While these semantic battles rage, the commitment to the scientist practitioner model has not faltered (Chwalisz, 2003; Maddux & Riso, 2007).

Malott (in this volume) argues that the scientist-practitioner model does not produce practitioners who read and engage in research. Malott states, "But I still don't think we should waste much of our students' time training them to be critical consumer of behavior-analysis research, as they will never acquire the critical skills of the editors and reviewers of our behavior-analytic journals." Malott does not believe that clinicians are capable of interpreting and integrating research findings into clinical practice. Thus, he asserts, the Scientist-Practitioner model is not useful as a structure for training graduate students and future doctoral-level behavior analysts. Instead, Malott argues for a science-based practitioner model, to train practitioners to value science and engage in clinical practice influenced by science. He appears to believe that the field's group of research...