The relationship between science and practice in many fields is often complex, and clinical psychology is not an exception (Beutler et al, 1995). Researchers can feel that clinicians are not adequately trained, and uninformed as to recent scientific discoveries; they view scientific findings as they way to correct these shortcomings (e.g., Cohen, 1995). Likewise, clinicians can view researchers as pursuing irrelevant or oversimplified topics that are not of much help in to them or their patients, and ignore the important information that arises from practitioners (e.g., Edelson, 1994). Beutler et al (1995) conducted an interview of 325 psychologists (both researchers and clinicians) to determine to what extent this divide exists in the field of clinical psychology.

The results of this survey found that clinicians do read research articles, and use the information in these articles in their daily practice. Researchers, on the other hand, do not read practice journal; therefore, the assertion that researchers do not value findings from practitioners may have some validity. This finding may also explain why clinicians report that academics perform research in areas that are irrelevant to the issue they face in the "real world."

Beutler et al have provided the following as possible ways to help bridge the communication gap. First, they suggest that scientists of different orientations should collaborate more. Distinctions between scientists often have no real substance, and collaboration can help lead to new question or unmasks hidden assumptions. Second, since the survey results show that it may be the researchers who have more trouble bridging the communication gap than clinicians, they propose that scientists should initiate relationships with clinicians. This will benefit both groups, in that it will give direction to researchers and allow clinicians better access to scientific findings. Third, they suggest that psychologists reconsider the role of science for practitioners. Perhaps using clinical experience as a means of discovery, and research as a means of confirmation of these discoveries, would be a better approach than the one that is currently used, whereby researchers are given the sole responsibility for discovering the "truths" in psychology. Fourth, Beutler et al propose that the two groups develop means of communication. The survey results showed that, although clinicians read research journals, they often preferred reading professional newsletters or newspapers. Instead of trying to persuade practitioners to read more research journals, which may contain incomprehensible language or place too much emphasis on probabilities (where clinicians are interested in what is "true"), perhaps researchers should try "translating" and publishing their findings in professional newsletters.

References
Beutler, L.E., Williams, R.E., Wakefield, P.J., & Entwistle, S.R. (1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 984-994.

Cohen, L.H. (1985). Research utilization in community mental health: Some comments on O'Donohue, Curtis, and Fisher (1985). Professional Psychology, 16, 719-722.

Edelson, M. (1994). Can psychotherapy research answer this psychotherapist's questions? In P.F. Tally, H.H. Strupp, & S.F. Butler, Psychotherapy research and practice: Bridging the gap. New York: Basic Books.

HOME | STUDENT CENTER | FACULTY CENTER | ONLINE STUDY GUIDE | LINKS | TEACHING PSYCHOLOGY HANDBOOK | SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURE NOTES | FACULTY SUPPLEMENTS |