Running head: DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

Discussion Leadership Reflection

Lela L. Pickett
Cleveland State University

DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

Discussion Leadership Reflection

The field of psychology is arguably a staple of todays society, as evidenced by its
increasing prevalence in variety of settings, such as education systems, healthcare organizations,
military services, hospitals, and government agencies. There is a tendency to view psychology as
well-established discipline, so the notion that it was in its infancy during the 20th century is fairly
surprising. The evolution of the field of psychology and its development can only be truly
understood when the historical context and ideologies that influenced this process are taken into
account.
The class discussion I lead explored the development of a formal model for training
professional psychologists and the events surrounding it as prompted by The Affirmation of the
Scientist-Practitioner: A Look Back at Boulder (Baker & Benjamin Jr., 2000). This article
presented a detailed account of how the influence of various events leading up to the Boulder
Conference culminated and highlighted the necessity of articulating a formal training model.
World War II was identified as a catalyst for the increased necessity for professional
psychologists in the 1940s and the orchestration of a subsequent collaboration between
institutions of higher education, psychologists, and government agencies to meet the high
demands. The formal development of the Boulder model was portrayed as a collaboration of
numerous individuals; however, the work of David Shakow, the chief psychologist at Worcester
State Hospital and member of the Committee on the Training of Clinical Psychologists that had
been appointed by the American Association for Applied Psychology (AAAP), was
acknowledged as a substantial contribution that established the groundwork for the formal
Boulder model.

DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

The supplemental articles I chose provided additional insights into the scientistpractitioner model with consideration to historical influence. The first article I selected portrayed
the scientist-practitioner model as a major success and echoed many of the same sentiments as
the primary article (Petersen, 2007). While the historical circumstances were reiterated, the
article supplied a novel outlook on how the scientist-practitioner model is incorporated in daily
experiences. The author conveys a rather idealistic image of interweaving intervention,
assessment, and inquiry with the intent of developing more effective approaches to treatment and
enhancing consistency and accuracy of diagnostic procedures.
The second article I selected offered a critical view of the scientist-practitioner model.
Frank (1984) instantaneously highlights the divergence in views of the scientist-practitioner
model ranging from highly successful and widely employed to blatantly flawed and inviable. The
article suggests that criticisms of the scientist-practitioner model are based on two primary issues
that there was no valid justification for clinicians to receive research training and that clinical
and research interests and skills were incompatible. Frank (1984) examined possible reasons for
the minimal correlation between educational training for research and conducting research after
graduation. The influence of individual differences and the notion that research and clinical
practice require different interests, attitudes, and talents were particularly emphasized. This
article aimed to challenge the viability of the Boulder Model.
Leading the discussion required me to go beyond simply reading the article assigned for
the weekly discussion and seek further knowledge on the topic, which I am genuinely pleased
that I did. I hope that the other students legitimately took the time to read the supplementary
articles. The assigned article was informative, but it was just thatinformative. The article
lacked passion in my opinion. The authors did not have much of a voice aside from a lackluster

DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

support of the training model and view that the Boulder Conference was a success. I believe that
Baker and Benjamin Jr. (2000) would have given a more compelling account if they had included
information on turmoil occurring in psychology around the time of the Boulder Conference. I
was particularly surprised that the authors did not include more information regarding applied
psychologists withdrawing from APA on more than one occasion before reuniting in 1945. It is
interesting to consider how that reunification likely influenced the training model, especially
since the APA constitution was modified to reflect the values of all parties involved. I gained so
much more clarity about the scientist-practitioner model as a whole after searching for
supplementary articles and becoming aware of the underlying dynamics occurring within the
field of psychology that were not addressed in the primary article.
Overall, I was pleased with the participation, especially considering that there was some
confusion over whether the discussion board was a requirement due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
However, I was reasonably disappointed that no one responded to more than one question out of
the six that I posted and that all but one student elected to respond to the same inquiry about
whether the scientist-practitioner model is actually adhered to today. I did not expect that
question to become the only focal point of the discussion and it was honestly the question least
relevant to the article itself. I suppose if I was to lead another blackboard discussion in the future,
I would insert the questions one at a time over the week to counteract this issue. Although most
students responded to the same question, it was still interesting to see the debates it sparked and
the exchange of ideas.

DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

References
Baker, D. B., & Benjamin Jr, L. T. (2000). The affirmation of the scientistpractitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55(2), 241.
Frank, G. (1984). The Boulder Model: History, rationale, and critique.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15(3), 417.
Petersen, C. A. (2007). A historical look at psychology and the scientistpractitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(6), 758-765.