Chapter 1
The Counselor as a Practitioner-Scholar

This chapter introduces orientations toward research and provides conceptualizations to approaching research. The discussions regarding research orientation may seem academic and unimportant to the counseling professional. However, we believe that an understanding of orientation can set the stage for how a counselor appreciates research, becomes an intelligent consumer of research, and emerges as a producer of research. In this chapter, you will be exposed to two predominant ideologies of the role of research within the counseling profession (i.e., the scientist-practitioner model and the practitioner-scholar model) and two philosophies that govern one's approach to conducting research (i.e., positivist and constructivist).

Scientist-Practitioner Versus Practitioner-Scholar

The scientist-practitioner model and the practitioner-scholar model originated from psychology and had an impact on the philosophy of training. As these models have been adapted in higher education, the question of which model is appropriate for future practitioners, academics, and researchers has been widely debated. The essence of these debates, with respect to counseling, is focused on developing competent practitioners and scholars who can utilize new information and generate knowledge to move the counseling profession forward.

A committee representing various professionals in psychology, medicine, and education approved the scientist-practitioner model in 1949 in Boulder, Colorado; hence, the model is often referred to as the Boulder model. The emphasis in this model is that psychologists should adhere to the scientific method when engaging in applied practices. The scientist-practitioner model might therefore incorporate the following assumptions for counseling:

1. There is a solid link between research and practice.
2. The skills necessary to be a competent counselor are also necessary to be a competent researcher.
3. Institutions that endorse the scientist-practitioner model may have a stronger culture of research but emphasize competence in practice as well. (Stoltenberg et al., 2000)

However, the scientist-practitioner model is not universally accepted across psychology or other social science fields. Healy (2017) indicated that what happens in counseling may not be reflected in what occurs in laboratory settings. The nuances of a counseling relationship may not be a central focus to interventions that occur from a manualized treatment. Sometimes what occurs in counseling and the interactions that promote healing for a client cannot be duplicated for others because of the uniqueness of the client and the client-counselor relationship. Hence, alternative models to the scientist-practitioner approach were necessary to account for these experiences.

An alternative model-the practitioner-scholar model-was approved in 1973 with the understanding that such a model might be more appropriate for future professionals (e.g., PsyD) who wish to focus primarily on clinical work. The emphasis on integrating research into practice was not lost; however, more focus was placed on clinical training as opposed to the generation and dissemination of research (Stoltenberg et al., 2000).

Counseling differs from psychology in many respects, particularly regarding training and philosophical views of wellness, mental health, and well-being. "Counseling is a professional relationship that empowers diverse individuals, families, and groups to accomplish mental health, wellness, education, and career goals" (Kaplan et al., 2014, p. 366). No other profession defines what it does primarily through a working relationship and by encompassing the aforementioned global constructs.

Another distinguishing characteristic of counseling is that a license to practice independently is granted with the attainment of a master's degree in counseling; in psychology, one must attain a doctorate to practice independently in most states. Hence, a practitioner-scholar model may be more appropriate for professional counselors, because the emphasis in coursework and training is on applied practice. Not until one wishes to obtain a doctorate in counselor education, usually granted with a PhD, does the emphasis shift to research. The doctor of philosophy is a research degree, and therefore a strong balance between research and practice likely is obtained. As both models attempt to bridge research to practice, they serve as ideologies to which counseling students may align their interests consistent with how they are developing within the profession. Although counselors-in-training may initially align with the practitioner-scholar model early in their development, the pursuit of a doctorate may result in an inclination toward the scientist-practitioner model. However, Healy (2017) noted that a commitment to scientific approaches should be considered in light of effective practice, particularly when the science cannot be replicated.

About 50% of psychological research, which extends to counseling research, cannot be reproduced (Balkin & Lenz, 2021; Open Science Collaboration, 2015). In other words, there is an expectation that if a study is replicated with a similar group of participants, then a similar set of results should be reproduced. Unfortunately, however, this does not happen about half the time. Part of this lies with the problem of how we interpret statistical significance, which we will discuss in Chapter 5.

Because human-subjects research often involves variance in participants, a common critique might be that findings in counseling research may not be easy to replicate because of the presence or lack of presence of diverse participants. Yong (2018) countered this critique by noting that the diversity of a sample appears to have minimal impact on the replication of the results. Rather, the over-reliance of statistical testing on constructs that are unstable and highly sensitive to change (e.g., emotional states, wellness, coping) likely influences the difficulty in replicating research (Balkin & Lenz, 2021).

Integrating the Models: A Case Example

Prior to beginning work on my doctorate, I (Rick) was employed at an acute care psychiatric hospital as a counselor for adolescents. To be admitted to the unit, adolescents had to meet criteria for being a danger to self or others. One of my clients was Ronny, a gay 14-year-old teen with a history of substance use, suicidality, truancy, and oppositional behavior at school. He had been court ordered into the hospital after getting caught performing lewd acts with another boy in the school bathroom. Unlike most adolescent clients who would begin earning privileges and working up the level system after 48 hours, Ronny remained under 15-minute observation by the nursing staff because of his persistent threats to harm himself and his tendency to steal sugar packets from the cafeteria during meals and lick the packets when he thought no one was watching. Ronny did not make much progress during individual or group sessions. He consistently indicated that he would rather be in juvenile detention than in the hospital, as he thought he would be more likely to get together with other males in detention. He also indicated that if he left the hospital, he would continue to use drugs and may try to harm himself.

Ronny was resistant to establishing any type of working alliance with any of the staff at the hospital. The standard milieu of care consisting of individual and group counseling and 12-step support was not effective. Supportive therapeutic approaches and confrontation also did not appear to work. Frustrated with my lack of progress with Ronny, I sought consultation from my supervisor. After processing my conceptualization of Ronny, my supervisor indicated, "Well, if nothing in the book is working, you might need to throw out the book and try something different."

So I brought Ronny into my office for his next individual session and told him that, given his lack of progress, I was recommending him to long-term treatment, which would likely be court ordered by the judge. Ronny expressed his displeasure with this plan, indicating that he would rather the judge send him to juvenile detention. I told Ronny that if that was what he preferred, he could make that happen: "The judge is going to give you the opportunity to speak after he reads my recommendation. If you cuss him out, he will probably send you to detention." Ronny thought that was a great idea, so we role-played the scenario and rehearsed a number of highly inappropriate names he could call the judge in hopes that he would get sent to detention.

The next day, Ronny went to court. On reviewing my letter, the judge cleared the courtroom so that it was just Ronny, his parents, me, and the judge. The judge read out loud the letter that indicated Ronny's lack of progress, his behavior in the hospital, and my recommendation for long-term treatment. The judge then asked, "Ronny, what do you have to say for yourself?" Ronny stood up, looked at the judge-and burst into tears. The judge responded, "Well, I guess I have no choice but to follow your counselor's recommendation and order you to long-term treatment."

Ronny's reaction-crying in the courtroom after the letter was read-was the first genuine affect he had shown since he had been hospitalized. It was the first instance of any emotional distress displayed by Ronny. So, what does this mean with respect to...