Digital Commons @ George Fox University Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Graduate School of Clinical Psychology Psychology 2004 Research Training in Explicitly Christian Doctoral Programs Peter C. Hill Biola University Mark R. McMinn George Fox University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/gscp_fac Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Hill, Peter C. and McMinn, Mark R., "Research Training in Explicitly Christian Doctoral Programs" (2004). Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Psychology. Paper 216. http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/gscp_fac/216 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School of Clinical Psychology at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Psychology by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Research Training in Explicitly Christian Doctoral Programs Peter C. Hill Mark R. McMinn Rosemead School ofPsychology Wheaton College Biola University The importance of research training at explicitly Christian doctoral programs is suggested on the basis of four reasons: the need to hold science and practice together, the need for skills to evaluate interventions, the need to serve a society with a growing interest in religion and spirituality, and the need to assess the effec­ tiveness of explicitly Christian doctoral programs. A discussion of these issues serves as an introduction to the rest of this special issue that focuses on research training at seven explicitly Christian programs. The past three decades have brought rapid chologist model in which students are trained to growth in the number of doctoral programs in be psychologists with some awareness of reli­ professional psychology. Reporting the number gious issues. This training model is primarily psy­ of programs accredited by the American Psycho­ chological in nature, but with the addition of logical Association (APA)'s Committee on some religious training. At the other end of the Accreditation, Peterson (2003) notes an increase continuum is the Psychologically Minded Pastor from 1 PsyD program in 1973 to 56 programs in model, where students are trained to minister to 2001, and a surprisingly sharp increase in PhD the needs of the church. This training model is programs during the same time period, from primarily religious and theological in nature, but approximately 100 to almost 300 programs. with the addition of some psychological training. Mirroring this larger trend, there has also been In the middle of the continuum is what Johnson an increase in the number of explicitly Christian et al. (1997) call the Faith Identified Psychologist doctoral programs in clinical psychology. Fuller model. This model calls for a degree of sophisti­ Theological Seminary began clinical psychology cation in both psychology and theology in which doctoral training in the 1960s, followed shortly graduates are prepared to work within a particu­ thereafter by Rosemead Graduate School of Pro­ lar faith context as psychologists, but because fessional Psychology. Presently there are 9 pro­ they receive adequate breadth and depth of psy­ grams housed in 7 distinctively Christian chological training these graduates should also be institutions where faculty must endorse particular competent to work with those who do not share faith beliefs as a condition of employment and their particular faith values. It is this middle cate­ the integration of psychology and Christianity is gory, the Faith Identified Psychologist model, an explicit goal of training. J'hese include Azusa which best characterizes the training mission of Pacific University (PsyD program), Fuller Theo­ most explicitly Christian doctoral programs. logical Seminary (PhD and PsyD programs), Graduates of explicitly Christian doctoral pro­ George Fox University (PsyD program), Regent grams are trained to identify with both the Chris­ University (PsyD program), Rosemead School of tian faith and the guild of psychology and, Psychology at Biola University (PhD and PsyD therefore, it is important that they learn and programs), Seattle Pacific University (PhD pro­ value the epistemologies of each. The Christian gram), and Wheaton College (PsyD program). religion emphasizes church history, systematic Most of these programs are accredited by the theological and philosophical reasoning, and American Psychological Association (APA). divine revelation through scripture. Psychology To articulate the niche of explicitly Christian emphasizes knowledge through scientific meth­ doctoral programs, Johnson, Campbell, and Dyk­ ods of systematic research. stra (1997) proposed a continuum describing The purpose of this special issue of the journal various possible training missions. At one end of of Psychology and Christiani~y is to explore the the continuum is the Religiously Sensitive Psy- extent to which explicitly Christian doctoral pro­ grams are training their students in the scientific Correspondence regarding this article should be research methods of psychology. As an introduc­ sent to Mark R. McMinn, Ph.D., Department of Psy­ tion to this special issue, we suggest four reasons chology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187. that research is important in explicitly Christian psychology training programs. These include some say it has?" (p. 793). If these questions are holding science and practice together, gaining the being posed of professional psychology pro­ skills to evaluate interventions, serving a society grams in general, they certainly should be asked with growing interests in spirituality, and assess~ of explicitly" Christian programs as well. ing the effectiveness of explicitly Christian psy­ Evaluating Interventions chology training programs. In recent years, psychologists have empha­ Holding Science and Practice Together sized the importance of using interventions that A strong conviction that science and practice have demonstrated effectiveness through empiri­ should be held together in a single discipline has cal research. To this end, the Society of Clinical caused some (e.g., Talley, Strupp, & Butler, Psychology (Division 12 of the APA) commis­ 1994) to lament the apparent split between prac­ sioned a task force to identify empirically validat­ tice and science in clinical psychology. The ed treatment procedures, resulting in a list of accreditation guidelines of the APA (2002) state: treatments that are documented to be effective (Chambless et a!., 1996, 1998; Chambless & Hol­ Science and practice are not opposing lon, 1998; Crits-Christoph, Chambless, Frank, poles; rather, together they equally Brody, & Karp, 1995; Task Force, 1995). One contribute to excellence in training in psychologist-closely identified with Division professional psychology. Therefore, 12-observed that, along with managed care; education and training . should be there is "no issue more central to me practice of based on the existing and evolving clinical psychology" than evidence-based body of general knowledge and practice (Barlow, 2000, p. 24). methods in the science and practice It should be noted that this movement toward of psychology ... All programs should empirically validated treatment procedures has enable their students to understand engendered controversy, in part because the tl1e value of science for the practice rigid scientific constraints required by the Divi­ of psychology and the value of prac­ sion 12 task force may render research laborato­ tice for the science of psychology, ry interventions irrelevant for "real-life" clinical recognizing that the value of science practice (Garfield, 1996; Havik & VandenBos, for the practice of psychology 1996; Silverman, 1996). Some have offered per­ requires attention to the empirical suasive research-based arguments that dispute basis for all metl1ods involved in psy­ the research-based findings of the task force chological practice. (p. 3) (Norcross, 2002; Westen & Morrison, 2001). It is noteworthy that these accreditation Clearly, sorting through a complex issue such as guidelines apply to all APA-accredited doctoral this requires some sophistication in scientific programs in professional psychology, regardless methods which, in turn, obliges doctoral pro­ of whether they are scientist-practitioner pro­ grams in clinical psychology to provide effective grams (Boulder model), practitioner programs research training. (Vail model), or some amalgam of both. Many The controversy surrounding empirically sup­ of the explicitly Christian doctoral programs ported treatments raises an important tension: offer a PsyD degree and are based on a practi­ How do clinical psychologists root their inter­ tioner model of training, but are nonetheless ventions in methods demonstrated to be effec­ expected to have sufficient training in the sci­ tive while remaining open to the creativity and ence of psychology. relational sensitivity required to work with One of the criticisms levied against profession­ human individuals? If the .empirically supported al psychology doctoral programs is that they do treatment movement errs too far in the rigors of not compare favorably with traditional universi­ science, there are no shortages of examples at ty-based PhD programs with regard to faculty the other extreme. Creative approaches to clini­ research productivity, admissions selectivity, and cal work quickly