Sharing wisdom: Challenges, benefits, and developmental path to becoming a successful therapist-researcher

"There hasn't been a career structure to step into": a qualitative study on perceptions of allied health clinician researcher careers

Background

There are many demonstrated benefits for health service organizations engaging in research. As a result, growing numbers of clinicians are being encouraged to pursue research as part of their clinical roles, including in allied health (AH). However, while the benefits of having clinician researchers embedded in AH services have been well established, the career needs of those engaged in these dual roles are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to examine perspectives of the career pathway for AH clinicians engaged in “clinician researcher” roles within Australian health services.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted, utilizing semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure selection of varied locations, professions and role types. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. Trustworthiness was established using regular peer debriefing during theme development, and respondent validation of final themes.

Results

Fifty-seven AH clinician researchers, including those who did and did not have research as a formal component of their current role, participated in semi-structured interviews. Key themes were as follows: (1) clinician researchers prefer roles which are embedded in health services; (2) current opportunities for clinician researcher roles in health are insufficient; (3) there are deficiencies in the pathway for clinician researcher careers; (4) clinician researchers are not always valued or incentivized by health services; (5) the current career challenges impair the viability of clinician researcher careers; and (6) the clinician researcher career path has been improving, and there is hope it will continue to improve.

Conclusion

This study outlines a number of weaknesses in the current career structure and opportunities for AH clinician researchers in Australian health services. In particular, while there are strong intrinsic drivers to pursue this dual career, extrinsic drivers are poorly developed, including a lack of job opportunities, an unstable career pathway and a lack of valuing or incentivizing this career choice within health services. This often means that clinician researchers feel compelled to choose between a research or clinical career, leading to loss of this valuable combined skill set. The findings of this research may assist health services in developing and supporting improved clinician researcher career pathways.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00801-2.

The Synergistic but Troubled Relationship Between Psychotherapy Science and Practice: Moving Forward

How to foster the integration of science (especially empirical research) and practice has been a vexing problem since the beginnings of counseling psychology and other applied fields. We propose that the basis for this problem is the very different, even contradictory, demands of empirical research and practice, and the resulting ways of being research scientists and practitioners. Focusing on psychotherapy, we posit seven such demands/pulls and ways of being and seven tactics for strengthening integration. Clinically relevant research on the therapeutic relationship and therapist skills/interventions conducted at the Maryland Psychotherapy Clinic and Research Lab is summarized. We emphasize that for science and practice to be mutually facilitative, the field will need to pay close and ongoing attention to ways of strengthening integration.

The Research-Practice Psychotherapy Wars: The Case of Group Psychotherapy in the Treatment of PTSD

In light of two recent meta-analyses of the efficacy of group psychotherapy in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), this article critically reviews the randomized control trial (RCT) generated findings as well as two of its outgrowths-the production of a variety of clinical practice guidelines for treating PTSD and the dissemination efforts to transfer laboratory findings to clinical practice. All three of these activities have received considerable pushback from experienced clinicians and Boulder-identified scientist practitioners, creating an ongoing and entrenched gap or split between researcher and clinician. The article also reviews the various suggestions that have been offered to heal this gap and ending the hegemony of RCT outcome research as the only game in town for declaring what constitutes evidence. Specifically, the literature suggests two primary strategies for helping to realize the scientist-practitioner model and thus advancing the cause of psychotherapy, in general, and group psychotherapy, in particular: (a) leveling the playing field so that both researcher and practitioner have real authority and voices for shaping the field; and (b) shifting the research priority away from a purely outcome focus, asking only does it work, and moving to a more sophisticated, theoretically guided empirical study of process-outcome, examining the how, why, when, and for whom it works.