The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice

Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work

Psychology's Two Cultures Revisited

Implications for the Integration of Science with Practice

Authors:
Narina Nunez - Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming
Debra Ann Poole - Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University
Amina Memon - Department of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland

Author Note:
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Narina Nunez, Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3415. E-mail: Narina@uwyo.edu.

Abstract:
A national survey evaluated psychologists' opinions on professional and epistemological issues in clinical psychology. Clinical and nonclinical groups diverged markedly on two questions. The majority of clinical psychologists indicated that "alternative ways of knowing, for which the scientific method is irrelevant," should be valued and supported, whereas few nonclinical psychologists agreed. Clinical psychologists were also more supportive of the value of "intuitions based upon one's experiences during clinical practice" than were nonclinical psychologists. Variability within the clinical group was large, however, and involvement in both clinical practice and research correlated with attitudes. The overlap between groups on most issues suggests optimism about the future of a unified field of psychology, but the data forecast continued conflict regarding epistemological issues.


You can read the full text of this article in
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, vol. 2, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2003).
Subscribe now!

  ©2004 Center for Inquiry    | SRMHP Home | About SRMHP | Contact Us |