Psychotherapists, researchers, or both? A qualitative analysis of psychotherapists' experiences in a practice research network.

Abstract

This paper describes the experiences of psychotherapists who, as part of a practice research network (PRN), collaborated with researchers in designing and conducting a psychotherapy study within their own clinical practices. A qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with these psychotherapists led to the delineation of several benefits (e.g., learning information that improved their work with clients and feeling that they were contributing to research that would be useful for psychotherapists) and difficulties for them and their clients (e.g., time and effort required to integrate research protocol into routine clinical practice) that psychotherapists associated with their participation in the PRN. Also identified were a number of strategies used by psychotherapists to address obstacles that they encountered, as well as general recommendations for future PRN studies. As a whole, the experiences of these psychotherapists are likely to provide valuable lessons for the survival and growth of what is viewed by many as a promising pathway for building a stronger bridge between practice and research.

Building clinicians-researchers partnerships: Lessons from diverse natural settings and practice-oriented initiatives

“…Another intangible but, nonetheless, important aspect of professional development reported by therapists through a number of POR partnerships is the sense of purpose and pride gained from contributing to the advancement of science and practice (e.g., McAleavey et al, 2014;West et al, 2014). Interestingly, similar feelings have been reported by clients when agreeing to participate in research conducted by their therapists (Castonguay, Nelson et al, 2010).…”

“…Researchers also have to struggle with negative consequences that can come along with an engagement in POR, such as the frequent lack of fit between nontraditional research and the priorities of funding agencies (West et al, 2014), the lack of incentives from academic institutions for community-based work (Garland & Brookman-Frazee, 2014), or the incompatibility between the publishing pressure of academia and the slow pace and the demanding efforts of practitioners and researchers collaborations (Koerner & Castonguay, 2014). Accordingly, researchers interested in building POR initiatives should consider inviting others living in their world (such as colleagues and students) and seeking administrative assistance-especially if they are not yet tenured (Castonguay, Nelson et al, 2010;.…”

“…As correctly stated by Garland & Brookman-Frazee (2014), stakeholders can also operate on "different time tables" (p. 11). For example, clinicians who need to figure out quickly how to address issues that emerge on a session-by-session basis can experience frustration by the time that it frequently takes for researchers to present or publish answers to the questions they have investigated together (Castonguay, Nelson et al, 2010). Frustration can also be mutual.…”

Introduction to a special issue on clinician–researchers: a career engaged in both therapy research and practice

“…But importantly: I can find myself on this map of being a clinician-researcher. What is clear from all of the work presented in this special issue and the work of others in this area of study is that there are benefits to having some level of engagement in both therapy research and therapy practice for professionals (Castonguay et al, 2010;Safran et al, 2011) and for training new professionals (Castonguay et al, 2015;Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Judge, 1996;Miles & Paquin, 2014;Stockton & Morran, 2010). While I would argue against wearing ourselves out trying to be or do all things, I propose that for those of us for whom the clinician-researcher identity has salience, being able to locate ourselves on the matrix allows us to learn something about our own point of reference, and where we might like to go.…”

“…And how integrated do these activities and roles need to be in the life of a clinician-researcher in order for one to identify as such? Based on the work of Safran et al (2011), the body of work of Castonguay and colleagues on Practice-Research Networks (particularly Castonguay et al, 2010;Castonguay, Pincus, & McAleavey, 2015), and the papers included in this special issue (Bartholomew, Reese et al, this issue), I propose a heuristic for helping to solidify the existence of a professional identity called clinician-researcher, and to understand -if only in the most basic way -the career experiences of clinician-researchers (Figure 1). The proposed model depicts a matrix, delineating four quadrants of professional experience.…”