Research Training Environments and Student Productivity

Abstract

During the summer of 1984, APA-approved counseling psychology programs were surveyed about their research training practices. Although the programs view themselves as placing greater emphasis on the practitioner as opposed to the scientist aspects of training, many current students do publish research and/or present research findings at professional meetings. When the programs were categorized into high and low productive based on students publishing and presenting research during 1983-1984, several variables differentiated the categories. High productive programs tended to involve students in research early in training, required them to participate in research teams or to complete research apprenticeships, more strongly encouraged student research presentation and publication, and were more likely to provide typing for student manuscripts. They also placed greater emphasis on philosophy of science, gave more exposure to qualitative research, and were less likely to approve correlational/ex post facto research designs in doctoral dissertations. The training practices and their implications are discussed.

Graduate psychology students' perceptions of the scientist-practitioner model of training

“…Although active involvement in research early in the training program has been found to contribute toward a higher degree of research interest and productivity (Galassi et aL, 1986;Gelso et al, 1986), the results of the present study suggest that the effect of active involvement in research may be moderated by the student's own perceived training needs, their career interests, and the manner in which research is presented. Some students come to graduate school with low prior interest in 'science' but develop more positive attitudes toward the scientist-practitioner model when their clinical interests are linked to investigative endeavors.…”

“…Areas of inquiry have included features of training environments which influence attitudes toward research (Galassi, Brooks, Stoltz, & Trexler, 1986;Gelso, Raphael, Black, Rardin, & Skalkos, 1983;Royalty & Magoon, 1985;Royalty & Reising, 1986;Wampold, 1986), personality characteristics of graduate students that are related to research interests (Betz & Taylor, 1982) and the relationship between training environment influence and personality characteristics in shaping attitudes toward research (Krebs, Smithner, & Hurley, 1991;Mallinckrodt, Gelso, & Royalty, 1990). Research suggests that certain features of training environments, such as the involvement of students in research at early points in their training and an emphasis on philosophy of science (Galassi et al, 1986), as well as the participation in research teams (Gelso et al, 1983) are related to students' positive view of research production. There is also evidence that personality characteristics and person-environment interactions are predictive of increased research interest (Mallinckrodt et al , 1990).…”

Embracing Human Science in Counseling Research

“…For instance, in Gelso's comprehensive training model based on over a decade of research, he identified multimethod teaching as one of six essential aspects of effective training programs. In addition, programs with high research productivity tend to emphasize multimethod approaches to research (Gallassi, Brooks, Stolz, & Trexler. 1986;Gallassi, Stolz.…”

Improving Research Training in Doctoral Counseling Programs

“…Thus, the participants in this study were the training directors (during the spring and summer of 1984) of three types of programs: (a) counselor education (e.g., guidance and counseling, rehabilitation counseling, marriage and family counseling), (b) APAapproved counseling psychology, and (c) non-APA-approved counseling psychology. (Some of the data for the APA-approved counseling psychology programs were presented previously; see Galassi, Brooks, Stoltz, & Trexler, 1986.) For 26 universities that contained both a counseling psychology program and a counselor education program, random sampling determined which program received a survey.…”