The Present and Future of MFT Doctoral Education in Research‐Focused Universities

Abstract

Doctoral education is greatly impacted by context, and the large majority of marital and family therapy (MFT) doctoral programs are PhD programs in research-focused universities. I believe their primary mission is to equip students to become scientist-practitioners and do original research that will advance the science of the discipline, whereas the mission of the typical master's program is to produce strong practitioners who are research informed. It is the emphasis on the scientific method, not the content specialty area, that should be the hallmark of PhD programs in research-focused contexts. I describe metrics for success that include not only research productivity but also the development of a supportive, open, flexible, and generous program culture. The research mission of these programs has been only modestly helped by the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education process and the programs are largely not doing the programmatic intervention research that the field needs. As the universities that house these programs are also "raising the bar," the long-term viability of the programs themselves will likely hinge on success in this arena.

“There’s Something Not Right” and “Bringing it Forward”

“…In the systemic practice literature, calls continue for research that will more clearly contribute to advancing couple and family practice as a viable treatment option (Crane, Wampler, Sprenkle, Sandberg, & Hovestadt, 2002;Sprenkle, 2010;Wampler, 2010). One such area of research is the analysis of in-session clinical processes (Heatherington, Friedlander, & Greenberg, 2005), including the process of how therapists make decisions in therapy (Jankowski et al, 2012).…”

Re-visioning a Model of Clinical Judgment for Systemic Practitioners

“…As significant as the shift toward meta-theorizing might be in advancing clinical judgment within couple and family therapy, perhaps the most important opening for bridging the gap between clinical judgment research and systemic clinical practice is the consistent concern about the lack of research that advances couple and family therapy as a viable mental health treatment option (Crane, Wampler, Sprenkle, Sandberg, & Hovestadt, 2002;Sprenkle, 2010;Wampler, 2010). Research on the processes of couple and family therapy is needed (Heatherington, Friedlander, & Greenberg, 2005), and detailed descriptions of the processes of systems therapy have begun to emerge (e.g., Harvie, Strong, Taylor, Todd, & Young, 2008;Rober, Elliott, Buysse, Loots, & De Corte, 2008a, 2008bStrong, Zeman, & Foskett, 2006).…”

Challenge and Urgency in Defining Doctoral Education in Marriage and Family Therapy: Valuing Complementary Models

“…I am pleased to have an opportunity to provide an overview of the three essays on doctoral education (Lee & Nichols, 2009; Sprenkle, 2009; Woolley, 2009) and add some perspectives of my own. A sense of challenge and urgency regarding doctoral education is a major theme of all three essays, even though the charge from the editors was stated more neutrally as “to draw attention to distinct features” and to discuss “the present status and future direction” of doctoral education in marital and family therapy (MFT).…”

“…In spite of these positive signs, the authors focus on the challenges and I agree that there is real cause for concern. All express deep concern about the lack of research generated by MFTs, with Sprenkle (2009) expressing the concerns most strongly. All authors also see it as a problem that the research base for the field has been “farmed out” to other professions (though I would say “borrowed from”) instead of produced by researchers identified with MFT as a profession.…”