As a requirement of APA accreditation, many PhD programs in applied psychology subscribe to some variant of the scientist-practitioner model. However, critics have argued that integrating science into an applied psychology curriculum may be too challenging a task. This article describes the development of The New School Psychology Bulletin, a student-operated journal dedicated to publishing original research articles written by psychology graduate students. We argue that the process of publishing a student-operated journal can have a positive effect on students' attitudes toward research and has the potential to serve as a model to foster integration of research and training experiences in an applied psychology program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddisM. E.JacobK. (2000). On the process and outcome of graduate training in clinical psychology: Where do we want to go, how will we get there, and who will join us?Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 364–367.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Psychological Association: Committee on Accreditation. (2005). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/ed/GP052.pdf.
4.
BernsteinB. L.KerrB. (1993). Counseling psychology and the scientist—practitioner model: Implementation and implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 136–151.
5.
BishopR. M.BieschkeK. J. (1998). Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 182–188.
6.
Cronan-HillixT.GensheimerL. K.Cronan-HillixW. A.DavidsonW. S. (1986). Students' views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 123–127.
GelsoC. J. (1997). The making of a scientist in applied psychology: An attribute by treatment conception. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 307–320.
9.
GelsoC. J.MallinckrodtB.JudgeA. B. (1996). Research training environment, attitudes toward research, and research self-efficacy: The revised Research Training Environment Scale. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 304–322.
10.
KahnJ. H. (2001). Predicting the scholarly activity of counseling psychology students: A refinement and extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 344–354.
11.
LarsonL. M.Besett-AleschT. M. (2000). Bolstering the scientist component in the training of scientist-practitioners: One program's curriculum modifications. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 873–896.
12.
MaherB. A. (1999). Changing trends in doctoral training programs in psychology: A comparative analysis of research-oriented versus professional-applied programs. Psychological Science, 10, 475–481.
13.
NickersonR. S. (2005). What authors want from journal reviewers and editors. American Psychologist, 60, 661–662.
14.
PhillipsJ. C.RussellR. K. (1994). Research self-efficacy, the research training environment, and research productivity among graduate students in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 628–641.
15.
PowellJ. L. (2000). Creative outlets for student research or what do I do now that my study is completed?Eye on Psi Chi, 4, 28–29.
16.
ShivyV. A.WorthingtonE. L.WallisA. B.Jr.HoganC. (2003). Doctoral research training environments (RTEs): Implications for the teaching of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 297–302.
17.
ZacharP.LeongF. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60, 665–677.
