Thirty years of explicitly integrative scholarship: comparing PhD and PsyD contributions.

Johnson and McMinn (2003; see also McMinn, Johnson & Haskell, 2003) challenged integrative clinical psychology doctoral programs to show that PhDs produce scholarship and teach in the academy at rates that are demonstrably different from PsyDs. The entire publication history through 2002 of the two most influential integrative journals--the Journal of Psychology and Theology (JPT) and the Journal of Psychology and Christianity (JPC)--was analyzed to determine scholarship according to the author's degree. Across the past 30 years, integrative PhDs produced four times as much scholarship as PsyDs. By 2002, PhDs held 85% of the faculty positions in integrative programs, and faculty at these programs who graduated from integrative programs themselves were three times more likely to have a PhD than a PsyD. Implications of these results are offered in conclusion, along with a possible explanation for why integrative clinical psychology doctoral programs tend to receive low subjective ratings of quality from secular peers.

**********

Clinical psychology doctoral programs with evangelical Protestant affiliations have granted one of two degrees: a Doctor of Philosophy in psychology (PhD), or a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD). The two evangelical Protestant programs with the longest-standing accreditation by the American Psychological Association (APA), Fuller Seminary's Graduate School of Psychology (founded in 1965) and Biola University's Rosemead School of Psychology (originally founded as a freestanding school in 1970), offer both degrees. Subsequently, APA-accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs with religious affiliations at George Fox University, Wheaton College (Illinois), Azusa Pacific University, and Regent University offer only PsyD degrees. In a recent study, Johnson and McMinn (2003) found that faculty at religiously affiliated APA-accredited programs published as much as their secular counterparts. In a subsequent study, McMinn, Johnson and Haskell (2003) found that the frequency of publication in secular psychology journals over a five-year period was no different between faculty in PsyD programs versus faculty in PhD programs, and this finding applied to secular and religiously affiliated programs alike. Given that faculty in PsyD programs produced scholarship like faculty in PhD programs, Johnson and McMinn (2003) suggested that schools offering integrative PhDs in clinical psychology should either train graduates for research-oriented academic placements or else phase out the PhD and move to PsyD-only training programs, particularly since religiously affiliated professional-applied PhD programs get low ratings of subjectively perceived quality according to secular faculty peers (p. 93).

Since the early 1970s, a body of professional literature integrating Christian faith and psychology has emerged through the publication of two journals in particular, the Journal of Psychology and Theology (JPT), and the Journal of Psychology and Christianity (JPC). The present study shifted and extended the questions raised by Johnson and McMinn in four ways. First, because religiously affiliated programs seek to exhibit leadership in the scholarly integration of psychology and Christian faith, the focus was shifted to examine publication in the two most influential and explicitly integrative journals (JPT and JPC) rather than in secular psychology journals. Second, consistent with outcomes-based program evaluation, the focus was shifted to examine publication rates of the integrative graduates themselves, in addition to those who taught them. Third, publication rates were analyzed according to the author's actual degree (for example, an author with a PhD counts as PhD scholarship, an author with a PsyD counts as PsyD scholarship), rather than the degree program at which their teachers were employed (in which a PsyD author teaching at a PhD program is counted as PhD scholarship, and a PhD author teaching at a PsyD program is counted as PsyD scholarship). Fourth, the period of scholarship under scrutiny was extended to span 30 years instead of just five, thus covering all the years since the inaugural issues of JPT and JPC (in 1973 and 1975, respectively). Before stating the present study's hypotheses, a brief survey of three topics is helpful: (a) the historical development of PhD and PsyD degrees in clinical psychology; (b) the rise of APA-accredited programs with religious affiliations; and (c) the emergence of specialty integrative journals (JPT and JPC). We conclude our Discussion by examining why religiously affiliated programs often receive low marks for quality by secular peers.

Historical Development of PhD and PsyD Degrees in Clinical Psychology

Clinical psychology in the first half of the 20th century lacked a coherent identity. In a speech to his colleagues in 1918, for example, psychologist Henry Goddard (1919) asked rhetorically, "What is a clinical psychologist?" His answer was honest, if disconcerting: "There is the rub--nobody knows" (p. 84). By mid-century the Boulder Conference (Raimy, 1950) established the first coherent answer to Goddard's question. It became known as the scientist-practitioner model of training, and it essentially advocated that clinical psychologists should not have to choose between practice and research; the ideal clinical psychologist ought to be good at both. The intent of the Boulder model and its precursor, the Shakow Report (APA, 1947), have been hailed as farsighted and brilliant, although, as Trierweiler and Stricker (1998) observed, "having a good idea is one thing; implementing it is quite another" (p. 3).

The problem was that despite the Boulder model's visionary integration (research and practice), clinical psychology students in the 1950s and 1960s were trained by academic faculty who tended to devalue psychotherapy and thereby polarized student career paths. Faculty lauded research without practice as the preferred route for their brightest students, consigning practice without research as the consolation for those less gifted. In either instance, faculty presented students with a not-so-subtle dichotomy: research or practice, but not both. The Boulder model continues as the predominant model of graduate training, being endorsed by 98% of doctoral programs today, according to one study (O'Sullivan & Quevillion, 1992). The model is not without its critics, however. Initially, the chief complaint was that instead of producing true scientist-practitioners, programs based on the Boulder model have often ended up producing scientists with minimal professional training. As long ago as 1959, J.M. Bobbit, in his opening remarks at the Miami Conference on graduate education in psychology (a descendant of the Boulder Conference), lamented that

employers want competence, skill, and ability to perform. The trainees
want a degree that stands for occupational opportunity and an income
that will at least keep pace with inflationary trends. The educators
still want to produce something identifiable as scientists and scholars.
(pp. 21-22)

In response to decades of faculty prejudice against clinical practice, the professional movement in psychology was born in the late 1960s and early 1970s, along with a new degree (the Doctor of Psychology [PsyD]), and a new model (the Vail model). Peterson (1968) hoped that the PsyD degree would offer an alternative for graduate students who were disinterested in research and simply wanted training for clinical practice. Although the Vail model emphasized training professional practitioners who are informed by science, PsyD students were not required or expected to become proficient as researchers. In contrast to the Boulder model's ideal of dual competence in research and practice, the professional school movement, to the degree that it relatively de-emphasized students' production of original research, ironically perpetuated the dichotomy first instilled by academic psychologists who denigrated clinical practice. The difference was that whereas the academic psychologists valued research in place of one's own clinical practice, the professional school movement tended to value practice in place of one's own research. Despite efforts to repair the rift over the years, many authors continue to bemoan the disparity between science and practice (Beutler, Williams, Wakefield & Entwistle, 1995; Stricker, 1992; Strupp, 1981; Trierweiler & Stricker, 1998). Graduate programs today tend to specialize in research or practice, but rarely both. (1)

In contrast to the dichotomies present in both the practitioner movement on the one hand, and the way programs based on the scientist-practioner model have tended to operate on the other, a third movement for clinical training has also developed in the past decade under the rubric of a scholar-professional model. Hoshmand and Polkinghorne (1992), for example, call for "an alternative conception of the science-practice relationship ... that emphasizes the mutuality of science and practice, in which psychological science as a human practice and psychological practice as a human science inform each other" (p. 55, emphasis added). The scholar-professional model, which aims to produce local clinical scientists, is a training concept that is gaining support as a better way of connecting science and practice than previous models (Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992; Stricker & Trierweiler, 1995; Trierweiler & Stricker, 1998). By using multiple epistemologies, the scholar-professional model addresses a broader range of methodologies and issues. Trierweiler and Stricker (1998) argued that while science and practice have different epistemologies, they mutually inform each other and can produce a synergistic relationship.

The Rise Of Religiously Affiliated APA-Accredited Programs

Psychotherapists are typically not as religious as their clients, and psychologists have traditionally viewed religious issues as a peripheral consideration in treatment (Bergin & Jensen, 1990; Jensen & Bergin, 1988). The graduate school of psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary was the first program that was formed to address this neglected aspect of client diversity (Malony, 1995). In 1965, when the school opened its doors, Fuller offered a PhD degree that was "designed to provide graduates who are professionally competent to serve in the vocation of Christian psychotherapy" (Malony, 1995, p. 204), thereby "planting the cross in the heart of psychology" (p. 122). At Fuller students learn integration through their clinical practice, through reflection on their own theology and their psychological knowledge, and through dialogue in the schools of psychology and theology with faculty who team-teach integrative seminars. Fuller first applied for accreditation in 1971, and achieved it after the second site visit in 1974. Fuller now encompasses two divisions: clinical psychology, and marriage and family. It offers the PhD and the PsyD in the clinical psychology division.

Rosemead School of Psychology was the second evangelical Protestant program in clinical psychology. It was founded by Clyde and Bruce Narramore in 1968 under the umbrella of the Narramore Christian Foundation as a free-standing school in the State of California and had its first class in 1970. In 1977 it joined Biola University and relocated to Biola's La Mirada campus. In 1980 APA accredited Rosemead's two doctoral programs (PhD and PsyD), although the PsyD program's accreditation was provisional. In 1983, APA determined that the PhD and PsyD would be considered one program with two tracks, and APA retroactively approved accreditation to 1980. Like Fuller's program, Rosemead seeks to train psychologists who have a sensitivity for religious dimensions in life, and who can demonstrate to the church the value of clinical psychology. Research in particular is a growing aspect of Rosemead's curriculum, and in 2000 The Institute for Research on Psychology and Spirituality was founded to provide a forum for researchers across the nation to work together biannually on integrative research projects and to pool resources. Rosemead has also implemented a minor in quantitative methods for all PhD students emphasizing competence in structural equation modeling, multidimensional scaling, and time series analysis, in addition to conventional statistical techniques such as multiple regression and factor analysis.

In the years since 1970, four other Christian institutions have joined Fuller and Rosemead in gaining APA accreditation. While both Fuller and Rosemead have dual degree programs (PhD and PsyD degrees), four programs offer the PsyD alone. The Graduate School of Clinical Psychology at George Fox University (GFU) initially offered the PhD degree and enrolled its first students in 1976 when the program was affiliated with Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon. In 1987 it offered the PsyD degree, and after much deliberation the clinical program was transferred (faculty and student body) in 1990 to GFU, a rural setting that offers the option of preparation for rural practice. Upon arriving at George Fox, the board of trustees and administration of GFU decided to actively pursue APA accreditation. The program received full APA accreditation for its PsyD program in 1998. Wheaton College enhanced its status as a leader in Christian education when it began its PsyD program in 1993. The program received accreditation effective May 1, 1998, a week before the first doctoral graduates were conferred their degrees during spring commencement on May 8. Wheaton's distinctives include its emphasis on collaboration with clergy and service to underserved populations. Azusa Pacific University (APU) also recently began a Doctor of Psychology program in clinical psychology. The clinical degree at APU includes an emphasis in Family Psychology and was accredited on October 31, 2000. Regent University became the most recent Christian doctoral program in clinical psychology when its initial three-year accreditation became effective in March 2002. Founding the only integrative program on the East Coast, Regent's initial training class entered in the fall of 1996, and the program focuses on training psychotherapy students in evidence-based treatments. The PsyD program in clinical psychology is accompanied by a non-APA accredited Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision, which emphasizes research, writing, and practice.

The Emergence of Specialty Integrative Journals (JPT and JPC)

The second half of the 20th century saw the emergence of numerous specialty journals (Vande Kemp, 1996, pp. 82-83), including what have become the two most influential publications for evangelical Protestants seeking to integrate psychology and faith: the Journal of Psychology and Theology (JPT) and the Journal of Psychology and Christianity (JPC, formerly known as the CAPS Bulletin). JPT, which published its inaugural issue in 1973, had as its mission "to communicate recent scholarly thinking on the interrelationship of psychological and theological concepts and to consider the application of these concepts to a variety of professional settings" (Journal of Psychology and Theology). JPC has a similar mission to JPT: "to provide scholarly interchange among Christian professionals in the psychological and pastoral professions" (Journal of Psychology and Christianity). Both JPT and JPC publish articles that focus on clinical topics, research, theoretical issues, and special theme areas. A blind review system is employed in both journals to assess solicited and unsolicited manuscripts submitted for publication.

JPT and JPC have come into their own as leading journals in the field and with selectivity that is on par with APA journals. The current JPT rejection rate of manuscripts is approximately 80%, with the journal currently circulated to nearly 1,200 libraries or personal subscribers (Todd Hall, personal communication, February 4, 2003). Similar statistics characterize JPC's prominence. It has a subscription base of about 2,000, of which 335 are libraries, and a rejection rate of 70% (Peter Hill, personal communication, January 29, 2003).

Research Hypotheses

Integrative scholarship occurs in a variety of settings that could be characterized as either implicit or explicit. Examples of the former would include those articles in secular journals that address the psychology of religion, health psychology, or religious values as a dimension of cultural diversity in counseling and psychotherapy. Explicity integrative scholarship, by contrast, involves journals like JPT and JPC, whose explicitly stated purpose is the integration of psychology and Christianity in multiple aspects, including theory, research, and clinical practice. The present study focuses on explicitly integrative scholarship by examining all scholarly contributions to JPT and JPC over the entire history of each journal's publication. The first hypothesis is that authors with PhD degrees are disproportionately represented as authors of professional integrative articles overall, compared to authors with the PsyD degree. The second hypothesis is that integrative programs disproportionately hire more integrative graduates with a PhD degree rather than those with a PsyD degree ([alpha] < .05 for both hypotheses).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

METHOD

All issues across three decades (1973-2002) were tabulated: For JPT volumes 1-30 (1973-2002) and for JPC volumes 1-7 (1975-1981) of the CAPS Bulletin, followed by volumes 1-21 (1982-2002) of JPC. Each journal article was coded for author degree, school from which the author's degree was obtained, author's faculty status (where applicable), and article type (theoretical, research, or a clinical case presentation). Articles with multiple authors had authorship credit apportioned equally among the authors (50% each for dual authorship, 33.3% for three authors, and so on). Authors of featured reviews and book reviews were recognized but given less credit than if they'd written a full article--50% and 25% authorship credit, respectively. To recognize the work of editorial staff, contributing editors, and blind reviewers of manuscripts, 25% authorship credit was assigned for this contribution to scholarship. Chi-Square analyses were performed to compare the observed and expected frequencies of authorship and faculty appointment of PhD or PsyD degrees. Expected frequencies were obtained by contacting all integrative programs and acquiring the total number of graduates and students from each program by degree.

RESULTS

Tallying authorship in JPT and JPC 1973-2002 as detailed above (with fractional credit for multiple authors, editors and reviewers) produced 4,767.75 units of scholarship, of which 4,616.45 (96.8%) had authors with identifiable degrees. As depicted in Figure 1, PhDs in clinical psychology dwarfed all other degree contributions. The next most prevalent contributors to integrative scholarship were PhDs in non-clinical areas such as social psychology or philosophy. PhD candidates in clinical psychology by themselves produced almost as much integrative scholarship as PsyD graduates and PsyD candidates combined.

Because over two-thirds (68.2%) of the contributions had no affiliation with an integrative clinical psychology doctoral program, it was evident that integrative scholarship in JPC and JPT has a broadbased constituency, and is not the exclusive province of faculty, students or graduates of integrative programs. The present study examined in particular, however, the contributions of clinical psychologists who were trained in integrative programs that now have APA accreditation or are faculty members at these programs. By the concluding date of the present study's 30-year tally of explicitly integrative scholarship (December 2002), integrative doctoral programs produced a total of 2,292 graduates and current doctoral students, of which 1,116 (48.7%) were PhD and 1,176 (51.3%) were PsyD. If integrative scholarship by integrative grads and doctoral students were commensurate with the number of integrative PhDs and PsyDs, 48.7% of the actual units of scholarship observed ought to be by PhDs, and 51.3% by PsyDs. A Chi-square analysis showed that out of the 637.22 units of scholarship produced by integrative doctorates, PhDs accounted for a disproportionate amount of scholarship--four times as much as PsyDs (see Table 1) ([chi square] = 219.92, df = 1, p <.001).

A common objection to the above result is based upon a misperception and goes something like this: "The reason there wasn't much PsyD integrative scholarship during these 30 years is because there were hardly any integrative PsyD graduates in the early decades. A better test of PsyD integrative scholarship would be to control for the number of years that have been available for publication since an integrative PsyD's or PhD's graduation." This objection is problematic for three reasons. First, neither JPC nor JPT publishes the author's year of graduation in the author's identifying information, so the data for such an analysis are unavailable. Second, when comparing the two groups that, by definition, are controlled for the same number of years's experience as psychologists (none: PhD and PsyD candidates), PhD candidates produced nearly twice the scholarship of PsyD candidates, and almost as much integrative scholarship as PsyD graduates and PsyD candidates combined. Third, prior to 1993 there were 920 psychologists who graduated from integrative programs, of which 634 (68.9%) were PhDs and 286 (31.1%) were PsyDs. In the last 10 years that we analyzed (1993-2002) there were 482 (35.1%) PhDs and 890 (64.9%) PsyDs, counting graduates and current doctoral students for both degrees as of 2002. Thus the ratio of PhD to PsyD integrative graduates has shifted from roughly 2:1 in the early years to 1:2 in recent years. While it is true that there are more PsyDs in the last 10 years, it is not true that there weren't any PsyDs to speak of before then. In fact, there were 286.

We tested to see if there was a shift in the predominance of observed units of PhD versus PsyD integrative scholarship in the last 10 years, with units of integrative scholarship in the first 20 years forming the basis of comparison as the "expected" frequencies. In the first 20 years (1973-1992) there were 253.94 units of scholarship in JPT and JPC, of which 207.76 (81.8%) were by PhDs, and 46.18 (18.2%) were by PsyDs. In the last 10 years (1993-2002), there were 226.12 (79.8%) units of scholarship by PhDs and 57.16 (20.2%) units of scholarship by PsyDs, a difference so slight that is indistinguishable from fluctuation due to chance ([chi square] = .63, df = 1, p > .05). This means the predominance of PhD contributions to integrative scholarship was equally evident in the most recent 10 years (1993-2002) as in the first two decades (1973-1992), even though there have been more PsyDs than PhDs in the last 10 years.

As shown in Figure 2, integrative PhDs contributed the majority of scholarship not only for research studies (as might be expected, given PhDs' training in statistics and research design), but also for theoretical articles and clinical case presentations (for which PsyD training might generate specialized knowledge). In the 30 years of publication for the two journals, there were 477 theoretical, clinical, or research articles that were collaborative projects written by two or more authors. Of these articles, just 11 (2.3%) were written by integratively trained PsyDs who wrote without the collaboration of at least one PhD as a co-author.

In addition to scholarship, another aspect of life in the academy involves teaching at the graduate level. Examination of university web pages of integrative clinical psychology doctoral programs with APA accreditation showed that of the 80 professors who were core faculty, 68 (85%) had a PhD degree. Additional results of our research, as shown in Table 2, support our second hypothesis. Summing the two most recent years available for analysis (2001 and 2002), professors at integrative programs who themselves were graduates from an integrative program were three times more likely to have a PhD than a PsyD ([chi square] = 4.27, df = 1, p <.05).

DISCUSSION

On the basis of quantitative evidence gleaned from 30 years of integrative scholarship, it is not much of an exaggeration to say that the PhD degree in clinical psychology has been the brain trust of the integrative movement in professional psychology. When compared to a wide range of degrees--including the MDiv, the MSW, the EdD, the MD, and the RN--no other degree is even a close second. More specifically, when comparing the scholarly output of integrative PhDs and PsyDs, PhDs contributed four times more integrative scholarship than PsyDs. This was true even in the last 10 years, when there have been more integrative PsyDs, and PhDs' leadership was evident in every category of scholarship, including clinical case presentations, theory, and research. The same result was true for the professorate. For every 20 integrative core faculty members, 17 of them, on average, held the PhD degree, even if the program trained PsyDs. And as for professorial appointments for graduates of integrative programs, integrative programs hired PhDs over PsyDs by a ratio of 3 to 1.

None of this detracts from the PsyD degree or suggests that most PhDs do research and teaching. To the contrary, the PsyD degree has become a viable option for students wanting to become psychologists who offer clinical service rather than original research or teaching, and we believe the best PsyDs can publish and teach in ways that are equivalent to what PhDs do. We also believe that the PsyD degree's primary focus on clinical service accounts for why students pursuing the degree, as well as graduates who have the degree, are less associated with scholarship or the professorate: for many, these aspirations never were primary career goals in the first place. Moreover, if integration happens more times each day throughout the world in clinical practice than in academic articles of integrative journals (Sorenson, 1996, p. 186; Patelis and Sorenson, 1997), PsyDs are making a major contribution to integration in ways that are not typically reflected in JPT and JPC. As for PhD students in clinical psychology, it is an open secret that most aspire to clinical practice, even when they are in prestigious secular programs that are heavily oriented toward research. Masling (2003) complained that students and faculty engage in what he called a "charade" and a "cozy arrangement" that is ubiquitous in researchoriented programs:

In this ritual, faculty members promise academic positions to clinical
graduate students if they promise to take research seriously--and the
students pretend to believe them; students say they are genuinely,
cross-my-heart-honest-to-God-I-hope-to-die interested in research--and
faculty members pretend to believe them. This institutional folie a deux
is the basis for much of the training in clinical psychology in the
United States and is grandly called the Boulder Model of graduate
training in clinical psychology. (p. 588)

Most clinical psychologists--whether from secular or religiously affiliated programs, PsyD or PhD--are involved in some way with the delivery of clinical service. Data from the present study show that when it comes to integrative scholarship and academic appointments as core faculty in integrative programs, the PhD and PsyD degrees are associated with demonstrably different outcomes. Teaching in an integrative program and publishing integrative scholarship are not, of course, the only career paths for graduates of integrative programs, but these paths are nonetheless consistent with the professed goals of integrative programs, which seek to integrate psychology and faith; the leadership PhDs exercise in integration is thus vital to integrative programs' core missions.

The Status of Religiously Affiliated Programs in the Academy

As noted in our Introduction, it is curious that religiously affiliated clinical psychology programs fall in the bottom quartile of subjectively perceived quality, according to faculty peer ratings across the country (Maher, 1999), when the level of scholarship by both PhDs and PsyDs in professional-applied programs, by objective measures, is on par with or exceeds APA members of Division 12 (clinical) (McMinn, Johnson, & Haskell, 2003). Anecdotal and quantitative evidence converge on one possible explanation, to which we devote our Discussion. In short, the question we address is: If integrative doctoral programs in clinical psychology are respectably productive by objective measures, why are these schools not esteemed more highly by the secular academy?

Historian George Marsden confessed that the impetus for his influential book. The Soul of the American University (Marsden, 1994), came from teaching a semester at the University of California at Berkeley, having taught at Calvin College for the previous 20 years. At the end of the semester at Berkeley, Marsden (1998) reflected on the difference between the two institutions:

What struck me was that Calvin measured up surprisingly well in the
comparison. Berkeley was an exciting place with many wonderful people.
Yet Calvin had many professors who were as talented as those teaching at
Berkeley and the best Calvin students seemed as good or better. All in
all I was pretty sure that the best students at Calvin were getting as
good or better an education as were the best at Berkeley. They seemed on
average to be excited about a wider range of intellectual interests and
to relate these to ethical and social questions that would shape their
vocations. They were more likely to see some coherence in their
education and to view it as preparation for a vocation and not simply a
career.

These impressions were no doubt biased and may be hard to prove, but one
thing I do know from teaching twenty years at Calvin. The conventional
wisdom that one has to be in a highly diverse atmosphere in order to
have a creative intellectual environment is simply wrong. Calvin has
strict religious tests for all of its faculty. Most of its students come
from the same denomination, Christian Reformed. Nonetheless, such
apparent homogeneity produces surprising diversities. Rather than, as in
a secular university, where almost every discussion has to go back to
irreconcilable first principles, people can debate issues at a much
higher level. They might agree on first, second, or third principles,
but have strong creative debates after that. No more subjects are off
limits than at other academic institutions, and in fact there is greater
opportunity to discuss the religious dimensions of topics.

What was striking in the comparison of Calvin with Cal was that the sort
of education going on at Calvin was virtually unknown. What was
especially unheard of in mainstream academia was what was central to the
academic enterprise at Calvin--the integration of faith, learning, and
life. As sophisticated as the discussions of such issues seemed to be at
Calvin, in most of the rest of academia they were simply dismissed as
"religious" and therefore passe, irrelevant, and unprofessional. People
who heard that Calvin had strict religious tests for its faculty would
assume that it was on that basis second class and backward. [p. 11]

Following his semester at Berkeley Marsden joined the faculty at Nortre Dame, and lest his experience be dismissed as an idiosyncrasy of Berkeley and the West Coast, consider another account of a teacher on the East Coast in the Bible Belt of North Carolina. Christian Smith, Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), argued that an apparently increasing openness ("Everywhere one turns, there seems to be a newly funded initiative for scientific research on forgiveness, spiritual progress, public religion, or some such topic" [Smith, 2002, p. 20]) belies a continuing hostility and condescension toward religion in the university. Smith gave several illustrations, the first of which involved interaction concerning a wedding ceremony:

A fellow academic from another department, who had recently attended an
explicitly religious wedding service for a mutual acquaintance, stopped
me in the hallway to vent his astonishment that some of our colleagues
who had also attended the wedding revealed in the way that they had
participated that they might actually believe in God and heaven. "Here
are these well-educated people," he marveled, eyes rolling, "who are
actually sitting there talking about 'Lord this, and Lord that,' and
singing hymns about heaven 'up there'! Can you believe that?!" This
person knows that I am a churchgoing Anglican with interest in religion
and theology. Thinking that I must be missing a nuance that would
explain this interchange in a way that would not be insulting to me, I
mumbled something about the believability of such things being rooted in
narratives that are not directly empirically verifiable but that can
make perfect sense to people who embrace the stories. By the time I
fully realized what was actually going on, he too seemed to be catching
on; he started to backpedal by saying that he guessed he was really only
emotionally reacting against the religious practices in which he had
been forced to engage in public school as a child. Okay, I said.
Whatever. (p. 20)

Smith relayed another exchange with his faculty colleagues:

And then there was the occasion, not long ago, when I found myself part
of an informal discussion of faculty evaluating the merits of a
professional talk we had all heard. The talk had included a significant
religious analysis, which sought to explain some of the variance in a
particular outcome with a religious explanatory variable. In other
words, religion matters in shaping human action. But not all of the
faculty in the discussion were satisfied, and to some degree for
legitimate reasons, in my view. After a slight pause in the discussion,
however, one colleague disclosed what he took to be an enlightening fact
about the presenter of the talk: "In an earlier discussion with this
person, I discovered that he himself was personally raised to be
religious." Then silence. Yeah, so?, I thought. (I can be a little
slow.) Then I realized the point: because the presenter had a personal
religious history, he was probably biased in his interest in religion
and perhaps in his analysis of religious effects, and so their research
and findings were suspect. The discussion moved on. Afterward, I emailed
the faculty member who made this comment. I asked whether, if a personal
religious identity had this biasing effect, having given social-class
location, gender identity, or racial or ethnic heritage would likewise
inevitably make suspect a scholar's research on social inequality, sex
and gender, or race and ethnic relations. I received no reply. (p. 20)

Smith's question likely went unanswered because it was too trenchant. There is no easy way to reply without broaching some element of contrition or regret over prejudice in the academy against religious commitment.

Not all of the evidence is merely anecdotal. The U.S. News and World Report compiles an annual list of American's best colleges and ranks them according to a combination of objective and subjective criteria. For data from 2002, the most recent year available, which also coincides with the final year of the present study's 30-year analysis of integrative scholarship, Wheaton College (IL), arguably the finest and most selective evangelical Christian college, placed 53rd in the nation, a respectable showing indeed (U.S. News and World Report, 2003). Closer scrutiny of objective measures of quality--test scores, acceptance rate, average freshman retention, alumni/ae giving and so on--reveals that by these criteria, however, Wheaton would rank even higher, about 25th in the country. What accounts for its degradation in ranking is the same criterion by which religiously affiliated professional schools did poorly in Maher's (1999) report: subjective impressions of quality by secular peers. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Wheaton and other Christian undergraduate colleges (Westmont and Gordon fared similarly) get lower marks from secular peers simply for being Christian, much as Marsden said the quality of education at Calvin was virtually unknown to those at Cal and assumed to be second class and backward, or much as Smith's colleagues at UNC discounted colleagues with personal religious commitments.

The reasons for animosity against religious commitment are legitimately complex, and draw from fields as diverse as theology and sociology. According to Christian theology, for example, there is an unavoidable element of scandal in the Gospel story about a God who relinquishes power (Phil 2:5-8; 1 Cor 1:23). Such scandal becomes problematic, however, when Christians interpret the offense of the Gospel as a theological excuse to be rude or judgmental toward others with different views. It is one thing to be brought up short by the holiness of God, and quite another by the self-righteousness of Christians. If secular animosity toward religious commitment is sometimes an expression of persecution for Christ's sake, at other times it can simply be a self-inflicted consequence of Christians' sanctimony.

Sociologically, Christians in secular versus religiously affiliated clinical psychology doctoral programs likely experience very different processes of socialization. In an empirical study of 400 psychologists Sorenson and Hales (2002) found that, compared to Christians trained at religiously affiliated programs, Christians trained at secular clinical psychology doctoral programs were more conservative in their views about homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and other topics, and more likely to use explicitly religious interventions like in-session prayer or exorcism with religious and nonreligious psychotherapy clients alike. Sorenson and Hales concluded that some Christians in secular doctoral programs may relate to faculty in a defensive, us-versus-them mentality.

Students at religiously affiliated programs, by contrast, are exposed to
a broad array of religious scholarship and religious opinion among
faculty, in a climate that typically presumes personal questioning and
the inevitability of doubt as a part of faith. Because all the faculty
endorse a variety of religious commitments personally, and many have
graduate theological degrees, students cannot dismiss faculty influence
as uninformed or unsympathetic to religious faith, thus making student
rigidity or unexamined dogmatism much less tenable. (p. 168)

According to the data from Sorenson and Hales, secular faculty who suspect religiously affiliated programs to be a breeding ground for the Religious Right may be extrapolating from the Christian students enrolled in their own secular programs, who are more conservative and more fundamentalistic than are the graduates of integrative programs.

Limitations of the Boulder Model

PhD and PsyD degrees were created with different foci. The PhD, according to the Boulder model, was designed to produce students who were both scientists and practitioners; the PsyD degree was created in reaction to the shortcomings--if not the out-right failure--of the Boulder model as it was typically applied, something Masling (2003) characterized as an institutional folie a deux between faculty and PhD students in research-oriented programs. The PsyD degree, born of the Vail model, has produced and will continue to produce students who are competent clinicians. Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the Boulder model has accelerated in recent decades such that we believe integrative PhD programs should critically re-evaluate their continued adherence to the scientist-practitioner model of the 1940s. O'Donohue (1989) proposed what he called "an even bolder model" that expands training to include not only skill in science and practice but also in making metaphysical judgments about the nature of reality and what constitutes a life well lived. Jones (1994) followed suit with what he called "perhaps the boldest model yet," an active and constructive relationship for religion in the science and profession of psychology. The scholar-professional model espoused by Trierweiler and Stricker (1998) offers clinical psychologists a model that integrates science and clinical practice in a way that is unencumbered by the Boulder model's philosophic positivism, and allows for O'Donohue's and Jones' revisions.

One proposal that is occasionally raised is that we will not see a change in the secular academy's opinion of religiously affiliated programs until PhDs from these programs join the ranks of faculty members in prestigious secular universities. If Marsden's (1998) and Smith's (2002) experience is representative, however, the remedy is not quite so simple. After all, they both wrote from the perspective of those who already had been on the faculty of a prestigious secular research university. What is more, graduates of Christian colleges have been personally involved as students with secular doctoral programs throughout the 20th century. According to the Franklin and Marshall (1998) analysis of over 900 private colleges and universities between 1920 and 1995, for example, Wheaton College ranked 11th in the nation in terms of the total number of its graduates in all fields who went on to earn doctorates. If prejudice against religious commitment exists in the secular academy, it is not for lack of Christians' involvement. Results of the present study show that more than two-thirds of all integrative scholarship is in fact produced by those with no connection to integrative clinical psychology programs, which means a wide variety of fine integrative scholars are already positioned in institutions outside integrative clinical programs.

Present Study's Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Research

For those within or outside religiously affiliated programs, whether a result of the Boulder model's success or education that managed to transcend that model's limitations, PhDs have overwhelmingly been the leaders of the integrative movement over the past 30 years, both in terms of scholarship and appointment to the professorate. This is an unsurprising outcome that one would expect. Counting the number of publications or professorial appointments, however, does not tell the whole story. There is a whole range of contributions to integration besides life in the academy, including clinical practice, preventive and educational community service, and church consultation, among others, many of which may be areas in which integrative PsyDs excel.

As for future research, we think that it could be helpful to identify specific sources of variance in integrative scholarship as well as the differential impact of integrative authors by academic degree. For example, it would be useful to know how many PsyDs publishing in secular journals hold academic appointments. It could be that PsyDs produce scholarship on par with PhDs if both are in academic positions, which demand scholarly production for promotion and tenure irrespective of faculty degree. If so, this would mean PsyDs can be outstanding faculty members, but this would not constitute a test of PhD and PsyD equivalence, since the comparison occurs under conditions that require the two degrees to be indistinguishable. Were the present study's methodology to be replicated 30 years from now on the next three decades of integrative scholarship (i.e., 2003-2032), it's entirely possible, of course, that the comparative contributions of PhD and PsyD authors might be altogether different.

We think it also could be useful for future studies to identify which professional degrees are associated with articles that are most influential for integrative scholarship (cf. Jones, Ripley, Kuruso & Worthington, 1998). According to this criterion, what would matter more than the sheer quantity of scholarship is the quality of influence on the field. Rather than counting how many articles are written by authors with one degree or another, this alternative strategy would involve tallying how many of the most frequently cited books or articles in the integrative literature (whether popular or academic) are by PhDs and how many are by PsyDs. We suspect that the PhD degree in clinical psychology would be associated with leadership according to this criterion as well. Data from the present study indicate that there is a crucial role that has been played by integrative PhDs across the past 30 years in both integrative scholarship and integrative professorial appointments.

Table 1 Chi-square Analysis of Authorship

Degree  Observed Frequency  Expected Frequency

PhD     433.88 (80.8%)      261.58 (48.7%)
PsyD    103.34 (19.2%)      275.64 (51.3%)

[chi square] = 219.92, df = 1, p < .001
Expected frequencies were determined by the number of graduates and
students by degree from the integrative clinical psychology programs
that currently have APA accreditation.

Table 2 Chi-square Analysis of Integrative Faculty Appointment for
Integrative Graduates

Degree  Observed Frequency  Expected Frequency

PhD     18 (75.0%)          11.47 (54.6%)
PsyD     6 (25.0%)           9.53 (45.4%)

[chi square] = 4.27, df = 1, p < .05
Observed frequency is based on the summed faculty composition during the
years 2000 and 2001. Expected frequency is based on the percent of
integrative graduates by degree.

Figure 2. Percentage of Contribution for Various Categories of
Scholarship

               PsyD  PhD

Research       26%   74%
Clinical Case  19%   81%
Theory         20%   80%

Note: Table made from pie chart.

(1) For a history of clinical psychology training and a comparison and critique of the Boulder and Vail models, see: Baker & Benjamin, 2000; Belar & Perry, 1992; Goldfried, 1984; Peterson, 1985, 1991; Routh, 1994, 2000; Stricker, 2000.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association, Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology. (1947). Recommended graduate training programs in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 2, 539-558.

Baker, D., & Benjamin, L. T. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241-247.

Belar, C. D., & Perry, N. W. (1992). National conference on scientist-practitioner education and training for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 71-75.

Bergin, A. E., & Jensen, J. P. (1990). Religiosity of psychotherapists: A national survey. Psychotherapy, 27, 3-7.

Beutler, L., Williams, R., Wakefield, P., & Entwistle, S. (1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 984-994.

Bobbit, J. M. (1959) Opening remarks. In A. Roe, J.W. Gustad, B.V. Moore, S. Ross. & M. Skodak (Eds.), Graduate education in psychology (pp.19-23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Franklin and Marshall College. (1998). Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients: A ranking by discpline of 4-year institutions for the period 1920-1995, Eighth Edition. Lancaster, PA: Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium.

Hoshmand, L. T., & Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992). Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training. American Psychologist, 47, 55-66.

Goddard, H. H. (1919). The field of clinical psychology as an applied science: A symposium. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 84-87.

Goldfried, M. R. (1984). Training the clinician as scientist-practitioner. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 477-481.

Jensen, J. P., & Bergin, A. E. (1988). Mental health values of professional therapists: A national interdisciplinary survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 290-297.

Johnson, W. B., & McMinn, M. R. (2003). Thirty years of integrative doctoral training: Historic developments, assessment of outcomes, and recommendations for the future. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 83-96.

Jones, D. R., Ripley, J. S., Kuruso, T. A., and Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). Influential sources in the integration of psychology and theology: A decade summary. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, 43-54.

Jones, S. L. (1994). A constructive relationship for religion in the science and profession of psychology: Perhaps the boldest model yet. American Psychologist, 49, 184-199.

Maher, B. A. (1999). Changing trends in doctoral training programs in psychology: A comparitive analysis of research-oriented versus professional-applied programs. Psychological Science, 10, 475-481.

Malony, H. N. (1995). Psychology and the cross: The early history of Fuller Seminary's School of Psychology. Pasadena, CA: Fuller Seminary Press.

Marsden, G. M. (1994). The soul of the American university. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marsden, G. M. (1998). Liberating academic freedom. First Things, 88, 11-14.

Masling, J. (2003). Stephen A. Mitchell, relational psychoanalysis, and empirical data. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 20, 587-608.

McMinn, M., & Johnson, W. B., & Haskell, J. S. (2003). Publication Frequency Among Faculty in Integrative and Secular Doctoral Programs. Paper presented August 7 at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

O'Donohue, W. (1989). The (even) bolder model: The clinical psychologist as metaphysician-scientist-practitioner. American Psychologist, 44, 1460-1468.

O'Sullivan, J. J., & Quivillion, R. P. (1992). 40 years later: Is the Boulder model still alive? American Psychologist, 47, 67-70.

Patelis, A. R. and Sorenson, R. L. (1997). The "silence" of women in integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25, 188-198.

Peterson, D. R. (1968). The Doctor of Psychology program at the University of Illinois. American Psychologist, 23, 511-516.

Peterson, D. R. (1985). Twenty years of practitioner training in psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 441-551.

Peterson, D. R. (1991). Connection and disconnection of research and practice in the education of professional psychologists. American Psychologist, 46, 422-429.

Raimy, V. (Ed.). (1950). Training in clinical psychology. New York: Prentice Hall.

Routh, D. K. (1994). Clinical psychology since 1917: Science, practice, and organization. New York: Plenum.

Routh, D. K. (2000). Clinical psychology training: A history of ideas and practices prior to 1946. American Psychologist, 55, 236-241.

Smith, C. (2002). Force of habit. Books and Culture, 8 (September/October), 20-21.

Sorenson, R. L. (1996). "Where are the nine?" Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24, 179-196.

Sorenson, R. L., & Hales, S. (2002). Comparing evangelical protestant psychologists trained at secular versus religiously affiliated programs. Psychotherapy, 39, 163-170.

Stricker, G. (1992). The relationship of research to clinical practice. American Psychologist, 47, 543-549.

Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist-practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 55, 253-254.

Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. (1995). The local clinical scientist. American Psychologist, 50, 995-1002.

Strupp, H. (1981). Clinical research, practice, and the crisis of confidence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 216-219.

Trierweiler, S., & Stricker, G. (1998). The scientific practice of professional psychology. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

U.S. News and World Report. (2003). America's best colleges, 2004 Edition.

Vande Kemp, H. (1996). Historical perspective: Religion in clinical psychology in America. In E. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books, pp. 71-112.

JEREMY D. MORRIS

Community Reach Center

Thornton, CO

RANDALL LEHMANN SORENSON

Rosemead School of Psychology

La Mirada, CA

WINSTON E. GOODEN

Fuller Graduate School of Psychology

Pasadena, Ca

PATRICIA L. PIKE

Rosemead School of Psychology

La Mirada, CA

AUTHORS

MORRIS, JEREMY D. Address: Reach Center, 8931 Huron St., Thornton, CO 80260. Title: Psychology Intern. Degree: PhD candidate, Rosemead School of Psychology. Specializations: Contemporary psychoanalysis, assessments.

SORENSON, RANDALL LEHMANN. Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave., La Mirada, CA 90639. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: MA Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; PhD Clinical Psychology, Fuller School of Psychology; PsyD Psychoanalysis, Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis. Specializations: Integration, contemporary psychoanalysis.

GOODEN, WINSTON E. Address: Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary School of Psychology, 180 N. Oakland Ave., Pasadena CA 91101. Title: Dean and Associate Professor of Psychology. Degrees: MDiv, PhD, Yale University. Specializations: Adult development; dynamic psychotherapy; African-American men in therapy; shame and intimacy.

PIKE, PATRICIA L. Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave., La Mirada, CA 90639. Title: Dean, Rosemead School of Psychology. Degrees: BA, MA, PhD, University of Hawaii. Specializations: Program administration; professional psychology training; integration of psychology and faith; cross-cultural psychology; developmental psychology; psycholinguistics.

Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Jeremy D. Morris, Reach Center, 8931 Huron St., Thornton, CO 80260. Email: [e-mail]