Rethinking the scientist-practitioner model: On the necessary complementarity of the natural and human science dimensions

Although the dominant scientist–practitioner model has considerable professional support, it remains the case that there is a fundamental mismatch between its conceptualisation of the practitioner as a laboratory scientist in a clinical setting and the actual requirements for good counselling practice. In particular, there is mismatch between the kind of knowledge generated in the laboratory setting and the epistemic requirements of the therapeutic situation; and between the (detached, impersonal) kind of decision-making engaged in by the laboratory scientist and the (interpersonal, interactive) kind engaged in by the practitioner. Moreover, being structural in character, these limitations cannot be rectified by piecemeal modifications of the standard model, such as those envisaged on the ‘local clinical scientist model’. Nor can the recent push towards ‘evidence-based practice’ suffice as a corrective because the core problem simply replicates itself on that level. Instead, since they derive from an unduly restrictive conception of what constitutes scientific inquiry, they require endorsement of the equal partnership of the human science template as a corrective. Moreover, far from compromising its scientific commitments, this actively facilitates rethinking the integration of science and practice in the service of the effective practice of care.