Talk:Scientist–practitioner model

The scentence "Some have questioned if is possible, to today's climate, to continue to expect practicing..." Should say "Some have questioned if is possible, in today's climate, to continue to expect practicing..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.45.183 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 January 2007

Thank you for your suggestion. I have incorporated it into the article. WatchAndObserve 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The 3rd reference is a broken link. 144.124.215.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

I just updated the scientist-practitioner page for a class I am talking at the University of Mary Washington. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions to the content I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MackenzieWalsh (talk • contribs) 12:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Boulder Model

The Boulder Model was developed explicitly for clinical psychology, not i/o psychology. The page should be edited accordingly. Iss246 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you were right to mention i/o psychology but, please, it is important to get the citation correct (and in APA style). It is also important not to magnify the importance of the model in i/o compared to the model's importance for clinical psychology. Iss246 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Countless texts worldwide specify I/O as a scientist-practitioner field. That is what the broader article is about. The scientist-practioner, not just the Boulder Model. It is reliably sourced. Please don't go deleting other editor's good faith and sound contributions to Wikipedia in future. It shows disrespect for other editors. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The reliable I provided in the lede is very sound. Please also refer to that source on the history of I/O psych if in any doubt as to I/O psychology being a scientist-practitioner discipline. It is a very well known fact within I/O psych.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I don't dispute the point that the source is reliable. The source is one of the rare articles that link the Boulder Model to i/o Ψ. As I wrote earlier, I don't want to delete the reference of i/o Ψ from this article (I appreciated the fact that you introduced i/o to the article). I want the i/o reference to remain in the lower paragraph. The Boulder Model does not have the prominence in i/o Ψ that it has in clinical Ψ. Putting i/o Ψ in the lede misleads readers about the model.

I conducted 2 PsycInfo searches on Boulder Model (I excluded doctoral dissertations and included only published studies). One search used clinical Ψ as the second term. I got 87 hits. The other search used i/o Ψ as the second term. I got 3 hits. The search indicates that the Boulder Model is more prominently linked to clinical psychology.

Mrm, you placed i/o Ψ in the epidemiology article. It didn't belong there. I don't dispute i/o Ψ's belonging the Boulder Model article. I think that placing i/o Ψ in the lede misleads readers about the Boulder Model's prominence in i/o Ψ. Iss246 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I repeated the abovementioned PsycInfo exercise replacing the term Boulder Model with the term scientist-practitioner model. I got 150 hits when clinical Ψ was the partner search term and 21 hits when I used i/o Ψ. The evidence shows that the model has greater prominence in clinical Ψ. Iss246 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You just deleted this: [1] again while we were in the middle of a good faith discussion over a resolution here? I don't agree with your reasoning but this hostile act while under discussion on talk, undermines Wikipedia consensus building and civility between editors. I also asked you respectfully not to delete other editor's sound work and particularly during a discussion? Can you please restore this sound edit and all the reliable sources attached, that you also deleted while we are discussing it.Mrm7171 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I already explained that (a) I welcomed i/o Ψ in the article but (b) it is misleading to include i/o Ψ in the lede and that (c) i/o Ψ belongs lower down in the article. I showed evidence from a PsycInfo search on the relative importance of the Boulder Model to clinical Ψ and i/o Ψ. I also acknowledged the source was reliable but that sources like that in i/o Ψ unfortunately are rare compared to sources in clinical Ψ. Iss246 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning but this reverting you did here: [2] while we were discussing in good faith on talk, undermines Wikipedia consensus building and civility between editors. Can you restore as a good faith gesture please? We can then continue a discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Worlwide view is needed in this article

This article seems very biased and is written, and recently edited with only a USA perspective? leaving out Asia Pacific, including India & China, Europe etc? Wiki articles need to reflect a global perspective iss246. Will try and edit accordingly when I have got a chance to do so.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Boulder Model came out of the USA. Important to show the sources for Asia and Europe. Iss246 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That was in 1949 iss246 and only belongs in the history section and brief mention of country of origin? I'm talking about worldwide view of whole article is very important. Will edit accordingly when I can. Thoughts please?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nota bene. I am not against reporting on the model's influence in Europe and Asia provided the reporting has sources. Iss246 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)