| Abstract: | The Vail Conference on professional training in psychology recommended development of explicitly professional programs and use of the PsyD degree to certify competence in professional psychology. Policies governing use of the degree, however, as well as the concepts of professional function which degree titles should symbolize, continue to be controversial. Opponents of the Vail Conference recommendations have argued that professional psychologists are most appropriately regarded as scholar-professionals, and have urged award of the PhD degree upon completion of graduate training in such fields as clinical psychology. As counterargument, a multiple definition of the term scholar-professional is stated, and the surplus meanings implied by scholarship are shown to be either false, misleading, or redundant. The difficulties that arise from using the PhD degree as a credential of professional competence are then discussed, and the advantages of employing the PsyD degree both affirmatively, as a certificate of professional competence in psychology, and restrictively, to exclude inadequately trained people from the practice of professional psychology, are asserted. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
