ABSTRACT
The reciprocal relationship between research and practice is strongly emphasised in professional psychology and therapy training, particularly in courses where the scientist–practitioner model prevails. Yet, research and clinical practice skills are frequently addressed as if they are distinct. Research is typically viewed as important but as a hindrance in therapeutic settings. Consequently, research skills are commonly seen by trainees and clinicians as an additional requirement, instead of a core skill. Post-qualification, political and service pressures often result in a de-emphasis on research activities, which can discourage research and narrowly define what is permissible, required, or deemed desirable. While research in services can improve overall performance and practices, clinically relevant research is increasingly viewed as only research that informs evidence-based practice (EBP). EBP is a contested area, including questions relating to what data is collected and how it is analysed and unsurprisingly, many clinicians hold negative views as well as questioning how EBP can limit service user (SU) and clinician choice.
