Therapists and Academic Writing: "Once upon a time psychotherapy practitioners and researchers were the same people"

Abstract

The views and feelings of psychotherapists around academic writing were explored using a mixed methods approach. An on-line survey completed by 222 psychotherapists produced both quantitative and qualitative data with the latter being subject to a Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Significant numbers of participants lacked confidence about participating in academic writing. Fear of rejection, not being good enough and not knowing what is required were prominent underlying factors. Current academic writing was viewed as overly intellectual, not focused on clinical practice and the preserve of academics and not practicing therapists. Difficulty in accessing academic material lying behind pay walls was another factor limiting participation in academic writing as well as a lack of formal support. Clinical relevance and clarity of expression were viewed as the key factors of good academic writing. There was overwhelming support for academic writing to be a core skill taught in formal psychotherapy trainings.

Full text

EJQRP (2019) Vol. 9, 103-116 © 2019 The Author/s ISSN: 1756-7599
103 | P a g e
Therapists and Academic Writing:
“Once upon a time psychotherapy practitioners and
researchers were the same people”
Alistair McBeath, Sofie Bager-Charleson, and Avigail Abarbanel
Metanoia Institute, London Email: Alistair.mcbeath@metanoia.ac.uk
Abstract: The views and feelings of psychotherapists around academic writing were explored using a
mixed methods approach. An on-line survey completed by 222 psychotherapists produced both
quantitative and qualitative data with the latter being subject to a Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Significant
numbers of participants lacked confidence about participating in academic writing. Fear of rejection, not
being good enough and not knowing what is required were prominent underlying factors. Current
academic writing was viewed as overly intellectual, not focused on clinical practice and the preserve of
academics and not practicing therapists. Difficulty in accessing academic material lying behind pay walls
was another factor limiting participation in academic writing as well as a lack of formal support. Clinical
relevance and clarity of expression were viewed as the key factors of good academic writing. There was
overwhelming support for academic writing to be a core skill taught in formal psychotherapy trainings.
Keywords: Academic writing, Academic-practitioner divide, Confidence, Fear, Mixed methodology, Practitioner research
There is an increasing emphasis on research in psychotherapy.
One significant aspect of this focus is a demand for the
engagement with academic writing and publication of
research. Therapists are both expected to read and keep
updated about ongoing research in their field and to
disseminate their own findings. What is this like? What might
be the obstacles and/or benefits? How can therapists'
knowledge be communicated?
An overarching aim of this study is to contribute to a deeper
understanding of how therapists experience the growing
emphasis on research-supported practice. This project is an
extension of two previous studies (Bager-Charleson, du Plock,
& McBeath, 2018; Bager-Charleson, McBeath, & du Plock,
2019) into therapists’ engagement with research. The aim with
this study was to gain a deeper understanding of links between
practice and research through exploring therapists’
experiences of research writing and academic publication.
Literature Review
A previous study highlighted a strained relationship between
psychotherapy research and psychotherapy practice (Bager-
Charleson, McBeath, & du Plock, 2019). Therapists were often
mentioned at the margins of the research community.
Castonguay, Nelson, Boutselis, et al (2010, p.346) asserted, for
instance, that, “It is well established that the practice of many
full-time psychotherapists is rarely or non-substantially

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
104 | P a g e
influenced by research”. Tasca, Grenon, Fortin-Langelier, and
Chyurlia (2014, p.197) described what they termed a
“significant practice–research divide” within psychotherapy
and stated that, “clinicians often do not use existing research
to guide their practices, and researchers typically do not rely
on clinicians’ input when designing psychotherapy research”.
The estranged relationship between psychotherapy research
and psychotherapy practice has been underlined by reports
that: therapists have, historically, rarely initiated research
(Norcross & Prochaska, 1983); that therapists seldom read
research (Beutler, Williams, Wakefield, & Entwistle, 1995;
Boisvert, & Faust, 2006; Morrow-Bradley, & Elliott, 1986); and
that therapists are more informed by clinical experience,
supervision, personal therapy and literature than by research
findings (Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986; Safran, Abreu,
Ogilvie, & DeMaria, 2011).
Previous qualitative research (Bager-Charleson, du Plock, &
McBeath 2018; Bager-Charleson, McBeath, & du Plock 2019)
highlighted a feeling that some therapists experience a lack of
emotional and relational focus towards research. One
therapist said: “I underestimated the analysis stage. To read
verbal words on the written page …so rife with emotional
content and splitting, and you know, polarities and mess and
shame, and, you know… What do you do with that? How do
you find an expression?” Therapists also, alarmingly, referred
to ‘keeping quiet’ about their research interest.
Researcher-Practitioner Gap
In our search through the literature one paper stood out and
it takes the form of a presentation at a psychotherapy
conference by Abarbanel. This author highlighted “a gap
between the academic and the practitioner in psychotherapy”,
suggesting that “practitioners do not have adequate avenues
to participate in, and contribute to knowledge creation in
psychotherapy and counselling” (2012, p.1). This seemed like
a pretty fundamental, yet hitherto neglected, aspect of our
enquiry. Addressing practical aspects such as online library
access to engage in others as well as contributing with their
own research, Abarbanel asserts that:
Even if I did have access to scholarly resources and even if
my research methods were accepted as rigorous, chances
are that I would not be able to get my work published in
prestigious, well-respected academic journals. This is
because I am not affiliated with a university or mainstream
research institute. A sole practitioner is effectively a non-
entity in the scholarly domain of our field. (Abarbanel, 2012,
p.4)
She goes on to suggest that, “the existing one-directional
relationship between the academic and practitioner groups
could cause practitioners to feel alienated from the process of
knowledge creation” and that “research needs to be carried
out to explore this gap, what both groups think about it and
the impact it has on our field”. (2012, p.1)
Abarbanel’s contribution opened a new line of enquiry in
terms of a potential ‘academia versus practitioner’ dichotomy.
After initial email contact Abarbanel became a collaborator
and helped to complete the literature review in terms of a
‘narrative’ literature review organised around the experienced
‘gap’. She coined the phrase “once upon a time psychotherapy
practitioners and researchers were the same people”, used in
the title of this paper.
According to McLeod (2001), collaboration between
researchers and practitioners was not only the norm
historically, but research was led by practice and was “under
the control of practitioners” (2001, p.4), implying that
psychotherapy practitioners and researchers were the same
people. He (2001) pointed out that since the 1970s, a number
of factors have conspired to drift the domains of practice and
research in psychotherapy apart, to the point where a clear
gap has been repeatedly identified (Abarbanel, 2012; Henton,
2012; Widdowson, 2012; Darlington & Scott 2002; McLeod,
2001; Long & Hollin, 1997). One side of this fragmented
relationship is that of the academic/researcher for whom
carrying out studies in psychotherapy and publishing research
is the main occupation. On the other side, are the practitioners,
many in full-time independent practice, whose main activity is
therapeutic work (LeJeune & Luoma, 2015).
According to Long and Hollin (1997), there is “probably some
force to the argument that researchers do not always consider
an applied perspective” (1997, p.81). They also say that a
“number of clinicians hold negative attitudes towards research,
which is portrayed as irrelevant to practice and ranking below
more pressing service commitments” (p.77). Citing Darlington
& Scott (2002), Henton refers to a word-association
experiment in which practitioners described research as
“objective, hard, cold, scientific, factual, time consuming,
difficult, prestigious, tedious, expert” (Henton, 2012, p.11).
In 1949, the field of clinical psychology in the US committed
itself to educating psychologists as both clinicians and
researchers. What became known as the ‘Boulder Model’
(Raimy, 1950; Barkham & Mellor-Clark, 2003; Boisvert & Faust,
2006) has been often hailed as successful (Strickland, 1983)
but it has also been criticised. Frank (1984), for instance,
argued that the role of researchers is “incompatible with
[psychotherapy students’] interests and abilities” (1984,
p.417). He suggested that there are differences in ‘vocational
interests’, ‘personality traits’, ‘cognitive abilities’ and possibly
even ‘family background’ between individuals drawn to
become clinicians compared with those who are drawn to
research.

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
105 | P a g e
Frank’s speculations are echoed in findings from McBeath’s
(2019) survey of the motivations of psychotherapists.
Therapists unequivocally talked about themselves and
their capacity to be with clients; they did not talk about
theory, modalities or technique. They also readily
acknowledged the significance of personal trauma and
their experience of therapy as motivating factors in seeking
to join the psychotherapy profession. More subtle threads
of meaning also emerged; for example, in addition to
empathy and respect for clients, the most experienced
therapists seemed to have found other more personal
qualities within themselves that were seen as necessary for
effective therapy. (McBeath, 2019, p. 8)
These findings would suggest that those who choose
psychotherapy as their main profession might be different
people from those who choose research as their main career
path.
Homeless Practitioners?: Feeling Estranged From
Research
Additional challenges come from difficulties in reflecting or
representing the reality of the lived experience of the
therapeutic encounter within existing research methods and
protocols. Bager-Charleson, du Plock, & McBeath (2018)
demonstrated that practitioners can feel alienated from
essential aspects of research, such as data analysis for example.
In the practice of psychotherapy, they note an “emphasis on
attending to the emotional and embodied responses between
actual people” (2018, p.17). However, doing data analysis
“reflects a reductionism, which contrasts therapists’ narrative
knowing” (2018, p.17). Stricker (1992) argued that research
needs to broaden the scope of research methodologies as one
of the ways to encourage practitioners to function as
researchers.
Bager-Charleson, McBeath, and du Plock (2019) have shown
that practitioners can feel “homeless”, unsupported
undervalued and poorly trained as researchers. They conclude
that “more systematic efforts are required to understand and
foster psychotherapists’ engagement in research activities’
and that ‘a stronger, more cohesive research community could
provide a broad framework for practitioners to develop their
research skills and sense of research activities” (2019, p.204).
Widdowson argued that the willingness is there among
therapists both to use and participate in research but that they
require both “adequate training and preparation’ as well as
‘on-going support and feedback” (2012, p.185).
To further address the gap between practice and research
some have suggested establishing practice-based research
(PBR) (LeJeune & Luoma, 2015; Henton, 2012; Widdowson,
2012). PBR models can include “non-experimental research,
research by practitioners, research in naturalistic/routine
clinical settings, and in particular therapy research paradigms
such as case studies, process research and effectiveness
studies” (Henton, 2012, p.14). Some however, view such
models as unscientific and as methodologically problematic
(Long & Hollin, 1997, p.76). McDonnell, Stratton, Butler, and
Cape (2012) report on the creation by the UK Council for
Psychotherapy (UKCP) of a Research Faculty to help bridge the
gap between research and practice. Their aims are “to support
the use of research in psychotherapy, encourage therapists to
carry out research and disseminate the results of such research”
(2012, p.167)
An essential tool that is indispensable for communicating
knowledge in the field of psychotherapy is the ability to write
for publication. Pittam, Elander, Lusher, et al (2009)
demonstrated the need for better instruction of psychology
students in all aspects of academic writing. Barkham and
Mellor-Clark (2003) highlight the respective contributions of
both research-based practice and practice-based research and
argue that they are both necessary. They explain that the
structure and shape of papers from both sides, “are suited to
differing paradigms – hence, many of them do not fit the
traditional framework so often associated with academic
journals”. They therefore suggest that the ‘one size fits all’
model should be abandoned if ‘researchers and practitioners
are to benefit from the dissemination arising from … differing
but complementary activities’ (Barkham & Mellor-Clark, 2003,
p.323).
Academic Writing
The suggestion that many psychotherapists could be
estranged from research and that their clinical work is not
substantially informed by research inevitably invites
inspection of what their relationship might be with the primary
vehicle that communicates research, namely, academic
writing. So, is reading academic writing a mainstream activity
of psychotherapists? To what extent does it influence clinical
work? Is academic writing in the psychotherapy profession a
common activity or a minority activity? How much academic
writing is done by psychotherapists? The research reported in
this paper attempted to address questions such as these and
to obtain some robust sense of where academic writing might
currently be positioned within the psychotherapy profession.
The significance of the research activity seemed clear and
important. If the concept of the researcher-practitioner split is
something that was manifest both in the writing and reading
of academic writing then there is a real possibility within
psychotherapy that the uncertain relationship between

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
106 | P a g e
researchers and practitioners is becoming more tenuous
through the gradual emergence of divergent domains of
professional knowledge. This potential for a real researcher-
practitioner split would inevitably impact on our clients with
opportunities being lost for clinical practice to be meaningfully
informed by research. Conversely, a researcher-practitioner
gap would mean that research could proceed without being
informed by clinical practice and therefore could be seen as
not relevant for mainstream psychotherapy practitioners.
Methodology
With ‘Critical Realism’ (Finlay & Ballinger, 2006) as an
epistemological umbrella, we explored therapists’ accounts of
their attitudes and experiences around academic writing. We
adopted a mixed-methods framework (Landrum & Garza,
2015; Hesse-Biber, 2010; Bager-Charleson, McBeath, & and du
Plock, 2019; Priest, in press) drawing from therapists’
participation in an on-line survey. The survey focused on
obtaining a broad view of what psychotherapists considered to
be significant issues around academic writing. Our original plan
was to engage in interviews with survey respondents who had
offered to provide additional post-survey information.
However, the survey provided opportunities for survey
respondents to offer free-text comments which was an option
taken up so extensively that a decision was made to focus on
this qualitative data source through the lens of Reflexive
Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019). Combining
quantitative approaches to the data with qualitative
approaches is often legitimised with a reference to how each
perspective may answer different research questions
(Landrum & Garza, 2015; Priest, in press). The qualitative
section aims to add a deeper understanding into idiographic,
unique cases, and we felt that the elaborate free text
comments added considerable value here.
Ontological and Epistemological Positions
The mixed methods approach adopted invites reflection on the
ontological and epistemological assumptions underpinning
the research. Traditionally, quantitative and qualitative
methodologies have been seen as distinctly different research
approaches and each has been associated with seemingly
incompatible and non-overlapping philosophies (Lund, 2005).
From an ontological perspective, quantitative methods have
been associated with realism which holds that there is an
objective reality independent of our cognitions and
perceptions. In contrast, qualitative approaches have been
associated with relativism where reality, as we know it, is seen
as an intersubjective and socially based phenomenon. From an
epistemological stance, quantitative approaches have been
associated with positivism which holds that reality is objective
and can become known through empirical observation. In
contrast, qualitative approaches have been associated with
interpretivism. An interpretivist stance assumes that reality is
fluid and subjective, and that reality can only be observed as
approximations or estimates.
The mixed methods approach adopted in this research
essentially rejects these dichotomous ontological and
epistemological positions and, instead, favours an alignment
with the fundamental assumptions underlying critical realism.
Originally formulated by Bhaskar (1975, 1998) critical realism
is an alternative philosophical position to the classic positivist
and interpretivist paradigms and, to some extent, offers a
unifying view of reality and the acquisition of knowledge.
Critical realism can be viewed as being positioned somewhere
between positivism and interpretivism. Critical realism
accepts the principle of an objective reality independent of our
knowledge. It also accepts that our knowledge of the world is
relative to who we are and that, ultimately, our knowledge is
embedded in a non-static social and cultural context.
Critical realism has several key - sometimes complex - concepts.
One proposition is the notion that reality is layered into
different domains i.e. the empirical, the actual, and the real.
This ‘stratified ontology’ allows both quantitative and
qualitative research approaches to co-exist and to have more
relevance in certain domains than others. Critical realism also
acknowledges the complexity of the world and recognises ‘the
fallibility of knowledge’ which refers to the probability that our
knowledge of the world may be misleading or incomplete.
Overall, the key importance of critical realism, in the context
of the research reported, is that it offers a non-competing and
philosophically inclusive paradigm and one that is aligned with
a mixed methods approach.
Survey Questionnaire
The content of the survey was derived from the authors’
review of relevant literature, discussions with colleagues and
feedback from a pilot survey which involved twelve
psychotherapists. The survey focused on a number of key
issues which included,
• Psychotherapists’ confidence around academic writing
• The key elements of good academic writing
• An audit of psychotherapists’ academic output
• Whether academic writing should be a taught skill for
therapists
• The key reasons for academic writing
• The extent to which clinical practice is informed by
published work.

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
107 | P a g e
Sampling Method
The survey was distributed widely with support from the
European Association for Integrative Psychotherapy (EAIP) and
the Metanoia Institute. A purposive sampling method was
used to identify potential survey respondents with the social
media platform LinkedIn being the primary source. LinkedIn
contains the professional profiles of many hundreds of self-
identified psychotherapists. A growing number of studies are
using social media to identify participant samples in
psychotherapy research (e.g. Lidden, Kingerlee, & Barry, 2017;
McBeath 2019). The authors also used their existing academic
networks to identify suitable survey participants.
The selection criteria for survey participants required them to
be post-qualified and working clinically as a practitioner or
academic. Most individuals on their LinkedIn profiles included
membership of a professional body (e.g. UKCP, BACP).
Individuals meeting the selection criteria received a personal
message describing the aims of the survey and a link to the on-
line survey. A total of 222 individuals completed the survey.
Approximately 950 survey invitations were sent which gives a
response rate of 23%. As an overall response rate for the
survey, this response rate is an approximation as it is not
known how many of the small number of individuals contacted
through academic networks, as opposed to contacted via
LinkedIn, actually took part in the survey.
Ethical Considerations
The Metanoia Research Ethics Committee gave ethical
approval for the research. A link to the data privacy policy of
the company that hosted the on-line survey was provided. The
survey introductory page stated that all responses would be
treated in confidence.
Results: Quantitative Data Analysis
A total of 222 psychotherapists completed the on-line survey.
Some indication of how representative the sample might be of
the wider profession comes from the gender breakdown of
respondents which was female (71%) and male (29%). These
figures correspond quite closely with the gender breakdown
reported in the 2016 UKCP membership survey where the
figures were female (74%) and male (24%). So, in terms of
gender breakdown the sample in the academic writing survey
appears well aligned with the wider practitioner body.
Responses covered a diverse range of self-reported modalities.
By far the largest grouping was for respondents who identified
themselves as Integrative (53%). Next were those identifying
as Psychodynamic (11%). Other modality groupings were
Person Centred (7%), Existential (4%), Transactional Analysis
(4%), Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (2%), Gestalt (2%), Pluralist
(2%) and Cross-cultural (0.5%). The ‘other’ category (14%)
included Systemic, Psychoanalytic, Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy, Arts therapy, Transpersonal and
Humanistic.
Within the survey respondents were asked how confident they
felt about writing an article for publication within the
psychotherapy profession. The data obtained, shown in Figure
1, presents quite a stark set of findings. Less than 50%
expressed confidence about writing an article with 8% being
very confident and 40% being confident. Nearly a third of
respondents (32%) expressed a lack of confidence about
writing for publication with 22% being not confident and 10%
being not at all confident.
Figure 1: Survey respondents’ confidence about academic writing
The respondents who stated that they were not confident
about academic writing had the opportunity to express why
this should be and the results (multiple responses) are shown
in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Reasons for lack of confidence about academic writing

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
108 | P a g e
From Figure 2 it seems that a major reason psychotherapists
lack confidence about academic writing is simply because
they’ve never done it before; this reason accounted for 22% of
all responses. A further 20% accounted for fear of rejection.
It can be seen in Figure 2 that some therapists feel a lack of
confidence because they feel they have nothing to write about;
this reason accounted for 6% of all responses. There were 21
separate free text comments offered under the other
response; this accounted for 15% of all responses. The
overarching reason given in this response category was a lack
of time especially when balanced against the demands of
clinical work.
The survey offered the opportunity to get some sense of the
amount and diversity of writing being done by
psychotherapists. The data are summarised in Figure 3 and are
from a multiple response question.
Figure 3: Academic writing done by survey respondents
Figure 3 shows that writing a journal article is the most
common form of academic writing; this accounted for 23% of
all responses. The next most popular form of writing was for a
professional organisation (15%). Writing activity for on-line
media accounted for 13% of all responses. The data shown in
Figure 3 come from a multiple response question which
allowed individual respondents to indicate that they may have
done one or more types of academic writing. There were 45
free-text comments made in the other category for academic
writing activity. The majority made reference to Masters’ or
PhD dissertations; but also mentioned were blogs, book
reviews, academic poster presentations and client hand-out
materials.
Survey respondents were asked what, in their view, were the
key features of good academic writing. The question allowed
multiple responses with the data presented in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Key features of good academic writing
The data shown in Figure 4 present a clear picture of what the
survey respondents considered to be key features of good
academic writing, namely, relevance for clinical practice
(19.2%), and clear and concise language (18.3%). Two
following response categories, clear introduction and purpose
(15.7%) and coherent and logical structure (15.9%) reinforce
the point that what psychotherapists value in academic writing
is clarity of expression. This emphasis is seen as more
important than a balanced argument (13.6%).
A total of 26 free text comments were offered about the key
features of good academic writing. These included being
creative/original in presenting ideas, effectively disseminating
knowledge, and evidence of reflexivity. There was a single
mention of the need to offer a clear ontological and
epistemological position within academic writing.
Within the context of exploring psychotherapists’ views
around academic writing, we considered that it was important
to gauge the extent to which their clinical practice is informed
by reading published output such as journals/articles. 31% of
respondents indicated that their clinical practice was informed
by reading journals/articles to a large extent. A further 57%
chose the response to some extent. So, over 80% of
participants indicated that their clinical practice is informed by
reading published material.
In seeking to explore psychotherapists’ views on academic
writing it became clear that significant numbers of
practitioners do not feel confident or able to effectively
engage in academic writing. So, the obvious question that
follows from this situation is quite straightforward - Should
academic writing be a core skill in psychotherapy trainings?
Figure 5 shows that a truly large number of survey respondents
(78%) think that academic writing should be a core skill in
taught psychotherapy trainings.

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
109 | P a g e
Figure 5: Should academic writing be a core skill in psychotherapy
training ?
Findings: Qualitative Data Analysis
The survey respondents gave a total of 200 free text comments
which included statements of clarification, short comments
about a range of issues and, in some instances, a paragraph or
more containing quite detailed accounts of personal
experiences and reflection, amplifying some of the issues
highlighted in the survey. This body of information and
knowledge was recognised and treated as a relevant and
valuable source of qualitative data and was subject to a
thematic analysis.
Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Thematic Analysis is currently a broad term that covers a range
of approaches which ultimately seek to find meaning across
data sets. In exploring the qualitative data from the survey, the
approach taken was informed by the particular approach
articulated by Braun & Clarke (2006, 2019) called Reflexive
Thematic Analysis (RTA).
Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasise that Reflexive Thematic
Analysis is a method rather than a methodology and, as such,
it is not aligned with any specific theoretical framework. It can
thus be applied using a range of different theoretical
frameworks. To amplify this point, Braun and Clarke (2006)
state that RTA can be a realist method, a constructivist method,
or a method aligned with critical realism. They place a strong
emphasis on the researcher being an active creator of
knowledge and reject any quasi-positivist notion that themes
and meanings simply emerge from the data as if they
somehow pre-existed.
The key underpinnings of Reflexive Thematic Analysis are
summarised by Clarke and Braun (2018) as follows,
We intended our approach to TA [thematic analysis] to be
a fully qualitative one. That is, one in which qualitative
techniques are underpinned by a distinctly qualitative
research philosophy that emphasises, for example,
researcher subjectivity as a resource (rather than a
problem to be managed), the importance of reflexivity and
the situated and contextual nature of meaning. (2018, p.
107)
Clarke and Braun (2018) provide a clear emphasis that in their
version of Thematic Analysis themes are more than a holding
device for pieces of information but serve, “as key characters
in the story we are telling about the data” (2018, p.108). A
similarly important emphasis is also placed on the potential for
Reflexive Thematic Analysis to move beyond description and
summary. Clarke and Braun state that, “rich analysis typically
moves from simple summation-based description into
interpretation; telling a story about the ‘so what’ of the data.”
(p.109).
The theoretical flexibility of RTA means that it can be utilised
to ask different sorts of research questions. For example, it
can operate in a deductive way where themes are constructed
from the data or in an inductive way where theme
development is guided by existing ideas and concepts. The
method can also function in a constructivist manner where the
focus is on how meaning is created. There is also a potential
alignment with a critical realist position where the focus is on
an assumed reality evident in the data.
The practical steps of our thematic analysis were step-wise and
relatively straightforward:
• Data immersion - a process of intimate familiarisation
with the data.
• Preliminary coding - a search for unification of ideas
and issues which are then assigned a unique identity
(e.g. colour coding).
• Reading and re-reading - firming up on preliminary
coding and also seeing if meanings change over
readings.
• Creation of themes from codes - a higher order of
meaning.
• Data saturation - Is there a point when no new codes
or themes are apparent?
• Review themes - Are they still meaningful and stable?
• Write up the themes - a crucial element in meaning
making.

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
110 | P a g e
Thematic Analysis Outcomes
Within the qualitative material offered by survey respondents
there were a number of themes that became prominent
during the analysis process. They added a depth and direction
of meaning which was quite different in nature from the data
reported in the on-line survey. The survey produced valuable
aggregated attitudinal data whereas the thematic analysis
revealed individuals’ feelings and their felt vulnerabilities in
relation to academic writing. Five main themes were created
from the data:
• writing style
• difficulty in accessing academic writing
• the academic-practitioner gap
• fear and lack of confidence
• lack of knowledge and support
Writing Style
Several comments focused on what is seen as the style of
writing in published work that is unappealing and, specifically,
difficult to understand.
• “Far too often, academic writing is marred by being
poorly written and difficult to understand.”
• “Many therapists are deterred by the use of language
in journals. […] Part of your training was deciphering
journals which is ridiculous as surely the purpose of
these journals and articles is to communicate with as
wide an audience as possible.”
• “I have found academic writing to be increasingly dry
[…] not allowing much room for matters of the soul or
heart.”
McLeod (2015, p.9) made an important point in commenting
that “academics primarily write for other academics and
publish in journals that are not read by practitioners”. This
idea that academic writing in psychotherapy is an activity done
by members of an exclusive club other than the practitioners
was expressed by a number of the survey respondents.
Difficulty in Accessing Academic Writing
For some practitioners academic writing is unappealing
because access to resources that would enable them to do so
is currently highly restricted. Here are a few comments on this
issue,
• “With no access to databases (private access to
publications is prohibitively expensive) and no name
of organisation or academic institution to back you up,
the odds of private practitioners publishing, if they
wanted to, are extremely poor.”
• “Journals are not open access and the language often
obscured meaning.”
• “It is difficult to access academic reading materials
once you stop being a student.”
Accessing academic writing - particularly psychotherapy-based
research - is made extremely difficult for practitioners not
affiliated to academic institutions. The vast majority of journal
articles and other resources are held behind publishers’ pay
walls and the price of accessing just a single journal article is
prohibitive on an individual basis. There is a tendency towards
an increased open access policy among publishers, but this
arrangement involves a high fee which again requires the
support of institutions. As McLeod (2018) has noted, this
situation is a real barrier to many who would wish to promote
research-informed practice.
The Academic-Practitioner Gap
There was a clear sense of an academic-practitioner gap within
psychotherapy which was, in part, exacerbated by a view that
psychotherapy writing is over-intellectualising the profession
and comes at the expense of clinical skills development.
• “The emphasis is now on academic qualifications and
use of academic language […] we are moving away
from trainee therapists focusing on their own
personal process which in my opinion is what enables
us to heal others.”
• “I am concerned that there is a growing tendency to
place academic prowess above clinical ability - there
is a danger that institutes will produce first-class
theorists and academics who are lauded for their
intellects, but who in reality may pass unnoticed as
they fall short when faced with the practical task of
working with clients.”
• “The current research training in psychotherapeutic
programmes is still dominated by those who have
PhDs. There is still a 'top dog' and 'under-dog'
attitude. There are excellent practitioners, who do
practitioner research and are dismissed by
academics.”
These statements seem powerful and unambiguous. There is a
real perception that the psychotherapy profession is too
concerned with academic prowess and academic language.
The language is either too academic, technical or laden with
statistics. One significant consequence is the perception of a
diminished focus on the development of clinical skills. The
current approach and style of academic writing within

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
111 | P a g e
psychotherapy is an actively divisive factor and, paradoxically,
one that inhibits the dissemination of knowledge amongst
practitioners.
Fear and Lack of Confidence
Within the qualitative data the word fear appeared several
times in terms of:
• Fear of not being able to write to the required
standard
• Fear of negative evaluation
• Fear of criticism or doing harm or being found out to
be a rubbish therapist and others are better than me
• Fear of being rejected
• Fear of failure and peer judgement
That practitioners express a lack of confidence is perhaps an
understandable feeling by those with little or no experience of
academic writing. But the comments above seem to be
acknowledging a far more brittle experience, namely, the
possibility of feeling shame or humiliation.
Lack of Knowledge and Support
Within the qualitative data, the need to acquire writing skills
through training, and a need for support, were referenced
prominently.
• “Would like to, but would need a mentor / supervisor
in order to feel more confident.”
• “I enjoy writing, research and academic writing. Yet,
to become part of the writing community seems
daunting and there seems to be very little support out
there for publishing one's work, even one's doctoral
thesis”.
• “I would love to write more, both academically and
for public consumption, but I don't know what is
expected and I don't feel prepared for it.”
• “More could be done to support writers (if they are
interested) on courses.”
• “I am a practitioner with nearly 20 years of experience,
my background was not academia having left school
a long while ago with just 3 '0' levels. It would have
been very helpful to me if academic writing as a skill
had been part of my psychotherapy training e.g. how
to undertake a thorough and specific literature search
and how to critique articles. I have learned over time
but as a sole practitioner it has been and is difficult.”
• “I feel that students of psychotherapy and counselling
trainings do not do/read/critically analyse enough
research (in my experience as a Masters’ course
lecturer and supervisor with trainees and qualified
psychotherapists and counsellors). I think that critical
analysis ought to be a core topic on all trainings.”
These comments suggest that more practitioners would
engage with academic writing in the psychotherapy profession
if they felt supported through formal skills acquisition and with
some form of collegiate support.
Discussion
The results from the survey present a mixture of findings which
sometimes contradict the established narrative that the
clinical practice of many psychotherapists is not influenced by
research. 88% of survey respondents indicated that their
clinical practice is influenced to some extent by reading
journals and articles. Another notable finding is the fact that
75% of respondents considered that they had done some
formal writing activity. Thus, it would appear that writing
within the psychotherapy profession is not necessarily a
minority activity.
However, the free text comments, in particular, illustrate how
many psychotherapists regard academic writing as something
associated with fear of rejection and not being good enough.
It seems clear that academic writing within the psychotherapy
profession has a poor brand image. There is substantial
criticism of a writing style that is viewed as unnecessarily
complex, sometimes incomprehensible and one that seems to
value intellectualising over clarity of expression. Many
therapists seem to feel estranged from academic writing and
are deterred from participation.
The relevance of academic writing for clinical practice was
seen as paramount allied with clarity of expression.
It has been suggested that the relevance of academic writing
for clinical practice has, in part, been compromised by the fact
that a substantial amount of published research is focused on
issues that are not key concerns for practitioners (Beutler,
Williams, Wakefield, & Entwistle, 1995; Goldfried & Wolfe,
1996). So, apart from how the research is written and
articulated, there may well be doubts for many practitioners
about the very relevance of the type of research being
reported.
From both quantitative and qualitative data, there were clear
indications that many psychotherapists simply do not know
what is involved in academic writing and how to participate.
For example, the sense of fear and failure that was associated
with academic writing suggests that some therapists simply do

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
112 | P a g e
not know that the process of submitting material to journals
regularly allows for resubmission following various review
stages. Similarly, they do not realise that the chances of
experiencing an outright and first-time rejection are relatively
small.
If academic writing is to become recognised as an activity that
can attract positive participation across the breadth of the
psychotherapy profession and feel inclusive rather than
exclusive there is a clear need for an educative process to
support practitioners. This need for education and support
was clearly evidenced by the 78% of survey respondents who
felt that academic writing should be a core skill in
psychotherapy trainings. This particular finding suggests that
there is a potential for much greater participation in academic
writing within the psychotherapy profession if it is effectively
supported.
For practitioners thinking of participating in academic writing,
there is only a very sparse relevant literature, but some
material does seem especially relevant. For example, Barker
(2010) offers some useful comments and approaches around
dealing with the anxieties that can be evoked by the prospect
of academic writing.
It is clear that despite all our counselling training and
personal therapy we are still very afraid of the potentially
devastating impact of others’ critique and disapproval. To
be fixed in the gaze of others as wanting is to be a flawed
and illegitimate person and writing fixes us in a way that is
black and white, available for all to see and unchangeable
once it is out there. (2011, p.99)
To overcome such feelings Barker (2011) recommends a
graduated exposure model towards academic writing. The
essence is to do smaller pieces of writing (e.g. case study, book
review) before taking the step of embarking on a larger and
more formal piece of academic writing.
From another perspective Cooper (2019) offers some valuable
information about the processes involved in submitting a piece
of academic writing for publication. Especially important is the
need for authors to target appropriate journals and
publications for what they have written. Cooper (2019)
emphasises that there is an undoubted pecking order of
journals and that some will be prove harder for authors to have
their work accepted than others. In other words, there are
some decisions to be made in this area. Cooper (2019) also
offers good detail on the actual submission process for written
work and the likely outcomes that an author might experience.
Perhaps the most important point about academic writing is
the need for potential authors and training organisations to
recognise that this activity is based on a set of specialised and
inter-related skills. If this acknowledgment is not emphasised,
then it invites practitioners to believe that they have some kind
of pre-existing intellectual or cognitive deficiency. Academic
writing is a skill that needs to be acquired through structured
learning and experience.
Most UK universities now have readily accessible academic
skills support resources (e.g. The University of Goldsmiths
Academic Skills Centre) which offer detailed support and
advice around academic writing. For the psychotherapy
profession there are good reasons why such formal support
should be offered within psychotherapy trainings. Research
methods is a commonly taught component in trainings. Surely
a much-needed complementary training requirement is for
practitioners to learn how to be effective academic writers.
The potential synergy here seems obvious. As Ponterotto and
Grieger have commented, “the first step in effectively
communicating qualitative research is the development of
strong qualitative research skills” (2007, p.409).
Critical Evaluation
In utilising a mixed methods approach to the research one goal
was to obtain findings from the on-line survey that might be
generalised to the wider practitioner body of psychotherapists.
The extent to which this goal was realised requires
consideration of three key related issues which are: sample
size, non-response bias, and sampling methodology. Non-
response bias refers to the possibility that survey data are
skewed because those who responded to the survey are
distinctly different from those who did not. In general, it is
assumed that the higher the response rate, the lower the risk
of non-response bias.
The response rate for the survey was approximately 23%; this
is the percentage of those invited to complete the survey who
did so. How can we assess the value of a response rate of 23%?
One way is to look at response rates achieved in other related
surveys to get some scale of what might reasonably be
achieved. For example, in the BACP 2017 membership survey
the response rate was 18% (of the total membership) and the
comparable figure for the UKCP 2016 membership survey was
29%. So, in terms of these two surveys, it might be concluded
that the response rate of 23% for the on-line survey is not
especially small and, indeed, is considerably larger than some
publicised surveys such as the BACP (2016) survey of members’
awareness of Female Genital Mutilation (FMG) where the
response rate was 5%.
From a statistical perspective the concept of margin of error
offers one way to quantify the degree of confidence that
survey findings (from a sample) can be generalised to a wider
population. Three key factors are involved, namely, sample

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
113 | P a g e
size achieved, population size and confidence level. For the
psychotherapy profession the population size has to be
estimated as there is no single data base that records the total
number of UK psychotherapists. In previous survey-based
research a generous estimate for the total number of UK
therapists was set at 20,000 (McBeath, 2019). Using this figure
the margin of error for the academic writing survey is +/- 6%.
So, for any main survey finding, we can be 95% confident that
the ‘true value’ will lie within 6% of the survey percentage
reported.
The purposive sampling methodology used in the survey could
have been a potential source of bias because it is a non-
random approach and therefore individuals within the sample
did not have an equal probability of being selected. But in
highlighting this issue it’s worth reflecting on some of the
practicalities and limitations of doing research. Smith and
Osborn (2008) make a key point in stating that, “it should be
remembered that one always has to be pragmatic when doing
research; one’s sample will in part be defined by who is
prepared to be included in it” (2008, p.56).
Within any large data set it is important to be vigilant to the
presence of skewed data and their impact. Within the survey
data there was a clear over representation of senior
practitioners; for example, 45% of all survey respondents had
over 12 years of clinical practice whereas 16% had 1 to 4 years
of experience, and 25% had 5 to 8 years of clinical experience.
The percentage for those practitioners with 9 to 12 years
clinical experience was 16%. The over representation of senior
practitioners was reflected in some of the main findings. For
example, of the 102 responses associated with those who had
written a journal article (62%) was accounted for by
practitioners with more than 12 years clinical experience; the
figure for practitioners with 1 to 4 years of experience was far
lower at 10%.
That our sample included so many respondents with academic
writing/publishing experience which is not representative of
the practice field as a whole needs further comment. We can
speculate that practitioners without this writing experience
would have expressed more negativity, shame and scare about
academic writing. Further qualitative research into
perceptions and experiences of practitioners who are not
academically active would be useful.
In using a mixed methods approach, there was a tacit
assumption that both the quantitative and qualitative
processes would be valuable in their own right but also that
the combination of these processes would be complementary
and would deliver a strength of meanings and interpretation
which neither approach could do on its own. In reflecting upon
the research methods used there was a clear sense of some
process of synergy in so far as the combination of quantitative
and qualitative processes produced a sense of three-
dimensional meaning.
However, the mixed methods approach used in our research
had both advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, the
quantitative data reported had special significance because
they allow the findings to be generalised and to say something
about the psychotherapy profession as a whole. This scale of
data is particularly important in providing evidence that might
be seen as credible in promoting change within organisations.
A good example is the finding that (78%) of survey respondents
think that academic writing should be a core skill in taught
psychotherapy trainings.
However, the mixed methods approach did, in some respects,
offer qualitative data that was restricted in depth. There was
no face-to-face interaction between researchers and
participants and therefore no opportunity for a two-way
dynamic that could have facilitated processes of amplification,
clarification and the co-creation of meaning. The qualitative
data reported were unambiguously valuable, but they were a
snapshot of meaning derived from an online survey. A
different context might have produced different results.
There’s little doubt that deeper and richer data would have
emerged from a specific qualitative approach such as
phenomenological research where the specific interest is, in
embodied lived experience and the meanings held about that
experience (Finlay, 2011). This sort of approach could be
highly effective in discovering more about the shame and fear
that many survey respondents expressed around the activity
of academic writing. The depth and co-creative nature of
phenomenological research has been described by Finlay
(2011) as:
Phenomenological research is potentially transformative
for both researcher and participant. It offers individuals the
opportunity to be witnessed in their experience and allows
them to ‘give voice’ to what they are going through. It also
opens new possibilities for both researcher and researched
to make sense of the experience in focus. (2011, p.10).
[bold in the original]
As Braun and Clarke (2006) have sought to emphasise, the
researcher within the Reflexive Thematic Analysis process is
very much an active creator and interpreter of knowledge and
meaning. This raises the question of whether a different group
of researchers would have identified and created themes with
a different emphasis to those reported. How powerful was the
personal-researcher lens? There is no straightforward answer
to this question but there were undeniable clues that a
powerful and very personal research process was active. For
the author most involved in the thematic analysis process,
there were several instances of an emotional and sometimes

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
114 | P a g e
visceral response when reading and re-reading through the
qualitative data. This feeling was particularly potent when
reading about individuals’ fear and lack of confidence around
academic writing. There was also, at times, a felt sense of
resentment - against the psychotherapy profession – because
some practitioners could have a sense of shame evoked
around academic writing. The researcher’s inner voice was
saying, ‘it doesn’t have to be like this’.
The power and significance found within the many comments,
statements and personal stories offered by research
participants confirmed the clear value and depth of meaning
that came from the qualitative side of the research. The survey
produced clear headline statements that provided a sense of
the size of a particular issue; for example, 32 % of respondents
lacked confidence around academic writing. However, it was
from the qualitative data that a sense of why individuals lacked
confidence was revealed and, indeed, how this feeling was
manifest at a personal level. So, the mixed methods approach
successfully delivered both breadth and depth of data.
We found the degree of written responses interesting. We
enjoyed and valued the rich responses in the survey
immensely, and they changed – as mentioned, the direction of
the study. We wondered if the elaborate free text responses
partly related to the topic of ‘writing’, suggesting an interest in
written communication and in exchanging texts perhaps from
the start. We had however already earlier noted an ease and
readiness to add extensive comments in online surveys
(McBeath 2019) and wondered also if it might reflect a broader
tendency, linked to general usage of internet and online
platforms. This has raised questions with potential
methodological implications. The mixed method approach
allows for an iterative (Frost 2011; Morse 2017) process,
moving back and forth with certain parallels to Constructivist
Grounded theory. The literature review was for instance
influenced by the new lines of enquiry opened through
participant involvement via the survey and one particular
respondent became an active co-researcher and steered the
literature review into new directions.
Overview and Summary
The research has clearly revealed that many psychotherapy
practitioners feel estranged from academic writing which
reflects both a lack of confidence in their ability to engage in
this activity but also because of a negative view of the content
and style of current academic writing. Prominent reasons for
not engaging in academic writing included a lack of knowledge
about this activity and a fear of rejection. Relevance for clinical
practice and the use of clear and concise language were
viewed as key elements of good academic writing.
There was a clear majority view that academic writing should
be a core skill which is taught in formal psychotherapy
trainings. For many practitioners, there are real difficulties in
accessing sources of academic writing. Currently, academic
writing within the psychotherapy profession is viewed by many
as not relevant to clinical practice and has a style and content
that is overly intellectual and reinforces the notion of a
researcher-practitioner gap.
Unless there is more formal support for practitioners to
acquire the skills that underpin academic writing and a change
in focus so that academic writing appears more readable and
more clinically relevant there is a discernible risk that
psychotherapy researchers and practitioners will constitute
different groups of people.
Postscript
One of the contributors to this chapter, Avigail Abarbanel, was
one of the 222 psychotherapists who completed the on-line
survey. Her interest in the subject and some earlier writing led
to her being involved in the writing of this chapter and is clear
evidence that mainstream practitioners can have a vital and
effective role in academic writing.
References
Abarbanel. A. (2012). The gap between the academic and the
practitioner in psychotherapy and counselling: Problems
and possible ways forward. Unpublished paper presented
at COSCA Research Dialogue 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.fullyhuman.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/Bridging-the-gap-between-the-
academic-and-the-practitioner.pdf
BACP Membership Survey (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.bacp.co.uk/about-us/about-bacp/2017-
bacp-membership-survey/
BACP Survey (2016). Counselling professionals' awareness and
understanding of Female Genital Mutilation. Retrieved
from:
https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/1970/bacp-counselling-
professionals-awareness-understanding-female-genital-
mutilation.pdf
Bager-Charleson, S., du Plock, S., & McBeath, A. (2018).
Therapists have a lot to add to the field of research, but
many don’t make it there: A narrative thematic inquiry
into counsellors’ and psychotherapists’. Language and
Psychoanalysis, 7(1), 4-22.
https://doi.org/10.7565/landp.v7i1.1580

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
115 | P a g e
Bager-Charleson S., McBeath A., & du Plock S. (2019). The
relationship between psychotherapy practice and
research: A mixed-methods exploration of practitioners’
views. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 19,195–
205. https://doi. org/10.1002/capr.12196
Barker M. (2011). Writing for publication for counsellors and
therapists: part 1. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26(1),
96-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2010.518711
Barkham, M., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2003). Bridging evidence-
based practice and practice-based evidence: Developing a
rigorous and relevant knowledge for the psychological
therapies. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 10, 319-
327. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.379
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Hassocks,
England: Harvester Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism. London:
Routledge.
Beutler, L. E., Williams, R. E., Wakefield, P. J., & Entwistle, S. R.
(1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in
clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50(12), 984-
994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.12.984
Boisvert, C. M., & Faust, D. (2006). Practicing psychologists’
knowledge of general psychotherapy research findings:
Implications for science–practice relations. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(6), 708-716.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0735-7028.37.6.708
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–
101 http://doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019) Reflecting on reflexive
thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise
and Health, 11(4), 589-597.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Castonguay, L. G., Nelson, D. L., Boutselis, M. A., Chiswick, N.
R., Damer, D. D., Hemmelstein, N. A., & Borkovec, T. D.
(2010). Psychotherapists, researchers, or both? A
qualitative analysis of experiences in a practice research
network. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training, 47(3), 345–354.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0021165
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2018). Using thematic analysis in
counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical
reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18(2),
107–110. https:// doi: 10.1002/capr.12165
Cooper, M (2019). Publishing your research: Some pointers.
Retrieved from:
https://mick-cooper.squarespace.com/new-
blog/2019/3/21/publishing-your-research-some-pointers
Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in
practice: Stories from the field. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470309135
Finlay, L. (2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching
the lived world. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Finlay, L.., & Ballinger, C. (2006) (Eds.). Qualitative research for
allied health professionals: Challenging choices. Chichester,
West Sussex: John Wiley Publishers.
Frank, G. (1984). The Boulder Model: History, rationale and
critique. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
15(3), 417-435.
Frost, N.A (2011) (Ed.). Qualitative research methods in
psychology: Combining core approaches. London: Open
University Press.
Goldfried, M. R., & Wolfe, B. E. (1996). Psychotherapy
practice and research: Repairing a strained
relationship. American Psychologist, 51(10), 1007-1016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.10.1007
Guba, E. (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. London: Sage.
Henton, I. (2012). Counselling psychology and practice-based
research: A critical review and proposal. Counselling
Psychology Review, 27(3), 11–28.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging
theory with practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Landrum, B., & Garza, G. (2015). Mending fences: Defining the
domains and approaches of quantitative and qualitative
research. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 199-209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0000030
LeJeune, J. T., & Luoma, J. B. (2015). The integrated scientist-
practitioner: A new model for combining research and
clinical practice in fee-for-service settings. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(6), 421-428.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pro0000049
Liddon, L., Kingerlee, R., & Barry, J. A. (2017). Gender
differences in preferences for psychological treatment,
coping strategies, and triggers to help-seeking. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 42-58. http:// doi:
10.1111/bjc.12147
Long, C. G., & Hollin C. R. (1997). The scientist-practitioner
model in clinical psychology: A critique. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 4(2), 75-83.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0879(199706)4:2%3C75::AID-CPP116%3E3.0.CO;2-E
Lund, T. (2005). The qualitative-quantitative distinction: Some
comments, Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 49(2),115-132
http://doi: 10.1080/00313830500048790
McBeath A. (2019). The motivations of psychotherapists: An
in-depth survey. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research,
19(4), 377-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12225
McDonnell, L. Stratton, P., Butler, S., & Cape, N. (2012).
Developing research-informed practitioners: An
organisational perspective. Counselling and
Psychotherapy Research (September 2012), 12(3), 167-
177.
McLeod, J. (2001). Developing a research tradition consistent
with the practices and values of counselling and
psychotherapy: Why counselling and psychotherapy
research is necessary. Counselling and Psychotherapy

McBeath, Bager-Charleson & Aberbanel (2019) European Journal Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, Volume 9, 103-116
116 | P a g e
Research, 1(1), 3-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140112331385188
McLeod, J. (2015). Doing research in counselling and
psychotherapy. London: Sage.
McLeod, J. (2018). Research matters. Therapy Today, 29(9), 40-
41. BACP.
Morrow-Bradley, C., & Elliott, R. (1986). Utilization of
psychotherapy research by practicing
psychotherapists. American Psychologist, 41(2), 188-197.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.2.188
Morse, J. (2017). Essentials of qualitative-driven mixed-method
design. London: Routledge.
Norcross, J. C., & Prochaska, J. O. (1983). Psychotherapists in
independent practice: Some findings and
issues. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 14, 869–881.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0735-7028.14.6.869
Pittam, G., Elander, J. Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009).
Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in
academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2),
March 2009, 153-170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802528270
Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively
communicating qualitative research. The Counseling
Psychologist, 35(3), 404-430.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0011000006287443
Priest, A. (in press). Doing mixed methods research. In S.
Bager-Charleson, & A. G. McBeath (Eds.), Enjoying
psychotherapy research. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Raimy, V. C. (1950) (Ed.). Training in clinical psychology. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Safran, J. D., Abreu, I., Ogilvie, J., & DeMaria, A. (2011). Does
psychotherapy research influence the clinical practice of
researcher–clinicians? Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 18(4), 357-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2850.2011.01267.x
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, S. (2008) Interpretative
phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative
Psychology, pp. 53-80. London: Sage.
Stricker, G. (1992). The relationship of research to clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 47(4), 543-549.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.47.4.543
Strickland, B. (1983). Responding to current concerns in clinical
psychology. The Clinical Psychologist, 37, 25-27.
Tasca, G. A., Grenon, R., Fortin-Langelier, B., & Chyurlia, L.
(2014). Addressing challenges and barriers to translating
psychotherapy research into clinical practice: The
development of a psychotherapy practice research
network in Canada. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
Canadienne, 55(3), 197-203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037277
UKCP Membership Survey (2016). Therapy Today, March 2017,
28(2). Retrieved from: https://www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-
journals/therapy-today/2017/march-2017/is-counselling-
womens-work/
Widdowson, M. (2012). Perceptions of psychotherapy
trainees of psychotherapy research. Counselling and
Psychotherapy Research, September 2012, 12(3), 178-186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2012.697473
About the Authors
Alistair McBeath is a Chartered Psychologist and BACP
registered Psychotherapist. Trained at Regents College and
Guys Hospital, London he is a doctoral Research Supervisor at
the Metanoia Institute and the New School of Counselling
and Psychotherapy. He also works for an Edinburgh based
therapeutic consultancy. Alistair considers himself to be a
researcher-practitioner and is keen to promote this identity
within the psychotherapy profession. Alistair is a member of
the Editorial Board of the European Journal for Qualitative
Research in Psychotherapy.
Sofie Bager-Charleson is a BACP and UKCP registered
psychotherapist and supervisor. She works at the Metanoia
Institute, London as Director of Studies on the MPhil/PhD in
Psychotherapy. She chairs the research group “Therapists as
Research Practitioners (TRP)” and is the founder of the
annual Metanoia Research Academy for practitioners. Sofie
has published widely in the field of practitioner research and
reflexivity, in peer reviewed articles, book chapters, guest
editorials and text-books, including Enjoying Research in the
field of Therapy (Palgrave MacMillan 2020, in press) which
she co-edits together with Dr Alistair McBeath. She is a
member of the Editorial Board of European Journal for
Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy.
Avigail Abarbanel is a BACP Accredited Psychotherapist. She
was trained in the late 1990s as an individual and relationship
psychotherapist at the Jansen Newman Institute in Sydney
and in Gestalt counselling at the Illawarra Gestalt Centre,
Australia. Avigail has worked exclusively in independent
practice for almost two decades as an individual and
relationship psychotherapist. She is a clinical supervisor,
trainer and writer. Avigail is passionate about de-mystifying
psychotherapy and about sharing knowledge from our field
with the general public.