@article{Merced_2019, title={Professional Closure: An Example from American Clinical Psychology}, volume={2}, url={https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/ajpp/article/view/611}, DOI={10.22024/UniKent/03/ajpp.611}, abstractNote={<p><strong>Objective:</strong> Study the American clinical psychology landscape to discern scientist-practitioner and practitioner-scholar involvement in professional activities, specifically the organizational and scholarly domains.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong>: Data were gathered from online sources regarding: professional association membership, leadership, and award recipients; faculty positions within psychology doctoral programs; journal editor positions; and contributions to the scholarly literature.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Scientist-practitioners dominate American clinical psychology’s principal professional association’s membership (73.5%) and leadership (93.2%) and receive nearly all its awards (98.2%).  Faculties for both practitioner-scholar programs (76.2%) and scientist-practitioner programs (99.1%) were dominated by scientist-practitioners.  The editor of each journal surveyed was a scientist-practitioner.  Most literature contributions (77.3%) were from scientist-practitioners.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Scientist-practitioners in the United States can access organizational and scholarly roles/activities.  Practitioner-scholars do not have the same access.  Scientist-practitioners use implicit, normalized practices known as ‘closure methods’ to preserve their access to professional opportunities, resources, and rewards.  Practitioner-scholars, subject to ‘professional closure’, compose an excluded group.</p>}, number={1}, journal={Advanced Journal of Professional Practice}, author={Merced, Matthew}, year={2019}, month={Oct.}, pages={2–13} }