The Role of Research Training Within Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD)

This resource contains content about the role of research doctoral training in CSD—much of which was extracted and revised from a 1994 ASHA policy document (rescinded in 2025 via Motion 3-2025) and some of which is newly created content that reflects the most current information.

The Case for Research Training in CSD

As science-based professions, audiology and speech-language pathology require an expanding knowledge base from which new diagnostic and therapeutic methods can derive. The creation of new clinical methods should result from the combined efforts of different groups engaged in a variety of activities, including researchers investigating fundamental processes and mechanisms in communication, researchers conducting applied, clinical practice research, practitioners delivering clinical services, and people with communication disabilities as well as their caretakers, family, and other stakeholders.

Especially critical to the development of new clinical methods are researchers who bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. A fundamental task of these researchers is to apply newly discovered knowledge and emerging technology to issues of clinical practice. Researchers who are trained in the discipline of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) are especially well suited to this role—due to their knowledge of clinical issues and to their experience conducting and interpreting research.

The professions of audiology and speech-language pathology cannot rely primarily on researchers from other disciplines to create knowledge that will have direct relevance to clinical practice. Researchers who are trained in the CSD discipline assume a major part of this responsibility—while still recognizing the merits of interdisciplinary research. In large measure, it is the capacity to create its own knowledge base and clinical methods that distinguishes autonomous human service professions from technical occupations. As noted by Kent (1983, p. 76), “A profession that provides its own research base is much more in charge of its own destiny than a profession that doesn’t.” From this perspective, our discipline needs to sustain research doctoral programs in CSD, which have a primary emphasis on communication and related disorders, in order to continue

• advancing our understanding of communication and related disorders and
• utilizing, and creating new, effective models of service delivery.

Because practitioners and researchers are interdependent, CSD professionals must include the implications for research and researcher training in any discussions of appropriate educational models for preparing practitioners. Discussions of the various degrees offered in the discipline (e.g., master’s, doctor of audiology [AuD], doctor of speech-language pathology [SLPD], and doctor of philosophy [PhD]) must also clearly and consistently clarify the use of terminology such as science, research, practice, and scholarship.

Understanding Science-Related Terminology

A critical step in becoming a CSD professional is understanding science-related terminology and using it correctly—in particular, four terms that people often conflate or use incorrectly:

• science
• research
• practice
• scholarship

Consider these four terms described below.

Science is the body of knowledge that forms the base of the professions—the reservoir of information that is available. Scientists create this body of knowledge through many endeavors, including structured experimentation and clinical observations.

Research refers to a systematic process for creating new knowledge, guided by the rules of experimental design and measurement. These rules are inherently conservative with regard to the acceptance of new hypotheses and are designed to minimize the possibility that the researcher’s previous experiences will influence or bias the outcome of the research endeavor. Consequently, the methods of research are often more constrained than those of clinical practice.

Practice is the process by which practitioners apply knowledge (including clinical experience) to clients with communication disorders. This process is guided by the client’s needs and, ultimately, is evaluated by the degree of well-being that the client achieves through clinical diagnosis or intervention.

Scholarship is the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

Training in Science, Research, and Clinical Practice: Commonalities and Differences

Science and scholarship are common to both research and practice. Training in science is essential for both researchers and practitioners. However, training in science is not the same as training in research. The former involves acquiring the body of knowledge that forms the foundation of the professions. The latter involves attaining competence in the formal methods of systematic inquiry.

Whereas acquiring the corpus that constitutes CSD and forms the basis of the professions (i.e., science) is essential in training practitioners, acquiring a high degree of competence in research methods is not. Similarly, although learning the science of the professions is fundamental to conducting research of particular relevance to the professions, researchers need not be actively engaged in clinical practice to conduct their work.

Both researchers and practitioners, however, profit considerably from exposure to the methods, problems, questions, and short- and long-term goals of the other group. Further, their exposure to clinical issues and practices makes researchers who are trained in the discipline especially qualified to conduct research relevant to the professions.

Although science and scholarship are not unique to either research or practice, it is clear that research and clinical practice are different. Both involve inquiry and problem solving, but they have different purposes, use different methods, and invoke different rules for determining success (Kent, 1983). Training in research does not necessarily create competence in clinical practice—and vice versa. Scholarship for practitioners is assessed not in terms of applying research principles but, rather, in terms of effectively applying the scientific body of knowledge to clients with communication disorders.

Educational Imperatives for Research Training

Although new educational models for training practitioners may evolve, CSD professionals and those outside of our discipline must assume that persons who have been awarded the research doctorate in CSD

• have received extensive training in research methods and
• are prepared to engage in research relevant to the CSD discipline and to the professions of audiology and speech-language pathology.

Without a cadre of highly trained researchers constantly creating new knowledge, the future of audiology and speech-language pathology is jeopardized. The CSD discipline should, therefore, prioritize facilitating the development of new researchers. Programs leading to the PhD in CSD, for example, should provide extensive training in research methods and experience in conducting CSD-relevant research. Specifically, students pursuing a research doctorate should

1. participate in a variety of research-relevant training experiences, in addition to the dissertation, that span the entire scope of the research process;
2. experience a curriculum appropriate to research training; and
3. receive mentoring that suitably prepares them to assume the career researcher role.

Ideally, educational programs offering the research doctoral degree in CSD will provide these requisite training opportunities in research. Because of the interdependence that exists between practitioners and researchers, adherence to these recommendations may be the best investment that these programs can make. In so doing, they will ensure the long-term viability of audiology and speech-language pathology as autonomous professions.

Reference

Kent, R. D. (1983). How can we improve the role of research and educate speech-language pathologists and audiologists to be competent users of research? In N. S. Rees & T. L. Snope (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1983 National Conference on Undergraduate, Graduate, and Continuing Education (pp. 76–86). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.