{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017671517671517672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008316008316008316, 'mean_word_length': 5.551020408163265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Invoking history to teach about the scientist-practitioner gap.

The scientist-practitioner gap refers to the division between psychologists who believe that clinical practice should be heavily informed by empirical studies and those who believe clinical judgment and intuition should be paramount. Although the gap widened in the late 1980s and early 1990s, owing to the recovered memory controversy, the intradisciplinary schism between scientists and practitioners significantly predates this particular debate. Without an appreciation of the historical context of the term's emergence, however, students may come to regard the scientist-practitioner gap as a discrete and recent phenomenon. In this paper, the historical and philosophical roots of the gap are described, and it is argued that an appreciation of the historical circumstances from which the term emerged can enable students to better appreciate the past, present, and future of the discipline.