Inspired by efforts by those who seek to redefine the practice of psychology as a master'slevel specialty, the authors examine counseling psychology's heightened ambivalence regarding master's-level training. First, they present a historical review of this issue. Next, they discuss current social and political pressures that, they suggest, have resulted in renewed tensions in the training of master's-level practitioners for the field of counseling psychology. They conclude with specific recommendations regarding the manner in which counseling psychology should (a) train master '-level providers, (b)
attempt to document the added value doctoral training, and (c) politically respond to this issue.Within the American Psychological Association (APA), the master'sversus doctoral-level issue has traditionally been conceptualized as a debate regarding the allocation of responsibilities. Although the field of psychology has at times varied in its stance, there is a great deal of consistency with the position that (a) master's-level professionals should work under the supervision of psychologists and be assigned duties commensurate with their education and (b) that the doctorate is the requisite degree for the title of psychologist and independent practice (APA, 1947; APA Committee on Subdoctoral Education, 1955). Consequently, for many psychologists, distinctions between doctoral-and master's-level professionals seem self-evident: The psychologist is the primary provider of psychological services, and the person with a master's degree is a supervised extender of these services.Within the subspecialty of counseling psychology, a more specific debate transpired that focused on defining appropriate roles, responsibilities, and