Teacher proposes, student disposes.

Davison (1992) wrote a position paper. The paper says we should split behavior-analytic training into two clear roads. One road trains practitioners who serve clients. The other road trains researchers who build new science.

The author claims one-size-fits-all graduate programs cannot meet the rising need for front-line BCBAs.

The paper does not present new data. It argues that mixing practice and research classes wastes time and money. Separate tracks would let programs graduate more clinicians faster.

Williams et al. (1986) set the stage. Six years earlier they said behavior analysis must build its own identity apart from psychology. Davison (1992) takes the next step by mapping out different training tracks inside that new identity.

Einfeld et al. (1995) seemed to ignore the two-track idea. They scaled up BCBA training through distance education without splitting research and practice. This looks like a contradiction, but it is really a different fix for the same workforce shortage.

Snyder et al. (2024) and LaFrance et al. (2019) extend the debate. Their surveys show BCBAs now overlap with school psychologists, SLPs, and OTs. Clearer practitioner-only training could reduce turf wars by stating what BCBAs uniquely do.

If you supervise students or hire RBTs, think about what classes they really need. A practitioner track could drop heavy stats and add more supervision skill, collaboration, and anti-racism content. Push your university partners to spell out two paths. Your future staff could finish faster and serve clients sooner.