PhD/PsyD a different sort of research experience

[biscuitsbiscuits]

I am planning to apply to clinical PhD programs next year after being out of school for a decade. My question here is regarding research experience and now admissions committees might view a slightly different type of experience.

I spent eight years working in clinical research for a biotech. The first four years were spent as a clinical trial monitor (making sure trials ran according to protocol, adhered to ethics, etc.) and the last four years in Publications (working on manuscripts, abstracts, posters, etc.).

How do you think this would be looked upon as my only research experience? On one hand, it was intense, full-time research experience in every sense and at every step of the way. I saw several long and complicated trials through from start to finish, and then worked on the published papers (though not as an author). On the other hand, it wasn't *psychology* research. It was pharmaceutical.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Many psychologists do drug research. I have 3 papers on various iterations of pharm. clinical trials (approved drugs applied in novel ways). Even if not, clinical trials all have enormous overlap in terms of what the day-to-day looks like. I think its great experience, you just need to frame it properly and make an argument for why you want to move to psychology. Note that the experience of "techs" in these settings is often very different from that of the scientists themselves (who typically know way more about the theory/etc.) so that is what you will likely need to overcome... but that's true of anyone working as an RA in a typical psych department too.

So basically, I think its doable but if you have an opportunity to gain some experience with psychology research I'd try to do so. A lot will depend on what kind of lab you apply to work in, individual thoughts of the mentor, etc.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

Many psychologists do drug research. I have 3 papers on various iterations of pharm. clinical trials (approved drugs applied in novel ways). Even if not, clinical trials all have enormous overlap in terms of what the day-to-day looks like. I think its great experience, you just need to frame it properly and make an argument for why you want to move to psychology. Note that the experience of "techs" in these settings is often very different from that of the scientists themselves (who typically know way more about the theory/etc.) so that is what you will likely need to overcome... but that's true of anyone working as an RA in a typical psych department too.

So basically, I think its doable but if you have an opportunity to gain some experience with psychology research I'd try to do so. A lot will depend on what kind of lab you apply to work in, individual thoughts of the mentor, etc.

Thanks, Ollie. That's helpful and what I was hoping to hear. It's true, there is a huge overlap. And in terms of learning about research, which is what I assume this requirement is about, it was certainly adequate. I have a BA in psychology and an MSW, so my research foundation before I started at the biotech was from a psychology / mental health point of view.

I wonder if there might be a bias because it's not psych research and also because... everyone loves to hate pharma. The company I worked for was "good" pharma (I swear) but not everyone thinks that way. I guess it will depend on the individual and how I frame it.

Thanks!