career questions- trying to decide more clinical v research focus- help!

[singasongofjoy]

I've finally reached the point in my nascent career where I have to start making choices about which types of jobs to target in the future. So far I've managed to split my time roughly equally between research- and clinical- focus, with a fair spattering of teaching-related things on the side. The problem is that I really do enjoy each (research, clinical, and teaching) a lot. But I eventually need to accept that I can't keep pursuing them all in equal measure and would prefer to focus more on one v the other to achieve a better work/life balance- and focus on really growing in that area. I'm just having trouble deciding; part of that is prob unreasonable levels of anxiety about closing future options.

I've been talking with folks who have taken various paths but here's what I'm looking for on this forum: What are some key things I should be considering and what are good questions for me to be asking? I'm particularly focused on deciding if I want to be primarily more clinical or primarily more research focused. I figure I can find ways to get my teaching kicks here and there.

Thanks for your thoughts!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd be strongly considering the federal gutting of science funding when thinking about the research route. Federal grant money will be harder to come by, as if it wasn't a cutthroat world already. One question is to ask yourself how much uncertainty you are willing to endure. You can make a good life in research/academia, but the path is a little more rocky than the clinical world.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'd be strongly considering the federal gutting of science funding when thinking about the research route. Federal grant money will be harder to come by, as if it wasn't a cutthroat world already. One question is to ask yourself how much uncertainty you are willing to endure. You can make a good life in research/academia, but the path is a little more rocky than the clinical world.

Agreed. I would be wary of going into soft money positions within academia at this point given all of the funding cuts.

 

[deleted343839]

I agree that tough times lay ahead for people who rely on federal funding. But if you love research, don't give up. There are alternatives to soft-money and R1-type positions. If you enjoy teaching, consider SLACs that encourage faculty to maintain active undergraduate research programs.

There is wisdom in focusing your career development not just on what you love, but also on where you are skillful and where you can sustain a high level of productivity for a number of years. It's hard to know without the benefit of hindsight, but self-awareness will get you part of the way.

 

[barryggg]

You should never make long-term decisions on what's happening right now.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is a stable pattern (funding cuts) over more than a decade.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Conversely, if you can leverage your research experience and expertise in private industry, particularly as relates to technology, I'd imagine that could lead to a very successful (if atypical) career. Which is entirely an assumption on my part, given that I have zero experience in it personally.

 

[PhDToBe]

Academia allows for research and teaching, as well as clinical work as part of the job sometimes or on the side. AMCs often allow for research and clinical work with teaching seminars, and you can always adjunct.

 

[barryggg]

This is a stable pattern (funding cuts) over more than a decade.

Sure..but if you conduct valuable research, you don't really have to worry. Problem is there are a lot of people doing ****ty research. I just hate people blaming govt for their problems.

 

[researchgirl]

Sure..but if you conduct valuable research, you don't really have to worry. Problem is there are a lot of people doing ****ty research. I just hate people blaming govt for their problems.

No.

Lots of people are trying to ****ty research, but the funding line in the 90s was around 20% and now it's down to more like 3%. The proposed extra 20% cut would have a huge negative impact on the funding climate.

Are you saying that over 90% of grants submitted are ****ty?

 

[barryggg]

No.

Lots of people are trying to ****ty research, but the funding line in the 90s was around 20% and now it's down to more like 3%. The proposed extra 20% cut would have a huge negative impact on the funding climate.

Are you saying that over 90% of grants submitted are ****ty?

In Psychology..mostly, yes.

If you're doing social psychology for example...

 

[researchgirl]

In Psychology..mostly, yes.

If you're doing social psychology for example...

I'm not a social psychologist so I can't comment on that specifically (do social psychologists often apply for NIH funding????), but if you think that over 90% of grants submitted to federal agencies such as NIH in psychology are ****ty, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[deleted343839]

Sure..but if you conduct valuable research, you don't really have to worry.

Ever chatted with someone on a study section?

 

[EmotRegulation]

In Psychology..mostly, yes.

If you're doing social psychology for example...

This is just a biased value judgement. There's a ton of GREAT social psychology research out there. If you're referring to the social psych scandals in the last few years, of people fabricating data, that is NOT the norm for active social psycholoigsts. And social has a huge overlap with clinical....social psychologists study the basic processes that are often askew in clinical populations. So lets not knock social. Also, social psychologists are typically not in competition for NIH funding. NSF, yes, but less so for NIH.

 

[PsychPhDone]

In Psychology..mostly, yes.

If you're doing social psychology for example...

Have you ever served on a study section???

For the record, I am a primarily research/somewhat clinical postdoc feeling a little salty over the situation since I decided to go down the soft money path not too long ago. It's a shame the taxpayers may lose out on a scientist whose 12+ years of training they've paid for. But...budgets.

 

[Pragma]

Consider the landscape, as others have said. Consider your priorities. I say try to keep involved in everything (or what you like doing at least) if you can - keep your options open. Your career can evolve and the landscape can too.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is just a biased value judgement. There's a ton of GREAT social psychology research out there. If you're referring to the social psych scandals in the last few years, of people fabricating data, that is NOT the norm for active social psycholoigsts. And social has a huge overlap with clinical....social psychologists study the basic processes that are often askew in clinical populations. So lets not knock social. Also, social psychologists are typically not in competition for NIH funding. NSF, yes, but less so for NIH.

In berry's defense, I think it's less 'bias' and more 'outright trolling'

 

[smalltownpsych]

I have always felt that social psychology has some of the most interesting and useful research. Milgram and obedience, Zimbardo prison experiment, the stereotype threat, Asch and conformity, bystander effect, the Robber's cave in-group/out-group effects, communication and recognition of emotions, social loafing, halo effect, social facilitation. Understanding these principles is key to applied psychology and can be useful in many situations. Some of these experiments are misunderstood or misused by popular media, but that makes it all the more important for psychologists to understand and continue to study social phenomena. I don't think the OP is planning on social psychology anyway, but I can't let fake news just stand unchallenged.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I have always felt that social psychology has some of the most interesting and useful research. Milgram and obedience, Zimbardo prison experiment, the stereotype threat, Asch and conformity, bystander effect, the Robber's cave in-group/out-group effects, communication and recognition of emotions, social loafing, halo effect, social facilitation. Understanding these principles is key to applied psychology and can be useful in many situations. Some of these experiments are misunderstood or misused by popular media, but that makes it all the more important for psychologists to understand and continue to study social phenomena. I don't think the OP is planning on social psychology anyway, but I can't let fake news just stand unchallenged.

I actually 'fell in love' with psychology as an undergrad (and switched to psychology from a pre-med/biology major) after taking a course in social psychology which covered all the studies that smalltownpsych references. The idea of psychology as scientific 'applied philosophy' such that we could actually get EMPIRICAL ANSWERS to questions about human nature by following a scientific method and applying inferential statistics was a pretty amazing thing for me as an undergrad. I loved philosophy but was always frustrated by the fact that it seemed to move in circles...the notion of cumulative progress being possible by actually testing out different theories and then revising them based on empirical findings struck me as pretty damn cool. Then came the abnormal psych class and the application of this model to mental disorders and...grad school here we come!

 

[Ollie123]

Agree with the above RE: keeping options open. Diversification is useful in more than just stock portfolios. Soft money research is definitely hard right now, but still viable. Its more important than ever to be at a top institution though (would need to dig it up, but think I've seen data that its the mid and lower tier institutions bearing the brunt of limited grant funding - the "Harvards" are still getting grants), which means its critical to bust your butt early on to be in a position to get there. Clinical may be a more stable path right now, but substantive healthcare changes are inevitable at this point. It could help us or hurt us, but either way I wouldn't assume a pure clinical focus is "safe" by comparison. University/teaching? With the shift to adjunct appointments, increasing concerns about the rising costs of college, who knows.

I think the main advantage offered by a clinical degree (and why I chose it) is the incredible range of things we "could" do. Its a hedge on its own relative to most other careers. I hope to stay in soft money academia as long as I can and at least for now it seems to be working out for me (2/2 on NIH grants since graduating). Its fun, my job description is basically "Do whatever you want, just cover your salary", the pay is decent and the benefits are spectacular. If I need to pivot, I'm not a one-trick pony. Could be anything from a private practice clinician to a data analyst to a marketing consultant to a bajillion other things. Might not be easy to land that first gig in a new area, but wasn't easy to get where I am now either.

Job titles are just a heuristic. Think about the skills you develop.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Awesome post by @Ollie123; in particular, the part about having range and flexibility in what we can do. Being able to shift from soft money to a clinical position is relatively rare in academia (outside of medicine), andvitbis something worth considering with the uncertainty of healthcare and research funding.