Career Help

[Psychology 76]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Okay, so I am a sophomore psychology major and at first I was really set on being a clinical psychologist but now I'm a bit conflicted because I find the neuroscience aspect so interesting. So, I am trying to find some kind of field that combines clinical psychology themes with neuroscience backing it. I'm not even sure if I want to do psychotherapy but if I do, I would like to do research on it by looking at the neuropsychological implications. I've been reading about clinical and cognitive neuropsychology but I feel that its mainly assessment and dealing with brain disorders. That is fascinating but even more so of my interest is dealing with psychological theories that are backed up by neuroscience. In other words, dealing with psychological problems by looking at neuroscience type research. I'd rather not deal with molecular type of neuroscience, more of neuropsychology type stuff. I hope I made this clear enough for a response but if not I'll try to clear it up. I'm just looking for advice in a particular career option with these particular interests. Thank you for your help!!

 

[Psychology 76]

Okay so perhaps I was a bit too confusing in my post judging by the 50+ views and no replies. Basically, does anyone know any good sites/have any good information to find out about clinical and or cognitive neuropsychology?
I've searched google a lot for things but I guess I'm looking for more in depth material about what these types of careers really do. Thank you!

 

[apumic]

Well, if you're more interested in the biological bases of behavior AND want to do clinical work, you could consider whether medicine (i.e., psychiatry or even neurology -- though neuro isn't therapy) would be a better fit. Additionally, as you said, clinical neuropsych is a possibility, although I believe it is largely assessment (if you want to actually go beyond assessment with the brain itself, you really have to go the medical route).

It might help if you clarified what you truly want to do. "Work with psychological theories backed by neuroscience" seems kind of vague to me as a goal. What psych theories are we talking about? You're obviously not going to find the Id emerging from the hindbrain with the ego covering it as the midbrain, etc. (Although I suppose you could argue that Freud got it all right...hahaha... the prefrontal lobe IS small by comparison to the rest of the brain....) ...Or are you speaking of cognitive psych theories? I'm not really clear on what you hope to discover.

 

[Psychology 76]

I am sorry for the confusion but I really am confused myself. I'm in limbo about where I want to go as my career path. I do not want to be a psychiatrist or neurologist. Medicine is fascinating but I don't think its something I would like to do. I don't like things too reductionalism like. I think I am speaking of cognitive psych theories but instead of like testing someone's memory on paper, I would use an fmri. I wouldn't mind doing assessment but the thing is that I would want to do other things. Really, a particular interest of mine would be to evaluate psychotherapy on its changing of the brain biologically. So would that particular research be done by a clinical psychologist or a clinical neuropsychologist or what? Hopefully this is more clear of a post, thanks for responding.

 

[apumic]

I would guess clinical neuropsych would touch on that. Your best bet is probably to find journal articles actually written on the neurobiological effects of therapy and then work backward from there. (I.e., look at who the authors are and what schools they're at, then start looking at those programs.) Probably could find some articles by looking on such databases as PsychArticles, PsychInfo, and MEDLINE (one of the premiere medical journal databases -- I know I found similar stuff via that route when I was doing some research on the placebo effect). You'll probably have to be creative with keywords but you may have more success if you use names of therapies and brain areas that you think they may have an effect upon. You can also try general terms, but it will really depend on how specifically the article was titled and such.

 

[PsyDr]

unfortunately, i have a lot of experience in this line of work.


yeah, here is the problem with your proposed line of work...

where is the money for this line of investigation going to come from?

the government has a vested interest in not promulgating psychotherapy, as do insurance companies. goodbye grants. and i can guarantee you that PHARMA is not going to underwrite this line of research. so the money is coming from.......?


my advice to you is to consider exactly what you want your DAY TO DAY life to look like. imaging sounds super sexy and interesting because the data in its final format is pretty easily understood to everyone. the public pretty much understand NIH hot iron by sight these days. but all stuff sounds snazzy until you actually start doing it. there is a lot of work that is required to get you from a to z. and it is a huge pain.


-do you want to work in a neuroimaging lab which looks exactly like every generic beige office in the western hemisphere, with what you think is a great idea, but having to learn how to program computers (yup, it is a HUGE part of the job), a whole new set of statistical knowledge (yeah, the imaging world doesn't use silly things like a pearson's r, they have their own set of statistical operations), and praying that you wrote your next grant with enough clinical relevance to the clinical disorder of the day so that it comes through so you can eat but what you are really interested in is a subset of the data, while waiting until 3 AM for precious scanner time? and that is just off the top of my head. hmmmm. sounds like i did this for 3 years....

i saw people come into the lab thinking they could study X, Y, or Z's effect on the brain. they would stick around for about 3 days until they realized that they were going to have to learn a HUGE new set of skills, at which point they would book. or show up at 9am and ask if their data had been collected last night. lol.

i suggest you talk to a person who has "made it" in the field and then to another one who has not. see what their lives are like. in grant season and out of grant season. ask what they earn (it is not a lot). ask how what their lifestyle is like. determine if you can actually constantly live from one grant to the next. it is a very hard lifestyle.

oh, and fmri does not measure memory.

then again, those are just my opinions based on my experiences.

 

[Ollie123]

PSYDR makes some excellent points. I'm also extremely interested in this line of work (though don't have access to fMRI at this point - hoping to spend a couple weeks to a month at a place that has it over a summer at some point to learn the basics, and then consider it for a post-doc) - it is VERY different from what many folks do. I was drawn to it for the reason many people are driven away (I love computer programming, learning about electrical signal conduction, etc.). I always seem to have pretty unique interests though...I just see it as making me marketable since most psychologists I know would love to have someone else do their programming, or at least have someone to consult with🙂

The funding world is tough regardless of what route you go...honestly I feel like physiological studies are more fundable than a great deal of more traditional work. The downside is while its often possible to do traditional work without funding...its virtually impossible for things like fMRI.

EEG/ERP is pretty cheap - you can get a nice setup for 50k or so. Not quite as flashy, but much more accessible.

Neuroimaging will probably never be the focus of my career, but I'm hoping I can find opportunities to collaborate with others in the future, maybe add a task or two to a protocol, etc. There's a lot to consider. My feelings are not quite as bleak as PSYDR's, but mine are also colored by the fact that the folks I know in this line of work have done very well for themselves.

 

[Psychology 76]

Wow, thanks for the great feedback! I'm really appreciative to have found this site and receive information from knowledgeable people with similar interests. 🙂

I am trying to learn more about neuropsychology in which I will be able to understand if I want to go that path. After talking with one of my professors, doing some research, and going on here I'm not as sure. I guess I just really want a scientific backing to clinical psychology. This dilemma relates to my other thread about if psychotherapy is dying. I do really want to do research and teach. But exactly what I'm teaching and researching is not quite clear which is a problem. I was focused on just strait clinical but I would like to be able to solidify research with biological principles. I guess that was my aim with neuropsychology.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm admittedly heavily biased, but I think the route you want to go (heavily informed by biology) is pretty much the only way to go these days. Scientific fields are becoming less isolated from eachother as time moves on, so the idea of being a pure behaviorist is probably not realistic these days. Even those who are primarily behaviorists will need to be guided by genetics, neuroscience, economics, etc.

If your interests are in neuropsych, then definitely pursue it. Just keep in mind that traditional neuropsych is not the only path to biologically-based psychology so don't feel like you are tied to it. One of the great things about grad school is you build your own path and while there are certain requirements you must meet, you have a great deal of freedom. Neuropsych is a convenient path to learning a lot about...well, neuropsych. However, there's nothing stopping you from specializing in say, couples therapy (to pick the area most distal to neuro I could think of), and getting neuroscience training alongside it so you can integrate the two. I know plenty of folks whose research is completely focused on things like genetics, EEG/ERP, neuroimaging, etc. without being formally neuropsych trained.

 

[Psychology 76]

I'm admittedly heavily biased, but I think the route you want to go (heavily informed by biology) is pretty much the only way to go these days.

If your interests are in neuropsych, then definitely pursue it. Just keep in mind that traditional neuropsych is not the only path to biologically-based psychology so don't feel like you are tied to it. One of the great things about grad school is you build your own path and while there are certain requirements you must meet, you have a great deal of freedom. Neuropsych is a convenient path to learning a lot about...well, neuropsych. However, there's nothing stopping you from specializing in say, couples therapy (to pick the area most distal to neuro I could think of), and getting neuroscience training alongside it so you can integrate the two. I know plenty of folks whose research is completely focused on things like genetics, EEG/ERP, neuroimaging, etc. without being formally neuropsych trained.

Thank you Ollie123! That is what I would like to do. Find some type of psychology (probably clinical of some sort) and integrate neuroscience behind it. As an undergrad do you have any advice on how to explore my interests? Would finding a type of neuropsych internship be a good idea?

 

[Ollie123]

A neuropsych internship certainly won't hurt.

Basically, just find research experience in your area that seems as close to what you want to do as you can get. Don't feel obligated to limit yourself to clinical psychologist labs at your school...look at psychiatry, neuroscience, look at other nearby schools, nearby hospitals, whatever else you need to do.

Plenty of faculty have a biological bend to their work, so just get looking. Don't be afraid to branch out and get different experiences...its best to carve out a niche for yourself in grad school admissions, but breadth of experiences is valuable too.