Clinical Ph.D. Programs and Freud

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

IWantToBeFreud

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone. I'm hoping that some of you could tell me if you know of any any Clinical Ph.D. programs that specialize in Psychodynamics or have a strong contingent of Freudians (or Neo-Freudians) on faculty? I understand there is something to be said for a diverse faculty (which I'm all for), but I also want to make sure that I'm not looking at schools where "Freud" is a bad word. Any information is always appreciated. Thanks very much, I hope everyone is doing well.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Clarke University in Worcester, MA is a Freudian bastion -- it is the only place that Freud spoke in North America. The school even has a statue of him out front!

Yeshiva, in New York, is also pretty psychodynamic
 
Almost every school in New York City and close environs. Adelphi, Columbia TC, New School, CUNY, etc.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If a clinical psych program is based in the science department at a school then you'd think they'd base research on the scientific method, empirical data, etc. If Freudian theory is non-falsifiable then there's a pretty clear conflict of interests.
Bottom line - it's not that "Freud" is a dirty word, it's just that his theories don't mesh with how science is done today.
 
I think it depends on what you mean by "Freudian." Do you mean classical psychoanalysis? Really, his stuff is a hundred years old.

Plenty of people out there do stuff on object relations, childhood development, etc. Real hardcore Freudians aren't very common, and the conceptualizations aren't very useful in isolation anyway.

In Canada, I think U Windsor has a bunch of people.
 
Clarke University in Worcester, MA is a Freudian bastion -- it is the only place that Freud spoke in North America. The school even has a statue of him out front!

Yeshiva, in New York, is also pretty psychodynamic

The program at Clark (no e) is very much a program that supports the use of empirically supported treatments. I have several colleagues who have graduated from that program, and they were well trained in cognitive and behavioral therapies. In other words, it is NOT a Freudian bastion, even if Freud visited there... in 1909.

Honestly, I think you're going to have a difficult time finding a clinical PhD program that espouses Freudian approaches to treatment. There may be a few old guys here and there, hanging on past retirement age, but that ship has sailed for the most part...

You may be able to find more modern psychodynamic training - object relations, brief psychodynamic therapy, etc. As the others have said, your best bet is probably NY.
 
My knowledge on who did what and who was part of which schools of thought is limited but wasn't Adler part of the psychodynamic movement? He has a school he founded in Chicago (and i think in Vancouver) which would undoubtedly adhere to his prospective.
 
I agree with the people above. I've heard that all NYC schools are pretty psychodynamic.
 
Thanks for the suggestions, folks. I'll look into the mentioned NYC city schools.

Are there any others in the midwest that I could look into? Thanks again!
 
I'd like to add that not all NY schools are psychodynamic. Hofstra is purely CBT and St. John's is mixed between CBT and psychodynamic.
 
Northwestern School of Medicine program used to be very analytic in its orientation but that could have changed in the year's gone by since I was a student...Wright Institute (PsyD) in Berkeley is still strongly analytic/dynamic.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Freudian theory has developed into 'ego psychology' (a particular variety of psychodynamics).

Allan Schore has done a lot of work on how developmental neurology serves to support some psychodynamic hypotheses while falsifying others. The framework assumptions of ANY science are unfalsifyable (see Kuhn, for example). Whether it is profitable for researchers, theorists, and clinicians to work within a particular framework depends on the fruits of their labors.

There have been studies done that attempted to see whether psychodynamic therapies were more effective than cognitive behavior therapy (for example). This seems scientific to me...

So...

> Bottom line - it's not that "Freud" is a dirty word, it's just that his theories don't mesh with how science is done today.

I disagree.

I am wondering, however, whether you want something 'Freudian' (ego psychological) in particular, or whether you want something 'psychodynamic' (e.g., self psychological, object relations etc). Humanistic views are psychodynamic (on some analyses). You might find clinical psychology programs more sympathetic to humanism (e.g., Maslow, gestalt psychology etc) than to ego psychology...

Psychoanalytic theories seem to do better when it comes to character pathology (personality disorders). One might see Linehan's supplimenting cognitive behavior therapy with eastern spirituality / acceptance strategies as being up ones ally... Psychodynamic influences seem particularly apparent to me when it comes to trauma work (relational / self trauma models - e.g., check out John Briere who is a clinical psychologist in CA).

A program that was strong on the history of psychology might focus on traditional theorists.

Another option would be to attempt to gain entry into a psychoanalytic training centre concurrently with doing the clinical psychology thing...
 
That was a *great* post toby. I'll just echo that traditional analytic training may be harder to come by in clinical programs, though there are various institutes that could meet this need (most likely post-doc/post-licensure). I think more modern slants of psychodynamic work (my pref. is object relations) definitely offers more opportunities in clinical programs.
 
Toby, thank you very much for that very informative reply. I've definitely considered classical psychoanalytic training at an institute (Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis) and I'd love to be able to get training at that sort of institute while pursing a clinical degree. Unfortunately, the few schools that I've contacted aren't too keen on that idea.

I guess there's just no place for us Freudians anymore. . .
 
.
 
Last edited:
> Bottom line - it's not that "Freud" is a dirty word, it's just that his theories don't mesh with how science is done today.

I disagree.

Based on what?
 
I will put this as delicately as possible. I do not think it is a good idea to blindly follow an orientation, and seek programs that only fit with that orientation. After you have completed graduate level training, and have a better knowledge base of personality theory and behavior, and psychopathology, then you can actively seek programs or fellowships, or advanced training, that more closely fits with your views. Holding so strongly to hardcore psychoanalytic views without appropriate graduate level exposure to other (more validated I might add) theories demonstrates a naive and rigid view of the field in my opinion.
 
I will put this as delicately as possible. I do not think it is a good idea to blindly follow an orientation, and seek programs that only fit with that orientation. After you have completed graduate level training, and have a better knowledge base of personality theory and behavior, and psychopathology, then you can actively seek programs or fellowships, or advanced training, that more closely fits with your views. Holding so strongly to hardcore psychoanalytic views without appropriate graduate level exposure to other (more validated I might add) theories demonstrates a naive and rigid view of the field in my opinion.

I agree, but I don't think a hardcore all-Freud-all-the-time experience was what the OP was asking for at all.
 
erg923 -

See my original post:

I understand there is something to be said for a diverse faculty (which I'm all for), but I also want to make sure that I'm not looking at schools where "Freud" is a bad word.

I'm not looking for a completely Freudian experience, and I'm rather offended that you would suggest that I am "blindly following an orientation." I'd like to think that (although I'm a lowly undergraduate and obviously know nothing about the field of psychology) that I have a pretty solid grasp on the major psychological theories and views.

I'd also like to add that I did not start this thread so that it could into another Freud-bashing discussion. Please stick to suggesting schools that have a program known to teach psychoanalytic/dynamic theories. Thanks everyone.
 
Freudian theory has developed into 'ego psychology' (a particular variety of psychodynamics).

Allan Schore has done a lot of work on how developmental neurology serves to support some psychodynamic hypotheses while falsifying others. The framework assumptions of ANY science are unfalsifyable (see Kuhn, for example). Whether it is profitable for researchers, theorists, and clinicians to work within a particular framework depends on the fruits of their labors.

There have been studies done that attempted to see whether psychodynamic therapies were more effective than cognitive behavior therapy (for example). This seems scientific to me...

Psychoanalytic theories seem to do better when it comes to character pathology (personality disorders). One might see Linehan's supplimenting cognitive behavior therapy with eastern spirituality / acceptance strategies as being up ones ally... Psychodynamic influences seem particularly apparent to me when it comes to trauma work (relational / self trauma models - e.g., check out John Briere who is a clinical psychologist in CA).

From what I've looked into, research today that operationalizes Freudian constructs such as 'the unconscious' is far removed from what Freud had in mind (Oedipus complex, etc.).


But, whatever. My point wasn't to take sides or suggest one approach is better than another. I was just trying to explain to the OP why there aren't more clinical PhD programs training students in the traditional Freudian approach these days.
 
If your ultimate goal is to do private practice, consider getting a social work degree and then institute training. You can get a doctorate in Psychoanalysis from that Boston Institute you mentioned earlier. There is still a place for Freudian theory, and it's the institutes. or the NY clinical programs. But again, if private practice is your goal the MSW will serve you just as well as a doctorate and with much less time and effort.

erg923 -

See my original post:



I'm not looking for a completely Freudian experience, and I'm rather offended that you would suggest that I am "blindly following an orientation." I'd like to think that (although I'm a lowly undergraduate and obviously know nothing about the field of psychology) that I have a pretty solid grasp on the major psychological theories and views.

I'd also like to add that I did not start this thread so that it could into another Freud-bashing discussion. Please stick to suggesting schools that have a program known to teach psychoanalytic/dynamic theories. Thanks everyone.
 
empathiosis- I believe I read that a MSW does not allow one to set up his own private practice. I thought the stipulation with the MSW was that you had to work under either and psychologist or psychiatrist and not actually on your own.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.
 
Nope. LCSWs (MSWs with around, I believe, two years or 2,000 hours of post-masters clinical supervision who have passed an exam and been licensed by their state) can be in private practice or work in other clinical settings without supervision, though thy aren't allowed to do asessments like the MMPI, IQ-testing, Rosharch, or TAT (projective testing may be something you want training in if you're a strong Freudian), though they can, I think, do "milder" thing like the Beck Depression Inventory.
 
empathiosis- I believe I read that a MSW does not allow one to set up his own private practice. I thought the stipulation with the MSW was that you had to work under either and psychologist or psychiatrist and not actually on your own.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

You are mistaken. See biogirls post. This may be a very viable option for you.
 
Thank you both very much for that bit of very useful information. Please forgive my ignorance.

So am I correct when I say that after attaining a MSW one has to work for two years (or 2000 supervised hours) under someone else's direction (a psychologist or psychiatrist) before being allowed to practice privately?

If that be the case it almost seems more worthwhile to spend the extra year (after adding degree time with supervisory time), get the Ph.D., and not have to worry about not being able to administer assessments or about working under someone.

I'm sure there must be a pay difference between LCSW's and licensed Clinical Psychologists?
 
Social workers don't need to be supervised by psychologists and psychiatrists while they're doing their hours for full licensure. They can also be supervised by other LCSWs. (Social work isn't an inferior occupation as you seem to imply. It's just a different area.) Psychologists also need supervised hours to get licensed. It varies by state, but usually between 2,000 to 4,000 hours, in other words pretty much the same amount of time. So, in addition to the 5-6 years of school, you will still need an additional 2 years of supervised practice before you get licensed. The doctorate takes longer. There's no denying that. But you're right about one thing: psychologists do earn more than social workers straight out of school. Not sure how much more though and can't give you any stats. That's just my impression.

The main advantage to getting the MSW (something I'm considering btw) is that there are A LOT more social work jobs available so it can be a lot easier to land a job straight out of school and to start to rack up those supervised hours towards licensure because you can be supervised by other LCSWs, psychologists and psychiatrists. Also, starting salaries for pre-licensure psychologists really aren't that much higher and I'm not sure they justify the extra 2-3 years that it takes.

I've noticed that you seem to be searching for "the answer" a lot. Unfortunately, there just isn't one. These things aren't black/white, right/wrong. There isn't one best way to do things or one right path to take. It's really up to you and totally depends on your goals and inclinations. It depends. LCSW's (and even licensed counselors if you want to confuse matters with yet another degree!) do quite well in private practice. So if you don't need that PhD or PsyD after your name and you're not crazy about testing, I think the MSW is a better degree.

I'm attempting to get into a psychology program because I really enjoy testing and would like the ability to do that. But if it weren't for that, I'd probably go the social work route. In fact, I may well do that if I'm not admitted this year. But I'm older, so that's another consideration. If you're under 30, you might want to keep trying for the psychology doctorate if it's what you really want.
Thank you both very much for that bit of very useful information. Please forgive my ignorance.

So am I correct when I say that after attaining a MSW one has to work for two years (or 2000 supervised hours) under someone else's direction (a psychologist or psychiatrist) before being allowed to practice privately?

If that be the case it almost seems more worthwhile to spend the extra year (after adding degree time with supervisory time), get the Ph.D., and not have to worry about not being able to administer assessments or about working under someone.

I'm sure there must be a pay difference between LCSW's and licensed Clinical Psychologists?
 
empathiosis - I'm really sorry if it seemed like I was "talking down" social work or anything like that. I really try to avoid sounding a stuck-up snob and I feel embarrassed when I come off as one. Social work isn't something I've really considered, but now that I see it's a very viable option I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

You're right, I am young, confused, and searching for "the answer." It often seems that having a lot of career options is just as much a curse as it is a blessing.

I'm going to follow your advice and look into both Ph.D. programs and MSW programs. Perhaps as I gather more information on both degrees the choice will become clearer.

Thanks again for all the help, everyone. More suggestions are always appreciated.
 
In addition to empathiosis' great post:
MSWs training to be LCSWs are generally supervised by LCSWs, just as clinical psychologists are usually supervised by other psychologists, but may, in rare cases, be supervised by clinical psychologists. I don't think psychiatrists ever "officially" supervise anyone but psych. residents (it's a different field, really), but LCSWs, psychologists, and psychiatrists often work together in practice.

About the timeline—it's going to take you more than 5 years to earn become a licensed clinical psychologist. While many programs say that they can be finished in five years, in reality, it often takes more like six or seven (or even longer on occasion), mostly due to finishing/defending/revising your dissertation, but sometimes due to things like getting a competitive amount of assessment/clinical/research experience for internship applications or not matching to internship and having to wait and apply again the following year, Also, keep in mind that most, if not all, states require a post-doctoral (that is, after the PhD/PsyD, including internship and dissertation, is complete) year (~1,000 hours) [maybe empathiosis and I are looking at different states?] of supervised practice until one is eligible to take the state licensing exam and become a clinical psychologist. So, really, you're looking at at least 6 years post-baccalaurate until you could become a licensed clinical psychologist, but probably more like 7 or 8, assuming you got into a program straight out of undergrad., which is somewhat uncommon but by no means impossible.

As far as pay differential between LCSWs and clinical psychologists, it really depends on where you work. The government/military and many agencies will give a higher salary to a licensed clinical psychologist over an LCSW, but it's not as high as you may think. As far as private practice goes, many—but not all—insurance companies reimburse LCSWs, LPCs, and clinical psychologists for therapy at the same rate, and many clinicians choose to run cash-only private practices to avoid having to deal with insurance. From what little I understand of it, private practice is just like running any business, where most of your income ultimately lies in your ability to get/"keep" clients through things like referrals, positive word of mouth, etc. Clinical psychologists can make extra income through doing assessments by referral, but you still have the same issues with referral base, etc.

Both options have their pluses and minuses, based on factors like what sort of training you want (research, clinical, an even mix of both?), your geographic mobility and/or limitations, your financial situation (PhDs are often fully funded while MSWs generally aren't, but funded PhD programs are beyond competitive, and if you go to a non-funded program, you could end up spending more than $100,000 on tuition alone, not to mention the fact that some of these programs have depressingly low match rates), whether you want to do assessments, whether you mind some of the social justice/policy curriculum found in social work (though this may vary depending on the program), how much time you're willing to spend in school, etc., etc.

Hope that helps!

ETA:
Salary differential for a LCSW/licensed clinical psychologist working for the VA in Alaska. (This is Alaska, so the numbers are skewed HIGH):

Psychologist: 68625.00 to 89217.00

SW: 57709.00 to 75025.00
 
I would also add Masters in Counseling programs to your search. They're fairly similar to MSW's in terms of length of program and number of hours until licensure. I think they're probably a little less in demand than LCSWs, but more in demand than psychologists, in terms of what insurances want to cover, etc. I know a couple of people in MC programs, and I think that their training is pretty strong, and really focused on counseling, where MSWs might focus a bit more on social services, case management. But all 3 are great degrees, depending on what you want.

Again, for all 3, you need a couple thousand supervised hours after you graduate before licensure. So, that shouldn't be the deciding factor. In general, I think people in all 3 fields tend to work for an agency, hospital, etc., to get those hours before going into private practice. That's basically because people need to build up a reputation to be successful in private practice, and private practice clients are less likely to choose someone who's straight out, when they can have someone with more experience and a reputation.
 
You may not be able to find a completely psychodynamic program, but you can definitely find an advisor who is pretty psychodynamic in their orientation. I accidentally interviewed with one last year, and the entire lab was very very psychodynamic (fortunately, I caught on pretty quickly). I would look at individual faculty and see what their orientation is. In all liklihood, if a faculty member is psychodynamic in orientation, the institution is open to that sort of work.
 
You don't want a completely Freudian experience but your user name is "Iwantobefreud"? ANYWAY, if you're so easily offended, as to take offense at the fellow poster's comment saying that you were blindly following an orientation, then you're in for a long, hard road in graduate school...

erg923 -

See my original post:



I'm not looking for a completely Freudian experience, and I'm rather offended that you would suggest that I am "blindly following an orientation." I'd like to think that (although I'm a lowly undergraduate and obviously know nothing about the field of psychology) that I have a pretty solid grasp on the major psychological theories and views.

I'd also like to add that I did not start this thread so that it could into another Freud-bashing discussion. Please stick to suggesting schools that have a program known to teach psychoanalytic/dynamic theories. Thanks everyone.
 
empathiosis - I'm really sorry if it seemed like I was "talking down" social work or anything like that. I really try to avoid sounding a stuck-up snob and I feel embarrassed when I come off as one. Social work isn't something I've really considered, but now that I see it's a very viable option I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

You're right, I am young, confused, and searching for "the answer." It often seems that having a lot of career options is just as much a curse as it is a blessing.

I'm going to follow your advice and look into both Ph.D. programs and MSW programs. Perhaps as I gather more information on both degrees the choice will become clearer.

Thanks again for all the help, everyone. More suggestions are always appreciated.

I think I may be a little sensitive to slights about the MSW because I'm actually considering it! 🙂 And I sort of wish I had considered social work earlier in my career because if I had I probably would have been earning a good living as a therapist now. (But I was determined to become a psychologist ... In any event, I realize it's hard to choose from among so many professions which seem to be somewhat similar. Sometimes you just have to make the best choice and follow a path, any path, while realizing that it may not be the best or most perfect one. You can always change your mind.

I don't mean to confuse you even more, but there are actually a few more options for you in terms of mental health providers. Here's a good list from the Mayo Clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mental-health/MH00074

You might want to consider advanced practice nursing, especially if you're good in science. I worked with one last year when I was doing an internship at a community mental health center and she was pretty amazing and could do just about everything the psychiatrists did, including prescribing ... I have no idea how competitive it is to get a nursing degree, but it's got to be easier than a clinical psych degree ... and prescription privileges are a plus.

Let me ask you something Dr. Freud, what is it that you really want to do? Where do you see yourself in five years? As you're making these decisions, you might also consider talking to people who are doing what you envision yourself doing. That could help you decide. Also, be sure to keep talking to your professors so they get to know you and can write you good letters of recommendation when the time comes to apply.
 
I'd contact the clinical psychologists from the psychoanalytic institute and ask them for reccomendations as to analytic friendly clinical psychology programs.

Why don't modern programs do Freud?
Why don't modern physicists do Newton?

:-O
They do. To a certain extent.
Though Newtons stuff is useful for certain things... Eienstein is useful for others.
And while Freud's stuff is useful for certain things... Psychotherapy has of course evolved since Freud. I mean, if it hadn't, then its status as a science really would be in trouble.

One view of analysis is that it is more an art than a science. (Funny, but some psychiatrists say this about the 'art' of prescribing appropriately). If that is the way you view it then you might be able to find traditional Freud in history departments. But then... Your client base isn't going to be middle class victorial veniese woman now, is it?
 
Psychotherapy has of course evolved since Freud. I mean, if it hadn't, then its status as a science really would be in trouble.

One view of analysis is that it is more an art than a science.

Perhaps that's my trouble: I believe in art more than I believe in science.
*** runs to hide behind desk ***

Toby - I never thought about contacting psychoanalytic institutes and asking them for recommendations. I'll do that tomorrow. Thank you.
 
If that is truly the case, you would not fit well into ANY clinical psychology doctoral program that I know of...Psy.D or Ph.D. The field has struggled to become more scientifically based over the years, and any admissions committee hearing something like that would probably automatically cut you.

If your sole objective is to be a full time therapist and nothing more, I doctorate is likely overkill for that these days. You sound like you might fit better with alternatives such as MSW or transpersonal psychology programs.
 
I want to avoid getting into the debate over the merits of psychology struggling to become more scientifically based. Specifically because I'm sure I would be part of the minority opinion and I don't have the time nor energy write a lot of lengthy replies.

Perhaps I underestimated just how "scientifically based" the field of psychology actually is. The reason I was so drawn to psychology is due to the specific fact that it is subjective and lacks the overarching theories found in other sciences. How can a theory or method possibly fit every mind?---herein lies the beauty of the field in my eyes! The human mind is so complex, varied, and unique that it will prove incredibly difficult to establish the objectivity and consistency that "science" requires.

I understand that psychologists are doing away with less scientific methods. But is it possible for science as we know it to truly understand the inner-workings of the mind? Is anything having to do with the psyche ever really empirical, reproducible, and consistent?

To defend my "I believe in art" statement: I believe that psychotherapy is more of an art than of a science. I also believe that understanding an individual mind is a beautiful mixture of art and science. If I had to choose whether or not that understanding is purely science based (for all its flaws) or purely art based (for all its flaws), I'd take art over science.

To quote Sigmund Koch: "The hope of a psychological science has become indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."

My concern is that methods and theories are being done away with due to "lack scientific support" and any therapeutic value observed by clinicians and their patients is completely ignored. Moreover, the very nature of psychology is still under fierce debate, and no single central model has yet been accepted by the scientific community, implying that the rejection of any method on solely theoretical grounds could be in error. This fact in particular, combined with the subjective nature of the phenomena under study, makes it difficult to immediately and unequivocally discount or validate any given method or its theoretical justifications (borrowed from Wikipedia).
 
I agree with you in the sense that pscyhotherapy can be viewed as an art rather than science. Although I prefer to think of it as an art built upon a science. That is.....yes...we do have lots of theories and knowledge of human behavior that we build our treatment models on. The underlying theories can be, and should be supported by empirical studies. So I would argue that psychology certainly does not lack the overarching theories found in other sciences. In fact, I might argue. that we have more! That's why I made the comment that u were "blindly" following an orientation. I wasn't pointing out your lack of knowledge of psychodynamic theory, but rather, your lack of understanding of other alternative views of behavior, and the modern state of the field in general. Again, nothing personal, you just haven't had the chance to get the advance level of exposure to them that graduate training provides.

So again the point of my post was that clinical psychology is so so much more than learning the art/science behind psychotherapy. It's alot of theory, but also....alot of research and experimental methodology training, (this is the bulk of most Boulder model Ph.D. programs actually), alot of writing, alot of statistics, psychometrics, ALOT OF "SCIENCE" IN OTHER WORDS. Just doesn't sound like you are interested in any of that....in which case clinical programs wouldn't fit you very well. That's the only point i was making.
 
I guess I like the 'art built upon science' view, too. I mean, I guess there is a bit of an art to knowing which (of a class) of meds is most likely to be suitable for their particular symptoms. Whether to trial a different one or whether to add a new one to alleviate side-effects and so on. That being said, I'd like my clinician to have the scientific grounding in psychotropic medication before practicing their art on me!

I think that the scientific investigation into the efficacy of psychotherapy is something of a mixed blessing.

> The reason I was so drawn to psychology is due to the specific fact that it is subjective and lacks the overarching theories found in other sciences.

You can have a science of subjectivity. Self report can be the data. Freud's theory was an attempt at an over-arching theory of human psychology. More recent theories tend to be much more local in their intended application.

> How can a theory or method possibly fit every mind?

Depends on the degree of abstraction in the theory, perhaps.

Have you done any scientific psychology (cognitive psychology or neuropsychology in particular)?

> To quote Sigmund Koch: "The hope of a psychological science has become indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."

It used to be that physics was taken to be closer to the ideal of science than the other sciences. It was thought that biology wasn't really a 'real science' insofar as it deviated from the methods and practices of the physicists. This was in the 60's. Days of logical positivism etc etc. Nowdays... Philosophy of science is much more pluralistic. Biology is accepted as a 'real science' but not 'just like physics' and certainly not trying to be and failing. It took some time for the methods to develop that were appropriate for biologists. But develop they did. Psychology has gone through a phase of 'physics envy' too. Now it seems to be going through a phase of 'psychiatry / medical science envy'. Randomized double blind control trials are hailed in medicine as the epitome of the scientific method and much of the attempt to scientize psychology has been to apply that method to investigating psychological treatments as much as possible. Only... Instead of viewing psychology as trying and failing (try keeping it secret whether someone is receiving therapy or placebo therapy) psychology needs to develop its own methods.

Experimental psychology is much better developed (neurophysiology, cognitive psychology). Much more... Autonomous from forms of envy. Trouble is... The pharma investment doesn't help psychology much - they are (of course) keen to promote medical trials as 'more scientific' than therapy trials. They only stand to lose on the later. Clinical psychology is still finding its identity to a certain degree...

> My concern is that methods and theories are being done away with due to "lack scientific support" and any therapeutic value observed by clinicians and their patients is completely ignored.

Well... There is a lot that has been done on 'placebo affect'. I find that quite interesting. Strategic application of magnets HELPED some people. As does... EMDR ;-)

I think that psychology is so disunified it doesn't really deserve to have a single name. But then, biology is similarly diverse, I suppose. The thing is... That a paradigm (framework) is only as profitable as the fruits of the labours of the theorists who adopt it. Psychoanalysts tend to do alright (just need a few wealthy clients who are prepared to pay to see you 5 times a week). But researchwise????? They don't really play the science game (a lot of them).

The idea is... That if a client wants help with a particular symptom (anxiety, for example, or depression). Then the clinician has a DUTY to provide the treatment that has the most support in favour of it. If a medical doctor prescribed something on artistic whim and it didn't help then one would sue his ***. If a clinician reccomends 7-10 years of psychoanalysis to deal with a simple phobia (and there is no evidence that psychoanalysis will cure that in the timeframe) and there is evidence that exposure techniques can significiantly reduce the symptoms in 10-12 weeks then... Why shouldn't the clinician who reccomends psychoanalysis be sued for malpractice???
 
Well since you don't really want to discuss it, I will just summarize my view with a "Yikes" and leave it at that.

There might be a small number of programs that meet your needs but they are basically the bottom of the barrel. Even most of the psychodynamic programs are stepping towards science, not away from it. There is no such thing as a "good" school that doesn't focus on scientific training. You can get trained as a practitioner, not a scientist, and under a wide umbrella of different orientations, and get a good education. However there is no such thing in the clinical psychology domain as a "good" school that isn't going to instill some sense of scientific rigor into their curriculum, either as a producer or a consumer of science.

I'd definitely look into other fields. Psychology today is not the psychology of 1900.
 
Just as an aside, and this is not directed at the OP.....but there is nothing worse than when I get a referal for a client at my practicum that has been evaluated in the past with the house-tree-person test (HTP). One such case came to me with a WISC-IV, a TAT, and house tree person report. The HTP interpretation was nothing more than a paragraph full of blindly interpreted nonsense, pathlogizing this kid all to hell. My supervisor and I never found any evidence of any of these supposed problems (in 6 months) and got to the root of the minor ones he did seem to have. He ended up being one of the most high functioning and well adjusted clients I had ever seen in a clinical setting. No doubt this is really much more demonstrative of a poor assessment and careless diagnostic skills, but the HTP interpretation was just so out there and off the wall, it really peeved me. So lord help you if you draw a hole in your tree, right.:laugh:
 
Just as an aside, and this is not directed at the OP.....but there is nothing worse than when I get a referal for a client at my practicum that has been evaluated in the past with the house-tree-person test (HTP). One such case came to me with a WISC-IV, a TAT, and house tree person report. The HTP interpretation was nothing more than a paragraph full of blindly interpreted nonsense, pathlogizing this kid all to hell. My supervisor and I never found any evidence of any of these supposed problems (in 6 months) and got to the root of the minor ones he did seem to have. He ended up being one of the most high functioning and well adjusted clients I had ever seen in a clinical setting. No doubt this is really much more demonstrative of a poor assessment and careless diagnostic skills, but the HTP interpretation was just so out there and off the wall, it really peeved me. So lord help you if you draw a hole in your tree, right.:laugh:

You know there is such a big difference between doing HTP correctly and incorrectly. I think if you see it done by someone who is a true expert in projective testing and then by a junior scholar, you begin to really understand how powerful these tests can be in the right hands. Of course, you can't rely solely on projective tests, you want a mix of projective and more traditional standardized testing like the MMPI and MCMI. Personally I find the psychodynamic faculty we have fascinating and the good ones can teach you things that are just amazing.

Mark

PS - While it looks like art, it is more scientific than you might imagine.
 
You're right Mark. I have some dynamic people here as well, and they are great! That was a poor example now that I think about it more (more a poor clinican anecdote I guess)...the HTP just stood out in that report and I thought it was good example of how I sometimes feel that analytic oriented folks can make mountains from mole hills.😀
 
You know there is such a big difference between doing HTP correctly and incorrectly. I think if you see it done by someone who is a true expert in projective testing and then by a junior scholar, you begin to really understand how powerful these tests can be in the right hands. Of course, you can't rely solely on projective tests, you want a mix of projective and more traditional standardized testing like the MMPI and MCMI. Personally I find the psychodynamic faculty we have fascinating and the good ones can teach you things that are just amazing.

Those are exactly my thoughts.

I've seen some AMAZING clinicians use projectives, and they've all said it has taken them a long time to really get the feel for them. Any hack can try and do a projective, but it takes real skill to do it right. I'll never forget my prof who taught me the Rorschach. He told me to cut myself some slack because his, "first few hundred were tough"....😱. My preference is the TAT2, which in the wrong hands is down right ugly.
 
Top