Clinical Psychology (research vs. practice and accreditation)

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

lobo13

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've been lurking for a while, and finally decided to make an account to see if anyone else had thoughts about this subject.

I heard back from a professor I had applied to work with (but ultimately didn't get an interview with) about my application. And while most of the feedback was positive, part of what I asked was..."What put your top candidates ahead of the rest"? He mentioned in part, that they had "clearly defined interests in an academic research career versus a career that involved being both a clinician and doing research"

In my SOP, I spent a majority of a section talking about my research skills and interests and how I certainly want to be in academics, but did put that in addition to those research interests and goals I also "have a clinical interest in helping "X clinical population" with "X problem". My goal of a PhD is definitely not be solely a clinician, or to work in the private sector, or to have a career in a hospital, or anything that doesn't involve academics and research, I just have a very slight clinical interest that really goes hand-in-hand with my research goals. But I wonder if that statement put me down a couple of places?

I guess my question is: When pretty much every program is emphasizing (if not requiring you outright state) that you go into academia vs a career involving actual clinical work...why do they bother with accreditation which ensures you are on a track to become a clinician? Why do they expect you to do internships and practicums if they don't really want you to assess and work with patient populations?

And for those of you applying to/interviewing at/accepting spots in clinical programs this year: Why did you choose to go the clinical route instead of just applying for a program with a Health track, or Cognitive, etc.? Do you care about the clinical training, or is it just the research you are interested in?

Not trying to start a heated discussion, but just genuinely interested in thoughts and opinions. Perhaps they will help inform my decisions for applying next year!

Members don't see this ad.
 
In all of my applications and SOPs, I made sure to emphasize my (limited) clinical experience and my (more extensive) research experience and discuss my interests in pursuing a joint clinical-research position with a research university/medical school and hospital/healthcare center as a psychologist. I also tried to focus on how important I think it is for clinicians to actively engage in research to inform their own clinical practice, and for researchers to have experience as clinicians to better understand what research topics need to be addressed. I also emphasized how unique I think clinical psychology training is, since it offers training in teaching, clinical practice, statistics, and research methods, and how I hope to use all of those skills throughout my career. I tailored my SOPs to each school, so I focused more on clinical goals for schools that seemed more clinically focused, and vice-versa with more research heavy institutions.

In my interviews, I've been asked why I'm pursuing a PhD in clinical psychology rather than a "practice-only" degree (MSW/MA) or "research-only" degree (experimental psych PhD), and I've emphasized my interest in pursuing a joint clinical-research position and my interest in working with my population of interest as both a scientist and practitioner, and I've received positive feedback based on that line of reasoning. My interests tend to be more neuro- focused, and I have very obviously expressed interest in becoming a neuropsychologist in my interviews and in my SOPs. I think it has been helpful that I've had concrete reasons why I want to become a neuropsychologist, and that my experiences since graduating with my BS have been very heavy in neuro and cognitive work and very heavy in assessment and testing administration.

Really though, the whole process has been a crap shoot. I haven't received interviews at several schools, where I felt like I was a perfect fit and where my stats exceeded their published APA data, and the schools that I have received interviews at have often been more of a stretch research-wise. The more off-the-wall schools have had faculty looking to expand their research interests or collaborate with other departments, which has been exciting for me, but it is totally not what I had expected when I was submitting my applications. I'm still in the middle of my interviews and haven't gotten any offers yet, so I may need to reevaluate my own strategy when it comes to apply next year.
 
First, there does exist a spectrum on which Clinical PhD programs can be differentiated by training model. You can get a broad sense of this from applicant guide books and program websites. Now, if you happen to be concentrating on the upper echelon of programs, this spectrum is going to be more restricted, going from the standard, Boulder scientist-practitioner, to clinical science programs with PCSAS accreditation and what not. There is also variability between PIs within institutions on how they select applicants based on stated career aspirations.

When pretty much every program is emphasizing (if not requiring you outright state) that you go into academia vs a career involving actual clinical work...why do they bother with accreditation which ensures you are on a track to become a clinician? Why do they expect you to do internships and practicums if they don't really want you to assess and work with patient populations?

No program requires that you go into academia. They require (effectively...through whom they admit) that your predominant interest upon admission is to do research. This distinction is important in answering your question. Even though programs and PIs are bent towards selecting applicants with dominant research proclivities (and this is for a variety of, actually pretty solid, reasons- such as helping with the PI's research, not becoming overwhelmed by research requirements, even things such as building academic lineage...), it has uniquely been the responsibility of Clinical PhD programs to train students to be competent researchers AND clinicians. It therefore becomes important from an applicant's perspective to frame their clinical interests in a way that displays an understanding of the give and take between research and practice.

I'm not sure how much this actually helps. There is a lot here to unpack and it is a very good question to be asking. Hopefully you get some good replies...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I guess my question is: When pretty much every program is emphasizing (if not requiring you outright state) that you go into academia vs a career involving actual clinical work...why do they bother with accreditation which ensures you are on a track to become a clinician? Why do they expect you to do internships and practicums if they don't really want you to assess and work with patient populations?

Most departments would prefer that you are licensed so in the event you need to supervise some kind of clinician work related to your research that you could w/o needing outside help. This may not apply across the board, but this is the answer I've heard most from places that were very research focused. This doesn't apply to professors coming from experimental or similar programs…but for clinical…I think it is pretty common.
 
Most departments would prefer that you are licensed so in the event you need to supervise some kind of clinician work related to your research that you could w/o needing outside help. This may not apply across the board, but this is the answer I've heard most from places that were very research focused. This doesn't apply to professors coming from experimental or similar programs…but for clinical…I think it is pretty common.
I've actually hearing that it is less and less of a concern now because of all the weirdness going on with licensure portability, the increasing research expectations and the fact that more clinical training is occurring outside the school (i.e. its not like 30 years ago when the vast majority of clinical experience was in the school clinic supervised by core faculty). Note that this is in psychology departments...not necessarily AMCs (where I think licensure is still the standard).

OP: There are definitely a range of feelings that schools have about folks pursuing clinical careers. Within schools, there are a range of opinions that mentors have...so its possible that even if the department said "Either is fine", the mentors prefer one or the other based on their own capacities and desires. As always, part of the problem is also the "admissions game" itself. Applicants have figured out that they need to be interested in research...so they say that. Just like a fair evaluation that highlights someone's strengths and weaknesses in a letter of rec might make someone think "Oh my god, this person must be horrible!", I think that sometimes any mention of clinical work makes admissions committees afraid they are looking at one of the many folks we see here who can't add two numbers together, doesn't want to learn, and can't see why that should interfere with their dream of practicing moonbeam therapy. Its unfortunate for sure, but I'm certain it happens.
 
In my experience with those across different programs, it has been my experience that when professors push very hard for 'you are too clinical/research' to work under them, that professor has a far greater agenda at work with what they want from their students than I am comfortable with. I honestly think its foolish that we should expect PhD applicants to have a greater understanding of research. By in large, post-bac applicants are not researchers. They have not done a great deal of work with it. They don't have the statistical training. Moreover, they haven't taught and been exposed to the actual pressures of a department. It seems foolish, to me, for a professor to pick academic career goals as a key factor to interview when 95% of those I have seen going through programs with those aspirations change their goals realizing that "being at a R1" isn't everything they had dreamed it was due to pressures, lifestyle, etc.

That said, if you are interested in a mixed bag, look for a program that values that. You'll have the freedom that is the most helpful to you and, in my eyes, the most appropriate for personal development.
 
One of the biggest issues is hire ability. You need to do everything you can to set yourself for a job at the end of the degree.
 
I've been lurking for a while, and finally decided to make an account to see if anyone else had thoughts about this subject.

I heard back from a professor I had applied to work with (but ultimately didn't get an interview with) about my application. And while most of the feedback was positive, part of what I asked was..."What put your top candidates ahead of the rest"? He mentioned in part, that they had "clearly defined interests in an academic research career versus a career that involved being both a clinician and doing research"

Great question to ask! I just wanted to add that that part of the prof's answer may not have actually been a reflection on your application per se, but rather a general comment about who was invited. It sounds like what you did in your application (as long as the clinical goal was also tied to your research interests) would be fine for most balanced and research-leaning programs.

Good luck!
 
Thanks all! I really appreciate the feedback and welcome any more comments! It does seem like it can just vary so much program-to-program and even professor-to-professor, in what they are looking for in particular. And @Doctor Eliza , you might be right in that it was more of a general comment rather than a direct one! These comments have been really informative and helped me think more critically about the question at hand. I'm definitely already thinking about applying next year, so hopefully I can approach it in a better manner.
 
Top