Cons of being a research psychologist

[viral_candy]

What are the bad parts of being a research psychologist? In theory, it seems exciting and fulfilling to contribute to the field of work- even if you don't have a significant finding because it rules out an experiment. Reading papers and learning new information is also very appealing. But realistically- for those who have been in the program or worked as a research psychologist- what are the things that you don't like and does it still seem worth it?

I've heard things such as

-feeling hopeless because you spent years doing an experiment to have no significant findings
-worrying about funding/salary and living a poor quality life, job insecurity
-very long hours in the lab every day
-pretentiousness in the research environment

Also, how much flexibility is there in actually researching what you want to research, or are your projects dependent on your institution/employer?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Seems like perhaps one thread could have handled this post as well.

 

[deleted343839]

I'll try to address each of these points, briefly:

feeling hopeless because you spent years doing an experiment to have no significant findings

No one succeeds by hanging his or her future on the outcome of a single experiment. There are a lot of ways to hedge against this. Some strategies have more credibility/integrity than others. It might sound odd, but this isn't the thing that keeps most people up at night. You just don't paint yourself into that corner when planning a project.

worrying about funding/salary and living a poor quality life, job insecurity

Funding is a legitimate concern for people who are on the tenure track. The thought of not getting a grant does keep people up at night.

very long hours in the lab every day

Long hours, yes. Not always in the lab necessarily, but certainly long hours writing grants, publications, etc.

pretentiousness in the research environment

There are some peacocks in the field for sure, but probably no more than in other high-performing fields.

Also, how much flexibility is there in actually researching what you want to research, or are your projects dependent on your institution/employer?

Academic institutions sometimes recruit faculty in certain research areas to complement the expertise of other faculty or respond to some other institutional initiative or need. They won't usually dictate project aims in such a granular fashion. Once a faculty member is on board the greater influence is the priorities of the funding source (i.e., whoever gives you your grants). There is always some degree of shaping oneself (or bending over backwards in a pretzel shape) to be attractive to a granting agency, foundation, etc. Once the grant funding is coming in you can usually nurture as many side/pet projects as you have time for. But a lot of people find they don't have a lot of time or energy left over.

The private sector is different. In a grant-supported environment the same conditions generally apply. In some salaried science jobs you may have very little control over what you work on. It all depends on the organization and your role within it.