Do you really see the core mission of the field moving away from the dual focus on research and clinical practice? Programs already vary on how much they focus on either and still remain within the scope of either the Boulder/Vail models. I'm not trying to be argumentative cause it seems like you've looked into this more than I have, but are they talking about adding things related to administration or other MBA (gag) stuff? Psychologists who enjoy administration or in supervisory positions and are inclined to it already find roles there. Do you think someone can be really good at T2 effectiveness if their own training has eschewed clinical work?
By all means please do be argumentative
This is definitely controversial and I posted it in the hopes that people would be up for a debate about it. I'm interested, and discussion almost always forces me to clarify my thinking on a topic. I'm an academic, I learned not take such discussions personally a long time ago
I believe they are planning on upping the "administrative" training though what exactly it would consist of remains to be seen. I don't see it as being like an MBA...more like a combination of IO and Public Health, with a mental health focus. Program evaluation is perhaps the most related aspect that is currently included in training (though at least here, is certainly not emphasized). Your point regarding T2 research is a good one, and I hadn't initially considered. I could actually make a case that our training in therapy has had a negative impact on this line of work too, since the people point of T2 research is to get away from the PI serving as therapist/supervisor and simply study real-world behavior done by people who are not being closely supervised by an "expert" in that therapeutic modality. That said, I can certainly recognize there are some advantages to having a background in it as well - the question is, how much is necessary and what does it need to consist of?
Both you and erg have made the point that psychologists interested in that type of work find jobs there. That's true, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong) we would all agree that it is a non-traditional path. My understanding is that the point is to change that and make it into a far more traditional path, at least for graduates of clinical science programs looking to do applied work, and likely a more typical route then say, a private practice. Again, this all rests on the assumption that one is a graduate of say, Minnesota or UIUC, or other such programs. We can argue that current people seeking such jobs are finding them, but the reality is that programs are certainly not built around preparing people for that line of work. Therein lies the problem...we would never suggest that one could just generally get experience in understanding behavior through and then one can just go be a therapist if one wants to, so why should it be acceptable for administrative positions? The idea is to cultivate the skills involved, gain more practical experience, and enhance training in those areas. The reality is that unless we are going to make doctoral programs 2-3 years longer then they already are, that needs to get cut from somewhere, and one of those areas is clinical training. No school can train everyone for everything and there is a reason it is much harder to go into academia coming from a program that provides an even split of research/clinical training compared to one entirely devoted to research training. I do have some significant practical concerns about the shift though (namely ethics related to competence and concerns people would still be eligible for licensure and might practice outside their scope).
The whole point seems to be to find something we are good at that currently, few other professions are - unique contributions we can make to healthcare, industry, etc.
Some other points (sorry, typing this up quickly so its very stream of consciousness and disorganized):
1) Mid-levels not interested in EBT. True for now, but will this be true in 10 years? This seems an easy area for them to move into if they have sufficient motivation (e.g. no more reimbursement for unproven treatments). This certainly uses our skills, but seems more like trying to stay a half step ahead rather than something "truly" unique. Of course, doing EBT and creating EBT and figuring out how best to put it into practice are not one in the same.
2) Do people with minimal clinical experience know how to implement EBT? Good point, and certainly not, but I think this where collaboration and the idea of cultivating our expertise on the "program evaluation" side, rather than the "therapy side" may be advantageous for differentiating ourselves from the masses.
3) I worry I may have come off a little strong in how I was presenting this. My understanding (again, I wasn't there though I have discussed it with folks who were) is not that clinical students will only take courses in healthcare accounting and not ever be required to interact with anyone other than other professionals again. Rather, that the idea is to reduce the amount of time spent in activities like providing individual psychotherapy to clients, to allow for an increase in the amount of time spent discussing how to evaluate outcomes across various clinical settings, figure out how best to disseminate results of research studies to the wider professional and end-user communities, figure out ways for psychologists to play a stronger role in developing state and national policies and working towards change at a system level rather than a person level (though using training in person-level behavior to inform said systems). Basically, moving towards what Kazdin recently argued (what he actually argued, not what the media spun it into)...that the current model is inefficient and we need to find new ways of getting care out there, new delivery systems, etc.
4) Are we moving away from direct patient care as a field? I actually think we already have to some extent. When people want to be "just therapists" there is a reason we don't point them towards the PhD anymore. Many of the psychologists I know in clinical settings are doing less and less therapy and referring more down the food chain to mid-level providers. That doesn't mean its going to disappear overnight or even within our lifetime, but I do think its going to continue to be more and more of a "mid-level" activity, and efforts to stave it off will delay it, but are not a long-term solution.
Please keep in mind again that I wasn't there, so I don't have much more detail than any of you and am drawing inferences based on a few conversations I've had for where this is going. My broader point is that I'm excited for the possibilities, glad to see the potential for our professional roles expanding, and happy that it is doing so in a direction that 1) I think best suits my own talents and 2) I think is an area we can be far more unique rather than continuing to fight with MDs, social workers, counselors, nurses, and paraprofessionals in a zero-sum game for clinical piece. I don't doubt that clinical psychologists will continue to provide therapy, probably throughout our entire lifetimes, but I think its going to continue to be marginalized and I'm glad to see this push happening.
