PhD/PsyD Disorders vs general issues of functioning- which is more impressive to research?

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

psymate35

New Member
5+ Year Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
For an aspiring psychologist (PhD, PsyD level), is working with issues involving families, marital discord, emotional regulation in children, etc. considered less "prestigious" than working with real disorders of psychopathology like depression and OCD? I.e. would it be more impressive to have research experience related to the latter than the former? (to get into grad school)

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think it's more impressive to have research experience doing something you really care about. Preferably something that will tie in to your future PI's interests if you're applying to PhDs, and/or will give you great experience that you're excited to share and possibly further pursue if you're applying to PsyD programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'd offer that there's very little "prestige" in any of it. Outside of a very few "big names" in their respective areas, I'd venture that many of us can't identify researchers outside of our fields of expertise. Most people outside of psychology struggle to name an actual psychologist (no, Freud and Frazier don't count!). This may be different in academia, where there may be more communication between people with differing areas of study, but I don't remember any pecking order related to area of study. If you expand your definition of "prestige" to include things like grant funded and lab space, then maybe there are differences- I'll leave it to others with more knowledge of such things to comment on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Agreed with others. You are trying to find a 'fit' with your interests and career goals as you explore training. Even knowing lots of researchers and recognizing names, if it is between someone who does what I do and someone who 'works in a prestigious area' (whatever that means), I'm probably going for the person who does what I do. You can be the best OCD researcher in the world, but if that's not what I do then its not going to be as meaningful as the person who has done extensive work in marital discord if that's what I research, borrowing examples from your post.

As you are trying to get into grad school, think of it like this:
Any research experience is good --> Research experience with products is better (posters, manuscript authorship) -- > Research in your area with products is best
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There is no real hierarchy of prestige by topic area. I'd go first and foremost with what interests to you, then worry about things like prestige.

That said, I do think its fair to say there is more funding as you get into psychopathology and funding is prestigious, opens doors/avenues to different kinds of research and tends to lead to higher salaries in the long-run. That's really not a decision to base your career on though - if your interests swing the other way, you'll likely be more successful being a happy, motivated family relations researcher than someone who went into schizophrenia research hoping for a big payoff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
There is no real hierarchy of prestige by topic area. I'd go first and foremost with what interests to you, then worry about things like prestige.

That said, I do think its fair to say there is more funding as you get into psychopathology and funding is prestigious, opens doors/avenues to different kinds of research and tends to lead to higher salaries in the long-run. That's really not a decision to base your career on though - if your interests swing the other way, you'll likely be more successful being a happy, motivated family relations researcher than someone who went into schizophrenia research hoping for a big payoff.

I will second this. Couples/family researchers over the last decade have struggled to secure funding for basic research regarding marital or family functioning. To successfully get funding, usually researchers specialize in marital/family functioning <i>and</i> an area of psychopathology (e.g., how does relationship function impact depression symptoms).
 
For the purpose of getting into grad school, one topic is not necessarily better than the other. Topics that are "trendy" today will likely be passé 10 years from now, so it's best to just go with something that interests you enough to give it your best (within the mainstream of psychology, of course). Do high-quality work, and have something to show for your efforts.

Once you graduate and start your career, getting funding is less a matter of prestige than of matching your research to the priorities of the whoever cuts the check.
 
I will second this. Couples/family researchers over the last decade have struggled to secure funding for basic research regarding marital or family functioning. To successfully get funding, usually researchers specialize in marital/family functioning <i>and</i> an area of psychopathology (e.g., how does relationship function impact depression symptoms).
True. Although, in general, my perception is that translational topics / cross-section research is always more fundable than basic research because it carries stronger more curbside appeal. Those topics offer more ecological validity.
 
Top