Duquesne University - Clinical PhD

[PsyDWannabe]

Why does nobody ever say anything about it? I am honestly starting to get the feeling that it is some sort of 'forbidden topic'

Anyways, what are you all's feelings about it? For those who know, what is its ranking? Do you think it is a good clinical phd program? What is the overall feeling about the school within the field? I just need some insight since no one has really asked about it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

from their website:
The emphasis in our program is primarily clinical, with the humanistic and psychodynamic orientations being the ones that are strongest here. However, qualitative research plays a big role in our program as well.

Eh.,..not really my cup of tea. Maybe this has something to do with the relatively low applicant numbers, not sure.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Check out the thread in this forum, "Another article on practice," look at the source report discussed in the article, and compare with what you find here...

http://www.sites.duq.edu/psychology/human-science.cfm

 

[fsura001]

Ultimately the program has a bad reputation because:

• Duquesne unlike main stream programs takes a Human Science approach, which generally means understanding experience as it 'appears' in consciousness. This is usually done using qualitative methods (description, interpretation, discourse analysis, narrative analysis, etc.) and not quantitative methods (statistics, experimentation).

• The approach to psychology is via philosophy and NOT science, which means you are going to delving into phenomenology, existentialism, feminist theory, post-modernism, critical theory ---philosophical movements which are barely accepted by philosophy programs in the United States.

• Duquesne focuses mostly on third force psychologies such as humanistic, existential, post-modern, feminist plus psychodynamic. These movements are highly criticized for not being "evidence based". Obviously this depends what you DEFINE as EVIDENCE.

• More than likely this program seems like it's going to be highly critical about the epistemology that rule contemporary psychology in methodology, clinical practice and understanding about psychopathology.

To go to Duquesne would mean that you are willing to let go of the idea that psychological phenomena can be studied as if it was an OBJECT of the NATURAL SCIENCES.

You will be encouraged to keep a CRITICAL ATTITUDE about our current understanding of psychopathology and normalcy.

You will be expected to read philosophical works.


This is what I know about the program... and what I can deduce from its curriculum and mission statement.

 

[KillerDiller]

From what I know about the Duquesne program, fsura's summary seems very accurate.

You will be encouraged to keep a CRITICAL ATTITUDE about our current understanding of psychopathology and normalcy.

I did just want to say, though, that you will likely encounter this bullet point in most clinical psychology programs. As one example, programs should encourage critical thinking about the current categorical classification of mental illness.

In short, most programs aren't simply going to spoon feed students the idea that the current methods are he very best they can be.

 

[Gabo]

• The approach to psychology is via philosophy and NOT science, which means you are going to delving into phenomenology, existentialism, feminist theory, post-modernism, critical theory ---philosophical movements which are barely accepted by philosophy programs in the UnitedStates.

Yes, phenomenology, existentialism, feminist theory, post-modernism, and critical theory are barely accepted by philosophy programs in the United States. But this doesn't mean they are somehow less credible philosophies. Their absence is largely due to academic politics and infighting between analytic philosophers and non-analytic philosophers in the middle of the 20th century. During the 1940s and 1950s the analytic philosophers came to dominate American philosophy departments, and continue to do so.

Nevertheless, you can still find all this interesting non-analytic stuff alive and well in other disciplines like Sociology, and Anthropology or in philosophy departments across Europe.

If you're interested there's an interesting lecture on this topic by Richard Rorty. He was trained in analytic philosophy, though he later rejected it.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rorty02.htm

Regarding Duquesne's alleged "bad reputation": In 2007-2008 they had a 100% APA internship match rate.

-G

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Yes, phenomenology, existentialism, feminist theory, post-modernism, and critical theory are barely accepted by philosophy programs in the United States. But this doesn't mean they are somehow less credible philosophies. Their absence is largely due to academic politics and infighting between analytic philosophers and non-analytic philosophers in the middle of the 20th century. During the 1940s and 1950s the analytic philosophers came to dominate American philosophy departments, and continue to do so.

Nevertheless, you can still find all this interesting non-analytic stuff alive and well in other disciplines like Sociology, and Anthropology or in philosophy departments across Europe.

If you're interested there's an interesting lecture on this topic by Richard Rorty. He was trained in analytic philosophy, though he later rejected it.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rorty02.htm

Regarding Duquesne's alleged "bad reputation": In 2007-2008 they had a 100% APA internship match rate.

-G

So nice to get a Rorty reference on these boards! Encore!!

As for the claim that feminist theory is not widely accepted in US philosophy departments, that just seems outlandish. I hope it's not true -- as far as clinical psychology goes it seems most programs have at least one professor identifying an interest in feminist theory.

 

[fsura001]

Yes, phenomenology, existentialism, feminist theory, post-modernism, and critical theory are barely accepted by philosophy programs in the United States. But this doesn't mean they are somehow less credible philosophies. Their absence is largely due to academic politics and infighting between analytic philosophers and non-analytic philosophers in the middle of the 20th century. During the 1940s and 1950s the analytic philosophers came to dominate American philosophy departments, and continue to do so.

Nevertheless, you can still find all this interesting non-analytic stuff alive and well in other disciplines like Sociology, and Anthropology or in philosophy departments across Europe.

If you're interested there's an interesting lecture on this topic by Richard Rorty. He was trained in analytic philosophy, though he later rejected it.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rorty02.htm

Regarding Duquesne's alleged "bad reputation": In 2007-2008 they had a 100% APA internship match rate.

-G

I did not mean to say that these philosophical movements are less credible. I am just trying to answer the question: why Duquesne might have a bad reputation or why it is not being talked about.

Also, I am actually applying to Dusquesne, because it entertains these philosophies.

 

[fsura001]

So nice to get a Rorty reference on these boards! Encore!!

As for the claim that feminist theory is not widely accepted in US philosophy departments, that just seems outlandish. I hope it's not true -- as far as clinical psychology goes it seems most programs have at least one professor identifying an interest in feminist theory.

You are right! I retract my comment about feminist theory not being taught in philosophy departments. But I do questions what you mean by "most programs" when it comes to clinical psychology. I saw many Counseling psychology programs with feminist theory faculty but not Clinical psychology.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

WOW! Thank you all so much for your well thought out input! Messages received loud and clear

 

[bsomerville]

Hi all, I personally was thrilled to find Duquesne's non-mainstream program and am putting it on my list of programs to apply to. I happened to notice that their next site visit from APA is in 2013. If I am lucky enough to get into their program, and accept the offer, I will enroll in Fall 2011. But I had this scary thought. What if they lose their accreditation?

One imagines a political bent at APA in which liberal, non-quantitative programs might be seen as unfit to train real clinical psychologists. If something like that were to happen, God forbid, what becomes of me and my cohort there? Has anyone heard any horror stories from people whose program lost their accreditation status while they were attending?

I know this happened at NYU recently, but I don't know what became of the students. Can students go on to APA-accredited internships even though their school is no longer up to snuff? Is there a mercy rule or something?

--Billy

 

[erg923]

Anyone know why is takes most people more than 7 years or more to finish the program there?

http://www.duq.edu/psychology/_pdf/outcomes2008.pdf

 

[JockNerd]

Hi all, I personally was thrilled to find Duquesne's non-mainstream program and am putting it on my list of programs to apply to. I happened to notice that their next site visit from APA is in 2013. If I am lucky enough to get into their program, and accept the offer, I will enroll in Fall 2011. But I had this scary thought. What if they lose their accreditation?

One imagines a political bent at APA in which liberal, non-quantitative programs might be seen as unfit to train real clinical psychologists. If something like that were to happen, God forbid, what becomes of me and my cohort there? Has anyone heard any horror stories from people whose program lost their accreditation status while they were attending?

I know this happened at NYU recently, but I don't know what became of the students. Can students go on to APA-accredited internships even though their school is no longer up to snuff? Is there a mercy rule or something?

--Billy

Every place goes through accreditation and most students will see a program review in their time at a school. I just saw mine to through it. It's really not a huge deal; finishing the documentation seems harder than meeting the criteria.

I'm pretty sure there's no "mercy rule," but I also don't think there's any serious bias against "liberal" or non-quant-focused places.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Anyone know why is takes most people more than 7 years or more to finish the program there?

http://www.duq.edu/psychology/_pdf/outcomes2008.pdf

Just a guess, but it could be that qualitative research can be really, really time-consuming, especially in terms of recruitment, and also that having a less research-focused student body can lead to dissertations taking a long time to complete due to research being relatively low on students'/faculty's priority list (based on what I've observered at the clinically focused PhD program at my undergrad university, though it is just ancedotal evidence).

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Anyone know why is takes most people more than 7 years or more to finish the program there?

http://www.duq.edu/psychology/_pdf/outcomes2008.pdf

I'd guess it has something to do with having to make heads or tails of such theorists as Sartre, Heidegger, Lacan, etc. Reminds me of a favorite Steven Wright joke -- at least I think it was his. If you study philosophy you'll remember just enough of it to f you up for the rest of your life...

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Why does nobody ever say anything about it? I am honestly starting to get the feeling that it is some sort of 'forbidden topic'

Anyways, what are you all's feelings about it? For those who know, what is its ranking? Do you think it is a good clinical phd program? What is the overall feeling about the school within the field? I just need some insight since no one has really asked about it.

A recent graduate of Fielding who is an acquaintance of mine was recently hired as an assistant professor. She is heavily into feminist theory, qualitative methods, the psychodynamic approach and a big big big interest in social constructivism. She also has a J.D. degree from Georgetown Law school and is an intellectual powerhouse, just not very attracted to mainstream psychology. These issues are not my cup of tea even though I highly respect qualitative methods.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Yes, phenomenology, existentialism, feminist theory, post-modernism, and critical theory are barely accepted by philosophy programs in the United States. But this doesn't mean they are somehow less credible philosophies. Their absence is largely due to academic politics and infighting between analytic philosophers and non-analytic philosophers in the middle of the 20th century. During the 1940s and 1950s the analytic philosophers came to dominate American philosophy departments, and continue to do so.

Nevertheless, you can still find all this interesting non-analytic stuff alive and well in other disciplines like Sociology, and Anthropology or in philosophy departments across Europe.

If you're interested there's an interesting lecture on this topic by Richard Rorty. He was trained in analytic philosophy, though he later rejected it.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rorty02.htm

Regarding Duquesne's alleged "bad reputation": In 2007-2008 they had a 100% APA internship match rate.

-G

Interesting, given the repeated statements on this board that "match is everything." So here we have a program that vis at odds with most others in the country in terms of philosophic stance and training and they still manage a high match rate. This leads to the conclusion that this program has an excellent reputation since "match is everything.". The other conclusion one may draw is that match numbers do not reflect the quality of the program but rather reflect other factors such as kind and type of practicum placements etc... This would mean that "Match is NOT everything." Heaven forfend that I suggest anything as revolutionary as logic in these endless discussions about training or the place of alternative approaches to psychological science!

My own opinion is that psychology should be a "big tent" under which many philosophies and approaches can and should flourish. To critique Duquesne's approach is also to critique those other disciplines such as anthropology, cultural studies, and sociology which utilize qualitative approaches and a post-modern philosophic stance. This attitude would be in keeping with psychology's institutionalized narcissism in which some disciplines such as anthropology are ignored or denigrated while others such as physics and biology are glorified and secretly envied. Can anyone say disciplinary "object splitting?" I would contend that psychology has historically had a very bad case of "physics envy" which is increasingly being replaced by "biology envy" as physics increasingly moves in the direction of things psychologists can't comprehend like string theory, the quantum vacuum etc ... Of course, object splitting and envy are psychoanalytic concepts that have no place in psychological discourse right! This institutionalized narcissism of psychology may be seen in psychology's definition of itself as "THE science of behavior" when in fact it is one among other behavioral disciplines. It may also be related to a narrow and highly dogmatic view of what constitutes "science" which serves reify the institutionalized narcissism of clinical psychology. But I digress! Duquesne's approach is refreshing. One wishes that there were more programs such as this around to challenge the dominant model.

 

[sabaijae]

Interesting, given the repeated statements on this board that "match is everything." So here we have a program that vis at odds with most others in the country in terms of philosophic stance and training and they still manage a high match rate. This leads to the conclusion that this program has an excellent reputation since "match is everything.". The other conclusion one may draw is that match numbers do not reflect the quality of the program but rather reflect other factors such as kind and type of practicum placements etc... This would mean that "Match is NOT everything." Heaven forfend that I suggest anything as revolutionary as logic in these endless discussions about training or the place of alternative approaches to psychological science!

My own opinion is that psychology should be a "big tent" under which many philosophies and approaches can and should flourish. To critique Duquesne's approach is also to critique those other disciplines such as anthropology, cultural studies, and sociology which utilize qualitative approaches and a post-modern philosophic stance. This attitude would be in keeping with psychology's institutionalized narcissism in which some disciplines such as anthropology are ignored or denigrated while others such as physics and biology are glorified and secretly envied. Can anyone say disciplinary "object splitting?" I would contend that psychology has historically had a very bad case of "physics envy" which is increasingly being replaced by "biology envy" as physics increasingly moves in the direction of things psychologists can't comprehend like string theory, the quantum vacuum etc ... Of course, object splitting and envy are psychoanalytic concepts that have no place in psychological discourse right! This institutionalized narcissism of psychology may be seen in psychology's definition of itself as "THE science of behavior" when in fact it is one among other behavioral disciplines. It may also be related to a narrow and highly dogmatic view of what constitutes "science" which serves reify the institutionalized narcissism of clinical psychology. But I digress! Duquesne's approach is refreshing. One wishes that there were more programs such as this around to challenge the dominant model.

+1

Bringing this thread back from the dead (apologies) since I come from an anthropology/constructivist/constructionist background, and am curious about Psych programs/profs with a focus on postmodernism & constructionism... Any ideas other than Duquesne? Would be much appreciated ...

 

[ela]

+1

Bringing this thread back from the dead (apologies) since I come from an anthropology/constructivist/constructionist background, and am curious about Psych programs/profs with a focus on postmodernism & constructionism... Any ideas other than Duquesne? Would be much appreciated ...

There have been other threads on this, I believe titled "I only want to go to Duquesne". Off the dome though, I believe Miami University (Ohio) has a solid pomo/constructionist faculty (William Stiles). Also University of West Georgia.

 

[psychology24]

University Florida- Counseling Psychology has 1-2 profs in constructivist counseling and psychology. Off the top of my head I think there is someone at Fordham University too- can't recall if Counseling or CLinical

Our Lady of the Lake has a Counseling Psy.D program (APA Accred) that is focused on postmodern, short-term approaches. They also have a strong diverse faculty with interests in cultural studies and cultural psychology.

 

[sabaijae]

Thanks ela & pscyhology24!