Question about applying to research oriented PhD program

[icomeheresometimes]

---

Members do not see this ad.

.

 

[doggums]

.

 

[cara susanna]

Honestly, I think it's easier to get good clinical training at a research-focused program than to get good research training at a clinically-focused program.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Honestly, I think it's easier to get good clinical training at a research-focused program than to get good research training at a clinically-focused program.

I go back and forth about whether this is the case, and I'd say ultimately, it's going to vary so much by program that I don't know if a general statement could accurately be made.

For every program like mine (which historically is somewhat heavier on the research side in terms of career outcomes, but which requires and allows a lot of clinical contact), there are probably just as many like those that have been mentioned on here before by other members--research heavy with very limited (and heavily-discouraged) ability to branch out beyond a university clinic.

Ultimately, my gut instinct would tell me that the research-heavier programs have a better shot at just being quality programs overall. However, they also might run the risk of having a greater proportion of difficulty-to-work-with supervisors and/or administration.

 

[icomeheresometimes]

.

 

[Pragma]

Check out the APA book that rates PhD programs.

Keep in mind that in all programs, you have the option to go for clinical work - it is just not encouraged (and is discouraged) in heavier research programs. Usually how they describe themselves on their website is fairly accurate in terms of the department attitude. But, you'll probably find that some students just go on to do clinical work anyways.

I knew a couple of people in my program that sort of did the research song and dance and then jumped ship as soon as they graduated. But my program was fairly balanced.

In general, it is a good idea to say you want to do research, even if you are kind of split internally.

 

[icomeheresometimes]

.

 

[Pragma]

Refreshing advice and perspective.

Well, it is not to say that you might not piss a few people off if you end up going the clinical route after you told them for years that you wanted to be a researcher. but I've seen it happen. You just might not get letters from some of those people from graduate school - of course, often those won't matter much once you are in the actual working world (outside of academia).

I can't imagine doing that myself, but I had (and still have) a close relationship with my mentor. But I know people that weren't as close with their mentors, and going their separate way was not particularly difficult for them.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

If you were to take top researchers out of clinical psychology who would study mechanisms that maintain psychopathology, translate these findings into empirically-based treatments, and test the outcomes of said treatments? Creating a larger schism between clinical researchers and practicing psychologists would create an even bigger problem of having practicing psychologists not using/unable to use empirically supported treatments.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Getting NIMH funding for treatment development or RCTs is moving towards requiring that a PI have a license. This points to the importance of a clinical psychological researcher understanding the population and the process of treatment.

Yes, there are other health care fields that have very distinct treatment developers and treatment providers but I'd argue that they are quite distinct from psychology. The scientist studying drug X in animal models in a lab far away from the hospital doesn't have to worry about a number of things that clinical psychologists do, such as: whether others can be effectively trained to deliver the intervention; if the intervention is feasible in regards to time/homework/topics covered; if we have a proper control condition that maintains similar rates of therapist/patient contact etc. These are things that we can get a sense of when delivering treatments ourselves

Coming from a very research heavy school, I would say that the faculty recognize the importance of this training and the push is to get the experience but never lose focus on research. So, no, we don't spend the majority of our time doing clinical work, but we receive top of the line training which I'd venture to guess PsyD programs that are purely clinical do not always receive. Also, if you take away research from clinical psychology you're going to take away the bulk of fully funded programs. Research brings in the money that pays for grad student funding.

 

[Pragma]

"100%" research is relatively uncommon. Even in cases where you are in a research environment, most clinical programs will have some form of clinical research happening (e.g., a big AMC might have clinical research protocols).

Really, you go for a PhD in order to get experience doing both. Some programs just have a stronger emphasis and idea of where they hope their students should be going. But there are often exceptions. For example, I knew a couple of people at the University of Minnesota program. One went off to PP (which was against the norm) and another took a faculty position at an AMC (which is what they like).

Unfortunately, it is the nature of the field that most positions really require that you do more of one than the other. Most people who truly want to do both clinical work and research have to take a position involving at least 80% of their time focused on one or the other. Of course there are exceptions, but those 50/50 jobs are rare.

But I'd argue that it is the researchers who get more flexibility. It's a lot harder to break into research studies when you are off in some private practice someplace. If you are doing a research protocol, you could in theory being doing interventions as a part of the protocol. It might not be what some people have in mind when it comes to clinical work, but it is what many folks do. Often folks with more clinical positions at AMCs will do some research on their patient population - but again, time is short so often that is on their own time to do the extra work.

Ultimately, you can't really do adequate research about clinical psychology if you don't have some experience with the practice of clinical psychology. To take an example from my own specialty - a neuroscience PhD wouldn't be capable of doing the research a neuropsychologist does related to clinical assessment.

Your comment about saying research programs shouldn't lead to licensure - well there are a lot of those types of programs out there. Some people do choose not to get licensed and don't need to if they aren't providing direct interventions without supervision. But most of these programs are preparing people to get licensed if they choose to. Take myself - I got licensed over the summer after completing a postdoc and still haven't used that license, because I took an academic gig. I'll use it eventually for some part time private practice, but it is not essential to my job.

Really, that's what attracted me to a PhD program over other options. It provided me with career options involving research, teaching, and clinical practice. I think it would be silly to separate programs out as research PhDs vs. clinical PhDs, because you need to be able to do both if you want to be a competent clinical psychologist. If licensure was considered an area of competency, it would be required by the program - but our field is not set up that way.

 

[Pragma]

I have no problem with programs that want to be 100% research (and I may go that way myself), but I think the pretense should be cut-out and that such programs shouldn't lead to licensure as clinical psychologists. Frankly, pure research scientists should not be administering therapy or licensed to do anything along those lines in the first place IMO.

It looked like you added something here while I was posting. I disagree, in part because I don't think you will find a pure research scientist that went to an accredited clinical psychology PhD program. If they completed clinical experiences that meet the standards for licensure, why wouldn't you allow them to get licensed?

On the contrary, some of us on these boards think it is a travesty that there are people out there with subpar research training that are allowed to get licensed and practice. It is a question of competence to even be a consumer of the literature and not harm patients. Just getting clinical hours does not reflect comprehensive enough training to practice clinical psychology.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Also, in terms of funding I feel certain that Stanford-trained research psychologists find plenty of ways to get their research granted even though Stanford offers no clinical program leading to licensure. Moreover, there will be plenty of remaining clinical psych programs if some of the current programs pushing a research career so hard finally just decide to stop calling themselves clinical psych (I think this will start happening, and I think it will probably be a good thing).

I understand the importance of research and that the schools want people who will support their institutional interests, but students are already paying dues by essentially working for the school for several years during the PhD (at a very low salary), and really it should be up to the doctor how and where to practice if the requirements are met and the license achieved. If the school wants to sign a contract with students that they need to work in the field or for the school as a research scientist for a certain number of years that is another story (and guarantee salary to go with that... ha!).

In terms of your pointing out the difference between psych and other science fields, I was actually partially referring to other sub-fields in psychology, such as learning and social psych, which involve unlicensed scientists whose research is utilized all the time regardless of the fact they are not considered clinical psychologists and are not licensed.

My point was that psychologists who want to do clinical research need to have clinical training. To take your example of Stanford faculty, those that do research on clinical populations (e.g., Gotlib, Gross) all came from clinical PhD programs. It is very difficult for those coming from a social psych PhD to move over to doing clinical research. They either need a Co-PI or to do a re-specialization. (Have you ever heard a cog psych or social psych faculty try to talk in depth about psychopathology? It can be horribly inaccurate and/or shallow even coming from brilliant psychologists because it's not their expertise)

Even the most hard core research oriented clinical psych programs cannot force a person to go into research. People often lie to get in or change their minds along the way and they just graduate and go about their way. Sure, they will do far more research than they'd like during grad school, but they still get the degree that gives them the opportunity to choose.

 

[Pragma]

My point was that psychologists who want to do clinical research need to have clinical training. To take your example of Stanford faculty, those that do research on clinical populations (e.g., Gotlib, Gross) all came from clinical PhD programs. It is very difficult for those coming from a social psych PhD to move over to doing clinical research. They either need a Co-PI or to do a re-specialization. (Have you ever heard a cog psych or social psych faculty try to talk in depth about psychopathology? It can be horribly inaccurate and/or shallow even coming from brilliant psychologists because it's not their expertise)

Even the most hard core research oriented clinical psych programs cannot force a person to go into research. People often lie to get in or change their minds along the way and they just graduate and go about their way. Sure, they will do far more research than they'd like during grad school, but they still get the degree that gives them the opportunity to choose.

+1

psychcyclepsi, your posts remind me a little bit of the whole Vail model debate. At that time, the concern was in part that there was too little clinical training and too much research training. But really, what you seem to be describing is a dichotomy that doesn't really exist now. We already have PsyD programs for people who want less of an emphasis on research in their training (or different focus, however you want to describe it). In a PhD program, you need to be able to conduct and analyze empirical research, period. You won't be a competent PhD without these skills.

As ResearchGirlie states, schools really can't force someone not to go into clinical practice. What you are suggesting is a systemic solution (that doesn't really solve anything) to a mentor-by-mentor problem. Plus, if the schools says up front that they are prepping you for an academic career (which can still involve clinical work), what's the gripe? It's not like they don't receive clinical training. There are plenty of non-clinical research degrees already.

 

[Ollie123]

Seems an appropriate place to include my usual note that PhD students generally have more clinical hours than PsyD students come internship time. Of course, there is also more variability.

I also think there seems to be a false dichotomy here. What are these "pure" research programs offering a clinical degree, that doesn't prepare one for practice/licensure? I've certainly never heard of one. Most of these programs do a better job of it (in my opinion) and have a higher success rate for related outcomes (EPPP pass rate, licensure among those who seek it) than many of the purportedly clinically-focused programs. I'm in a PCSAS-accredited/academy/clinical-science model program and we have plenty of students planning practice careers. Our clinical training, from what I've garnered from folks here and folks I've met elsewhere, seems quite solid even if those on research paths don't have hours that are that high (note: but still around the mean of all students who match).

Cutting clinical training from research-focused programs would have awful consequences for both research, and for many clinical practice settings (i.e. many academic medical center departments). I can't think of any reason why this would benefit anyone. Yes, it would be nice if all schools were supportive of all possible paths, but let's be realistic here. We shouldn't restructure our entire education system around the possibility that a handful of egomaniacal faculty might get pissed off because their students aren't doing what they think is best. Let's be honest - they train us for free, invest significant time and effort in doing so, etc. Its naive to assume this is motivated purely by altruism. I'm not advocating for tarring and feathering anyone not planning to become TT faculty, but I think its well within their rights to have a career path envisioned for their students (if anything, this facilitates a training curriculum) and be disappointed when that path doesn't pan out. Some will handle that disappointment appropriately. Others will not.

Schools will always have "goals" for their students. Some students will always choose a different path. I'd argue that truth-in-advertising is more important since then the responsibility lies with them if they change their mind or lie to get accepted in the first place. As long as the schools are being honest about it, I don't see any reason why this should be an issue.

 

[Pragma]

The gripe isn't ultimately that I think the programs need to change, it's more a question about the attitude among some of the programs for how the degree should be used. As has been mentioned by several ITT, there is in fact more than adequate clinical training in even the most rigorous of clinical psych programs (i.e. the ones generally most worth attending) such that a graduate is well prepared to utilize the degree in a number of forums. As you mentioned, the programs can't keep anyone from using the degree in the way they ultimately find most satisfactory--so in that sense I agree the gripe is a non-issue in a formal or legal sense--but I feel that the disconnect between what is being offered (by all accounts, both research and clinical training in a field that is not only research focused) and what is being pushed (that you are only a worthy graduate if you stay in research) is not really a fair position for these programs to take--especially if it is going to be considered disingenuous for students to overemphasize research interest in order to get into the best programs in their prospective field.

All that said, I really appreciate all the perspectives offered ITT.

Well it isn't unique to this field. That's academia for you in general. Institutions that attract the "highest quality" folks tend to deal in academic currency (research, publications, external funding) and places where the more cutting edge work is happening are more "prestigious" and have money to invest in offering this high caliber training.

If I am a prof who spends my blood, sweat, and tears getting a research program started and funded, I can tell you that I want students that are motivated to produce scholarly work if I'm using my grant money to fund them. When you are in academia, you hope that you can spread your ideas and generate new ideas for the future via your mentees (who sometimes are seen as extensions of themselves - just listen to people talk about their mentorship genograms and such).

If I worked to get the money to fund the students, I can hope that my students will also want to pursue research careers (and try to screen accordingly). Force them? No. I am not the type who would probably get mad if a student decided to do something different, but I could see why some profs might be - especially if they were very clear about things up front during interviews. They may feel used for funding when you wanted that money to be an opportunity for someone pursuing an academic career. Now, this is a more extreme example - a more balanced program probably wouldn't have an issue at all with someone going the clinical path.

There are more balanced programs, and there are plenty of basic clinical programs out there for people who aren't interested in research. That's why it really is on the student to find somewhere that is a good fit for them as far as the balance of effort and the typical post-graduation job prospects go.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It's also going to depend on how you define "half-way decent." Grad programs are notorious for defying classification in this regard. It generally seems to be the case that with funded programs, even if a particular school doesn't have an overall reputation as being "top-tier," it still might offer a better training and/or overall experience, depending on the POI, the student, their fit with one another, and what you're looking to get out of graduate school. This is why interviews can actually end up being so helpful.

 

[NotTheHoff]

Honestly, I think it's easier to get good clinical training at a research-focused program than to get good research training at a clinically-focused program.

I'm 100% on board with this. That scientist, empirical evidence emphasis isn't sufficient to guarantee a strong clinician, but it sure helps provide the foundation for keeping attuned to supportive practices in both your field and for a specific client.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Honestly, I think it's easier to get good clinical training at a research-focused program than to get good research training at a clinically-focused program.

Thirding this. If you don't have faculty who are actively publishing and doing research, your chances of publishing, especially in your area of interest go way down. Tbh, I really don't think APA cares about research beyond making sure people do a dissertation (and maybe a thesis), whereas they are a lot stricter with clinical requirements and opportunities.