Question about Ideal Research Matches

[LaceyLPC]

I am an LPC and am looking into my PhD, but just very preliminarily at this point, to see what's out there. A few weeks ago I posted a question which partly had to do with matching with a professor's research interests, and I was told how important it is to not just be "meh," about their topics, because you will be neck-deep in them for your dissertation.

On that note, I wonder now if I'm doing something "wrong;" I'm going alphabetically (by state) through the list of APA-accredited schools, and am up to Kentucky and have found zero schools which I think their research sounds like something I'd be super interested in diving into...a lot of it seems tolerable or neutral, but I can't help but feel now like I'm cutting out a lot of really great schools? Is there a broader way to look at this? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tiy123]

That's not a terrible way of going about it, but I think it's fairly inefficient. It will probably be more helpful to have a clear idea of what your research interests are and then look at who is doing that research (mostly from reading papers).

It's also totally normal to feel like you're cutting out a lot of great schools because there's not a research fit. There's probably only going to be around 10 professors that you have a really great fit with.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Yup, find what you are interested in first and then find a match.

 

[LaceyLPC]

Thanks so far. I have a follow-up question, I assume...I mean some broader topics people have done interest me, such as suicidality for instance, however the specifics of this suicidality research doesn't seem particularly interesting. So am I looking for the broader picture of something I'm interested in, or do I need to be very, very interested in their specific research?

 

[PsyDuck90]

Thanks so far. I have a follow-up question, I assume...I mean some broader topics people have done interest me, such as suicidality for instance, however the specifics of this suicidality research doesn't seem particularly interesting. So am I looking for the broader picture of something I'm interested in, or do I need to be very, very interested in their specific research?

I would start out very specific: find a research paper that is on something you find very interesting, and look up the authors and where they teach. Then, look at the other papers they cite, read those and look up the faculty that are publishing things you are interested. Suicidality in particular is a really broad research scope. Just the nature of using 1 article to find potential faculty matches will lead you to broader and/or associated topics as well.

 

[LaceyLPC]

Thank you, suicidality was just one example--but I get your point.

 

[bcliff]

I find it a little surprising that you've made it almost halfway through the country and haven't found any research matches. Are you looking at specific faculty pages? What is your motivation for pursuing a PhD after having already received your LPC. If I were a professor reviewing your application that would be a major question that I would want answered. Since one of the key distinctions between LPC and PhD is training in research/stats, it would likely be key for you to have a clear idea of what types of research you're interested in and how your faculty advisor could help facilitate those interests. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about specific programs/faculty well suited for specific interests.

 

[LaceyLPC]

I find it a little surprising that you've made it almost halfway through the country and haven't found any research matches. Are you looking at specific faculty pages? What is your motivation for pursuing a PhD after having already received your LPC. If I were a professor reviewing your application that would be a major question that I would want answered. Since one of the key distinctions between LPC and PhD is training in research/stats, it would likely be key for you to have a clear idea of what types of research you're interested in and how your faculty advisor could help facilitate those interests. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about specific programs/faculty well suited for specific interests.

I got my LPC nearly four years ago, and thought I would be happy there--which I am--but I'd like to be able to do a full battery of assessments, and things of that nature; I believe it would make me more well-rounded as a clinician considering the type of clients I see. LPCs in my state can also not bill for Medicaid over age 20, or Medicare--IDK if this is true for every state--so it really limits the type of client you can work with in the first place.

 

[deleted343839]

I got my LPC nearly four years ago, and thought I would be happy there--which I am--but I'd like to be able to do a full battery of assessments, and things of that nature; I believe it would make me more well-rounded as a clinician considering the type of clients I see. LPCs in my state can also not bill for Medicaid over age 20, or Medicare--IDK if this is true for every state--so it really limits the type of client you can work with in the first place.

What types of patients are you interested in assessing? For example, if you are interested in memory problems in older adults, you might try to work with someone whose research focuses on assessment of cognitive problems. Assessment is not a static skill set, so it's very important to understand the process of how instruments are developed, validated, and normed, and have the ability to keep up with the emerging science in your area of practice.

 

[bcliff]

I think that if the biggest reason why you are interested in pursuing a PhD is assessment, then you may be hard pressed to secure a position in a PhD program. You may have better luck in a clinical PsyD or school psych program, both of which would allow you to engage in psychological assessment. Why assessment? Are you interested in neuropsychology? How would being able to provide assessment improve your ability to work as a clinician? Why not pursue an MSW, which, to my knowledge, is the most portable/least restrictive of the midlevel mental health practitioner degrees?

 

[Justanothergrad]

I think that if the biggest reason why you are interested in pursuing a PhD is assessment, then you may be hard pressed to secure a position in a PhD program. You may have better luck in a clinical PsyD or school psych program, both of which would allow you to engage in psychological assessment. Why assessment? Are you interested in neuropsychology? How would being able to provide assessment improve your ability to work as a clinician? Why not pursue an MSW, which, to my knowledge, is the most portable/least restrictive of the midlevel mental health practitioner degrees?

Huh?

As someone who studies assessment as a major part of their research line and attends conferences with other grad faculty who do the same, I'm not sure what you mean. Applicants match up all the time to mentors based on instrument interest, assessment of a topic interest, or on a population focused on during assessments.

 

[bcliff]

Maybe should have clarified: I meant interest in clinical assessment without similarly strong or stronger research interests. Wanting to pursue a PhD because of the limitations of the LPC in terms of its clinical purview doesn’t seem like a super strong case to me — That’s why I asked why not an MSW. Interest in researching/studying psychometrics, measure development, test construction, etc. are all obviously a solid match with a clinical PhD, but that wasn’t the vibe I got from the OP.

Maybe throwing school psych in there was a little bit inappropriate? But, at least from my experience, school psychs do tend to do a lot of assessment work, so it wouldn’t be a bad idea to check out some school programs and see if there is a better research match interest wise. Clinical PsyD would allow clinical work with assessment with fewer research demands; not an option I’m very into but an option nonetheless.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Justanothergrad]

Maybe should have clarified: I meant interest in clinical assessment without similarly strong or stronger research interests. Wanting to pursue a PhD because of the limitations of the LPC in terms of its clinical purview doesn’t seem like a super strong case to me — That’s why I asked why not an MSW. Interest in researching/studying psychometrics, measure development, test construction, etc. are all obviously a solid match with a clinical PhD, but that wasn’t the vibe I got from the OP.

Maybe throwing school psych in there was a little bit inappropriate? But, at least from my experience, school psychs do tend to do a lot of assessment work, so it wouldn’t be a bad idea to check out some school programs and see if there is a better research match interest wise. Clinical PsyD would allow clinical work with assessment with fewer research demands; not an option I’m very into but an option nonetheless.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

1. Its not just test construction issues that attracts folks to train with assessment researchers. While that may be a large portion of the research conducted, the impact of working in such a lab is a strong familiarity with the instrument and, thus, a stronger set of skills in its use and interpretation. Imagine someone who wants to study dementia/work with gero populations. If they were to apply to a lab conducting assessment work in that area, that would benefit them greatly in their chosen career path. Thats what I would expect /most/ applicants are like for assessment researchers - attraction based on application of the research rather that the research for the sake of promoting a specific instrument.

2. Good PsyD programs are not going to have less 'research demands'. Crappy programs will - that seems like a bad choice since learning bad practices doesn't make you better.

3. School psych is actually limited in assessment - they do a very select set of assessments and do them repeatedly. If you want to do IQ, ID, LD assessments, sure- thats a good match. More time spent but with less variety.

I don't have any issue with someone applying for PhD programs because their license is limited in the services they want to provide. Seems like a reasoned decision-making process.

 

[bcliff]

I think I’m very much in agreement with you. Assessment is the core of health service psychology, and solid assessment training is essential for ethical clinical practice. Wanting to work clinically in assessment is a great reason to pursue doctoral training, especially when it is accompanied by strong research interests. There is definitely more to assessment training and research than factor analysis and test construction. I also totally agree that research training can improve clinical skills too. Personally, interests in assessment are what drew me to clinical psychology over an MSW or similar degree, so I think we’re on the same page.

My concerns stem from OP having reviewed ~50% (!) of the APA accredited PhD programs in the nation and not having found a solid research match. That leaves me wondering “what” the OP is interested in, and whether PhD training is the best way to get at whatever that is. That paired with OP’s narrative that they want to pursue a research degree (PhD) to expand their clinical purview gives me pause at the appropriateness of a PhD. Expansion of clinical purview (i.e., ability to treat across the lifespan) could likely be acquired by pursuing an MSW.

With regard to PsyD, I think that recommending pursuit of a solid/funded PsyD is also appropriate give OP’s clinical interests in assessment. At its core, PsyD is a practitioner-scholar degree, while PhD is either a scientist-practitioner or clinical scientist degree. By definition, the two degrees place different emphasis on research training. Wanting to work clinically with psychological assessment, a repertoire inaccessible to the mid level provider, with vague/difficult to pair down research interests seems like an appropriate time to recommend solid PsyD training — If not in this instance, then when?

What does OP want to research and why is a PhD absolutely necessary, especially when there are other paths that lead to expansion of clinical purview (i.e., MSW, PsyD). If there are strong research interests (that maybe I’m not picking up on), then PhD sounds great — If not, then it gives *me* pause, but it’s helpful for OP to hear that you disagree. The issue isn’t black and white. I agree with your description of school psychology, and maybe that would be appropriate for OP’s interests, but it’s hard to tell based on the info that’s available right now.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Justanothergrad]

I think I’m very much in agreement with you. Assessment is the core of health service psychology, and solid assessment training is essential for ethical clinical practice. Wanting to work clinically in assessment is a great reason to pursue doctoral training, especially when it is accompanied by strong research interests. There is definitely more to assessment training and research than factor analysis and test construction. I also totally agree that research training can improve clinical skills too. Personally, interests in assessment are what drew me to clinical psychology over an MSW or similar degree, so I think we’re on the same page.

My concerns stem from OP having reviewed ~50% (!) of the APA accredited PhD programs in the nation and not having found a solid research match. That leaves me wondering “what” the OP is interested in, and whether PhD training is the best way to get at whatever that is. That paired with OP’s narrative that they want to pursue a research degree (PhD) to expand their clinical purview gives me pause at the appropriateness of a PhD. Expansion of clinical purview (i.e., ability to treat across the lifespan) could likely be acquired by pursuing an MSW.

With regard to PsyD, I think that recommending pursuit of a solid/funded PsyD is also appropriate give OP’s clinical interests in assessment. At its core, PsyD is a practitioner-scholar degree, while PhD is either a scientist-practitioner or clinical scientist degree. By definition, the two degrees place different emphasis on research training. Wanting to work clinically with psychological assessment, a repertoire inaccessible to the mid level provider, with vague/difficult to pair down research interests seems like an appropriate time to recommend solid PsyD training — If not in this instance, then when?

What does OP want to research and why is a PhD absolutely necessary, especially when there are other paths that lead to expansion of clinical purview (i.e., MSW, PsyD). If there are strong research interests (that maybe I’m not picking up on), then PhD sounds great — If not, then it gives *me* pause, but it’s helpful for OP to hear that you disagree. The issue isn’t black and white. I agree with your description of school psychology, and maybe that would be appropriate for OP’s interests, but it’s hard to tell based on the info that’s available right now.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Yeh, I think we generally agree. However, you keep saying that PsyD equals a non-research degree and this is not true. A PsyD from a reputable school is a research-involved degree and will mirror PhD training. Poorly defined assessment interests (e.g., diagnosis, population, etc.) doesn't make someone more prepared for that search than for anything other. The lack of defined interest in this area speaks to a larger lack of clinical interests. If someone wants to rack up 300k in debt, sure- that's fine. But with for profits, they don't really care if someone has a heart beat, much less a clear emphasis. Applying to a good PsyD with poor research match isn't going to have much better luck.

We're on the same page about those interests not being clearly enough defined. I see a desire to do assessment as a very good reason why someone might want a doctorate in psych. Heck, it's a lot better than "I wanna do therapy". Anyway, gonna stop posting to avoid distracting too much from the thread. I tend to be excitable whenever folks talk about assessment - I have some pretty strong views

 

[bcliff]

My last post on the topic, but here's a breakdown of different degree types by APA:

Doctoral degrees in psychology: How are they different, or not so different?

APA describes the PsyD as most appropriate for those "more interested in providing psychological services than conducting disciplinary research," and the PhD as most appropriate for those "interested in generating new knowledge through scientific research *and/or* gaining teaching experience."

I don't 100% like this dichotomy, but I think it generally meshes with how *I* dichotomize these two degrees. I also know that there are some PsyDs out there who are highly productive faculty at R1 institutions and (unfortunately) also PhDs who haven't read a research article in years. I stand behind my previous posts and also agree with you in the sense that there are many different perspectives out there on this issue -- I think it's great for OP to be exposed to multiple perspectives during their decision making process.

 

[LaceyLPC]

I think I’m very much in agreement with you. Assessment is the core of health service psychology, and solid assessment training is essential for ethical clinical practice. Wanting to work clinically in assessment is a great reason to pursue doctoral training, especially when it is accompanied by strong research interests. There is definitely more to assessment training and research than factor analysis and test construction. I also totally agree that research training can improve clinical skills too. Personally, interests in assessment are what drew me to clinical psychology over an MSW or similar degree, so I think we’re on the same page.

My concerns stem from OP having reviewed ~50% (!) of the APA accredited PhD programs in the nation and not having found a solid research match. That leaves me wondering “what” the OP is interested in, and whether PhD training is the best way to get at whatever that is. That paired with OP’s narrative that they want to pursue a research degree (PhD) to expand their clinical purview gives me pause at the appropriateness of a PhD. Expansion of clinical purview (i.e., ability to treat across the lifespan) could likely be acquired by pursuing an MSW.

With regard to PsyD, I think that recommending pursuit of a solid/funded PsyD is also appropriate give OP’s clinical interests in assessment. At its core, PsyD is a practitioner-scholar degree, while PhD is either a scientist-practitioner or clinical scientist degree. By definition, the two degrees place different emphasis on research training. Wanting to work clinically with psychological assessment, a repertoire inaccessible to the mid level provider, with vague/difficult to pair down research interests seems like an appropriate time to recommend solid PsyD training — If not in this instance, then when?

What does OP want to research and why is a PhD absolutely necessary, especially when there are other paths that lead to expansion of clinical purview (i.e., MSW, PsyD). If there are strong research interests (that maybe I’m not picking up on), then PhD sounds great — If not, then it gives *me* pause, but it’s helpful for OP to hear that you disagree. The issue isn’t black and white. I agree with your description of school psychology, and maybe that would be appropriate for OP’s interests, but it’s hard to tell based on the info that’s available right now.

Thanks for your replies, everyone. With the commenter I quoted, I'll try to expand upon this a bit.

Initially I made this post BECAUSE I wasn't finding an exact research match, and I wanted to know if such a thing needed to exist in the first place, or if it just needed to be in a broader category, like, "Oh, they're interested in geropsychology, and so am I...so that's a good fit." Or did it need to be like, "Yes, I want to do exact brain mapping in geropsychology to study dementia." So I feel like in that regard, I hadn't found anything in 50% of the APA programs that was an exact match.

Secondly, yes, I've very much considered a PsyD--I actually think that'd be a bit more up my alley, because I really, really, really love the clinical side of things; however, the only way I will even do a PhD is if it can be fully funded. I was lucky enough to get ~$70,000 in student loans forgiven (undergrad and grad combined), and having the ability to do assessments is NOT worth $150,000 more dollars to me. I feel like that would be downright stupid. Thus, most PsyD programs are NOT funded (I know Baylor is...?), so I feel as though that only leaves me with PhD options.

Lastly, some of my general interests include personality disorders, suicidology (I did a continuing ed thing through the American Association of Suicidology called psychological autopsies), trauma--I'm especially interested in how trauma can impact someone starting at birth and be long term or cumulative (i.e., preemies who their life is a struggle to live from day one); I also just got certified in EMDR, (which I know you all apparently hate, but it changed my own life, so lets move on...), forensic psychology, etc. I don't have a ton of specific, pinpointed interests, but I do have broad ones.

 

[MCParent]

My last post on the topic, but here's a breakdown of different degree types by APA:

Doctoral degrees in psychology: How are they different, or not so different?

APA describes the PsyD as most appropriate for those "more interested in providing psychological services than conducting disciplinary research," and the PhD as most appropriate for those "interested in generating new knowledge through scientific research *and/or* gaining teaching experience."

I don't 100% like this dichotomy, but I think it generally meshes with how *I* dichotomize these two degrees. I also know that there are some PsyDs out there who are highly productive faculty at R1 institutions and (unfortunately) also PhDs who haven't read a research article in years. I stand behind my previous posts and also agree with you in the sense that there are many different perspectives out there on this issue -- I think it's great for OP to be exposed to multiple perspectives during their decision making process.

I've never seen that page before.

No wonder so many people are misinformed about the field, when the APA site itself has bad info.

Emailing some colleagues at APA about that page now.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I've never seen that page before.

No wonder so many people are misinformed about the field, when the APA site itself has bad info.

Emailing some colleagues at APA about that page now.

Id be glad to be part of that conversation as well. That page is bad and leads to a poor understanding of program differences.

 

[bcliff]

I've never seen that page before.

No wonder so many people are misinformed about the field, when the APA site itself has bad info.

Emailing some colleagues at APA about that page now.

Can you elaborate a little on your concerns? I have a few guesses. Maybe a new thread on key distinctions between degree type/situational appropriateness of one over the other would be helpful?

 

[WisNeuro]

Can you elaborate a little on your concerns? I have a few guesses. Maybe a new thread on key distinctions between degree type/situational appropriateness of one over the other would be helpful?

I assume he is concerned with the false dichotomy. Clinically focused and balanced PhDs are training primarily clinicians. Clinicians who know how research works and how to evaluate research. Which, is an essential part of being a doctoral level provider. The distinction between clinically focused/balanced PhDs and the handful or so reputable PsyDs is minimal, they operate very similarly. There was a distinction maybe 30+ years ago, but it has largely disappeared in actual practice. The real distinction comes between PhDs/Reputable PsyDs and diploma mills.

 

[MCParent]

I assume he is concerned with the false dichotomy. Clinically focused and balanced PhDs are training primarily clinicians. Clinicians who know how research works and how to evaluate research. Which, is an essential part of being a doctoral level provider. The distinction between clinically focused/balanced PhDs and the handful or so reputable PsyDs is minimal, they operate very similarly. There was a distinction maybe 30+ years ago, but it has largely disappeared in actual practice. The real distinction comes between PhDs/Reputable PsyDs and diploma mills.

Yeah pretty much that.

 

[calimich]

I agree that the PsyD -- PhD conversation often revolves around the false dichotomy debate. And while they are not dichotomous, there are important differences that applicants ought consider.

Here are the first sentences from the purpose/mission pages of top clinical psych, counseling psych, and psyd programs. Can you guess which is which?

"The XXXXXXX program in XXXXXX psychology educates psychologists for direct practice in clinical and applied professional setting by providing a solid foundation in clinical practice, grounded in the evolving scientific understanding of mind and behavior."

"The XXXXX program at XXXXX and seeks to understand fully the changing demographics in society, the increasing globalization of the world in which we live, and the need for both relevant research and mental health services to address these societal and global shifts."

"Our mission is to advance knowledge that promotes psychological well-being and reduces the burden of mental illness and problems in living and to develop leading clinical scientists whose skills and knowledge will have a substantial impact on the field of psychology and the lives of those in need."

 

[Sharewithme]

I find it a little surprising that you've made it almost halfway through the country and haven't found any research matches. Are you looking at specific faculty pages? What is your motivation for pursuing a PhD after having already received your LPC. If I were a professor reviewing your application that would be a major question that I would want answered. Since one of the key distinctions between LPC and PhD is training in research/stats, it would likely be key for you to have a clear idea of what types of research you're interested in and how your faculty advisor could help facilitate those interests. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about specific programs/faculty well suited for specific interests.

Just b/c other people's research interests do not match your ("you" in general not "you" specifically) own doesn't mean you're any less of a researcher. It means that really stinks or something's being missed. If something was being missed, not asking/posting wouldn't help matters.