Question about research

[JosephScotLacek]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

What's the deal with research?
I know how important it is, but does that necessarily mean I have to be dragged into it to practice as a clinician? That doesn't seem very fair. Call me naive, but what does my participation in research have to do with diagnostics and remedy?

Thank you for any replies, I'm a bit distraught on the issue.

 

[ClinicalTrainee]

As a clinician, how are you to know what treatments work and which ones don't? And for whom? In terms of diagnosis....diagnoses aren't categories carved by nature, they are (somewhat) arbitrary decisions made by people, theoretically based on research (though it's questionable how much research goes into diagnosis). Remember that research in psychology is about answering questions about human behavior. This includes human behavior for those suffering, and behavior of both therapists and clients during a therapy session. Without research, those who want to help others would be merely using intuition or following in the ways of other "wise" people in the field, without knowing if those methods are at all worth using.

Don't get me wrong, there are problems with research and how it is used, but research should inform clinical practice, just as clinical practice should guide the questions researchers aim to answer.

Your participation in research is required so you know how those who choose to make research their primary task operate. There are a variety of research designs and statistics available, and a practicing clinician should know, when reading a book or a research article, how to identify the limitations of the research. Because all research has flaws or questions that cannot be addressed in a single study. Participation is one of the best ways to get a good understanding of how difficult research can be, as well as what a particular study can and cannot answer.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

As a clinician, how are you to know what treatments work and which ones don't? And for whom?

practice. also, you mostly need to do research because it is expected you will contribute to the field at least in your understanding of the concepts of psychology; that is best done by trying some yourself (at least a dissy).

 

[2012PhD]

What's the deal with research?
I know how important it is, but does that necessarily mean I have to be dragged into it to practice as a clinician? That doesn't seem very fair. Call me naive, but what does my participation in research have to do with diagnostics and remedy?

Thank you for any replies, I'm a bit distraught on the issue.

If you aren't interested in research, then i would advise against a PsyD or PhD in clinical psychology. You can become a clinician through other routes: MSW, MFT, etc. I am not sure if you are in a doctoral program or considering one.

 

[JosephScotLacek]

As a clinician, how are you to know what treatments work and which ones don't? And for whom? In terms of diagnosis....diagnoses aren't categories carved by nature, they are (somewhat) arbitrary decisions made by people, theoretically based on research (though it's questionable how much research goes into diagnosis). Remember that research in psychology is about answering questions about human behavior. This includes human behavior for those suffering, and behavior of both therapists and clients during a therapy session. Without research, those who want to help others would be merely using intuition or following in the ways of other "wise" people in the field, without knowing if those methods are at all worth using.

Don't get me wrong, there are problems with research and how it is used, but research should inform clinical practice, just as clinical practice should guide the questions researchers aim to answer.

Your participation in research is required so you know how those who choose to make research their primary task operate. There are a variety of research designs and statistics available, and a practicing clinician should know, when reading a book or a research article, how to identify the limitations of the research. Because all research has flaws or questions that cannot be addressed in a single study. Participation is one of the best ways to get a good understanding of how difficult research can be, as well as what a particular study can and cannot answer.

Thank you for taking the time to write that response, beautiful. 🙂
I understand, but is it really necessary to base my entry into a program simply on the premise of my 'research'. I have very little interest in research (white lab coats, etc..) but I have no problem contributing clinical knowledge to further advance the science of Psychology!

2012PhD, I think you're right. The issue I have though, is that to obtain certain jobs, I need a certain title or qualification... which makes sense, but in that same sense; it flat out sucks.

As much as I hate to say it, what are the views on Psychiatry? I feel like all the medical schooling is worth it in comparison to Psychology... There's a stability in medicine that I see lacks in Psychology, and it's a damn shame. Must be the Pharma funding...

Thanks again for the feed back.

 

[2012PhD]

2012PhD, I think you're right. The issue I have though, is that to obtain certain jobs, I need a certain title or qualification... which makes sense, but in that same sense; it flat out sucks.

As much as I hate to say it, what are the views on Psychiatry? I feel like all the medical schooling is worth it in comparison to Psychology... There's a stability in medicine that I see lacks in Psychology, and it's a damn shame. Must be the Pharma funding...

Thanks again for the feed back.

I personally think that it would suck even more to get through a PhD or PsyD if you are so disinterested in research. I enjoy research, and my dissertation took at least 3 years and was rather painful, at times. I can't imagine working on a dissertation without any interest in research. Sounds like a poor fit.

There is constant debate about psychiatry vs. psychology. In a nutshell, the length and intensity of training is the same (8 years post-college for both). The focus is completely different. From an economic perspective, psychiatrists earn 2-3 times more than clinical psychologists on average. The demand for psychiatrists is significantly higher and the career prospects are excellent. You can be a mediocre psychiatrist and still enjoy a high salary and have good job prospects. However, you can't be a mediocre psychologist and do well from what i've seen.

 

[JosephScotLacek]

My hopes on how to make myself useful in this world are waning... Maybe I can go sell plastic dog poop from hong kong... call myself successful..

2012, it's a shame that when it comes down to it, money is the great motivator... but what are we to do about that? I guess it has its purpose though, it helps weed out some of the worst kinds of people from psychology, the money monger.

Thanks for the insight.

-Joe

 

[PsychPhDone]

Thank you for taking the time to write that response, beautiful. 🙂
I understand, but is it really necessary to base my entry into a program simply on the premise of my 'research'. I have very little interest in research (white lab coats, etc..) but I have no problem contributing clinical knowledge to further advance the science of Psychology!

What has your exposure to research been so far?

 

[erg923]

I think the simplest explanation you will find is that "thinking like a scientist,"(eg., skepticism, critical analysis and thinking, hypothesis testing, keeping Occam's razor in mind, and a good understanding of behavior base-rates, probabilities and statistics) is essential if one wants to be a competent psychologist and diagnostician. Immersing oneself in the research world (at least for several years during grad school) is really the only way to acquire these skills.

I think the "white lab-coat" comment shows that you probably dont have very much exposure to the research most academic psychologist do. Not all psychologists run rats, and the ones that do seldom where white coats anymore. The 1950's have long past...🙂

 

[cara susanna]

There's a thread in the Psychiatry forum about Clinical Psych vs Psychiatry that I think you'll find helpful.

And yeah, research is definitely not what you described. I wish I got a white coat!

 

[futureapppsy2]

There's a thread in the Psychiatry forum about Clinical Psych vs Psychiatry that I think you'll find helpful.

And yeah, research is definitely not what you described. I wish I got a white coat!

I didn't even get a white coat when I worked in a biomedical lab! 🙁

Like others have said, doing research is the best way to train yourself to understand research (both strong and weak points in studies) and to feel comfortable with scientific literature. Plus, you gain a lot of knowledge of psychology through the research process, as iterature searches, background sections, methodological designs, discussion sections, and even writing up results sections will all force you become very familiar with one or more specific bodies of research/literature.

 

[ygritte]

practice. also, you mostly need to do research because it is expected you will contribute to the field at least in your understanding of the concepts of psychology; that is best done by trying some yourself (at least a dissy).

Practice? Seriously? Should every clinician out there have to reinvent the wheel?

 

[erg923]

Um, yes, Seriously. See my explanation above.

 

[ygritte]

"As a clinician, how are you to know what treatments work and which ones don't? And for whom?" " "practice. also, you mostly need to do research because it is expected you will contribute to the field at least in your understanding of the concepts of psychology; that is best done by trying some yourself (at least a dissy)." My response was in regard to figuring out which treatments work for whom. I think reading the literature and not just "practicing" would be the answer here. I am a clinical Ph.D. student involved in three different studies, so Erg, you're preachin' to the choir.