Questions for PhDs and PsyDs

[Ortwein]

---

Members don't see this ad.

PhD's

In general terms, how are lengthy research projects conducted? What kinds of things do you research? How do you go about conducting research? Are you reading the latest publications? Are you conducting experiments? All of this and more?

Also, as the father of 2 children, I'm concerned about the number of hours I will be spending away from my family. My wife's dad earned his PhD in physics when she was 10 and was basically absent for 5 years. Should I be worried?

PsyD's

How have you dealt with the massive burden of debt accrued in your education. Loan calculators paint a very dismal prospect. As a single-income school teacher, I know all about tight budgets and I want out! Even if I was really lucky and managed to find a job in the mid 40's, I might end up in worse shape than I currently am. Moreover, getting into the university programs that actually offer assistance seems like a long shot.

Also, I've heard that the National Health Service Corp will cancel up to $25,000 of loan debt per year for those willing to practice in "under served" areas. Any comments about this?

Thanks for your patience,

Mark

 

[JatPenn]

PhD's

In general terms, how are lengthy research projects conducted? What kinds of things do you research? How do you go about conducting research? Are you reading the latest publications? Are you conducting experiments? All of this and more?

Also, as the father of 2 children, I'm concerned about the number of hours I will be spending away from my family. My wife's dad earned his PhD in physics when she was 10 and was basically absent for 5 years. Should I be worried?

PsyD's

How have you dealt with the massive burden of debt accrued in your education. Loan calculators paint a very dismal prospect. As a single-income school teacher, I know all about tight budgets and I want out! Even if I was really lucky and managed to find a job in the mid 40's, I might end up in worse shape than I currently am. Moreover, getting into the university programs that actually offer assistance seems like a long shot.

Also, I've heard that the National Health Service Corp will cancel up to $25,000 of loan debt per year for those willing to practice in "under served" areas. Any comments about this?

Thanks for your patience,

Mark

Wow, those are some broad questions. In terms of the first section you have, how data is collected varies by lab, of course, there is a LOT of different kinds of research going on, from long-sclae longitudinal treatment studies to psychophysiology. The answer to all of your remaining PhD questions in that first paragraph is of course a resounding YES.

To the second half, you can certainly complete a PhD program and have a life, it is all about good time management. Approach it as you would any job, where you allow set times to work and set times to be with your family, and you will be set.

I can't speak to the PsyD.

 

[Psyclops]

PhD's

In general terms, how are lengthy research projects conducted? What kinds of things do you research? How do you go about conducting research? Are you reading the latest publications? Are you conducting experiments? All of this and more?


Also, I've heard that the National Health Service Corp will cancel up to $25,000 of loan debt per year for those willing to practice in "under served" areas. Any comments about this?

The length of research projects doesn't have a good answer, some are long (years) some are short (months). Some of this depends on the type of research some depens on the individual project. Usually, in my experience, labs have a couple of big projects going on, and a couple of littler ones on the side. Also the big projects often have spin offs or smaller analyses along the way.

The conduction gets done in various ways as well. Labs usually have agendas, which are refered to as the "research program" of the lab, which generally are focused in one particular area (e.g., depression, process, personality disorders, dbt), and the might have 2-3 years mapped out at any given time. But these are not set in stone, many times the findings of the lab, and the field in general will push or pull it into different directions. Also, the lab composition and its members interests will detirmeine where it goes and what it does.

Much of ths work involves reading and discussing the latest publications, or really just the literature in general, often times it is useful to check back to previous paradigms (e.g., self-esteem).

Yes ideally you would be conducting experiments, and testing theories. All of that and more.

I have heard about loan forgiveness.

 

[PsychEval]

Loan Repayment:

http://www.lrp.nih.gov/

http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/

http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/loans.cfm

 

[Ortwein]

Wow, those are some broad questions. In terms of the first section you have, how data is collected varies by lab, of course, there is a LOT of different kinds of research going on, from long-sclae longitudinal treatment studies to psychophysiology. The answer to all of your remaining PhD questions in that first paragraph is of course a resounding YES.

Sorry about the broadness of my questions...I'm just trying to get a mental picture of what it is like. I'm still in the planning/preperation stage and am very curious. Perhaps someone might outline a hypothetical research project--how it progresses and so forth.

To the second half, you can certainly complete a PhD program and have a life, it is all about good time management. Approach it as you would any job, where you allow set times to work and set times to be with your family, and you will be set.

That's very good to hear! Is this the way most people approach it?

 

[Ortwein]

Loan Repayment:

http://www.lrp.nih.gov/

http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/

http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/loans.cfm

Did you use any of these programs? Do a high percentage of qualifiying applicants get loan repayment?

 

[Psyclops]

Sorry about the broadness of my questions...I'm just trying to get a mental picture of what it is like. I'm still in the planning/preperation stage and am very curious. Perhaps someone might outline a hypothetical research project--how it progresses and so forth.

No reason to applogize, it's just a hard question to answer with any certainty. Reserch programs are evolving and continuous. I can give you how a project would go from start to finish, using something like a thesis for example.

1) Assuming you know what area, you would begin with a literature review, finding out what questions are out there that need to be answered, or looked at more closely. Tis can take a couple of months given that it wouldn't be all that you are doing, but as time goes on new projects flow from old ones.

2) When you have decided upon a idea, you then need to operationalize it. That means you would have to decide how you are going to actaully answer the question you intend to ask. So physically, pragmatically how are you going to do it. Are there measures out there that will speak to the nature of the construct you are trying to measure? Are ther other things it should correlate highly or lowly with. What kinds of questions are going to be given, what are participants going to actually have to do that will yield an answer or evidence pro or con your hypothesis. This can involve more litereaturereview depending on how often similar questions ahve been answered. This phase culminates in a design and proposal of the study, leaving you ready to go out and do it.

3) Data collection. Now you will actually do the project you proposed. You have subjects come in and participate in the experiement for example. This may involve recruitment and retention practices, it involves managing the data collected and insuring safety and confidentiality. It also involves keepiong on top of things so if it seems like things are going wrong you might have to make a game time decision to change things up. During this process you will be entering data, or you might do so after you have colleceted all of it. I must add here that the running of subjects and the data entry is often done by an undergrad or hired RA, or yourself depending on the nature of the study.

4)NOw you analyze the data, you perform whatever sort of tests, statistical or othrwise that you might need.

5)Now you interpret the results, what do they mean in light of current knowledge and theory, and what are the implications. YOu finish this up by writing it up and hopefully sharing the results at conference or in a journal.

The time of this cn vary wildly depending on if you are seeking gov. grants, or if you already have everything in place an djsut are asking an extension of anothr question, etc.

 

[Ortwein]

No reason to applogize, it's just a hard question to answer with any certainty. Reserch programs are evolving and continuous. I can give you how a project would go from start to finish, using something like a thesis for example.

1) Assuming you know what area, you would begin with a literature review, finding out what questions are out there that need to be answered, or looked at more closely. Tis can take a couple of months given that it wouldn't be all that you are doing, but as time goes on new projects flow from old ones.

2) When you have decided upon a idea, you then need to operationalize it. That means you would have to decide how you are going to actaully answer the question you intend to ask. So physically, pragmatically how are you going to do it. Are there measures out there that will speak to the nature of the construct you are trying to measure? Are ther other things it should correlate highly or lowly with. What kinds of questions are going to be given, what are participants going to actually have to do that will yield an answer or evidence pro or con your hypothesis. This can involve more litereaturereview depending on how often similar questions ahve been answered. This phase culminates in a design and proposal of the study, leaving you ready to go out and do it.

3) Data collection. Now you will actually do the project you proposed. You have subjects come in and participate in the experiement for example. This may involve recruitment and retention practices, it involves managing the data collected and insuring safety and confidentiality. It also involves keepiong on top of things so if it seems like things are going wrong you might have to make a game time decision to change things up. During this process you will be entering data, or you might do so after you have colleceted all of it. I must add here that the running of subjects and the data entry is often done by an undergrad or hired RA, or yourself depending on the nature of the study.

4)NOw you analyze the data, you perform whatever sort of tests, statistical or othrwise that you might need.

5)Now you interpret the results, what do they mean in light of current knowledge and theory, and what are the implications. YOu finish this up by writing it up and hopefully sharing the results at conference or in a journal.

The time of this cn vary wildly depending on if you are seeking gov. grants, or if you already have everything in place an djsut are asking an extension of anothr question, etc.

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

Another question....

Do undergraduate psychology majors receive very much training in research or is it something learned in graduate school?

 

[mmcarson]

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

Another question....

Do undergraduate psychology majors receive very much training in research or is it something learned in graduate school?

It depends on the university. All psych majors complete at least one research methods course. At bigger universities psych majors can join a lab as a research assistant and complete an honors thesis or work on multiple projects. At many smaller colleges, professors are not always engaged in research and so there is less opportunity for experience, but undergrads can look to other opportunities in the community (e.g. hospitals) for other research opportunities. In short, much of the research training acquired by undergrads is self-initiated.

 

[Psyclops]

Also, many undergrad curricula only require one course in reserach methods, even if many more are offered. Most undergrads seem to see this as a necessary evil on the way towards getting the degree. But in reality it is the basis of the whole science, making it a shame that they don't push it more at the undergrad level. It is kind of like the vegetables of psychology, everyone knows it's good for them to learn it, and mature people like thier taste, but many have a hard time aqcuiring the taste.

 

[Ortwein]

PsyDs

How have you dealt with the massive burden of debt accrued in your education. Loan calculators paint a very dismal prospect. As a single-income school teacher, I know all about tight budgets and I want out! Even if I was really lucky and managed to find a job in the mid 40's, I might end up in worse shape than I currently am. Moreover, getting into the university programs that actually offer assistance seems like a long shot.

Seriously...how did you do it?

 

[Forensic M.S.]

Also, many undergrad curricula only require one course in reserach methods, even if many more are offered. Most undergrads seem to see this as a necessary evil on the way towards getting the degree. But in reality it is the basis of the whole science, making it a shame that they don't push it more at the undergrad level. It is kind of like the vegetables of psychology, everyone knows it's good for them to learn it, and mature people like thier taste, but many have a hard time aqcuiring the taste.

And with good reason, because psychology is not difinitively a science nor do people have to conduct research to be both knowledgable and successful in the field. As long as you can understand the research and its contributions, I see no problem with never having to take a research class ever again. I feel that they pressed research on people too much where i went and that those who got a BA instead of a BS) which was like 90 percent of undergrads are looked down upon. That is one of the main reasons I am glad to go to a clinically oriented program in the fall. i felt the undergraduate experience was near useless except for the research class (which actually does help a lot to understand psych and statistics) and allows you to be able to do research, practice or both. My favorite class was history and systems and psychology and to me was the most important as it shows all views of the field and where it came from. It also made me quite mature and learn that science isn't the end all be all of the entire universe.

 

[Psyclops]

And with good reason, because psychology is not difinitively a science nor do people have to conduct research to be both knowledgable and successful in the field. As long as you can understand the research and its contributions, I see no problem with never having to take a research class ever again. I feel that they pressed research on people too much where i went and that those who got a BA instead of a BS) which was like 90 percent of undergrads are looked down upon. That is one of the main reasons I am glad to go to a clinically oriented program in the fall. i felt the undergraduate experience was near useless except for the research class (which actually does help a lot to understand psych and statistics) and allows you to be able to do research, practice or both. My favorite class was history and systems and psychology and to me was the most important as it shows all views of the field and where it came from. It also made me quite mature and learn that science isn't the end all be all of the entire universe.

Just for the sake of argument I will treat this as coherent. But to review, they pushed research too hard, but it was the only useful class? Bastards, making you learn like that. But sounds like you did a magnificent job of resisting their brainwashing. So this hystory and systems class, or was it the "psychology" class, made you "quite mature"? And that is how you realized that science isn't the end all be all of the entire universe?

It's hard to argue with a statement like science insn't the end all be all of the entire universe, but I will tell you it is of the part of the universe the human race deals with. You do not know one famous name in the field of psychology/iatry that has not been a scientist. I'm not asking you I'm telling you. Even Freud's Interpretation of Dreams begins with a review of the scientific literature up until the time he wrote it, he based his theories on the scientific evidence of the time, as do modern theorists.

If you can understand research and all of its contributions based on an undergradaute course in methods and statistics, my hat is off to you my firend. I find, that like most topics, the more I learn about psychology the more I realize how little I know, and how little is known.

But you say it's not a science? What then is it? I will agree it has roots in philosophy, but so does physics. Please enlighten me, tell me about the maturity you gained in the "systems and psychology" course.

 

[JatPenn]

You're killing me, Forensic. We are working harder and harder to include empirical guidelines to everything we do as psychologists -- from basic research, to applied treatment research, to assessment protocols, to treatment itself. This is all in an effort to establish Psychology as a true science and to gain proper credibility, among other things.

But, apparently psychology is not a science but some sort of overblown hobby. This is news to me, though, so I am quitting my program and joining corporate america.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

You're killing me, Forensic. We are working harder and harder to include empirical guidelines to everything we do as psychologists -- from basic research, to applied treatment research, to assessment protocols, to treatment itself. This is all in an effort to establish Psychology as a true science and to gain proper credibility, among other things.

But, apparently psychology is not a science but some sort of overblown hobby. This is news to me, though, so I am quitting my program and joining corporate america.

Not it is a philosophy. The only type of psych even near pure science was behaviorism. You can tag along with those trying to get credibility to establish it as a science. It will never happen and is literally impossible. Using the scientific method and applying it to the study of the mind is not science. This debate is impossible to either win or lose obviously (look at the mind body problem).

 

[Forensic M.S.]

Just for the sake of argument I will treat this as coherent. But to review, they pushed research too hard, but it was the only useful class? Bastards, making you learn like that. But sounds like you did a magnificent job of resisting their brainwashing. So this hystory and systems class, or was it the "psychology" class, made you "quite mature"? And that is how you realized that science isn't the end all be all of the entire universe?

It's hard to argue with a statement like science insn't the end all be all of the entire universe, but I will tell you it is of the part of the universe the human race deals with. You do not know one famous name in the field of psychology/iatry that has not been a scientist. I'm not asking you I'm telling you. Even Freud's Interpretation of Dreams begins with a review of the scientific literature up until the time he wrote it, he based his theories on the scientific evidence of the time, as do modern theorists.

If you can understand research and all of its contributions based on an undergradaute course in methods and statistics, my hat is off to you my firend. I find, that like most topics, the more I learn about psychology the more I realize how little I know, and how little is known.

But you say it's not a science? What then is it? I will agree it has roots in philosophy, but so does physics. Please enlighten me, tell me about the maturity you gained in the "systems and psychology" course.

It's a philosophy that people try and push off as a science imo. Physics is a science when applied in a materialistic perspective, otherwise it is purely a philosophy. Psychology can be a science if and only if it's purely behavioral and leaves out personality theory, cognition, and takes a purely mechanistic approach (and we all knew how that turned out). Therefore I am going to have to say that psych is a philosophy. Yes, research is important, yes it was the only useful class *at that point*. That is why I am glad to be going to grad school, to learn things used in real life and think for myself instead of reading it out of a book and being forced to conform to narrrow ways of thinking. (debate that all you want, it's pretty obvious). My post was coherent, if you were able to reply you took something out of it.

Also, I would have to say most people in personality psychology, psychotherapists and humanistic theorists are not true scientists, so go ahead and keep thinking that the field is the Manifesto of Clinical Psych of Science. It isnt, despite what the APA tries to impose.

As for the maturity I gained, I don't limit or ridicule alternate modes of thinking or alternate paths to learning like you and many others on this board clearly do. Also not all scientists, like you said, are like that. However, it's pretty damn clear that most of the people who post here are close-minded to one model of epistemology.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

Criticisms of psychology

Although modern mainstream psychology largely attempts to be a scientific endeavor, the field has a history of controversy. Some criticisms of psychology have been made on ethical and philosophical grounds. Some have argued that by subjecting the human mind to experimentation and statistical study, psychologists objectify persons; because it treats human beings as things, as objects that can be examined by experiment, psychology is sometimes portrayed as dehumanizing, ignoring or downplaying what is most essential about being human.

Another common criticism of psychology concerns its fuzziness as a science. Since some areas of psychological research rely on "soft" methods such as surveys and questionnaires, some have said, those areas of psychology are not as scientific as they claim to be. Furthermore, methods such as introspection and so-called expert analysis are commonplace, methods which reek of subjectivity and rely on speculation have caused many to dispute whether psychology should even be classified as a science, since objectivity is the number one rule for any true science.

Many believe that the mind is not amenable to quantitative scientific research, and as support for their criticism cite the vast theoretical diversity of psychology, a discipline which agrees on very little about how the mind works.

One approach calling itself critical psychology takes almost an opposite approach. Rather than scientific validity being the standard against which psychology research should be judged, critical psychology uses philosophical, analytical, political, economic and social theories such as Marxism, constructionism, discourse analysis and qualitative approaches to criticize mainstream psychology, claiming among other things that it serves as a bulwark of an unjust or unsatisfying status quo when it should, instead, use its methods and knowledge base to critique and change societal norms.

Another criticism levelled at psychology and cognitive science is that the philosophical underpinnings of research are flawed. See Functionalism (psychology) for more.

 

[Forensic M.S.]

You are an idiot.

And you are mature. Oh wait nevermind, you are a narcissistic dickhead with insecurities. Go jump off a bridge already.

 

[Psyclops]

I can't help myself FMS. You support your arguement against psychology being a science, and that it shouldn't be, by citing others who complain that it isn't?

And for the reccord, I agree that psychology has a large philosophical component, which I like, but that isn't mutually exclusive with science. But both are mutually exclusive with mush-headed viewpoints.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Oh man... this looks like a fun thread

Well Forensic, I'm going to tell you straight up that I have enjoyed and sypathized with some of your recent posts and opinions. However, I think what you're trying to push here is bordering a bit too close to "Tom Cruise talk" for my likings.

Science:
"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

Using the above definition, I think we could say that Psychology is often scientific. I don't think you need to observe tangible or materialistic events/objects for it to be scientific. Some might say that "science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't", and that we don't know anything for certain in the field of psychology, so we cannot call it science. I would disagree by saying that there are many "real world" observations that we have mistakenly made using the scientific method and things that we do not know for certain, but have a good enough guess to assume it true.

Here's a quote by Locke that I love:

"If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things; we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he, who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly."

Admittedly, there are many philosophical aspects to psychology, but I don't think they will remain as such forever and there is no reason to call the mind/brain distinction a "problem" just because we can't easily observe the inner workings of the brain in real time and at the magnitude that we would like. There has been some exiting research that appears to be unravelling this mystery little by little, using what we know about the brain's physiology, and how it interacts with the world. I don't really think it is so much a problem anymore. It just requires a lot of neurobiological understanding to grasp the complexity.

Bottom line: Psychology uses science and philosophy and there ain't nothin wrong with neither.

2 cents 😎

 

[Psyclops]

Great post (IMO) Brad. I've taken your $.02 and put them in the bank.

I see the science and philosophy of psychology as inextricable. Much like the mind and body. Just because it is difficult to conceive of, does NOT mean we should shy away from it.