research

[toby jones]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm currently doing a PhD in analytic philosophy. Philosophy of Psychiatry. I've been contemplating different things I could do once I've finished up. One option would be to stick to philosophy and try and get a post. Another option would be to pick up some more psychology with a view to training as a clinical psychologist and eventually being paid to do the theoretical work I'm doing now. Another option would be to go to medical school and train as a psychiatrist with a view to... eventually being paid to do the theoretical work I'm doing now.

What are the prospects of being paid to do the theoretical work I'm doing now if I train as a psychiatrist?

I'm not interested in running experiments or doing surveys... Literature reviews, sure. But I'm more interested in theory development (the nature of mental disorder, psychiatric nosology, how psychiatry can progress as a science etc).

I know it would be a long time to get to there, but I do enjoy being a student...

I'm just wondering if it would be a waste of time as the funding is in the experimentation rather than the theory.

Thanks.

 

[DebDynamite]

What you will ultimately do depends on a number of real world factors and what you want out of "life experiences" vs. career experience. I received my undergraduate degree in Philosophy and thought a long time about getting a doctorate in Philosophy vs. going to med school. In the end, I'm glad I went to med school over Philosophy, but I would NEVER recommend this in an internet forum without knowing more about your situation. There are lots of factors to consider:

1. Are you independently wealthy? As you know, med school costs on average, are about a gazillion dollars/student. You will put in tons of dough and time just getting the MD.

2. Are you male or female? Philosophy jobs are easier to nail down if you are female (or they were when I was in undergrad).

3. Do you want to treat patients at all? If the answer is no, I would NOT go to med school.

4. How type A are you? How much free time away from your job do you want to have? You need at least SOME type A tendencies to get through med school.

You should also know that you can have an incredibly analytic and philosophical mind and go nuts in med school. It's mostly applied science delivered in a mechanistic way (at least until one begins tweaking with "the art of medicine" as an attending or researcher) for four-seven years. So, you have to accept that and move on. I personally found it refreshing after swimming in the world of philosophical jargon in undergrad.

Your work sounds really interesting. If you do go to med school, I think it will only enrich your capacities to armchair Psychiatry & Psychology. good luck in your decision.

 

[LM02]

Deb has already provided lots of good points and food for thought, so I thought I'd add few points from the PhD psychology perspective.

1. What would be the motivation to pursue a second doctorate in psychology? Why not just load up on some classes at your current institution, to provide you with the knowledge base you would need to extend your current work in philosophy? Such classes could also expose you to psychology faculty collaborators.

2. If you decide to pursue a PhD in psychology, one thing to remember is that it is a social science. And with that, the research that's involved is quite different than your work in philosophy. Even the more theoretical work is strongly grounded in experimental method and advanced statistical theory.

3. Consistent with the above, in order to be competitive to enter a PhD program, you will need to gain experience in psychological research. I think that this is especially true for someone pursuing a second doctorate. The faculty will want to see that you are serious about it, and that you know what you're getting into. Depending upon how long it takes you to complete your doctorate (my husband is in the humanities, so I am all too familiar with the ABD trap), the faculty may also be hesitant to accept a student in your shoes.

4. Like the previous poster mentioned, you should also ask yourself whether you want to see patients. Doctoral training in clinical psychology is largely made up of research and clinical work (therapy & assessment training), with classes coming in last in terms of priority. So if you are more interested in the theory, it might not be for you.

 

[Chewbacca Jung]

My final year-ish of undergrad, as I was applying to medical school, I took a medical anthropology class and quickly became enamored with the subject. As the momentum of 3 years of preparation propelled me towards medical school, I paused to consider changing course towards grad-school. For various reasons I stayed the course, but decided to incorporate my new anthropological interests into my medical training. I have done some reading, and even a little research on the side—looking into major paradigms that affect medicine, culture of medicine, and other topics. I have actually found a lot of support for my ideas both at home and even on the interview trail—I even puplished a short piece. Some other interests coincide with some items mentioned—nosology, nature of mental illness…

At any rate, I think there is plenty of room for epistemological reconciliation in medicine (including psychiatry). It seems like it’s a hodgepodge of factoids conglomerated into one massive blob of medical mayhem. And, if we don’t starting thinking about how we go about our business, I think economic factors will gain momentum (as it seems the default external validation tool—is it cost effective?) in deciding patient care outcomes, as opposed to well-thought-out and scientifically validated methods of thinking (of which I don’t really know of many in medicine—other than the new EBM –Evidence Based Medicine- craze—which is once again tempered by the ‘cost-effective’ knife).

In short, I am very interested in the theoretical. But, my medical education has giving me a very practical application for those abstract concepts. (Although, I’ll probably need some further education somewhere along the lines to further develop those abstract concepts.)

Anyway, I would say to consider medicine, your philosophical services are required.

(Though do beware, much of medicine can seem a little rote and mundane to those who seek for the socio-cultural and philosophic. And, the workload can be daunting. I think, as others mentioned, you have to have a keen desire for patient interaction-- and I would add, a slightly stoic nature, to pull yourself through medical school and beyond).

 

[toby jones]

Thanks for the responses. I have enrolled in (and also audited) a number of psychology classes. I suppose I would have to go back and actually take the ones I've audited for credit in order to have the equivalent of a major. I am interested in research but I suppose the million dollar question for me is 'is theory development considered research or it is just experimentation that is considered research?' For example, I'm writing a PhD thesis now which involves a literature review but it also involves my making reccomendations as to where to from here. Can I do a PhD in psychology in the same vein or would I be expected to actually run an experiment or two? Similarly for psychiatry, I suppose. I guess I would be looking at going through to PhD and writing a thesis.

I honestly have no idea how I would find medical school. I have talked to several people about it and most of them have said that I've done things backwards. But then their situation was to do medical school first and then to do a PhD in philosophy. They said they became tired of the routine and they wanted the mental stimulation. I think I would miss the mental stimulation but I'm not sure whether it would be manageable or not. I'm also not sure I have the temperament for medicine. I do think that there is probably only one way to find out, however. I suppose ideally it would be nice to see patients one or two days and maybe teach one or two days and research the rest. Some blend would probably be ideal. Though maybe I'd just want to do theory. But whether they would fund theory without experiments.

I don't at all have an aversion to reading about experiments that other people have done. I am interested in making sense of how the facts relate, however. I do want to help people. I think that the biggest contribution that I could make would be theory based, however. I guess this is partly a function of the current state of the job market. I'm sure I don't have to tell you guys that there is one hell of a lot more money in health research than there is in philosophy research. It can be extremely hard to get a research post within philosophy because there aren't very many places so it is very competitive. I know medicine is competitive too but there is still one hell of a lot more money for research.

 

[50960]

Toby...where do you live??

 

[toby jones]

I could tell you but then I wouldn't be anonymous anymore...

 

[50960]

I meant....what country??

 

[LM02]

For example, I'm writing a PhD thesis now which involves a literature review but it also involves my making reccomendations as to where to from here. Can I do a PhD in psychology in the same vein or would I be expected to actually run an experiment or two?

The short answer is that you cannot write a theoretical review paper for a PhD in psychology. Your dissertation will need to be experimentally-based, requiring you to run a controlled experiment of some sort. In our field - again, a social science - a theory is something that needs to be operationalized in such a way that it can be empirically examined.

I have heard of PsyD candidates who write some kind of review paper for their dissertation, but these degrees are even more applied...

 

[toby jones]

I don't mean a theory review paper... I mean you need to review current theories in order to understand their virtues (the data they can explain) and their vices (the data they can't explain and / or internal inconsistencies). Sometimes you can make some progress by altering the theory so it is internally consistent or so that it better accounts for the data. Other times you need to suggest something novel, however. In order for the revision (or introduction of a new theory) to not to be merely ad hoc you want to be able to derive differences in predictions from the different theories. I have no problem with the notion that different theories should make different predictions and (hopefully) there shold be a way of testing the prediction. I have no problem with pointing out that theory A predicts X and theory B predicts not X. The problem I have is that I don't want to run the experiment to see whether X or not X is true. Though it would be truely wonderful if someone else wanted to.

Maybe this means...

I am a philosopher.

The theory development also comes into play with respect to questions like these:

How should we conceive of mental disorder?
Do neurological explanations trump sociological explanations?
What is the purpose of nosology?
How can the study of psychopathology progress as a science with respect to which research methods and fields of study are relevant?
How do we integrate the findings of different fields (e.g., biological and sociological explanation) etc.

It is a kind of sense making exercise... So there is some purpose and direction about where we are headed.

There are psychologists and psychiatrists and the like who do engage in theory. It isn't like there isn't a whole heap of research out there on these topics already. My bug, however, is that I don't want to be in a lab running experiments. Seems that there really isn't any such thing as a PhD in theoretical psychology unless it is in the philosophy department. I was wondering if psychiatry might be the same...

 

[toby jones]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'd prefer not to say.

 

[LM02]

I don't mean a theory review paper... I mean you need to review current theories in order to understand their virtues (the data they can explain) and their vices (the data they can't explain and / or internal inconsistencies). Sometimes you can make some progress by altering the theory so it is internally consistent or so that it better accounts for the data. Other times you need to suggest something novel, however. In order for the revision (or introduction of a new theory) to not to be merely ad hoc you want to be able to derive differences in predictions from the different theories. I have no problem with the notion that different theories should make different predictions and (hopefully) there shold be a way of testing the prediction. I have no problem with pointing out that theory A predicts X and theory B predicts not X. The problem I have is that I don't want to run the experiment to see whether X or not X is true. Though it would be truely wonderful if someone else wanted to.

Maybe this means...

I am a philosopher.

The theory development also comes into play with respect to questions like these:

How should we conceive of mental disorder?
Do neurological explanations trump sociological explanations?
What is the purpose of nosology?
How can the study of psychopathology progress as a science with respect to which research methods and fields of study are relevant?
How do we integrate the findings of different fields (e.g., biological and sociological explanation) etc.

It is a kind of sense making exercise... So there is some purpose and direction about where we are headed.

I get it, but at the same time, the mindset of our two fields is completely different. Our research is incremental - even a new "theory" (really, a hypothesis) is based upon existing empirical research - not just another theoretical idea. Small studies beget larger studies - but all of these studies are empirical and lab-based.

People do put out "position papers" of sorts, but these are new models that integrate existing data and make recommendations for future research studies.

Basically, this says it all:

My bug, however, is that I don't want to be in a lab running experiments.

If that is the case, a PhD in psychology is most definitely not for you.

As for psychiatry, I'll let the psychiatrists answer... but I think you've already answered your original question. You are a philosopher. 🙂

 

[toby jones]

Do you know if people get research funding (in the forms of grants or something like that) to write position papers? Sounds like that is what I am thinking of... Being associated with a lab and being associated with a particular research program in a lab is fine.

I guess there are a couple of things. The first is that I have never worked in a lab before. If I try it I might end up actually liking it. The second is that sometimes you have to jump through hoops in order to do what you want to do. Working in labs for a time might be one of those hoops. The third is the aspect of patients / clients. I could end up really enjoying working with them. I guess that working with people was one of the things that I thought I would enjoy. If the trade-off is a little lab work then maybe that isn't so bad.

 

[DebDynamite]

Hi Toby.
From reading your posts, my intuition says you would be really dissatisfied with the med school experience. It's really about massive memorization in a quasi-military environment. There isn't any decent time for reflection and looking deeply into the nature of things. It's APPLIED science, at a massively rapid pace. I think you would get frustrated. Just my opinion. And, while your colleagues will floor you with their abilities- generally (99% of the time) this will not be in the world of concepts. It will be in how well they memorize 8 semesters worth of science in four months, while still working out and smiling and partying on the weekends. The environment is really different from the world of PhD. I'll just come out and say it- I think you would be intellectually starved. Don't get me wrong, med students are very bright indeed. The priorities of the programs are just different. This is by and large reflected in the students and their dispositions. In order to get through the program, you will have to live in the medschool universe for a number of years; I suggest you test drive before purchase.

 

[LM02]

Do you know if people get research funding (in the forms of grants or something like that) to write position papers?

No - research funding is to conduct research studies. Also, the people who write these position papers are typically senior investigators, who integrate their prior research with that of their colleagues in an effort to set an agenda for the field. By definition, this requires that you have an established program of research from which you can make these recommendations in a credible way.

I guess there are a couple of things. The first is that I have never worked in a lab before. If I try it I might end up actually liking it. The second is that sometimes you have to jump through hoops in order to do what you want to do. Working in labs for a time might be one of those hoops.

Research is at the heart of a PhD in psychology - if you see it as "jumping through a hoop," I think that you're going to be very dissatisfied. And you will most likely not complete the diss if your heart is not in the research. It's tough enough when you have the passion and drive.

You may find that you like research, as well as the patient contact. However, I would recommend that you seek out some volunteer experience in these areas prior to pursuing anything seriously. That will give you the exposure to determine whether it is something you would like to continue. Also, without prior experience, you will essentially be non-competitive for admission to a PhD program.

 

[toby jones]

Thanks guys. I know I enjoy the accumulation of facts. I very much enjoyed undergraduate psychology which consisted mostly in memorising facts and figuring out the odd logical implication. I had a really close group of friends who I used to study with and we were highly motivated and very competitive. In fact I kind of miss those days...

One thing that might be an option for me with respect to medicine is that my institution is considering offering a graduate entry MD concurrently with PhD in whatever field you are doing. I might be able to switch into that and do both part time which would give me the best of both worlds.

With respect to pscyhology:

>the people who write these position papers are typically senior investigators, who integrate their prior research with that of their colleagues in an effort to set an agenda for the field. By definition, this requires that you have an established program of research from which you can make these recommendations in a credible way.

It seems to me that an outsider could familiarise themselves with the research of the lab (or the established program of research) by reading publications in order to have the relevant background in order to engage with a position paper, or even to construct a position paper of ones own.

I suppose I was wondering if labs hired people for that kind of work. Perhaps this is a rather revolutionary idea? Might come down to who you know and whether they can trust you to be sympathetic to their research project rather than attempting to undermine it...

 

[DebDynamite]

Thanks guys. I know I enjoy the accumulation of facts. I very much enjoyed undergraduate psychology which consisted mostly in memorising facts and figuring out the odd logical implication. I had a really close group of friends who I used to study with and we were highly motivated and very competitive. In fact I kind of miss those days...

If this is the case, you might find that you enjoy med school and thrive on it (Albeit in a somewhat sick way. It's stressful to memorize volumes on end and then prove your worth with 40-80 picayune multiple choice questions). As far as the real meat of the allopathic experience goes, however
(the clinical years and beyond), I can't speak to how you would feel about that. You should check out these message boards and speak to as many people as possible.

One thing that might be an option for me with respect to medicine is that my institution is considering offering a graduate entry MD concurrently with PhD in whatever field you are doing. I might be able to switch into that and do both part time which would give me the best of both worlds.

You may also decide, of course, that your focus changes and the dual program suits your needs nicely. But you would have to shift your research more so to the world of empiricism to get the funding, I do believe.

 

[tr]

It seems to me that an outsider could familiarise themselves with the research of the lab (or the established program of research) by reading publications in order to have the relevant background in order to engage with a position paper, or even to construct a position paper of ones own.

I suppose I was wondering if labs hired people for that kind of work.

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is "not really". Usually the people doing the research are also the same people thinking about the theoretical implications (or not thinking about them, as the case may be). If you came up to the head of an experimental lab and said you wanted to be hired to do his brain-work for him, my guess is he'd probably be quite offended.

The first thing about theory is that in many fields (including mind/brain research) it requires, as you note, a base of experimental evidence on which to build. The people who best understand the experiments are the ones who do them; and thus they are also the people in the best position to do the theoretical analysis (should they so choose). Someone who wished only to analyze experiments but not to do them would probably be at a significant disadvantage.

The second thing about grand theoretical work is that lots of people want to do it. That means that (as you know) you'll get paid very little and will have a great deal of competition. You won't change the market forces by putting more letters after your name.

Another option would be to pick up some more psychology with a view to training as a clinical psychologist and eventually being paid to do the theoretical work I'm doing now. Another option would be to go to medical school and train as a psychiatrist with a view to... eventually being paid to do the theoretical work I'm doing now.

What are the prospects of being paid to do the theoretical work I'm doing now if I train as a psychiatrist?

You already have (or are obtaining) the appropriate degree to do theoretical work. Unfortunately this work is competitive to achieve and not well compensated. That's the nature of the job. If you retrain as an experimentalist or clinician, yes there will be more funding - but that is because there is more funding for experiments and for clinical work than there is for theoretical work (due to the market forces previously noted). If you want to change to do experiments or clinical work, by all means retrain. If the purpose of your retraining is to continue to do theory, I'd suggest that that will be an extremely expensive and not particularly effective method of achieving what you want.

What you will be able to do with a clinical degree is to spend part of your time doing clinical work (for which you will be well compensated) and spend your free time doing the theoretical stuff that excites you. I submit that this is not a bad compromise, and furthermore that direct contact with the nature of clinical psychology or psychiatry will probably both ground your research and offer you new insights and directions. Other than that it is not so very different from the sort of "day job/dream job" arrangement that so many waiter/actors, lawyer/novelists, and web designer/painters have come to as the only way both to eat and to dream.

 

[DebDynamite]

You won't change the market forces by putting more letters after your name.

Keep this in mind, it's the bottom line.