What counts as research experience?

[micka]

I've been reading some threads, but am looking for ideas of what can be argued as research experience when applying to a PhD Program.

Ive been working full-time at a Youth Shelter for a year and a half, as well as at an adult shelter for 6 months. I also had a 6 month internship at a girls home in the past. While these would typically be thought of as work/clinical experience, is there a way to apply these as research experience?

Does research experience only count when it is under the direction of a Professor?
Does there have to be some kind of study that I am involved in?
Can I create my own study while at work and use this on my application as research experience?

I have no legitimate research experience otherwise. I am planning to do some research under a professor from my old school, but considering the semester is underway, and applications are due in the fall, it is unlikely I will be able to get any significant time in before applications are up. I have a great GPA, and the work experience, good Letters of Rec, and I will do very well on the GRE. Unless I can somehow use my current experience as research, I have little to offer. What can be done?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Sorry, can't count those, althought that does sound like good clinical experience for the undergrad years. Research experience is anything where you are participating in the gathering/collecting, entering, analyzing, or writing-up of data for research purposes. Optimally, this begins with doing grunt work under a professor in a university setting/lab such as entering data so you can learn statistical analysis software and how to code various data variables. Further down the line your role can become more involved, such as helping the professor conduct literature reviews, score questionnaires or assessments, etc. Many of those who are serious about research and/or applying to ph.d programs in psychology choose to complete an independent research study (AKA undergrad thesis) during their Senior year where they are responsible for all the elements of a study (usually pretty small scale though) under the guidance of a professor. If you're not working in conjunction with a doctoral-level researcher of some type, I'm not sure how you would really learn anything or know if you were doing quality work. And of course, ethically, if you are doing anything with humans or animals, it needs to be approved by a formal IRB oversight committe (for which you need a faculty or academic sponsor and guide).

I would advise exploring your options and getting involved as much as you can in the time remaining. If your department can't offer much, look for opps outside your school by checking with local hospitals (preferably academically affiliated medical centers) or research institutions. Research experience is the heavist weighted factor in phd admissions after passing the GPA and GRE cutoffs. Its not really worth it to aplly if you dont have any.

 

[livetosail]

Research experience is the heavist weighted factor in phd admissions after passing the GPA and GRE cutoffs. Its not really worth it to aplly if you dont have any.

This is perhaps the most depressing, but accurate statement I have seen in a while. I was in the same exact shoes a few years ago. I had graduated from a school that had decided not to allow research on campus (big controversy from a few years earlier, was a knee-jerk reaction to pull the plug on all research... to my detriment). So, I had everything else in order, but no published research.

It set me back four years.

Don't give up though. The best thing you can do is find a professor or psych that is willing to work with you. They do exist, but the search can be a difficult one.

Good luck.

 

[micka]

Thanks, I will get on this tomorrow.

 

[micka]

I guess the follow up question to this would be; since I am not going to have a strong amount of research experience, does clinical experience help to lessen the impact of not having much research oriented training?

Otherwise, what the hell good is all this clinical experience? I thought I was busting my butt at $15/hr for some kind of investment.

 

[robinsena]

Sorry to say this, but probably not for PhD programs with a scientist-practitioner orientation, and definitely not for one with a clinical scientist orientation. Clinical work can be impressive but you need to demonstrate that you have an interest in research. Having a strong clinical experience though would probably help you more should you decide to pursue a PsyD.

I would not see this as a setback. Since it seems like you have not had the research experience most PhD programs look for, maybe it's good to find out now you need to get that experience so you know whether or not you would be happy spending at least 4 years in a PhD program doing research on top of getting clinical training. Lots of PsyD students are happy in their program because they don't want to be so involved with research, so until you've been a RA, you probably don't know what you preference is until you have tried both research and clinical work.

I guess the follow up question to this would be; since I am not going to have a strong amount of research experience, does clinical experience help to lessen the impact of not having much research oriented training?

Otherwise, what the hell good is all this clinical experience? I thought I was busting my butt at $15/hr for some kind of investment.

 

[Jezebel09]

I guess the follow up question to this would be; since I am not going to have a strong amount of research experience, does clinical experience help to lessen the impact of not having much research oriented training?

Otherwise, what the hell good is all this clinical experience? I thought I was busting my butt at $15/hr for some kind of investment.

For most balanced PhD programs, an applicant with clinical experience ON TOP of research experience will have an edge, so please don't see all of your efforts as worthless. You just need to get some research experience.

However, there are a few PhD programs out there that are more clinical in nature. You may just want to start looking at programs that interest you to see how heavily they rate research in the admission process.

Do you enjoy the clinical end of things? How important is doing research to you? (Both PsyD and PhD students have to do research, but usually PhD students do much more.) Are you sure the PhD route is the right one for you? Are you interested in counseling psychology, clinical psychology, or another area? These are just questions you should ask yourself.

I did not major in psychology in undergrad. I decided to get a master's in counseling psychology before applying to PhD programs. It helped me to strengthen my research skills. (Having said that, this is usually more the route taken by counseling psychology versus clinical psychology students. Most clinical psychology programs accept straight out of undergrad.)

Good luck!!

 

[chasingadream]

I cannot stress how important research experience is for most clinical programs. I had a TERRIBLE GPA (because of a personal trauma) but because I had extensive research experience undergrad and after school I got plenty of interviews and accepted into one of my top choice programs.

Like robinsena said, don't view this as a set back. Most programs look for applicants with at least 2 years postbac research experience and I think generally only one undergrad is accepted per class. Those undergrads are ususally stellar candidates with an impressive honors thesis. In my experience, it helped me really be sure that this is the career for me and helped me narrow down my focus. Having the time to narrow down your focus also helps you have that illusive "match" with faculty. When you know exactly what you want and the reserach skills to back it up you are almost garunteed to get into a program that you will be happy in.

A little more unsoliceted advice for anyone in your position:

1) Look for jobs at major academic institutions. When you are applying be sure to ask what the opportunities for publications and doing your own research posters are. Even if you can't find a position like that for pay- do clinical work and volunteer. You will likely not be able to do this work during your 9-5 but stay late and do the work. I cannot tell you how valuable having publications and having presented posters at national meetings was for me (or how many late hours I put in to get them).

2) When you get there- Be your own advocate! Nobody is going to walk up to you and ask you if you want to write a paper. You have to go to your boss and tell them your ideas. Volunteer for everyhting and ask to go to every meeting. If you show people that you want this and you are willing to do the work then they will want you to succeed and do anyhting to help you.

3) Seek out mentors, especially if you are female. Put yourself out there and meet other psychologists. You'll find they have been through this process and are eager to help. You'll probably also find you've madse some great firends along the way.

Good Luck to all!

 

[summerssun]

3) Seek out mentors, especially if you are female. Put yourself out there and meet other psychologists. You'll find they have been through this process and are eager to help. You'll probably also find you've madse some great firends along the way.

Good Luck to all!

Why "especially if you are female"? Am I missing something here?

 

[chasingadream]

Why "especially if you are female"? Am I missing something here?

Because, as much as I wish it was not the case, there still exists a glass ceiling for women in academia. Yes, most psych students are female but most tenured professors are male so finding a strong female mentor is essential.

 

[erg923]

The clinical experience before grad school is alot more beneficial to you, personally (ie., seeing if its the right field for you, learning how to be comforrable with and interact with those with mental ilness, etc) than it is for the program or admissions. Its not gonna get you in.

 

[livetosail]

I couldn't agree more with chasingadream (except for the female thing- but that's another topic). This is excellent advice.

Personally, my clinical experience, which was very strong, didn't overcome the fact that I did not have decent research experience, and the admissions committee was more than happy to let me know it.

 

[micka]

After reading a lot of these posts and some introspection I am realizing that a research oriented background is not my strength because I do have no interest in research. This being said, I suppose a PsyD program is the most appealing option. Looks like to get into a top school I will have to move out of California to do this though.

I will still take the advice of others here and get some research experience. I am also going to try and work with a former professor to write a paper about the demographic we work with at my facility. Though it may not be legitimate research experience, maybe it will help come app time, especially if I attempt to apply to some california PhD schools.

Thanks

 

[Schooled]

I will still take the advice of others here and get some research experience. I am also going to try and work with a former professor to write a paper about the demographic we work with at my facility. Though it may not be legitimate research experience, maybe it will help come app time, especially if I attempt to apply to some california PhD schools.

Thanks

As an undergrad, the most noteworthy research experience will be an undergrad thesis. If it's something LIKE an undergrad thesis then it is worth mentioning.

To reiterate what others have said, you experiences are not lost! Depending on your GPA/GRE, you might be competitive for a MA/MSW programs. Even if your goal is a PhD, consider a masters in psych or social work. Both programs will give you field experiece AND a healthy dose of research experience. In my opinion, there's not an easier way to get comparable clinical and research experience.

What also counts is how you articulate and interpret "research experience." When they ask about your research experience, they want to know what you've learned about the process and not so much how fancy it was. They want to know what you learned about the process. Talk about how your proposal was initially rejected by the IRB and how much you learned about navigating that process. Talk about how relationships with subjects, secretaries, directors, nurses, doctors, etc were all really important and how you went about that. I'm telling you this so that when you look for research experience, make sure you are going to get be in the process and not pipetting and spinning stuff around in a centerfurge all day.

 

[erg923]

After reading a lot of these posts and some introspection I am realizing that a research oriented background is not my strength because I do have no interest in research. This being said, I suppose a PsyD program is the most appealing option. Looks like to get into a top school I will have to move out of California to do this though.

I will still take the advice of others here and get some research experience. I am also going to try and work with a former professor to write a paper about the demographic we work with at my facility. Though it may not be legitimate research experience, maybe it will help come app time, especially if I attempt to apply to some california PhD schools.

Thanks

Having little interest in research is really incompatable with being a doctoral-level psychologist (ph.ds or psy.d), as you will be expected to produce some research (and write a dissertation) even in psy.d programs. If you dont, your just that much less competitive for interships, because you are competing with ph.ds who do. Having little interest in understanding and exploring the fundamental underpinnings of a construct or behavior through emprical investigation is really antithetical to entire field of psychology. This is the root of psychology and what seperates you from a social worker or masters level mental health provider.

 

[micka]

I respectfully disagree. Although it seems all programs want some kind of research background, I feel I would be a superior clinician regardless.

My interest is helping people, one on one, in therapy.

 

[lamorena]

i think what erg is trying to say is that research is an important part of the field, regardless if you go phd or psyd route. all psychologists need to be consumers of research. we need to know the new developments in our fields, the newly EBTs, etc. psychology is a science, and there is always going to be a need for us to be informed of what is happening and changing so we can evolve even as clinicians as the field itself evolves.

additionally, programs require dissertations. even if you aren't a big fan of participating in the research process yourself, the dissertation process is a way to learn more about a field of interest, and to begin to carve a niche for yourself. it is a very exciting process (at least i think so!) and i am looking forward to it 🙂

also, there are top psyd programs in areas other than california. and many of the top psyd programs want to see that applicants have some research experience. maybe not quite as much as phd programs, but experience nonetheless. in fact, i have applied to some very clinically focused psyd programs and have learned that even at those schools research experience is a major plus and gives you an edge over other applicants.

i myself am interested in attending a psyd program.

good luck! keep reading and investigating and you will find what is right for you 🙂

 

[micka]

Thanks, you too.

 

[erg923]

I never said anything about being a bad "clinician" cause one can't design a study or factor analyze data. You can be bang up "clinician" and not know much about research (i know alot of great MFTs and MSWs), but IMHO, a psychologist who cant do research (or isn't even interested in such questions) is not a good "psychologist." They aren't a psychologist in the true sense of the word. As much as people don't seem to conceptualize psychologists as scientists, that IS what you are.

Again, you could be a fantastic clinician, but "clinician" is a broad term and can apply to masters level providers such as MFTs, LCSWs, etc. My point was to differentiate this profession from those masters level professions. Psychologists broad training in the underlying science of psychology/behvaior and how to empirically study that behavior is what separates the 2. What exactly do you disagree with here? If you are choosing ph.d program, you kinda have to buy into the scientist-practioner model/definition of what a psychologist is and how it makes you different from these other professions.

I guess i was just further caught off guard because you mentioned wanting to go Berkley or UCLA and the like. These are "clinical scientist" model programs and are as research intensive/focused as the come (trust me, i go to one of these). These program are NOT in the business of producing "therapists."

 

[robinsena]

It is not a matter of elitism, but I do think all psychologists (even those who want to be "clinicians") need to have some respect and knowledge for scientific research and inquiry.

When I went into graduate school I thought that as long as I know the techniques I would be a good clinician. Actually the statement micka made is pretty accurate of my attitude when I started grad school. Since then, I've learned that becoming involved in research and science, understanding the theory behind interventions and how we may 'tweak' specific interventions through research has been invaluable to me in becoming a even better clinician.

One doesn't really need to worship at the altar of research to be a good psychologist - but it is my personal opinion that at the very least responsible clinicians are ones that keep up to date with the latest scientific advances in psychotherapy so they have even more effective skills in their arsenal. It's not so much about allegiance to different theoretical orientations but more of an attitude of constant learning, inquiry, and experimentation. Dynamic versus static.

 

[Schooled]

I respectfully disagree. Although it seems all programs want some kind of research background, I feel I would be a superior clinician regardless.

My interest is helping people, one on one, in therapy.

Superior clinicians are, at the very least, research literate. They are critical consumers of research. How can you know what is good research without knowing something about it? Indeed, even masters level therapists have a masters thesis or project to give them a basic orientation to what research entails.

Also, in my opinion, assessment and intervention with clients are really n=1 experiments. If you don't have ways to measure success, how do you know if your therapy is effective? Constant evaluation of your own effectiveness is integral to being superior ...and you'll need research methods to do that. Most residential facilities and hospitals have a behavioral level system for this reason.

To be sure there are clincians that don't do this, however, without evaluation of their program, their effectiveness, and client's progress, I wouldn't call them superior.

 

[Aura5]

Superior clinicians are, at the very least, research literate. They are critical consumers of research. How can you know what is good research without knowing something about it? Indeed, even masters level therapists have a masters thesis or project to give them a basic orientation to what research entails.

Also, in my opinion, assessment and intervention with clients are really n=1 experiments. If you don't have ways to measure success, how do you know if your therapy is effective? Constant evaluation of your own effectiveness is integral to being superior ...and you'll need research methods to do that. Most residential facilities and hospitals have a behavioral level system for this reason.

To be sure there are clincians that don't do this, however, without evaluation of their program, their effectiveness, and client's progress, I wouldn't call them superior.

I like the way you explain it. The only real way to know if something is effective or not is to keep some sort of track of outcomes, etc. And at the end of the day, research methods are the most drilled down specific ways of doing so to ensure validity and reliability and all. But the point of all that research is to ensure the best outcomes for treatment, and accurate assessment of conditions and their causes (which of course, is necessary to understand so as to know how to treat and heal ). At least from where I sit that's how it makes sense, having no research experience yet. It's the bigger picture, not about number crunching and experiment design or whatever, even if some enjoy that part. To me those are just are essential parts to get accurate results that will help understand/treat which is the main point. There needs to be evidence and substantiated knowledge to produce the material and information needed to understand and treat effectively.

 

[whypsy]

Back to the original post, if you're applying for a clinical or counseling PhD program, the schools is going to want to see a demonstrated interested in research. Your experience that you describe as many have noted is more clinical than research.

For it to qualify as research, it should be a study run ideally by a professor. Sometimes if you contribute enough, you can be allowed to help with presentation at a conference or even get your name on it if you're lucky.

To make your clinical experience into a research one, I would try to track down a professor at your local university and try to talk to them about it, see if they have the time and energy. Doing research on your own is possible, but very tricky due to ethical and legal issues especially since it's a youth shelter- meaning underage and potentially vulnerable population. You would really want a professor to help you in all of this.

But it sounds like a situation where you just can't get the research in. Really prepare for your interviews. Be ready to address why you have a lack of research (don't say "I didn't know"), let them know that you're interested in research (if you want to get into a scientist practitioner program), and subjects that you want to research. Also it's important to note what the professors are researching and see if they have any interests that align with yours.

Try to be as honest as possible. Don't completely tank yourself, but don't outright lie either. Because if they accept you on the basis of a lie (i.e. That you want to work on that professor's research but in reality you hate that field of research) you and the school will be very disappointed in each other.

 

[Nihl]

If you are looking for research positions I highly recommend looking into career sites based at academic hospitals. Once you find the institution there is usually a fount of positions that are suitable. Similarly, there are volunteer opportunities at research hospitals that can get your name on publications if you are motivated and ask the right questions to find a position/opportunity you are looking for.

This can help you get you foot in the door. From there you can find relationships with universities and other private owned facilities. Once you know where to look, there is no end to the amount of research jobs available. Personally I have worked at one teaching hospital, and a hospital attached to a large liberal arts college. If you live in New York or Philadelphia I can point you to some useful sites and institutions. I have more research experience than I know what to do with...

 

[micka]

I think I had a misunderstanding of what 'research' entails. I do agree on the importance of continuously learning new methods and analyzing those that are ineffective, culturally insensitive, or biased. Typically when I think of research, the things that come to mind are professors interested in aspects of the 'Stroop Test', or Facial recognition in mice... It seems like my school always had little to offer, and to this day, research options are limited.

I will check out some academic/research hospitals for volunteer options. It doesn't have to be through my old school. I can hook up with professors from other schools, and will try.

As far as research experience at work, as I am involved with writing grants and speaking on behalf of the shelter, part of my job does involve researching demographics of clients. Things in the nature of race, diagnoses, age, family background, and interventions used are typical of the research I do there. I am not sure if it is useful, as my boss is an MSW, albeit a decorated one of 41 years. Our counselor is an MFT-I, though very effective. I want to write a paper on demographics and how we can better serve those underrepresented groups in our community. I am not sure if this is something that would beef up my application.

As many here have said, it seems that if it is not supported by a Professor, or at least someone who would be considered my peer as a PhD, it is not going to hold much weight. Is this true? I personally think it should count as research experience, but honestly feel the argument would be regarded as weak in the faces of my interviewers.

 

[erg923]

Well, yes, it counts a research experience. However, although you might be learning a great deal about culture/race and its relation to mental illness (or whatever it is), I would venture to guess that you're not learning all that much about the nature of experimental design, methodology, and statistical procedures/analysis within this particular environment. The actual topic of ones research at this stage is relatively unimportant (at least to an admissions committee). What is important is what kind of research skills you are gaining from the experience. Programs want to know that you have been exposed to it and that you have learned something substantial about the nature of empirical research. One of the resasons why research involvement is so important for admissions to ph.d programs (and why its important to have a couple different experiences in different labs) is that is demonstrates a track record of being involved and dedicated to it. Thats what they want to see.

Now, for the average Psy.d program, a couple more experiences similar to what you are currently doing would probably suffice. Its for ph.d programs that I would recommend something more substantial (and def under the mentorship of doctoral-level researcher).