by Annette Stanton, Ph.D., Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (COGDOP)
When I was invited to join the planning committee for the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science Summit on Clinical Science Training as a representative from the Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (COGDOP), I readily accepted. My doctoral training was in clinical psychology, and I have the honor of chairing the Department of Psychology at UCLA, which is home to a highly respected psychological clinical science program. Certainly, some of the conference themes were specific to graduate programs of psychological clinical science. Here, I would like to highlight three themes that are more general across graduate programs in psychology, with the goal of encouraging student and faculty leaders in psychological clinical science programs to work within and across their departments to advance the science and application of psychology for the benefit of human welfare.
The promotion of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) was an overarching theme of the conference, ably addressed in talks by Joanne Davila, Jaisal Merchant, and Stacy Frazier. One of their central points was that, rather than JEDI being adjacent to psychological clinical science, complete integration of the two should occur. For example, consideration of race/ethnicity and systemic injustice should not be relegated to one course or portion of a course in the graduate curriculum, but instead should be integrated throughout clinical science courses. In many departments of psychology across the nation, active conversations are taking place regarding the most effective ways to foster JEDI and adopt anti-racist principles and actions. Such discussions are not without disagreement, as department members strive to find common ground. With translational and applied research to enhance well-being and reduce the burden of mental health difficulties being integral to their missions, faculty and graduate students in psychological clinical science programs have the opportunity to lead the way in their departments to promote the human values of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.
With the recent erosion of public trust in science, disseminating meaningful psychological science and implementing evidence-supported programs in local communities grow ever more important. For example, created and run entirely by our department’s graduate students at UCLA, Psychology in Action (https://www.psychologyinaction.org/) brings psychological research to the community. Our Department of Psychology also has a UCLA Psychology Presents live webinar series, which attracts as many as 800 viewers per episode, to disseminate department members’ research findings on present-day issues. Conveying psychological science to the public and demonstrating its value are crucial. In addition, as emphasized by Teresa Treat and others at the Summit, enhanced focus on dissemination and implementation science is vital to reducing the burden of psychological difficulties and promoting well-being.
Any department chair must consider the distribution of resources among various departmental priorities. Although not a focus of attention in the Summit, clinical graduate programs can be expensive relative to other areas of graduate study in psychology departments. Within-department training clinics rarely generate funds commensurate with their expenses, and the costs associated with accreditation by the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS), the American Psychological Association Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA), or both, are considerable. In years past, science-centered clinical programs might have required fewer high-tech resources than did other departmental areas, but that no longer seems true today, in that highly specialized and often expensive techniques are in demand across most substantive areas in psychology departments. In addition, graduate students in psychology today are more financially strapped than in the past, in part owing to the scarcity of federal funds for clinical programs (see Gee et al., 2022, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, for additional stressors reported by graduate students in research-intensive clinical programs). Directors of clinical training may find themselves increasingly called to persuade their department chairs and deans of their program’s value as well as to curtail costs. There are strong grounds for the argument that psychological clinical science programs have great value, and one option for cost-savings might be to join with other programs in training activities, especially with the enhanced Zoom capability and familiarity that COVID has brought us. Programs are accustomed to competing for the top applicants in the nation, but not so familiar with collaborating across programs. Although logistics would require attention, forging partnerships with other programs to offer particular courses, colloquium series, and more could both cut costs and enhance graduate education. Developing collaborations among programs has the added benefit of promoting a science of training. As Levenson (2017, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology) pointed out, little is known about the effectiveness of particular approaches to training (e.g., single-mentor vs dual-mentor model, requirement of broad and general coursework in psychology). Collection of data across programs could generate important findings on specific approaches.
As a department chair, I left the Summit feeling both daunted by and optimistic about the weighty tasks ahead for psychological clinical science in particular and psychological science in general. Additional work is needed to identify top priorities and develop action steps. I learned from and generated ideas for my department through attending the Summit. If nothing else, I hope my comments have motivated you to view the Summit’s recorded talks and summaries of the many breakout sessions, which you can do here: https://www.acadpsychclinicalscience.org/summitproceedings.html
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS).