by Cindy Yee-Bradbury, Ph.D., Past-President, Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (APCS)
In 2019, I began to consider priorities that would focus my efforts as the newly-elected president of the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (APCS). One immediate goal was to reduce barriers to a clinical science education, which we began to address with efforts from many Academy members including most notably, Christine Larson. Subsequent conversations with colleagues often brought us back to the conclusion that clinical science was flourishing. Since 2009, PCSAS had accredited 46 clinical science doctoral programs and in 2021, the Academy would be celebrating its 25th anniversary. But there were also nagging concerns in our discussions, often around how well we were preparing our students for current and emerging challenges in research and mental health care and whether we were effectively optimizing integration within clinical science. Recognizing our long track record of achievements, and with an eye toward the long-term viability of our field, the timing seemed optimal for discussions in which members of our training community could collectively consider how best to prepare the next generation of graduate students so as to advance their careers and our discipline.
In discussions with Bob Levenson, then PCSAS Board President, and Alan Kraut, PCSAS Executive Director at the time, they raised the possibility of a clinical science training conference and we began to envision the goals and structure of such a meeting. Alas, our plans were derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and we decided to postpone further planning until we could organize an in-person meeting that would facilitate much-needed dialogue among attendees. Another consideration in postponing the meeting was the many challenges that we all faced in 2020 — a global pandemic, certainly, but also the heart-wrenching events that highlighted persistent inequities and racial injustices. Ultimately, this confluence of factors would inform the priorities and agenda for the meeting.
By 2022, planning for a ‘Summit on Clinical Science Training’ resumed in earnest with the strong support of the APCS Executive Committee. Bob Levenson and APCS President-elect Tom Rodebaugh agreed to serve with me as members of the Organizing Committee. With events of the previous two years fresh in our minds, we aimed for a meeting that would address the future of clinical science training by evaluating how to optimize current training practices while diversifying the voices and perspectives needed to enrich our field. Recognizing that there can be multiple ways to achieve goals for clinical science training, we were cognizant of a need for some consensus while also allowing for healthy debate and divergent goals when considering the various ways students entering our field could be mentored and trained.
The three of us could handle meeting logistics but broader involvement and guidance would be critical given the breadth and diversity of issues that we hoped to discuss during the Summit. With that in mind, we formed a Planning Committee that included representatives from key stakeholder groups: Joanne Davila – The Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS), Catherine Grus – Education Directorate of the American Psychological Association (APA), Ann Kring – Association for Psychological Science (APS), Annette Stanton — Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (COGDOP), and Tim Strauman — Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP). Expert consultation on strategic planning and logistics was provided by Tracey Thomas — LeCroy & Milligan Associates. Financial support was made possible by generous contributions from organizations, departments, programs, and individuals who joined with APCS to co-sponsor the event.1 Most significantly, the School of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Washington University in St Louis provided resources and meeting space at the Eric P. Newman Education Center (EPNEC).
Across different aspects of the meeting, we made the hard decision to contain the size of committees and groups while also ensuring broad representation. To succeed, we knew the Summit would need to serve as a catalyst for new ideas and perspectives, with attendees contributing to discussions during the meeting and then reporting back to their programs and organizations. We also planned to make video recordings of Summit proceedings for broader dissemination. Rather than walk away at the end of the Summit with a clear set of guidelines and prescriptions, we recognized early on that themes and solutions would need to be refined, that discussions would need to continue and deepen, and that ultimately the bulk of the work would need to be accomplished after the meeting was completed.
Participants invited to the Summit included faculty representatives, postdoctoral fellows, and doctoral students from 80 APCS programs, invited speakers, APCS Anti-Racism Task Force members, and representatives from the National Institutes of Health (NIA, NIMH, and OBSSR), other stakeholder organizations (APPIC, APTC, ASPPB, CCTC, and the VA System), and several non-Academy CUDCP programs. Topics to be discussed during the Summit were based on input obtained in advance from participants and organized by the Planning Committee into four overarching themes:
- Equity and justice
- Evidence-based clinical science training
- Strengthening clinical science Integration
- The future of clinical science training
By orienting attendees to each theme with an invited address before breaking into workgroups of 20-25, our goal was to identify key questions, synthesize ideas that emerged from each workgroup’s discussion, and share summaries upon reconvening as a single group.
With past, present, and emerging leaders of clinical science training representing different voices and perspectives at the Summit, we endeavored to realize one common goal – to make clinical science training as strong and relevant as possible for now and into the foreseeable future. During the Summit, we discussed how to train clinical science doctoral students so they would develop the skills and experiences needed to have a significant and positive influence on pressing issues in science, practice, leadership, and policy. At the same time, the Summit was an opportune moment to rethink how clinical science training programs can address issues of structural and systemic racism and foster progress toward greater equity and social justice. The challenges set forth were formidable but we were and remain optimistic that by working together, we have the considerable potential to magnify our impact as we move forward in training the next generation of clinical scientists.
1 PCSAS; APA Board of Educational Affairs; APA Education Directorate; CUDCP; Brown University Clinical Psychology Training Consortium; Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington; Department of Psychology, University of Arizona; Department of Psychology, Florida International University; Department of Psychology, Northwestern University; Department of Psychology, Ohio State University; Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles; Department of Psychology, University of Rochester; Department of Psychology, University of Southern California; Stony Brook University Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Faculty; Stony Brook University College of Arts and Sciences; and anonymous donors.
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).