By Margo Menkes, M.S., University of Michigan
I interviewed our department’s two newest faculty members about their perspectives on clinical science training, the transition from trainee to early faculty, and more. I have highlighted key points from these interviews to provide current trainees with advice, insight into this career transition period, and considerations for our work as clinical scientists.
Dr. Rodriguez-Seijas (CRS) received his PhD in clinical psychology from Stony Brook University in 2019 followed by a predoctoral internship and a postdoctoral fellowship at Brown University. He teaches an assessment course and an introductory psychotherapy course at the graduate level, and a course on special topics related to LGBTQ+ individuals’ mental health at the undergraduate level. He oversees students’ first psychoeducational assessments in our clinical science program and also works with our program to ensure that all graduates from our clinical science PhD program have strong training in evidence-based psychotherapy with LGBTQ+ populations.
Dr. Richmond-Rakerd (LRR) completed her PhD in clinical psychology with a minor in quantitative methods at the University of Missouri. This program has a strong research focus in substance use disorders, and she received training in epidemiologic and behavioral-genetic approaches to studying these disorders. She then completed a postdoc at Duke University, supported by a fellowship through the Carolina Consortium on Human Development, where she deepened the life-course focus of her research and broadened her work to include outcomes such as antisocial and self-harming behavior. She also incorporated nationwide-register study designs into her work through collaborations with researchers in New Zealand and Denmark using their population registers. Her work is interdisciplinary in that it connects with public health, genetics, and developmental science.
Both began as faculty at the University of Michigan in Fall 2020.
What are the primary questions or aims that guide your research?
CRS: Right now, most of the projects in the lab are broadly related to understanding how context impacts the expression, assessment, classification, and experience of psychopathology among minoritized—mainly LGBTQ+—populations. A broad topic that we are trying to understand currently are the factors associated with elevated borderline personality disorder diagnosis among LGBTQ+ populations: from healthcare provider bias to the philosophy of the disorder.
LRR: I study emotional and behavioral dysregulation across the life course. My projects are united by a common aim to build knowledge about the origins, mechanisms, and outcomes of self-regulation difficulties, including disinhibitory disorders (substance use disorders and antisocial behavior), suicide and self-harm, and related mental health conditions. Research on self-regulation problems has largely focused on young people, but our population is growing older and living longer with age-related diseases, which are tied to emotional and behavioral factors. I have therefore extended my program of research across the lifespan to also investigate self-regulation as a contributor to physical health and processes of aging. I tackle questions about emotional and behavioral dysregulation using as many different methods as I can, with a particular emphasis on genetically-informative, longitudinal, and nationwide administrative-register study designs.
What were the most important or helpful aspects of your graduate and/or postdoctoral training to prepare you for your current work?
CRS: The biggest impacts were from the many mentors I have had throughout my training. From my primary mentor at SBU, Nicholas R. Eaton, to other unofficial mentors like Marv Goldfried and John Pachankis, to my internship and postdoctoral mentor Mark Zimmerman. Apart from strong research training, many of my mentors are also committed to thinking about how our research practically impacts the clinical sphere. Being pushed to think beyond the prototypical Discussion section sentence of “this research has important clinical implications” to thinking through exactly what those implications are in the real-world clinical setting has greatly impacted my approach to research, teaching, and clinical practice.
How does your clinical science training manifest in your current work or future plans for your work?
CRS: The focus of the clinical science model is on rigorous research as the cornerstone of clinical work. Indeed, I’ve benefited from training rigorously focused on methodological and statistical approaches to psychopathology research. However, I actually believe that the training that has been most impactful in my way of thinking through clinical phenomena has been rooted in more feminist and intersectional psychological approaches. Unlike the clinical science approach, these outlooks place a lot more emphasis on issues of power and privilege, and these are fundamental determinants of health, in my opinion, when considering the mental health of minoritized populations. I am currently trying to develop greater knowledge within these domains. I think the clinical science philosophy can benefit from better embracing these more constructivist modes of understanding and researching the world.
Have any aspects of your current job surprised you?
CRS: Apart from the jump in the sheer number of emails that I actually have to respond to, I feel like I got a really good idea of what was expected of me here at the University of Michigan. This might be idiosyncratic to the University of Michigan but I’ve had tremendous support from a monthly launch committee my first year as Assistant Professor to a continued mentoring committee. So, I’ve had counsel from mentors here that has really helped with the transition to faculty life. I would recommend all institutions invest in that sort of formal mentorship for their faculty!
LRR: One thing that crept up on me was the need to be very intentional about protecting time for research and academic writing. This wasn’t entirely a surprise, as it’s something colleagues and mentors had made me aware of. But it wasn’t until I was in the second year of my faculty position that this became a challenge that I had to navigate. I have started scheduling in writing time every day of the week, and treating this time the same way as I would a class or a meeting with a student. I don’t reschedule writing time, or book other things into writing time. This helps me feel that I’m giving attention to important projects and moving my research forward, even when I’m very busy and other responsibilities are pulling at me.
How do you manage your work and interests outside of work?
LRR: I find that making time for my life outside of lab helps me stay energized in lab, and helps me be a better researcher, teacher, and mentor. So, I try to remind myself regularly of the importance of this balance. When my work schedule gets very busy, I become more intentional about this; for instance, I schedule in time for hikes with my dog, puzzles, and leisure reading, and I make specific plans with my partner and friends. Making time for outside activities and interests is something I have had to continue to work on. I felt that I had developed a pretty sustainable routine as a graduate student and postdoc, but I needed to refocus on this area when I started my faculty position and encountered a new set of demands on my time.
Do you have any thoughts about what could be improved in clinical science training?
CRS: I think that the goals of the clinical science approach to training and research are amiable. However, I think that the clinical science approach does a very poor job of considering context, diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice issues.
Let me clarify: I believe that there are many persons aligned with the clinical science approach who think and care about these issues.
But the epistemology of the clinical science approach is one that treats such issues as secondary and assumes that “scientific rigor” will solve all our problems, while simultaneously failing to consider how the metrics that we use to define “rigor” are imperfect and reify various facets of injustice. I’ve been working with colleagues on an article that goes into greater detail with specific reference to the clinical science approach and antiracism that we hope will lead to some changes within our field. However, if the initial racist review of the manuscript is any guide, we might need to temper our hopes.
LRR: Clinical science is a “hub science”: research in clinical science intersects with research in many other disciplines and areas, such as public health, psychiatry, neuroscience, behavioral genetics, criminology, developmental psychology, and health psychology (to name a few). The research landscape is increasingly characterized by team science, and I believe that it is important for students to acquire the skills necessary to work effectively within interdisciplinary teams. Many clinical science programs have a strong interdisciplinary focus, but I think that we could continue to deepen and expand these aspects of our training. For instance, depending on students’ training needs and goals, it may be appropriate to identify co-mentors from other departments and pursue outside-area coursework and workshops. Clinical science faculty can incorporate interdisciplinary perspectives and methods into graduate courses, and mentors engaged in collaborative and cross-area work can involve their students in the research and expose them to the strategies and approaches necessary to facilitate such collaborations.
Do you have any additional thoughts you’d like to share?
LRR: I think it’s important to emphasize that we need mentorship at all stages of our training and careers. The need for a mentor is clear in graduate and postdoctoral training, but it’s also important at later stages. I’m fortunate to be in a department with a structured mentoring program, in which I have a mentoring committee comprised of associate and full professors from inside and outside the clinical science area, with whom I can consult about research, teaching, service, and other aspects of professional development. I also seek informal consultation from other colleagues. Junior faculty life presents a number of exciting opportunities, but is also challenging; it’s very helpful to have regular mentoring support.
Concluding remarks: Dr. Rodriguez-Seijas and Dr. Richmond-Rakerd both had valuable perspectives on what has worked for them in their transition to faculty, as well as critical ways for the field and its training model to expand beyond its current limitations and improve. Common themes among their comments included the importance of varied, quality mentorship both during formal training and beyond—which may include mentors from differing disciplines, backgrounds, and career stages.
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).