At The Blog of The Society of Theoretical
and Philosophical Psychology there is mention of the debate in psychology
between clinical psychologists and professional psychologists. At first, this
distinction was unclear to me. When I think of a “clinical” psychologist, I
think of a practicing doctor who helps people, whereas a “professional”
psychologist, under my first impression, meant to be a psychologist who
professes the subject, a run-of-the-mill professor, as demeaning as that may
sound. However, and if I am not just confusing myself even more, the
distinction is opposite. A clinical psychologist is one who might subscribe to
the model offered at The Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System
wherein it is assumed the public will best benefit by training psychologists as
researchers where the whole fields can be reduced to the scientific method
(Henriques, 2014). On the other hand, a professional psychologist fills the
void left by The PCSAS where there is never a mention of “practitioners,” or
those who are applying test manuals to effect change, those with PhDs that the
top-tier research universities “begrudgingly” churn out.
As a new doctoral student in the wider
field of psychology, the mention of identity in Henriques’ (2014) blog post is
key to this debate. I thought I knew part of the answer at the orientation for
new graduate students; the university’s president describe the graduate student
pursuing more applicable knowledge for their career and the graduate student
pursuing the lofty goal of advancing knowledge through research. However, it is
my goal to effect change and my exposure to this debate leaves me asking
whether the professional route is more fulfilling and less effective while the
clinical route differs in any way.
As a professional psychologist I could be
an administrator for a school or school district, or even be a co-founder of a
charter school in which I effect change every day, however stressful it may be.
On the other hand, I could work hard to publish my research while working in
what I now think of as the confines of the university. Other routes include
working for industry on textbook and curriculum design or pursuing political
office to effect change, but as to where these ends fall on the
clinical-professional spectrum is less clear. What is clear, however, is that
all these goals are valid and respectable while all of them have their
potential drawbacks. Much like the adage “degree-out, career-in” is no longer
valid in the 21st century, “PhD-out, Happiness-in” is an illusion,
and possibly maladaptive at that.
While I continue to work hard on
coursework, halfway through my first semester of graduate school, this is a
question I am wrestling with. It seems to me that I can and will effect change
and that end is true, but the means to that end are still ‘up-in-the-air.’ I
hope not to be swayed too much by wealth; a professional or industrial job may
lead to being in the top quartile of earners. I wish not to be persuaded by
fame; a published professor may have only a few degrees of separation of many
other clinicians. I desire not to be coerced by a strong focus on health; a
stressful job may be necessary. Although wealth, fame, and health are all
common goals to the human condition, it is also important to have a good
balance and always be aware of the illusions of happiness that the world
promises.
