Clinical or Professional Psychology

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 21^st 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.