APA Addresses Ehrenfels-Stoked Skepticism for the Value of Research
Psychology PhD in Non-Academic (Non-University) Labor Market

from: http://www.fireflysun.com/book/careers_in_psychology.php

The American Psychological Association (APA) released the following
in a new page to apa.org:


Non-Academic Careers for Scientific Psychologists: Interesting
Careers in Psychology


True or False? The only career option for a scientifically-trained
psychologist is a faculty position in a college or university. The
answer is a resounding False!


In response to the concerns of many psychology graduate students
about the lack information on careers outside of the university
setting, we began inviting scientific psychologists with traditional
training to tell us about their work in some relatively non-
traditional places. The Interesting Careers in Psychology series is
a relatively small sampling of an infinite number of non-academic
careers that are possible--those who have "taken a different path"
relate their own experiences of how they got to where they are now
and the valuable lessons they learned along the way to
employment "beyond the lab."


The following Interesting Careers in Psychology articles illustrate
the various skill-sets and expertise that scientifically-trained
psychologists possess which are also highly valued by employers
outside of academe. The non-traditional career paths represented by
these personal success stories illustrate the different types of
unique contributions made by scientific psychologists in many
different employment settings.


Our goal is that these stories of successful and rewarding careers
outside of the academic arena will encourage graduate students and
new PhDs to vigorously explore the wealth of non-academic career
possibilities, especially in positions or arenas they may have never
considered before. A new Interesting Careers article is published in
almost every issue of Psychological Science Agenda (PSA) and will be
posted to this site shortly after publication, so bookmark this page
and visit regularly!


Response from Ehrenfels


The American Psychological Association hopes that you overlook the
admission broadly woven into the fabric of this press release,
namely that newly-minted research psychology PhDs unable to procure
tenure-track employment in a university -- and there are many --
have to get creative to find work even vaguely related to their
training. And judging by the work found by the individuals
interviewed for this press release, I'd say that what is out there,
if at all related to your training, is mainly related to generic
aspects of your training as a researcher. First and foremost, when
you select a branch of research Psychology as a domain of advanced
study, it is likely owing to some passionate (and in some cases,
quite impractical) interest in an issue or phenomenon. But if you
fail to procure tenure-track employment (and failure is an odd
choice of words given there are somewhere between 80 and 200 suitors
for every one tenure-track position), you will not only have to
forget your passion, but in all likelihood, you will have to set
aside your broader interest in Psychology as well, or at least
discipline your mind to telescope the psychological relevance of
some job/industry.


Given all the graduates who will not find tenure-track employment in
a university, I find compiling such a list a risky maneuver by the
APA. Sure, the APA hopes its readers will read its list of successes
in the spirit of small groups sampling and leave to your imagination
some desirable state of affairs in which the vast majority of
graduates find work similar to the folks in this "sample." Perhaps
now is the time to remind you that there are a lot of folks out
there who do not want to think of chosen career path as a waste of
time. I believe a lot of PhDs skew that National Science Foundation
survey by claiming they are employed in the field in which they were
trained despite their status as terminally adjunct instructors
working part-time entering numbers into some main frame for the
local real estate tax service. Pride and cognitive dissonance kicks
in, and graduates avoid viewing their future as a professional
variation of unrequited love. No one in Psychology seems to have any
interest in getting to the bottom of this. The 2.3% of doctorate
recipients surveyed who reported the job market as "bleak" is not a
statistic of any substance. How is it we ask MMPI respondents over
500 questions in lieu of lie scales, and yet when it comes to
assessing the employment status and satisfaction of our doctorate
recipients, we ask them a handful of leading and loaded questions.
Once again, I suspect there is no shortage of doctorate recipients
whose only meaningful employment is their gig teaching one section
of Intro Psych a semester for the local community college, but when
confronted with questions concerning their personal worth or the
worth of their career choice, they will tell you "I'm a psychology
professor," and they will tell you how hopeful someone they see
around the water cooler will one day spring them from the university
sweat shop and make them an assistant professor. It seldom works out
that way.


So let's examine how many psychology PhDs are actually employed full-
time. According to the cross-sectional employment data from the
National Research Council, it's only 74.9%. That does not exactly
inspire confidence, especially when you consider we do not know in
what capacity these psychology PhDs are employed. During my non-
psychology-related contract work as a technical writer for Fannie
Mae, I endured sporadic ribbing from good-natured colleagues joking
that psychology PhDs are working in abundance for Starbucks. So do
not take any comfort in the fact the vast majority of psychology
PhDs are able to find work. The fabric of our society has not
deteriorated to the point where we have a large class of chronically
unemployed doctors living in their cars, in the woods, or in their
parents' basement. They're working. My question is: in what capacity
are they employed? And is this what they envisioned when they began
their graduate training? Did they envision having to work outside
the university? Did they envision having to work in positions that
have nothing to do with psychology? Because if I want to work as a
risk assessment manager for ADT Security Systems (sounds like a nice
title), there are many other paths I could have taken to get there,
including paths that do not require PhDs let alone PhDs in
Psychology. Oh, and I would have liked to have been included in that
NRC survey. I am included in the National Science Foundation survey
statistics, but I did not count toward doctoral statistics because I
technically received their survey materials in the period between
the conferment of my masters and the conferment of my doctorate. By
the time the NSF phoned me for a follow-up interview, I had had my
doctorate for well over a year, but they refused to move me into the
doctoral category (so I did not count toward the unemployment
statistics).


Judging by the APA Research Office's bar graph, it would appear that
only 53% of psychology PhDs procured academic employment. Ouch!
That's a very slight majority when you consider that just about
everyone seeking a PhD in Psychology aspires toward a university
position. In fact, according to the Employment Settings for PhD
Psychologists graph, only 35% (again with the "ouch!") are employed
in a college, university, or med school. That's 35%. In case you're
just joining us, only 35% of Psychology PhDs are employed in a
college, university, or med school. That's less than the 40% who are
either self-employed or employed in for-profit business (working
behind the counter at Starbucks). You won't see that figure in the
graduate training prospectus. The employment of 33% of the research
PhDs falls into that highly precise "Business/Government/Other"
category, and this is where you find yours truly and your PhDs
working for Starbucks. I hate to be facetious with the data, but I
bring up the internal Fannie Mae Starbucks joke to underscore just
how this data falls short. Like most research in psychology, it
leaves me wanting. Only 3% are employed with the federal government.
Gee, I would have expected this figure to be higher given 8 of the
47 employed psychologists surveyed by the APA (that 17%) work for
the feds. Apparently, the APA could not resist the put its most
impressive achievements front and center, listing among psychology
PhD employers NASA, FBI, and the White House. (The White House has
just about one of everything working somewhere in its Executive
Building, and my friend, who happens to have a PsyD, is working in a
Human Resource capacity. I wonder if this is her. I'm sure the White
House has janitors, but I couldn't find any mention of this, let
alone any grandstanding, on the web site maintained by the National
Association of Professional Cleaners (NAPC)).


I was also intrigued by the disclaimer beneath the graph
titled "Primary Employment Settings of 2001 PhD and PsyD Recipients
in Psychology." The disclaimer, which unlike much of the web site
cannot be highlighted-and-copied, reads "Disproportionately high
percentages are represented in these categories as many recent
graduates are still gaining experience in these organized settings
prior to licensure." Ahh, APA, because these are relative
percentages, the inflated numbers for some categories throws off the
percentages for others. This data is meaningless, especially when
you consider that the raw tallies have not been made available.
According to your stats, only 9% of postdocs turned into permanent
positions. So just how many interns and residents are you counting
toward your employment figures? Sheesh!


My argument about academic employment (which is also that of
syndicated columnists like George Will) is supported by NSF data
from the graph titled "Changes in Employment Settings for PhD
Psychologists: 1973, 1983, 1993, and 2001," where the percentage of
PhDs employed in academic settings dropped from 55% in 1973 to 35%
in 2001. I'd cry ouch again, but I know by now you're tired of me
calling attention to all these virtual paper cuts. By contrast the
percentage of psychology PhDs employed in that business sector
(Starbucks) rose from 12% in 1973 to 41% in 2001. Remember:
psychology PhDs are not choosing to work in the business sector.
They are forced to forage through the Washington Post classifieds
after the prospects of tenure-track employment are made painfully
clear to them at some point during or after their doctoral training.
By now it should be clear to you the APA should have retitled their
careers page "Virtual Employment." By the way has anyone noticed yet
that the APA Research Office estimates the percentage of psychology
PhDs employed in academia for 2001 at 55% while the National Science
Foundation puts this figure at 43%. I examined the category
structures for each survey, which differ slightly but not in any way
that should account for this discrepancy. The APA and NSF just have
widely varying numbers on this.


Now for the fun part. The graph titled "Level of Satisfaction with
Aspects of Position Reported by Recent Doctorates in Psychology:
2001." Only 62% are satisfied with their income/salary (further
implicating Starbucks, although colleges do not pay very well). In
any event, we don't do this for the money, do we? I certainly didn't
spend my life since age 13 aspiring to research dreaming in a
university so I can buy a new sail for my boat. But the fact 38%
report dissatisfaction with their income supports my position that
many career-driven psych profs entered their graduate training with
misguided visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads. Only 55%
are satisfied with opportunities for promotion, which means a
substantial minority (45%) don't see a lot of room for advancement.
I'll admit that I am at a loss to explain how 75% of psychology PhDs
are satisfied with personal development opportunities, except to say
human beings are remarkably resilient in the face of disappointment
(i.e. cognitive dissonance). Opportunity for recognition? Only the
APA would add this to its list of social desirability checklist. If
you've spent any time in a department of Psychology, you understand
just how important recognition is to these folks. And I suppose I
can understand this. The all-too-common psych prof is not
intrinsically interested in his work, and there are so few extrinsic
rewards. They're not paid well. So too many psychology professors
live for the internal teaching awards, for seeing their name in
print on something that gets stored in a university library, for
hearing the word "Doctor" prepending their name, and let's not
forget about the admiration of undergraduates aged 18-22. In my
experience, I have encountered all-too many young female psych profs
who enjoy their control over male graduate assistants and all-too
many older male psych profs who want to feel loved by their female
undergraduates and who may enter into strange father-daughter type
relationships with some of their assistants. But by and large, any
overt gesture of respect from undergraduates is appreciated. And as
for the respect of their graduate students demonstrated implicitly
through imitation and/or obedience -- well -- that's as basic a
component of the academic climate as oxygen.


And since most of you psychology majors will not be admitted to
graduate training programs, I haven't forgotten you. According to
the "Occupational Characteristics of Baccalaureate Degree Recipients
in Psychology: 1999," only 3% are employed in "Psychology," with an
additional 23% employed in something "closely related." But you'll
find the bulk of Baccalaureate Degree Recipients in what I like to
call the hinterland, with 35% in e-e-e-e-e "Somewhat Related" Land,
33% in "Unrelated" Land, and 6% in "Other" Land. Apparently the
percentage of psychology majors who end in "Other Land" alone is
twice that of majors ending up in "Psychology" Land. Mmm. Mm. Where
do I sign up for this amortized de-matriculation?!


I would have liked to have reviewed the data for Primary and
Secondary Work Activities of Psychology PhDs, but the APA's link to
that graphic is broken.


I should also remind my readers that science ranks relatively low on
the list of the American Psychological Association's list of
institutional priorities. The APA may know very well how to use the
science moniker to advance these other agendas (i.e. advocacy,
legislative lobbying, fund-raising, media relations, regulation &
community management), but it is not a scientific organization
(something members of the American Psychological Society will likely
corroborate). So if the APA wants to sell anyone on its claims about
psychology research PhDs, it should employ a few research PhDs of
its own to compile meaningful employment data. Until they do that,
they have no business casting aspersions on the empirical worth of
my observations / assertions. I think it behooves someone in this
field, whether it be a professor or an APA administrator, to develop
an interest in following the careers of psychology majors with
graduate research aspirations from the time they submit their
applications for graduate training (5-12 B.C.) through the end of
the year after conferment of their PhD (1 A.D.). I'm not saying we
need a feature-length documentary, but I recommend we get some
meaningful data on this. The APA cannot counter my assertions with
the data they have.


Until the APA applies its own science to research PhDs employment
woes, I'm unwilling to accept its press releases as anything more
than giving its public persona a manicure. I remember the APA
deployed a similar tactic a few days after I disseminated across APA
listservs my evidence of widespread discrimination against
applicants with disabilities by psychologists employed at VA
hospitals. Within three days of my report (which could have been
used by the APA for the benefit of its community), the APA front-
paged its recommendations for parents of children with disabilities.