Should universities be obligated to teach graduate students training to become psychologists how to conduct and interpret scientific research?

by Michael D. Anestis, M.S.

Today's post is a bit different than most.  Rather than reviewing a specific journal article or psychological topic, I want to attempt to prompt a conversation.  The question I want to pose is whether graduate training programs should be obligated to teach their psychology trainees how to properly conduct and interpret scientific research.  This is an issue that has prompted a substantial amount of fairly contentious debate across a number of forums in recent months, as some have proposed a new system of accreditation based upon the degree to which science is an integral component of particular universities' training curriculum.

Before I explain my position on the matter, let me clarify what I mean here.  I am not asking whether universities should campaign for or against particular forms of therapy.  In other words, nobody is saying that universities should tell their students that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the best option for everyone for every mental health issue.  Additionally, I am not asking whether or not all psychological trainees should become researchers upon graduation.  Instead, I am asking whether or not all individuals aspiring to become psychologists should learn how research works, how to interpret statistical analyses, and how to assess the quality of particular psychological studies. 

What are the positives and negatives of a requirement like this?  If you are, were, or hope to become a graduate student in a psychology program, what have your experiences been like in this area?

******

Now I want to briefly add my two cents on this (and hope that readers will do the same in the comment section).  In my opinion, the answer to the question is "yes."  I view science as a way to weed through our biases.  Psychological studies are not perfect and not everyone will conduct research in their professional lives, but research produces valid and reliable information that helps us organize our thoughts, learn from our mistakes, overcome our misconceptions, develop new treatments, and make decisions regarding the treatments most likely to work for clients in particular situations.

A lot of people argue that research favors particular treatments (e.g., CBT); however, this seems like an empty claim to me.  Research does not "favor" anything.  Hypotheses are tested and data either support those hypotheses or not.  A study can be poorly designed or the data might be unable to answer a particular question due to the design of the study; however, this is a weakness of that study (or the question being asked), not a weakness of science. 

This point is a big deal with respect to treatment research.  If a treatment is unable to produce reliably strong results through research, that's a problem.  Perhaps this means that certain aspects of that treatment can not be measured; however, if we can't measure the effectiveness of one treatment but we can measure the effectiveness of another...what would be the justification of favoring the treatment that can not demonstrate its strengths?

Teaching people to think scientifically encourages them to think beyond their gut.  Our impulses can inspire new ideas, but many of those new ideas are inaccurate or incomplete.  Testing them helps us refine our thoughts, develop new ones, and help others understand where we are coming from.  As humans, we are vulnerable to a wide variety of cognitive biases.  We look at information that supports our ideas and cling to it while dismissing evidence that contradicts us (e.g., the confirmation bias).  We think back to single extraordinary anecdotes in our lives and assign them undue weight (e.g., the availability bias).  We make judgments and predictions that, at first glance, sound reasonable, but which fail to outperform predictions made through the use of data (check out the work on Paul Meehl on this one).  None of these biases stem from people trying to be dishonest - it's just how our minds work.  Given the benefit of scientific evidence, we can work around these vulnerabilities and produce knowledge more likely to help a greater number of people a higher percentage of the time.

*****

Having raised the question and shared my position on the matter, I'm hoping we can have an interesting conversation here.  As always, I encourage people to be civil - we can disagree passionately about an issue without being insulting - but I understand that topics like this can get people (myself included) very riled up.

If you'd like to learn more about the topics discussed on PBB, we hope you will consult our online store for scientifically-based psychological resources.

Mike Anestis is a doctoral candidate in the clinical psychology department at Florida State University and an incoming resident at the University of Mississippi Medical Center