Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

ISSN: 0708-5591 2019, Vol. 60, No. 4, 215–218

© 2019 Canadian Psychological Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000194

EDITORIAL

Spotlight on Graduate Education, Research, and Professional Training

in Psychology
Vina M. Goghari
University of Toronto

This editorial provides an introduction to this special issue titled “Graduate Education, Research, and
Professional Training in Psychology,” which was commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Asso-
ciation. This special issue is based largely on articles regarding 2 summits held in May 2019, which
sparked conversations on global issues affecting research, academia, and graduate education in the
psychological and applied psychological sciences in Canada. Themes present across both summits
included evidence showing dramatic changes in our research and training landscape over the last 20
years; a renewed focus on addressing issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusivity; and a need to
rejuvenate graduate training for both basic and applied psychological scientists. I provide a personal
perspective as an attendee of both summits, as well as some personal reflections, as an academic,
graduate supervisor, and administrator.

Keywords: research, academia, graduate education, professional training, psychology

As the editor of Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne,
I am pleased to introduce this special issue titled “Graduate Edu-
cation, Research, and Professional Training in Psychology,” which
was commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association
(CPA). This special issue is built mainly around articles from two
recent summits. The first was “What’s Needed and What’s Next
for Canada’s Research Community? A Summit for Scientists/
Researchers Working in or Outside of Academia” and was hosted
by the CPA in collaboration with the Canadian Consortium for
Research in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (May 6 –7, 2019). The sec-
ond was the “National Conference on the Future of Professional
Psychology Training,” hosted by the CPA in Montreal, Quebec,
Canada (May 7–9, 2019). I had the privilege of attending both
summits, and in this editorial, I provide some personal highlights
and reflections.
The first summit was attended by over 100 individuals from
diverse vocational backgrounds, including academics, scientists,
graduate students, and employees from funding bodies and re-
search agencies. What was quite refreshing about this summit was
that there were attendees from many different disciplines (e.g.,
psychology, biological sciences, physical sciences) to discuss
global issues affecting research in Canada. The first speaker was
James Compton, past president of the Canadian Association of
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vina
M. Goghari, Department of Psychology and Graduate Department of
Psychological Clinical Science, University of Toronto, 1265 Military
Trail, Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, Canada. E-mail: vina.goghari@
utoronto.ca
University Teachers, who described the current research land-
scape, and the keynote was delivered by David Naylor, chair of the
Fundamental Science Review Panel, who described the recom-
mendations from the panel’s report.
Although I have been a professor for 10 years and am “living the
changes” in academia, some of the information on postsecondary
education— especially the statistics—still made a deep impression
on me. For example, I learned the degree to which public funding
at the provincial level had decreased for postsecondary education
(up to 23%), despite a large increase in graduate and undergraduate
enrollments (approximately 60% combined). This funding gap has
resulted in increases in tuition, which has implications for student
debt, recruitment of international students, and participation of
underrepresented groups in higher education. Another major theme
was the decrease in tenure-track positions and the doubling of
contract positions. During breakout groups and informal conver-
sations, some attendees in contract and nonacademic positions
expressed a frustration with the lack of tenure-track jobs and
reflected that if they stay in contract positions too long, they
become less competitive for tenure-track jobs, with job search
committees’ preferring newer graduates. These discussions of
tenure-track versus contract positions brought up issues of ethics
and fairness in academia. These issues of ethics and fairness in
academia were extended in the presentation of data on equity-
seeking groups. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in
this domain, with the data revealing that equity-seeking groups are
overrepresented in non-full-time work, with only 28% of full
professors in Canada being women, women earning 82 cents per
every dollar compared to their male colleagues, and racialized
female professors earning 68 cents per every dollar compared to

215
216 GOGHARI
their nonracialized male colleagues. As someone who identifies as
a racialized woman, I found these statistics dismaying, because the
academy has been aware of these discrepancies for a long time and
yet no real progress has been made.
From David Naylor’s presentation, I learned that relative to
comparable nations, Canada relies on universities to contribute a
disproportionate amount of money to the nation’s research activ-
ities, which has implications for research output and growth.
Canadian researchers are notably more likely to collaborate inter-
nationally rather than interprovincially, which to me seemed a
missed opportunity to further ourselves collectively as a nation.
Naylor was very clear that the Canadian research community
needed to advocate for itself and to make sure the suggestions from
the Fundamental Science Review Panel are implemented. Needless
to say, the data that Compton and Naylor presented were truly
sobering and forced the realization that the academic and research
landscape will not change for the better without more advocacy
from the research community.
In addition to the summit’s three featured breakout groups (on
rejuvenating the academic workforce, training the new generation
for careers within and outside academia, and measuring the right
outcomes in academia and science), participants engaged in many
informal discussions. I found two in particular quite relevant. One
discussion focused on funding for new investigators and men-
tioned the termination of funding opportunities specifically for
new investigators, including the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR) New Investigator Salary Award, which had
previously helped launch early careers. CIHR’s New Investigator
Salary Award was especially helpful; it allowed an alternative
pathway into research careers, because recipients were often able
to subsequently secure assistant professor positions in academic
departments (often in a faculty of medicine), which typically then
led to more permanent positions. The second discussion focused
on not only the increase in contract faculty but the fact that at many
Canadian universities, two distinct streams of faculty are being
created—teaching and research streams. Although the creation of
teaching-stream positions was seen as a positive outcome for
teaching-oriented faculty, some attendees were concerned with the
optics of a two-tier system of teachers and researchers, as well as
the implications for the traditional professorial role. Not surpris-
ingly, there was more discussion of these complex issues than
solutions. That being said, participants showed a real appreciation
of the opportunity to discuss these issues with engaged colleagues
in a forum that transcended disciplinary boundaries.
A highlight of this summit for me was a presentation by Stewart
Donaldson. He described a unique professional training program
developed and offered by Claremont Graduate University (CGU)
for psychology students interested in academic and nonacademic
careers. I was impressed to learn about the variety of careers in
diverse settings that CGU graduates went on to pursue. These
included positions as applied researchers (e.g., director of user
experience research at Google), consultants (e.g., People Analytics
consultation at LinkedIn), and CEOs and presidents of corpora-
tions, as well as traditional academic careers within and outside of
psychology departments. Donaldson clearly articulated that psy-
chologists should be trained to pursue a variety of careers and that
to facilitate this, departments should be responsible for making
linkages with industry, governments, and so forth. I found this
example of graduate training and the achievements of their grad-
uates quite inspiring. I agree with Donaldson; given that the vast
majority of graduates in psychology do not desire academic ca-
reers in psychology, training students for a variety of meaningful
careers has to be a priority. In this issue, readers can learn more
about CGU’s approach to graduate training in Donaldson’s article,
“Training Psychologists to Integrate Basic, Applied, and Evalua-
tion Research: In Pursuit of Meaningful Contributions.” In addi-
tion, Lisa Votta-Bleeker has provided a synopsis of the entire
summit in “What’s Needed and What’s Next for Canada’s Re-
search Community? A Summit for Scientists/Researchers Working
in or Outside of Academia.”
The second summit was the National Conference on the Future
of Professional Psychology Training, attended by 55 individuals in
the different disciplines of applied psychology, including clinical,
counseling, neuropsychology, and school psychology. The last
time such a conference was held was the Mississauga Conference
on Professional Psychology in 1994. Hence, there was a palpable
excitement among attendees to reflect on and innovate profes-
sional training in Canada. The goal of this summit was to provide
actionable items related to professional training that could be
considered more broadly in the training community. The CPA and
other professional bodies could facilitate these discussions through
sponsoring workgroups and other summits. During the morning
and lunch sessions, keynote speakers discussed a variety of issues
and trends in psychology, as well as in society. Speakers included
Louise Bradley, CEO of Mental Health Commission of Canada;
Ayman Antoun, president of IBM Canada; Ivy Bourgeault, direc-
tor of the Telfer School of Management at the University of
Ottawa; and M. Stephan Beaulieu, secretary general of the Order
of Psychologists of Quebec, among many others.
Similar to the case in the previous summit, the data presented
were alarming. I learned that of the entire health workforce in
Canada, only 1% worked in mental health and only 7% of those
were psychologists. In addition, I learned that postal codes are still
the most significant determinant of health-related outcomes in
Canada, reflecting unaddressed issues of equity and fairness. The
statistics on youth and adult mental health hospitalizations were
equally negative. The summit included a focus on not only how
technology is changing society but also how artificial intelligence
is changing personnel selection, diagnosis, and prediction, with the
implication that professional psychology will need to adapt both its
practices and training to remain relevant and also to provide the
best care. Last, Ivy Bourgeault’s message really stayed with me:
that is, merely increasing the number of graduates is not sufficient
to solve this complex problem. Rather, to actually meet the mental
health needs of Canadians’ requires a more specific analysis of
what types of psychologists we need to train, considering factors
such as area of specialization, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds,
and other identity characteristics, as well as region. All the speak-
ers provided attendees with a rich context to inform their work.
Attendees themselves played a large role in this summit. Prior to
the summit, attendees self-selected into five thematic groups,
which had been derived from a survey conducted to determine the
most pressing issues in Canadian professional psychology. These
five groups were (a) Standards and Models of Training for Aca-
demic and Internship Programs, (b) Supervision and Mentorship
Throughout the Professional Life Span, (c) Responding to the
Needs of First Nations and Under-Represented Groups, (d) Tech-
nology and Professional Practice, and (e) Interprofessional Edu-
 GRADUATE EDUCATION IN PSYCHOLOGY
cation and Collaborative Practice. The thematic groups met for two
mornings, and each afternoon they reported to the overall group for
discussion. On the third day, attendees voted on the recommenda-
tions the groups had presented on the second afternoon. Hence,
this was an intellectually intensive and fast-paced event. Each
group’s facilitator submitted an article to Canadian Psychology/
Psychologie canadienne for publication in this special issue.
I was pleased when the summit organizers, Sam Mikail (presi-
dent, CPA) and Ian Nicholson (president-elect, CPA), encouraged
the attendees and thematic groups to be bold in their discussions
and recommendations. I really appreciated this encouragement,
because true innovation requires that all ideas, especially contro-
versial ones, be considered. Personally, I did find some of the
recommendations bold, and they rightfully stirred discussion
among attendees. For example, one recommendation brought for-
ward for discussion was this: “All Canadian universities with
professional training programs should offer both PhD and PsyD
programs.” Given the different models of clinical training and the
different emphasis on science versus practice in PhD and PsyD
programs, it is certainly contentious to suggest that all professional
programs offer both types of training. However, this would also be
one way to increase the number of graduates, and because PhD
versus PsyD programs attract different types of students, it would
also be a way to increase the diversity of trainees. Another bold
recommendation was this: “There should be recognition of doc-
toral training in professional psychology (PsyD, PhD, EdD) as the
minimal training standard for the profession.” Again, this would
mean a major change in the structure of most professional training
programs in Canada, which offer both master’s and PhD degrees.
But not all students can take the time necessary or are in a financial
situation to pursue a PhD program, so this standard could unin-
tentionally reduce diversity among trainees. Needless to say, these
are important topics that should be thoroughly discussed within the
broader professional training community, and I enjoyed thinking
about them and about what such changes could mean.
The topic of equity, diversity, and inclusivity not only was an
important intellectual theme of the summit but also became expe-
riential. The group tasked with discussing the needs of the First
Nations and Underrepresented Groups articulated that for one
group to cover all underrepresented groups in psychology is an
impossible task and may create competition between underrepre-
sented groups, given the need to prioritize different complex issues
within a limited time frame. The group members also expressed
disappointment that the other thematic groups did not consider
equity, diversity, and inclusivity issues when discussing their
themes, because these factors should be key components of all
issues in professional training. Personally, I was touched by the
group members’ call for genuine inclusivity and their eloquent
expression of how these and previous experiences within academia
affected them. I was also heartened to see that many of the other
thematic groups did consider equity, diversity, and inclusivity
issues in their subsequent discussions. One of the Under-
Represented Group’s recommendations was this: “All regulatory
bodies and the CPA need to acknowledge that ethics requires
social justice.” To me, this was a fundamentally important recom-
mendation, because ultimately the goal of our profession is to
enhance human wellness and welfare; hence, social justice should
always be in the forefront of our decision-making as we innovate
professional training.
217
I recommend that interested individuals read Mikail and Nich-
olson’s summary of the summit, titled “The National Summit on
the Future of Professional Psychology Training: Overview and
Recommendations,” which includes the full list of recommenda-
tions from the five groups. Readers can learn more about the five
themes that Canadian psychologists rated as areas needing further
consideration, which also served as the five themes for the summit.
These consist of an article by Keith Dobson and Deborah Dobson
titled “Professional Psychology Training in Canada—How Did
We Get Here and Where Could We Go?”; an article by Ansloos,
Stewart, Fellner, Goodwill, Graham, McCormick, Harder, and
Mushquash titled “Indigenous Peoples and Professional Training
in Psychology in Canada”; an article by Johnson titled “Recom-
mendations to Enhance Psychotherapy Supervision in Psychol-
ogy”; an article by Hagstrom and Maranzan titled “Bridging the
Gap Between Technological Advance and Professional Psychol-
ogy Training: A Way Forward”; and an article by Holmqvist,
Button, and Heath titled “Together We Stand: The Imperative for
Interprofessional Education in Professional Psychology Training.”
Tying both summits together was a clear picture that many key
underpinnings of research, academia, and graduate training have
changed substantially in the last 20 years or so and that many of
these changes will ultimately force us to change the very nature of
our profession and training. Both summits also focused on equity,
diversity, and inclusivity, whether for new investigators, contract
versus permanent faculty, or equity-seeking or underrepresented
groups. Speakers and attendees made poignant calls for the need to
rejuvenate graduate training, both in the psychological sciences
and in professional training. There was a shared recognition that
training graduate students is one of the most important duties of
our professions. The first summit placed a focus on how psychol-
ogists should be trained for nonacademic careers. Although train-
ees in professional programs are specifically trained to take on
professional roles, I think they can also benefit from being trained
to assume roles in leadership, consulting, and applied research, as
was suggested for their experimental psychology colleagues. Last,
participants expressed a true appreciation of the efforts taken to put
together these summits and acknowledged a greater need for such
summits to bring individuals together and stimulate conversation.
As an attendee, academic, and administrator working at a re-
search university in Canada, I reflected personally on how much of
my time was occupied by the day-to-day of tasks of teaching,
running my laboratory, training my students, and leading a clinical
psychology training program and realized that I often lost sight of
the culture and issues of our profession. I was also acutely aware
that the problems described would require complex solutions,
because the academic and nonacademic research and training
climate is significantly different now from what it was even a
decade ago when I completed my PhD. The most important mes-
sage I took away from both summits was that the role of an
educator must include advocacy. We need to advocate within our
training programs for innovation, we need to advocate within our
universities for resources, and we need to advocate provincially
and federally for postsecondary funding and to continually high-
light the importance of our profession for society. It is critical
when such discussions occur among these stakeholders that we
represent our discipline and take our seat at the table.
In addition to articles related to these two summits, this special
issue also features an article by a CPA task force titled “Supply of
218 GOGHARI
and Demand for Accredited Doctoral Internship/Residency Posi-
tions in Clinical, Counselling, and School Psychology in Canada,”
as well as an article by Vandette and Gosselin titled “Conceptual
Models of Clinical Supervision Across Professions: A Scoping
Review of the Professional Psychology, Social Work, Nursing and
Medicine Literature in Canada.” Both are highly relevant to the
issues addressed at the summits, and I encourage you to read them.
Finally, let me say that I appreciated working on this special
issue with all the authors and reviewers. I found the Canadian
academic community and summit attendees who helped build this
special issue to be truly invested, generous with their time, and
forward thinking. As a result, I have personally learned a great deal
and think I will be able to better fulfill my role as an educator and
academic administrator. I hope you all enjoy this special issue as
well. Please feel free to share your comments and reflections with
me at vina.goghari@utoronto.ca.
Résumé
Le présent éditorial est une introduction à ce numéro spécial
intitulé Graduate Education, Research, and Professional Training
in Psychology (L’enseignement supérieur, la recherche, et la for-
mation professionnelle en psychologie), lequel a été commandé
par l’Association canadienne de psychologie. Ce numéro spécial
est fondé en grande partie sur des articles concernant deux som-
mets tenus en mai 2019, qui ont provoqué des discussions sur les
questions mondiales touchant la recherche, les milieux universita-
ires et l’enseignement supérieur en psychologie et en sciences
psychologiques appliquées au Canada. Les thèmes présentés lors
des deux sommets comprenaient des éléments de preuve montrant
des changements spectaculaires au niveau du paysage de la for-
mation et de la recherche au cours des 20 dernières années; un
intérêt renouvelé sur l’examen des questions relatives à l’équité, la
diversité et l’inclusion; et la nécessité de rajeunir la formation des
diplômés à la fois pour les scientifiques en psychologie de base et
appliquée. J’offre un point de vue personnel en tant que participant
à ces deux sommets, ainsi que quelques réflexions personnelles, à
titre d’universitaire, de superviseur d’études supérieures, et
d’administrateur.
Mots-clés : recherche, milieu universitaire, enseignement supéri-
eur, formation professionnelle, psychologie.
Received September 9, 2019
Accepted September 9, 2019 䡲