Tag Archives: graduate school

Navigating Faculty Dynamics in Graduate School

This blog post is a part of the series, “CARED Perspectives,” developed by the APAGS Committee for the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity (CARED). This series will discuss current events and issues in psychology and how these relate to graduate students. If you are interested in contributing to the CARED Perspectives series, please contact Aleesha Young, Chair of APAGS-CARED.

By Lydia HaRim Ahn, MS, Ed

It was my sophomore year of college, and I was eating Korean seaweed soup in my room as quickly as possible before my roommate came home from class. I did not want her to see me eating it and asking about it. This was what it was like for the first few years at a predominately White campus – I felt ashamed of my identity and wanted to fit in to be “like everyone else.”

Things changed drastically when I joined my first research lab with people who had similar experiences, and I was working with a faculty of color. He gave me various types of work responsibilities but also would personally check in with me. I remember before my GRE, we sat down at a coffee shop and he taught me basic math skills that I had not used inImage result for mentorship over ten years. We talked about our experiences of racism and discrimination on campus. For the first time in a while, I felt like I could truly be myself. I did not need to be “on” all the time. This led me to apply to graduate school, where I have been extremely lucky to also have a supportive advisor who has made an enormous impact in both my professional and personal life. I have been fortunate to have advisors and mentors who believe in me and my capabilities. This led me to my decision of wanting to continue in academia and mentoring students.

Research has shown that for Counseling Psychology graduate students, advisor support reduces burnout and predicts career choice satisfaction (Clark, Murdock, & Koetting, 2009). However, not all graduate students are fortunate to have such supportive advisors.  Advisees who are unsatisfied with their advisors mention infrequent meetings with their advisors, lack of research guidance, limited encouragement to attend conferences, and often do not feel comfortable discussing professional issues (Schlosser et al., 2003). Working with faculty can be especially difficult when faculty take advantage of the power differential,  leaving students vulnerable to feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness. Without support and advocacy from faculty advisors, students are often left feeling isolated and alone. Students of color may be even more at risk when faculty recreate power structures that are happening outside of the classroom.

So how do we as students navigate faculty dynamics in graduate school? Faculty have mentioned that communication problems (Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill, 2006) create difficulties in the advisor-advisee relationship. As communication is the key to any relationship, routinely communicating with faculty members about our needs may be beneficial. However, it may be that some professors do not take into account your concerns and stressors in graduate school. Irrespective of the reasons, I suggest finding your support system, your “tribe.” Navigating graduate school and faculty dynamics can be challenging  and thus it is important to find people we trust to share our experiences. If it is difficult to find this relationship on campus, try and connect with a mentor elsewhere. For example, Division 45 offers a mentoring program here and APAGS lists other resources for mentorship. Search, email, and reach out to faculty members you are interested in working with. Lastly, if possible, find a trusted therapist who you can open up to and share your experiences. The most important  piece of advice I received upon entering graduate school was to find a therapist, and I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity for personal growth and development during this challenging stage of life. 

Graduate school can be a difficult experience, and the relationship with faculty members is a unique one, given the close working relationship and the inevitable power dynamics at play. APAGS supports and believes that every future psychologist deserves a quality, transformative mentoring relationship but recognize that this is not always the case. My hope is that everyone can find a mentor who helps them be proud of their work, proud of who they are, and never feels ashamed to be eating seaweed soup. But if this isn’t the case, remember that you are not alone.

References

Kovach Clark, H., Murdock, N. L., & Koetting, K. (2009). Predicting burnout and career choice satisfaction in counseling psychology graduate students. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(4), 580-606.

Knox, S., Schlosser, L. Z., Pruitt, N. T., & Hill, C. E. (2006). A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisor perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(4), 489-518.

Kovach Clark, H., Murdock, N. L., & Koetting, K. (2009). Predicting burnout and career choice satisfaction in counseling psychology graduate students. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(4), 580-606.

Additional Resources

https://www.apa.org/apags/governance/subcommittees/student-resources

Where Science Meets Policy Part 4: Writing a Policy Brief

Mary Fernandes, Elyse Mowle, & Melanie Arenson

Why do we need it?

As mentioned in a previous blog post, there is a well-known lack of consistent translation of scientific research into public policy. Researchers and policy-makers often have differing timescales and incentives that contribute to limited communication between the two groups. For example, policy-makers are often required to work under strict deadlines to produce immediate policy results, and their time-constraints frequently preclude them from staying up-to-date on the vast scientific literature pertaining to the issues they are interested in. As a result, research findings that are easily digestible are more likely to be read, utilized, and acted upon. Researchers have the ability to coherently summarize their work into a short document that provides clear recommendations for policy and practice. In fact, 79% of policy-makers identified policy briefs as valuable communication tools (Jones & Walsh, 2008).

So, what is a policy brief?

A policy brief is a short document that summarizes important research findings about a specific problem to a lay audience and makes recommendations for improving the identified problem. The document is typically focused on a single topic, and is no more than 2-4 pages or 1,500 words long. A policy brief is written with an audience in mind, and should be easy to understand without specialized knowledge or additional reading. Succinct, simple, and smart. The main goal of any policy brief is to convince the audience of the urgency of the problem, as well as to provide feasible, evidence-based solutions to it, and calling the policy-maker(s) to action.

Who is it for?

Policy briefs are used by local, national, and regional policy stakeholders. Other individuals or groups who have access to the policy making process (including nonprofits, government advisers, lobbyists, Think Tanks, and the media) also use policy briefs.

How do I write one?

First, identify the aim of your policy brief. What are you trying to achieve, or communicate to your reader? Next, consider your audience. What is their technical knowledge? How familiar are they likely to be with the issue? What information will they need? With your audience and aim in mind, target the key aspects that a policy-maker will want from your policy brief:

Title- It should be informative and short.
Summary- This is like an abstract, but without the jargon. It summarizes the overview of the problem and makes evidence-based recommendations. This section should appear on the top of the first page of your brief and it should draw the reader in.
Introduction- Provide an overview of the context of the problem. Identify a few salient points that provide support for the urgency of the topic. Also, give an overview of the research objectives, findings, and conclusions. Include why this problem is important to the audience, and if applicable, why previous efforts to solve the problem have failed.
Methods/Approach and Results- Here, explain the methodology used in the presented research as well as the results of the project(s). Distill the results into a few, key take-home messages. Be sure to simplify the language and avoid technical terms.
Conclusions- Provide clear conclusions based on the data, and express them in an assertive manner, without scientific jargon. Solidify the key take-away from the study.
Policy Recommendations- Propose solutions that are relevant to the stated policy problem. The brief should systematically and clearly describe the evidence in support of the proposed solutions. Recommendations should be specific and backed by the evidence you outlined. Ensure that your recommendations are appropriate for the audience. All solutions should be realistic and feasible (cost-effective, reasonable, etc.). State the next steps precisely.
References- Include a list of the references used and provide resources they might be helpful. A large list of references, akin to a research paper, is unnecessary and even unhelpful – this should be a small section of your brief!
Disclaimers- Just like in a presentation, detail any funding sources that contributed to the research presented. Also list contact details and institution disclaimers that might be necessary.
Visual aids/Infographics- Infographics and visual aids often make detail-heavy content more digestible and appealing.

When you’re done, ask yourself if the document answers these questions:

  • What is the purpose of the brief?
  • What problem does it hope to address?
  • What recommendations does it make to address the problem?
  • Does it pass the breakfast test? A good policy brief should be able to answer all of these questions and be read in the time that it takes to drink a coffee over breakfast.

Style Tips

  • Draw the reader in by starting with your conclusions. Clearly state what the problem is from the start.
  • Break up the text – use headings, bulleted lists, font or call-out boxes to highlight key points. Have healthy margins and plenty of white space.
  • Write using active rather than passive voice
  • Write for clarity and simplicity. Can you say in one sentence what you just said in two or three? Think “economy of words”. For example:
    • Did you use a bigger word when a smaller one would have worked? (“Operationalize” versus “define”)
    • Can you cut words or phrases without changing the meaning? (“Due to the fact that” versus “because”)

How to disseminate your policy brief?

  • Share with key players in the policy field. Have copies ready for policy-makers whom you meet with.
  • Share with other stakeholders who might influence the policy-making process (see our ‘Science Meets Policy: Part 1’ post for information about stakeholders). If emailing, mention in the body of the email why the brief will be useful to them. Make sure that the subject of your email is concise, says everything that you want to convey, and eye-drawing (ex. “Importance of Science Influencing Policy: A Policy Brief).
  • Strategically plan the timing of your dissemination (i.e. during preparations for policy shifts, while there is media attention, etc.).
  • Submit the brief to journals that specify a call for briefs (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/ipp/call-for-policy-briefs).
  • Combine with other communication methods such as posters and presentations at conferences.
  • Use social media to disseminate your brief (e.g. newsletters, Facebook, Twitter).

Further Resources

  1. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/594.pdf
  2. https://www.researchtoaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PBWeekLauraFCfinal.pdf
  3. https://www.mhinnovation.net/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/Tool6_PolicyBrief_14Oct2015.pdf
  4. https://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&pageId=1698
  5. http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/griphealth/files/2017/01/Policy-briefs-guide_2015.pdf

Sample Briefs

  1. https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/Policy_Brief_24_web.pdf
  2. https://www.emerald-project.eu/fileadmin/websites/emerald/media/Policy_briefs/11._Service_user_and_care_giver_involvement_in_mental_health_system_strengthening_in_Nepal.pdf

References
Jones, Nicola & Walsh, Cora. (2008). Policy Briefs as a Communication Tool for Development Research. ODI Background Notes.

Degrees of Separation: Managing Isolation for Doctoral Students of Color

This blog post is a part of the series, “CARED Perspectives,” developed by the APAGS Committee for the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity (CARED). This series will discuss current events and issues in psychology and how these relate to graduate students. If you are interested in contributing to the CARED Perspectives series, please contact Aleesha Young, Chair of APAGS-CARED.

By Mary O. Odafe, M.A.

CARED PICAs we matriculate through higher education, the journey for racial and ethnic minority doctoral students is often marked by feelings of isolation in both personal and professional networks.

Recent studies show that members of certain racial and ethnic minority groups are less likely to obtain degrees from competitive four-year institutions than their White counterparts. The “race gap” in higher education begins at the undergraduate level and only becomes more pronounced at the graduate level. Simply put, the more advanced the degree program, the less likely people of color are numerically represented.

The journey to a doctorate degree in psychology is equal parts complex and challenging. While friends, family, and significant others are an invaluable source of support along the journey, there are times they may not truly grasp the amount of mental energy, stress, discipline, and hard work that goes into achieving each required milestone. They may underestimate the weight of passing qualifying exams, waiting for internship Match Day results, dissertation data collection, developing and teaching a course, or applying for jobs in academia. They may not understand the unique working relationship with advisors and supervisors, or track what we are doing each year in the ever-complex lifestyle of being a student, teacher, researcher, and clinician – simultaneously!

Likewise, if you are one of the only students of color in your department, you may experience an additional sense of isolation while navigating unique challenges of feeling marginalized, overlooked, stereotyped, or microaggressed in professional arenas. Although our colleagues can serve as critical allies and advocates for diversity and inclusion, there is unspoken value in sharing such challenging experiences with someone who also knows, first-hand, what it feels like to be marginalized on the basis of one’s skin color. At times, our colleagues may confuse our desire to seek out relationships with others who look like us as being unfriendly, segregated, or unwilling to be “part of the group.” When we do engage with our majority-culture colleagues, many students of color naturally default to “code-switching” as a safer alternative to revealing our true identity in professional settings – but for the record, being two people in one is exhausting. Adding an extra layer of stress and isolation to the training experience, students of color are more likely to be first-generation college students than our White counterparts, and are disproportionately affected by the financial burden associated with pursuing higher education (due to persistent disparities in income and wealth distribution in the United States).

Researchers cite active forms of coping, including social support seeking, as more effective in dealing with distress in comparison to passive or avoidant forms of coping. The problem arises when these social support groups are fragmented, insufficient, or even non-existent. Through conversation with wise and trusted mentors, I have learned the importance of diversifying one’s social support network. While we may not obtain all the support we need from any one group individually, we can maximize support benefits by seeking different types of support from different groups. Perhaps your family and friends cannot always offer direct support or advice in navigating specific challenges within your program, but they can attest to the person you are outside of your identity as a graduate student. In times of need, those who truly know your character can remind you of your tenacity to take on any challenge (like that time you tried out for the talent show in 6th grade – and made it!). Likewise, many of your colleagues may not relate to being the first person in the family to obtain a bachelor’s and/or graduate degree, but they will certainly be there with you to take on plenty of “firsts” throughout your training – if you let them.

Part of maximizing sources of support means being vulnerable, transparent, and effectively communicating our needs. Letting people into our struggles and triumphs helps them understand how best to support us. So let’s keep our family and friends updated on our program milestones and challenges, even if they think we’ve just been “studying” these past 4-7 years. Let’s allow our colleagues to become supportive allies and genuine friends, especially when they’ve demonstrated a sincere willingness to listen. Finally, let’s lean into each other and share our own experiences, in hopes of validating and encouraging other doctoral students of color. As we begin to open up and maximize support, we may find that journey is not so lonely after all.

Additional Resources

We want to hear what you think! Please share your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.

Where Science Meets Policy Part 2: How to Write Academic Papers for a Broad Range of Stakeholders

Mary Fernandes, Renee Cloutier, Travis Loughran, Melanie Arenson

If you’re here after our last post on “Involving Stakeholders in Every Step of Your Research”, welcome back! In our last post, we discussed what a stakeholder is, why we should involve
them in our research work, and how we can efficiently do so. However, we shouldn’t stop there! One next step to increasing the impact that your research has on policy is to effectively convey your completed work to these invested stakeholders. This can be hard to do, so below are a few tips that might make this easier.

First, write with stakeholders in mind.
In order to write a paper that will affect public policy, first ask yourself the questions, “who will read this?”, and, “who will be affected by this?” (Purdue University, OWL). Frame your scientific paper with this audience in mind, whether it be policy makers, insurance companies, businesses, local citizens, patients, or providers. Remembering your unique audience will allow you to communicate your work at the level of your reader. With the policy implications of your work in mind, you might also carefully consider the right journal to submit to. For example, you could choose to submit your work to a journal that is less niche than you might normally submit to and more general or policy focused.

Always lead with the “why”, not the “what”.
Then, ask yourself why your work should matter to your stakeholders. Discuss these reasons succinctly and clearly to grab your stakeholders’ attention before describing what it is you did. By failing to address the “why”, you might lose your stakeholders from the very beginning. But how do you ensure that your reasons for your study line up with those of your stakeholders? How do you identify what your “why” is?

Figuring that out will require you to really understand your stakeholders’ concerns. Hopefully, you were able to use the above strategies to include stakeholders while planning your research, but if you did not, it’s not too late to do so. Speak to them with a goal of truly understanding their principal concerns. Ask them questions about what they would like to see solutions to. Discuss your project with them and inquire about their feedback and unique insights into the usefulness of your work. Once you have a clear idea of what policy problems your project can tackle, lead with it. Keep in mind that a policy problem is not always the same as a scientific problem.

Continue reading →

Graduate Student Researchers Win Big!

The results are in: 15 exceptional graduate student projects have been selected from the pool of highly-competitive applications for the Psychological Science Research Grant (PSRG). This $1,000 grant, sponsored yearly by APAGS, is used to fund innovative research projects in psychological science. All APA graduate student affiliates are eligible, resulting in a diverse pool of applications from schools across the country who are studying a variety of topics in psychology and neuroscience. Given the importance of diversity-focused research, additional funding was specifically reserved for those studies that substantially address issues of diversity as defined by the APA’s 2017 Multicultural Guidelines.

Below is a brief review of the 2018 winners and their projects:

  • Mónica Acevedo-Molina (University of Arizona) will be studying the influence of bilingualism on memory in Hispanic individuals. Mónica aims to understand how bilingualism impacts the specificity of autobiographic memory in Hispanics, as well as the influence of inhibition on that specificity.
  • Brooke Bartlett (University of Houston) will be studying the role of distress tolerance in the relationship between trauma cue reactivity and posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity. Specifically, Brooke aims to understand whether distress tolerance moderates that relationship, above and beyond the impact of important factors such as the amount of trauma a person has experienced, as well as any other mental health conditions they may be battling.
  • Alexis Blessing (The University of Texas at San Antonio) will be studying ways to reduce the public stigma associated with media depictions of service members and veterans. Specifically, Alexis believes that self-compassion may buffer negative responses to stigmatizing media accounts of violent acts by veterans with PTSD.
  • Brittney Evans (Drexel University) will be studying the feasibility and acceptability of a remote parent coaching intervention for parents of children who are overweight or obese. The goal of this intervention is to increase the use of adaptive parenting techniques and decrease the use of ineffective parenting practices in order to improve child behaviors during mealtimes.
  • Maya Godbole (City University of New York, CUNY) will be studying the effect of sex discrimination policies on women’s expectation of bias and performance in organizations. Specifically, Maya aims to understand whether the inclusion of language that explicitly acknowledges subtle forms of sexism in policy documents influences women’s participation in organizations as well as their performance expectations.
  • Taylor Hendershott (Washington University in St. Louis) will be developing a brief tool for assessing people’s spatial navigation strategy use and ability. This type of task will allow for the targeted assessment of cognitive functions and will be useful for academics and clinicians working to understand and measure the cognitive impairment associated with neurodegenerative diseases.
  • Tiffany Jenzer (University at Buffalo, SUNY) will be studying the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and alcohol use. Specifically, Tiffany aims to understand how the ability to choose between a variety of emotion regulation strategies, as well as the ability to pick a strategy that appropriately fits the situation impact alcohol use.
  • Parisa Kaliush (University of Utah) will be studying the intergenerational effects of mothers with a history of childhood maltreatment. Specifically, Parisa aims to understand whether maternal parasympathetic activity during pregnancy explains the relationship between their history of childhood maltreatment and their newborn’s emotional reactivity and attention.
  • Nathan Kearns (University of North Texas) will be studying the role of traumatic stress and alcohol on driving behaviors. Specifically, Nathan will be investigating both the independent and additive effects of trauma-related stress and acute alcohol intoxication on driving-related risk-taking.
  • Lilian Yanqing Li (University of California, Irvine) will be studying novel strategies for addressing emotion regulation deficits in people with schizophrenia and schizotypy. Lilian aims to understand if third-person self-talk is an effective strategy for regulating negative emotions, without requiring additional cognitive control.
  • Albert Ly (Loma Linda University) will be studying diabetes treatment adherence among a diverse sample of adults. Albert aims to understand the role culture and U.S. generational status play in disease-related distress and treatment adherence.
  • Melissa McWilliams (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) will be evaluating the impact of integrated text message coaching as an added supplement to behavioral parent training. In particular, Melissa will be studying whether text message coaching improves parenting practices, as well as parental engagement in and attitude about the parent training curriculum.
  • Tommy Ho-Yee Ng (Temple University) will be studying the nature of reward processing for children of parents with unipolar depression and bipolar disorder. Tommy aims to understand how reward processing may be deficient in these children compared to healthy controls, as well as if children of parents with bipolar disorder can be differentiated from children of parents with unipolar depression based on their reward processing.
  • Fallon Ringer (Florida State University) will be studying the role of suicide-related internet use in suicide risk. Fallon aims to understand if suicide-related internet use is associated with greater suicidal ideation, intent, and prior suicidal behaviors, as well as fearlessness about death.
  • Selime Salim (Miami University) will be studying the relationship between sexual victimization and suicidality among bisexual women. In particular, Selime aims to understand the role stigma, internalized sexism, and social reactions to sexual assault disclosure play in that relationship.

Congratulations to all of the winners!

Want your name to be featured next year? Be sure to apply! Applications are due in early December for the 2019 PSRG. Remember: grant writing has many benefits, including being a wonderful way to think critically about your research ideas, have valuable discussions with your mentor(s), and boost your resume. Worried you don’t know how to write a grant? Check out this great post by the Association for Psychological Science with tips and tricks.

The APAGS Science Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following reviewers for their help and support  in reviewing applications this year: Alyssa DeVito, Rachel Sweenie, Laura Werner, Megan Williams, Amy Wing-Lam Chong, Steven Hobaica, Amanda Sanchez, Kyle Simon, Elyssa Berney, Juan Pantoja-Patino, Taymy Caso, and Elizabeth Louis.

 

Written by:
Melanie Arenson, B.S., Member, APAGS Science Committee
Renee Cloutier, M.S., Chair, APAGS Science Committee