Kommentar
These guidelines give a very clear representation of what the education of Clinical Psychologists could be. If I was a student enrolled in the Clinical Professional program in psychology (profesjonsstudiet) or a teacher only concerned by the training of future Clinical Psychologists I would, after a first reading, be rather positive about these guidelines.
However, after a second reading and as a teacher not only concerned by the training of future Clinical Psychologists but also by for example the training of future practitioners in psychology (i.e. researcher, non-clinical professionals in psychology), I have four concerns about these guidelines as they are currently formulated.
First, I am missing the discussion of other programs in psychology (i.e. Bachelor and Master in psychology). I am also missing a mention to Europe (e.g. europsy.eu) or the rest of the World (e.g. iupsys.net). It is like if the education of Norwegian Clinical Psychologists was taking place in a bubble. These guidelines are written like if the Clinical Psychologists program was the only one and if the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology didn’t exist inside or outside Norway.
Second, the definition of the Clinical Professional program in psychology includes, without mentioning it, the definitions of the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology. This definition is so broad that it leaves almost nothing out. It reinforces the beliefs that the Clinical Professional program is to Bachelor and Master programs what the training of Police officers is to those of Securitas. With the exception of the clinical knowledge, skills and competences (i.e. kompetanseområder V, some of VI and Praksisstudier), these guidelines could be used as it is to define the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology. These guidelines reinforce the (false-)belief that the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology are just an ersatz of the Clinical Professional program in psychology (when actually they are not).
Third, by taking the Clinical Professional program in psychology as defined in the guidelines, Clinical Professional students will be experts on almost everything in psychology (clinical evaluation and intervention, basic and applied research, promotion and prevention, innovation, vulgarization, media dissemination, HR, etc.). These guidelines are not just about one program but about many different programs in psychology (clinical, non-clinical, etc.). By collapsing all of these different programs into only one program, we take the risk that Clinical Professional students at the end of their studies will know almost nothing about almost everything in psychology (instead of knowing enormously about Clinical psychology as a science and practice). These guidelines should be more focused on the knowledge, skills and competences needed to be a good Clinician in psychology.
Fourth, if these guidelines are implemented we take the risk of diminishing the quality of the already existing Clinical Professional program in psychology. I can speak only about the Clinical Professional program offered at the Department of Psychology of the University of Oslo. It is one of the best I know. That does not mean of course that it cannot be improved. However, the implementation of these guidelines, as they are currently formulated, could not only have a negative impact of the quality of the already existing programs in Clinical psychology but also jeopardise their future improvement.
Francisco Pons, Professor of Developmental Psychology
However, after a second reading and as a teacher not only concerned by the training of future Clinical Psychologists but also by for example the training of future practitioners in psychology (i.e. researcher, non-clinical professionals in psychology), I have four concerns about these guidelines as they are currently formulated.
First, I am missing the discussion of other programs in psychology (i.e. Bachelor and Master in psychology). I am also missing a mention to Europe (e.g. europsy.eu) or the rest of the World (e.g. iupsys.net). It is like if the education of Norwegian Clinical Psychologists was taking place in a bubble. These guidelines are written like if the Clinical Psychologists program was the only one and if the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology didn’t exist inside or outside Norway.
Second, the definition of the Clinical Professional program in psychology includes, without mentioning it, the definitions of the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology. This definition is so broad that it leaves almost nothing out. It reinforces the beliefs that the Clinical Professional program is to Bachelor and Master programs what the training of Police officers is to those of Securitas. With the exception of the clinical knowledge, skills and competences (i.e. kompetanseområder V, some of VI and Praksisstudier), these guidelines could be used as it is to define the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology. These guidelines reinforce the (false-)belief that the Bachelor and Master programs in psychology are just an ersatz of the Clinical Professional program in psychology (when actually they are not).
Third, by taking the Clinical Professional program in psychology as defined in the guidelines, Clinical Professional students will be experts on almost everything in psychology (clinical evaluation and intervention, basic and applied research, promotion and prevention, innovation, vulgarization, media dissemination, HR, etc.). These guidelines are not just about one program but about many different programs in psychology (clinical, non-clinical, etc.). By collapsing all of these different programs into only one program, we take the risk that Clinical Professional students at the end of their studies will know almost nothing about almost everything in psychology (instead of knowing enormously about Clinical psychology as a science and practice). These guidelines should be more focused on the knowledge, skills and competences needed to be a good Clinician in psychology.
Fourth, if these guidelines are implemented we take the risk of diminishing the quality of the already existing Clinical Professional program in psychology. I can speak only about the Clinical Professional program offered at the Department of Psychology of the University of Oslo. It is one of the best I know. That does not mean of course that it cannot be improved. However, the implementation of these guidelines, as they are currently formulated, could not only have a negative impact of the quality of the already existing programs in Clinical psychology but also jeopardise their future improvement.
Francisco Pons, Professor of Developmental Psychology