Outdated/unpopular research interests. What to do?

[AAdAAm]

I’m not sure why but I’ve always been fascinated by the more psychodynamic approach to the study of the mind. When I was in high school I wanted to become a Psychiatrist just so I could go and train to become a psychoanalyst in an either Jungian or Lacanian tradition.

 

Fast-forward four years of undergrad and now I know that most psychodynamic theories have, for the most part, being discredited and are just relegated to the pages of History of Psychology books. The professors who are writing my letters of recommendation told me that unless I can modify or somehow “mask” my interest in psychoanalysis, my chances of making into graduate school are close to 0.

 

Has anyone ever struggled with something like this? Like really falling in love with some very old-school (mostly discredited) ideas? Is there a way around this aside from just forgetting about it completely

[lewin]

Frankly, I think you should think even further ahead to what you want to do after your PhD. It'll be even harder getting a job with a dead research area.

 

That said, there are research topics that touch on psychoanalytic ideas in a more modern way. I'm thinking of two review articles: Freudian defence mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology (Baumeister, Dale, & Summer, 1998) and The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Towards a psychodynamically informed psychological science (Westen, 1998). They're almost 20 years old by now but maybe they could give you some inspiration about research ideas that are more mainstream psychology but touch on Freudian ideas.  

 

Other ideas: I saw Peter Glick (Lawrence University) give a talk on how incestual anxiety can be sublimated into creativity... but I don't know whether that's published somewhere yet. Carey Morewedge (CMU) and Michael Norton (Harvard) also had this really influential paper a few years ago on the motivated interpretation of dreams (though as a Freudian guy, you'll see that they don't mean it the way Freud did).

 

 

P.S., I see you're in Winnipeg. UofW? Does Bradbury still teach honours seminars on Freud? Classic stuff there.

[AAdAAm]

Thanks for your recommendations! But yeah, I think you touch exactly on what I’m struggling with when you look at the most ‘recent’ references concerning psychoanalytic ideas. They’re all pretty old. And I’ve tried to stay on top of the literature in this area and all I can say is that it becomes scarcer every year (unless you solely dwell in Journals specifically devoted to psychoanalytic/psychodynamic theory).

 

I’m starting to get worried, to be honest. Do you think it would be a good idea to ‘fake it’ until I get into graduate school? Maybe focus on more popular research topics and do the psychoanalytic stuff on my own time? Gosh, I hate having unpopular research interests. Even the people I would like to work with are either retiring or on the verge of retirement. With Bradbury being a good case in point. I’ve heard about his honours on Freud but it seems to be an on-and-off kind of thing. Maybe it’s not as popular as it used to be before? But Bradbury’s the person who single-handedly made me fell in love with Freud’s approach to personality/therapy more than I already was! Fate can be cruel sometimes

[Munashi]

 

I’m starting to get worried, to be honest. Do you think it would be a good idea to ‘fake it’ until I get into graduate school? Maybe focus on more popular research topics and do the psychoanalytic stuff on my own time?

 

Do not do this.  If you can develop a legitimate interest in something else, great.  But don't "pretend" to have an interest in something you don't - it's a great way to end up miserable and burned out very quickly.

[lewin]

If you have lots of spare time to do other research then you're not working on your main stuff enough

 

 

Everything snowballs too. Idiosyncratic research topics will have a harder time getting published, so they'll be less likely to help your career too.

[BeingThere]

I hope I'm not out of line when I say that psychology does its best to be a science.  Therefore, the ideas we "fall in love with" should not necessarily be the ideas we spend time/energy on exploring in the advancement of the science - especially if they've been discredited or outdated for some other reasons.  Isn't it the case that as scientists we are concerned with discovering how the mind actually works?  If a theory has been discredited or shown to be irrelevant, then why pursue it further as a scientist?  Likewise, if a technique has been discredited, then why insist on using it?

 

I don't mean to sound harsh.  Hopefully this offers another way to look at your dilemma.  Maybe this is an opportunity to grow as a scientist?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Bren2014

[nugget]

I hope I'm not out of line when I say that psychology does its best to be a science.  Therefore, the ideas we "fall in love with" should not necessarily be the ideas we spend time/energy on exploring in the advancement of the science - especially if they've been discredited or outdated for some other reasons.  Isn't it the case that as scientists we are concerned with discovering how the mind actually works?  If a theory has been discredited or shown to be irrelevant, then why pursue it further as a scientist?  Likewise, if a technique has been discredited, then why insist on using it?

 

I don't mean to sound harsh.  Hopefully this offers another way to look at your dilemma.  Maybe this is an opportunity to grow as a scientist?

 

Very well said. Pursuing an approach solely based on one's love for it is the path of artists, not scientists.

Edited August 27, 2014 by jenste

[AAdAAm]

Oh wow… this is all very useful feedback so I appreciate it very much. Although the general trend I’m sensing would be that if I really want to do it I’m gonna have to ‘fake it till I make it’ in terms of looking for more popular or better-accepted research interests. Maybe once I get my PhD I can come out from the Freudian closet!

 

To be honest with everyone, I’m not really doing this for the ‘honour and glory of the psychological science’. All I want is a decent (not good, just decent) paycheque at some point while doing something at least remotely similar to therapy. The best option would, of course, be to become a Psychiatrist but I don’t have what it takes to go to Medical School so Clinical Psychology is my next best bet.  

[Guest |||]

Very well said. Pursuing an approach solely based on one's love for it is the path of artists, not scientists.

 

 

Though most good scientists, tend to be good artists as well - if we can consider things like methodology to be an art

[BeingThere]

 

 

To be honest with everyone, I’m not really doing this for the ‘honour and glory of the psychological science’. All I want is a decent (not good, just decent) paycheque at some point while doing something at least remotely similar to therapy. The best option would, of course, be to become a Psychiatrist but I don’t have what it takes to go to Medical School so Clinical Psychology is my next best bet.  

 

^ I am imagining you writing this in your Statement of Purpose.  *giggles*  Sounds like the level of deceit you would have to practice - to get in somewhere and then to do the work for five or six years - might not be worth it.  But I guess it's for you to decide if you want to attempt it.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Bren2014

[Munashi]

The best option would, of course, be to become a Psychiatrist but I don’t have what it takes to go to Medical School so Clinical Psychology is my next best bet.  

 

Frankly, this is not a great reason to pursue a discipline (it also sounded snarky). Try not to tell anyone it's your "second choice" pursuit.  It may also interest you to know that many psychiatrists don't do much actual therapy - more often they prescribe medications and oversee clinical psychologists who conduct the actual therapy sessions.  If doing therapy is really your goal, getting an MD wouldn't make much sense anyway.  I'm not saying that NO psychiatrist does therapy, but it's not common.

 

You could also (I believe) do work involving therapy with a counseling MS or something similar if desired.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Munashi

[nugget]

Frankly, this is not a great reason to pursue a discipline (it also sounded snarky). Try not to tell anyone it's your "second choice" pursuit. 

 

I see nothing wrong with this line of reasoning. There are lots of wannabe pro athletes, movie stars, musicians, astronauts, etc who opted for more conventional careers because they couldn't make their dreams become a reality. Achieving your second dream in life is not selling yourself short, in my opinion, if your first choice cannot be achieved. 

[Munashi]

I do see your point, but it's not something you'd want to express to an admissions committee.

[TakeruK]

I do see your point, but it's not something you'd want to express to an admissions committee.

 

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss this in your application if you do it right. I agree with your original post that if you make it sound snarky, it will reflect badly on you (but because of the snarkiness, not because that you are not pursuing your first and only love). No one expects grad students to have passion/interest in their field and their field only. For example, I think if an applicant to my field writes about their original dream of being a doctor but not succeeding and then tells the story of how they became interested in my field, overcame their previous failure and what they learned from it, it could make a compelling SOP. In my opinion, there's no sense in hiding the fact that many of us have other interests (and maybe other interests that motivate us more than our grad school interest).

Edited September 2, 2014 by TakeruK

[Munashi]

Everyone has made valid points here.  I still think it would be best to not bring it up to an adcom, or tread VERY carefully if you do choose to.  It would be all to easy to (accidentally) come off as: "Well, I wasn't good enough for the people who do X thing.. but I'm good enough for you guys!", which may not be well received.

[Guest |||]

Anything that could be perceived as weakness, wishy-washy, uncertainty or second-rate could in reality not be any of those things and even if it was, could be written such to seem otherwise

 

 

Or, you could avoid the problem altogether by writing about something different, and probably more relevant

[gellert]

I hope this isn't out of line to say, but if you're interested primarily in clinical practice, why would you want to expose vulnerable patients to a technique (psychodynamics) that is known to be ineffective?  If they are paying you, they deserve to receive empirically-supported treatment.  Surely your patients' health should be valued here.

Edited September 4, 2014 by gellert

[nugget]

What a shame that you aren't interested in pursuing English literature. The psychoanalytic perspective is alive and kicking in this field, from what I understand. Perhaps if you did a degree somehow related to the history of psychiatric healthcare there could be a way to incorporate it into your research. But of course, you would be missing the clinical component of your training, so maybe that isn't a good solution either.

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd probably take a year or two off (whatever time is needed, actually)  to explore other interests and come up with a second best choice. Once you have your degree, you will be free to return to psychoanalysis work either in your spare time, as a hobby, or perhaps somehow incorporate it into your full time work if you are able to find a way to earn a living from it.  

Edited September 5, 2014 by jenste