Critical Descriptions of Doctoral Studies in Psychology: Preface to Eight Reports

Psychology, as a scientific body of knowledge, is the selectively accumulated product of research psychologists around the world. Progress in psychology thus depends, in large part, on their training, set in specific national contexts. Retrospectively, it may seem easy to identify which research, which scholars, and ultimately which kinds of doctoral training account for such progress. But prospectively, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the field of psychology to predict its next innovations or its next intellectual leaders; nor can we predict the education that will lead to those leaders.

Nevertheless, a confluence of contemporary factors in European psychology is now causing reforms and new structures in doctoral training. These factors include

• •
  Increasing international and inter-institutional research cooperation and communication;
• •
  Increasing pressure for better fiscal management of public monies within the public university systems;
• •
  Increasing concern about the financial welfare of doctoral students during their training and about their vocational placement afterwards.

European Psychologist here publishes a collection of papers on doctoral education. In eight separate articles, 22 psychologists from around the globe collectively describe and criticize psychology doctoral studies programs in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. European doctoral programs are presently in various stages of reform, trying to make improvements in such matters as admissions selection, fellowship funding, supervision, completion rates, length of study, quality control, and employment of new doctoral graduates.

The call for papers for this issue sought descriptions and critiques of existing doctoral programs as well as recommendations for changes and discussion of obstacles to those changes. These reports were to represent the perspectives and thinking of the author(s)--not that of some ministry, psychology association, or specific doctoral training program. Nor were these reports expected to comprise a handbook of doctoral programs in each country. Thoughtful yet opinionated criticisms were the goal, with the intention that these might inspire further discussions and studies about improving doctoral training. Furthermore, it was hoped that the reports would include pragmatic matters, such as employment prospects, funding, duration of studies, as well as normative issues like advancement of science.

The resulting eight papers have collectively achieved these goals. The reports on the UK and the United States are authored by persons now working outside the UK and USA, but who are from those countries or did their own doctoral training there. In a reverse manner, but similarly advantageous, the coauthors of the report on doctoral training in the Francophone countries now work within those countries, though they did most of their doctoral training elsewhere. To complement this perspective, one author, native to France, who studied in the French university system and who has taught there for more than 12 years, reports more specifically on the French doctoral training. The reports on the Italian and Swedish doctoral studies are each coauthored by a senior scholar and a new doctoral graduate, again allowing dual perspectives. The reports on doctoral studies in France, Germany, and Spain made particular efforts to canvas the doctoral programs at all of the universities in those countries.

The European doctoral programs covered in these reports are all in the midst of reform, in contrast to the United States. This is due in part to the fact that European universities are public institutions, accountable to the respective national governments; whereas, US universities are comprised of private and public institutions, accountable not to the national government, but to non-profit corporations or to one of the 50 state governments.

The published literature on doctoral training in psychology is relatively sparse and is frequently published in local journals or as internal reports. These eight papers have, inasmuch as possible, identified and responded to that literature. It is hoped that these papers will air concerns about doctoral training for continuing discussion, debate, and, yes, research within the community of psychologists.