The article (and the crisis) pertains to social psychology, not clinical psychology.

The problem being described is that becoming a clinical psychologist often requires doing social psychology research to get a graduate degree.

There are Doctor of Psychology (PsyD rather than PhD) programs that focus on clinical psychology training rather than doing research, but the majority of clinical psychologists still do a traditional research-oriented graduate program and there are far more schools offering them.

Premise: > In North America (perhaps elsewhere) you are required to have at least a Master's degree to practise Psychology and you should have a doctorate if you want any mobility with your practise.

Conclusion: > This leads people who have no interest in academia having to find a way to convince people they've discovered something new and novel so that they can go apply what has already been discovered.

I'm not rejecting the premise, I'm saying the conclusion is not supported by this article. None of the figures mentioned in the article (Daryl Bem, John Bargh, Susan Fiske, Brian Wansink, Amy Cuddy, Simine Vazire, etc) are clinical psychologists. None of the research described in the article is clinical psychology, or even appears to have been performed for clinical psychology.

Maybe clinical psychology has a replication crisis, I don't know, but there is no evidence here for the idea that clinical psychology degree candidates are causing the replication crisis in social psychology.

Heck, computer science has the same problem, and probably will as long as psychology, since like every person, every business is different. Replication difficulties follow naturally.

A difference though, despite the name, computer scientists aren't calling themselves scientists (I mean what science do most of us do?). Calling yourself a scientist comes with a large amount of responsibility and accountability.

who is us? academic computer scientists?

Academia is certainly not holding computer science hostage like this. Nowhere near as many people have graduate degrees in CS as people practicing their Psychology degrees.

I think computer science is still held hostage to academia if you are interested in doing more creative work. There is a difference between "practical research" where you are developing new ways to solve problems or apply technology and "academic research" where you are developing computer science theory. However, if you want to do practical research, then opportunities are limited if you don't have a PhD. Without one it seems like the primary options are CRUD apps.

It doesn't seem like this is the case in other engineering disciplines or even outside of engineering.

I am not really sure how you are defining 'research' but I think your definition might be wildly different from mine. I have a feeling in the pit of my research that what you define as 'practical research' I would NOT define as research in any commonly accepted sense of the word.

> There is a difference between "practical research" where you are developing new ways to solve problems or apply technology and "academic research" where you are developing computer science theory.

this distinction doesn't hold water for me. look at adaboost! but moreover I am very curious what you think 'practical research' looks versus 'academic research'. Like there is a research spectrum in how abstract versus how concrete/empirical computer science research is but 'practical research' is often still pretty complicated/lots of theoretical concerns/ etc etc

> if you want to do practical research, then opportunities are limited if you don't have a PhD

research is hard and it people don't want to hire people for research roles unless they have a track record of doing research. the vast vast majority people with a history of doing 'good' research tend to have Phds. However this is not always the case.

>It doesn't seem like this is the case in other engineering disciplines or even outside of engineering.

I think this is highly unlikely.

Great point.

I wonder if MA's and PhD's should now be minted by those simply trying to reinforce ore reexamine certain areas. Or maybe trying them in different contexts. Like what happens to the principles if we do the experiments with African villagers etc. as an example.

>"It's no surprise many of this studies can't be replicated! They were designed from the beginning to lead to a significant findings so that someone could write their dissertation, get their doctorate and get the hell out of there."

Yep, 99.99% this.