What are the opportunities and challenges for Canadian psychology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent issue of Canadian Psychology was dedicated to the topic of opportunities and challenges for psychology in Canada, and included papers that addressed a number of different issues, including, for example, lobbying, professional identity, ethics, the training of psychologists, the public image of the profession, and the use of new technologies (Counsell, Cribbie, & Harlow, 2016; Drapeau, Holmqvist, & Piotrowski, 2016; Hartman, Fergus, & Reid, 2016; Karesa & McBride, 2016; Campbell et al., 2016; O'Neill, 2016; Roy, 2016; Votta-Bleeker, Tiessen, & Murdoch, 2016).However, Canadian psychologists offer a variety of services to a diverse Canadian population in settings such as academia, the hospital system, and independent practice. This diversity means that psychologists working in different areas, whether they differ by geographical area or area of practice, may have varying needs and concerns. The goal of the current paper was to identify and understand the challenges and opportunities that psychologists across the country and discipline perceive in their field today. Specifically, we were interested in answering the following question: what are the most important challenges and opportunities that exist in Canadian psychology today? Our intention was not to conduct a study addressing this question; rather, we wanted to begin a discussion with colleagues who have leadership roles in psychology in Canada. In order to begin reflecting on possible answers to this question, we contacted the president/director of each provincial/territorial association (n = 10) and provincial/ territorial regulatory body (n = 11), as well as the chair of each CPA section (n = 32), by e-mail, asking them what they considered to be the greatest opportunities and challenges in their province or area of specialisation, respectively. Five provincial/territorial associations, two provincial/territorial regulatory bodies, and 23 CPA section chairs provided responses to our e-mail. Five themes concerning opportunities and five themes concerning challenges were extracted based on similarities across all responses. Here is what these colleagues had to say.What Are the Opportunities for Canadian Psychologists?Interdisciplinary TeamsSeveral of our colleagues noted the growing number of opportunities to work in interdisciplinary For example, Juanita Mureika, Chair of the CPA Section on Educational and School Psychology, indicated that the role of school psychologists expanded dramatically, and emphasis on 'routine assessment,' usually defined by the administration of a few tests, has been replaced by a focus on working on multi-disciplinary teams. This emphasis on working in interdisciplinary teams may provide clients with more comprehensive treatment and assessment. In addition to conferring benefits upon clients, our colleagues noted that collaboration among professionals provides benefits to psychologists themselves. Dr. Deanne Simms, Chair of the CPA Section for Psychologists in Hospitals and Health Centres suggested that:. . . psychologists working in hospitals and health centres are in a setting wherein they share patients with other health care providers. This atmosphere of shared care allows psychologists to derive peer support from colleagues to help guard against isolation, stagnation, and burnout.Preventing burnout through working in interdisciplinary teams may in turn provide clients with improved care, because psychologists will be better able to handle challenges that can arise in their professional and personal lives. Indeed, clinicians were not the only respondents to note the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, Dr. Manuel Riemer (member of the Section for Community Psychology) explained that working in partnership with representatives from the community, industry, and government is no longer an exception but has, in many ways, become the expectation for competitive research grants. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".