Examining the Impact of Child Psychologists' Stigmatization of Parents on Treatment Outcomes Through a Developmental Lens

The purpose of this paper is to examine how child psychologists' specialized training inhuman development may make them more prone to stigmatize the parents of their young clients. The stigmatization of parents may lead to fewer parents seeking treatment for their children and to poorer treatment outcomes for those who work with a child psychologist. The process of stigmatization is summarized to provide context for the method through which parents receive stigma. A commonly used theory of child development, Erik Erikson's stages of ego development, is outlined to provide background on how child psychologists may interpret and evaluate a child'sdevelopment. Child psychologists' may identify parenting practices that seem to hinder or stunt children's emotional development, which would make the psychologist more aptto stigmatize and isolate parents from the treatment process. To demonstrate the unique ways in which a child psychologist may stigmatize parents of children at different developmental stages two case studies are included. Finally, a theoretical model of treatment is described that may be more inclusive, and less stigmatizing of parents. This model outlines how the parents' concerns about and observations of their children should be validated and reflected in the treatment process. This treatment modality would allow for child psychologists to more actively involve parents in treatment and provide more education and support around their children's unique emotional development needs. Through this treatment model and child psychologists' awareness of and attempts to reduce the stigmatization of parents, treatment outcomes for young clients may improve.

Successful Navigation of the Conflict between Doctoral Education and Cultural Expectations of Child Rearing in Hispanic Culture

While the numbers are slowly rising, Hispanic students continue to be disproportionately underrepresented in all levels of higher education, including doctoral education. There are many factors that may contribute to the low numbers of Hispanic doctoral students; for Hispanic women, one of these factors may be the perceived conflict between cultural expectations of childrearing and doctoral education. For Hispanic students who hold strong cultural values, this conflict may prevent enrollment in, or result in attrition from, doctoral education. As the number of Hispanic college enrollment increases, we will see more students trying to navigate between the collectivistic value of childrearing and the individualistic value of pursuing higher education. Thus, it is important to understand the needs of these students to aid in recruitment and retention of student-parents in all levels of higher education. This paper explores the barriers and supportive factors for current Hispanic doctoral student-parents. Suggestions are made to increase support which will allow these individuals to successfully complete a doctoral education, while attending to the responsibilities of parenting.

Comment Letter: The NYSE and the End of the Structural Separation between Regulatory and Commercial Interests of the Exchange

The NYSE transformed into a for profit entity in 2006. As part of the approval process, the NYSE agreed to structurally separate the regulatory function from the business function. In doing so, the NYSE created NYSE Regulation, a non-profit with an independent board, to handle most regulatory matters. During the comment period, a spirited debate arose over the ability of a for profit company to carry out a regulatory mission. Some suggested that the regulatory function was incompatible with a "for profit" motive and that NYSE Regulation should be spun off. Others accepted the proposed structure but called for additional changes designed to reduce the possible influence of the public holding company over the regulatory function. In the end, the SEC approved the structure but with a number of prophylactic safeguards including the requirement that NYSE Regulation have a board consisting of all independent directors (save the CEO) and that directors from the for profit holding company could not make up a majority of the board. More recently, however, the NYSE has proposed to end the structural separation of the two functions and instead put in place a functional separation. The proposal would result in the termination of the delegation agreement between the Exchange and NYSE Regulation and the creation of both a Regulatory Oversight Committee of the Board of Directors of the Exchange and the creation of a Chief Regulatory Officer. This letter examines the history of the separation of the two functions and critiques the NYSE's proposal.