An Exploration of Clinical Psychologist and Educational Psychologist Constructs of Mental Health in the Context of Secondary School Aged Children

Over the past decade, Mental Health (MH) has increasingly appeared on the ‘school agenda’, both in terms of rising levels of MH difficulties in the student population, and also the expectation that schools have a role to play in supporting good MH. MH is a term fraught with ambiguities leading to uncertainty around the most appropriate ways to provide support. A review of current literature reveals a wide range of definitions and interpretations, sometimes within the same team of supporting professionals. The current study seeks to explore the perspectives held by two professional groups seemingly well placed to support young persons’ (YPs’) MH. Six Clinical Psychologists (CPs) and six Educational Psychologists (EPs) are interviewed, exploring their constructs of MH, and their perceptions of their own role and the roles of others in supporting secondary school aged YPs’ MH. The data are analysed through Thematic Analysis. Findings suggest that there are variations between the two professions’ constructs of MH, and EPs in particular have no unified concept of MH. This is likely due to less experience or training in this area. CPs and EPs hold similar perceptions of the school’s role for promoting good MH, and flagging up concerns to more specialist professionals when necessary. However, there are discrepancies in the EP and CP perceptions of each other’s roles. The conflicting views appear to emerge through incomplete information about the other, and professional defensiveness in a context where resources and funding are scarce. The current study suggests that these challenges can be addressed through: greater reflectivity on professional biases, exploration of MH constructs within other epistemological positions, and greater communication regarding professional roles, leading to clearer collaboration in supporting the MH of YP.

Positive psychology – The second wave

It is nearly twenty years since Martin Seligman used his 1998 American Psychological Association presidential address to inaugurate the notion of ‘positive psychology.’ The rationale for its creation was Seligman’s contention that psychology had hitherto tended to focus mainly on what is wrong with people, on dysfunction, disorder and distress. There were of course pockets of scholarship that held a candle for human potential and excellence, like humanistic psychology. Nevertheless, on the whole, he argued that concepts such as happiness did not attract much attention or credibility in mainstream psychology. Emerging to redress this lacuna, positive psychology soon became a fertile new paradigm, encompassing research into a panoply of processes and qualities that could be deemed ‘positive,’ from overarching constructs such as flourishing, to more specific concepts like hope.

Towards Empowerment: Narrative Study of Counselling Psychology Trainees and How They Make Sense of Their Personal and Professional Development in the Context of Their Past Experiences

The discipline of counselling psychology continues to grow and change in response to social, economic and political pressures. It has been argued that its quest for a coherent and distinct identity, which emphasises the possibility of the coexistence of multiple approaches, creates an inherently uncertain and dilemmatic training environment that may hinder the development of trainees’ professional identities. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand, the aim was to explore how final year trainees and newly qualified counselling psychologists constructed and made sense of their emerging professional identities and what experiences, past and present, they drew upon in the context of their training to shape those identities. Applying narrative inquiry to analyse eight open-ended interviews, eight preliminary themes were originally identified in participants’ narratives, which with further refinements lead to stories of struggle and marginalisation, growth and discovery, and power and resilience. Participants’ stories of struggle and marginalisation emerged in reference to early family dynamics and stressful life experiences, which seemed to also foster a strong identification with the counselling psychology profession, while stories of growth and discovery focused on the importance of having supportive figures, who helped to instill a sense of security and create an atmosphere of openness. It was in this learning environment that participants felt it was possible to develop a more resilient, empowered professional self, which allowed them to shed an earlier sense of struggle and vulnerability. However, where more of an emphasis was placed on power and resilience, there seemed to be less room for participants to express other feelings that came into conflict with their preferred sense of professional self. While there seems to be a need for a ‘safer’ climate, in which trainees could voice and acknowledge anxieties, vulnerabilities and limitations, addressing concerns around power and vulnerability that may be contributing to the silencing of particular voices and identities may be equally important if trainees are to develop coherent and distinct counselling psychologist identities.

Professionalising positive psychology: Developing guidelines for training and regulation

Although positive psychology (PP) was initially conceived as more a shift in perspective (towards the “positive”) than a new field per se, in pragmatic terms, it is arguably beginning to function as a distinct discipline, with people self-identifying as “positive psychologists.” Thus, we contend it is time for the field to start developing a system of professional (e.g., ethical) guidelines to inform the practice of PP. To this end, we outline one such possible system, drawing on guidelines in counselling and psychotherapy. Moreover, we argue for the creation of two tiers of professional identity within PP. Firstly, people with a master’s qualification in PP might label themselves “positive psychology practitioners.” Secondly, we raise the possibility of creating a professional doctorate in PP which would enable graduates to assume the title of “positive psychologist.” We hope that this paper will contribute towards a dialogue within the field around these issues, helping PP to develop further over the years ahead.

Do GPs and psychiatrists recommend alternatives when prescribing anti-depressants?

This study explores whether a partial explanation for high antidepressant prescription rates is the failure of prescribers to recommend alternatives. 1,829 New Zealand adults were asked which of six non-pharmacological treatment approaches were recommended when prescribed anti-depressants. The majority (82%) received at least one recommendation and 32% received three or more, most commonly ‘Counsellor/Psychologist/Psychotherapist’ (74%) and Exercise Schedule (43%). It cannot, therefore, be concluded that failing to consider non-pharmacological treatments is a major cause of high prescribing rates. Being younger and more severely depressed were both positively related to number of recommendations. Psychiatrists made significantly more recommendations than GPs.