Australian Clinical Psychology Training Program Directors Survey

A survey of clinical psychology program directors was conducted to provide an illustrative snapshot of clinical training in Australia. Postgraduate clinical psychology program directors from 27 universities in all States in Australia and the Australian Capital Territory offering postgraduate clinical training programs were emailed the survey; 19 surveys were returned. The present paper reports on a range of issues of relevance to clinical training programs, including numbers of students, types and content of courses, staff workload, relationship with professional bodies, practical training and university-based clinics, and concerns raised by directors. The information is intended to assist those responsible for training in clinical psychology in Australia in their work of increasing the quality of postgraduate training by being informed of the practices of other programs.

Issues in training in clinical psychology in Australia: Interplay between training goals and legal standards of practice

Training models in clinical psychology vary across regions, as do the laws that regulate professional practice in psychology. Standards for practice and for entry into professional practice may endure past the point of utility in the face of changing health-care systems and evolving international considerations. Herein the authors review aspects of the Australian 4-year training model, including qualifications for entry to the profession, supervision, and the influence of the profession and the universities in maintaining and in changing to a new training model. Aspects of training in clinical psychology in Australia are also discussed, and the Australian and New Zealand accreditation models are contrasted. Suggestions on ways to move forward are offered.

When social psychology became less social: Prasad and the history of rumor research

Rumor research, in general, and its delayed incorporation of the work, of rumor researcher Jamuna Prasad, in particular, exemplify how the intellectual climate of American social psychology discouraged the development of social approaches. In the present paper, we explain his conceptualization of how rumors start and spread, and explore findings from subsequent research supporting or negating his propositions. It is our contention that, although Prasad had identified the basic variables involved in rumor generation and transmission correctly, mainstream social psychological research in the 1940s did not incorporate his contributions. Instead, mirroring the Zeitgeist of American social psychology, rumor research was approached from a predominantly individual level of analysis. In the present paper, the authors have tried to resurrect some of the group-level variables from Prasad's treatment of rumor and to suggest that social psychology adopt a more 'social' approach to rumor.