Where do we want to be in 10 years? Towards an integration strategy for clinical psychologists.

Moriarty, Glendon L.

This paper evaluates the clinical psychology integration system from a strategic perspective. The integration system is defined as a loose organizational body comprised of academic institutions, journals, publishers, educators, clinicians, and students. Next, the SWOT analysis tool is used to understand the integration system's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The chief strength is the integration system's financial model and flexibility that allows it to consolidate resources and gradually grow into other domains. The primary weakness is limited diversity, especially with regards to age and minority representation. Central opportunities include globalization and technology. Threats consist of alternative models of integrating spirituality and psychology that may minimize an authentic Christian voice. Another notable threat includes high tuition costs or what might be more broadly understood as the education bubble. Finally, goals and objectives are outlined that focus on leveraging the integration system's strengths to overcome weaknesses and capitalize on opportunities. Goals primarily focus on making the integration system more diverse and global.

Have you been to an international CAPS meeting lately? I just attended the international meeting in Indianapolis. During the keynote speech, as I looked around, it struck me that what I saw was a sea of older white folks in the audience. There were few young people (under 35) and few minorities present. Dr. Maclin, one of my colleagues here at Regent, echoed this thought. She was co-presenting with an African American student who said, "Dr. Maclin, there are not a lot of people who look like me here." This does not bode well for the future of integration.

When I was first contacted to participate in this project, I started thinking about the integration field from a broader perspective--our past, present, and projected future. I have had plenty of conversations with Gary Collins about our past and have been teaching for almost 10 years, so I have a pretty firm grasp on the present. The future, however, seemed a little hazy. It occurred to me that I had never come across any kind of strategy document or statement that analyzed our field and mapped out where we are heading. There are plenty of people who could do this better than I can, but I figured I would take a shot and evaluate our field through the lens of a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis (Armstrong, 1982).

SWOT Analysis

To begin, let me define a couple of core concepts. One, I'm defining the integration system as a loose organizational body comprised of academic institutions, journals (i.e., Journal of Psychology and Theology), publishers (i.e., InterVarsity Press), educators, clinicians, and students. Two, I am choosing to use a SWOT analysis because it is very simple to understand. SWOT is used to help an organization identify their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats ("SWOT Analysis," n.d.). Strengths and weaknesses are internal and generally focused on the past and present; opportunities and threats are external and generally focused on the present and future (Armstrong, 1982). The aim is to evaluate the integration field on these 4 components and then create objectives to help us leverage our strengths to overcome our weaknesses and capitalize on future opportunities (Armstrong, 1982). Let us get started by evaluating our strengths.

Strengths. Strengths are our capabilities and resources ("SWOT Analysis: n.d.). We have a number of great institutions, strong scholars, aspiring students, committed clinicians and proactive publishing outlets. These strengths provide us with the ability to train clinicians and conduct research on integration. I'd argue that this loose infrastructure in the integration field is our greatest strength. It is a self-sustaining and slowly growing system that enables us to continue to acid to the integration field and also make inroads in new domains (e.g., Division 36, ASERVIC).

The clinical psychology integration system, as illustrated in Figure 1, works well and should continue to work well as long as students continue to be interested in these programs. Please note that my conceptualization of the clinical psychology integration system extends beyond accredited academic programs explicitly focused on the integration of psychology and Christianity--both Evangelical and Catholic. Indeed, there are a number of scholars at secular institutions, pastoral counselors, spiritual directors and so on that are very important to the overall system. In my view, however, the integration programs provide the primary engines for the larger system. Without these engines, the integration system would not be near as strong or impactful.

Weaknesses. Weaknesses are internal to the organization and indicate a lack of capability and/or resources ("SWOT Analysis: n.d.). I think limited diversity is our biggest weakness. More specifically, I think our integration system needs an infusion of youth and minority involvement in order to become more relevant in the coming years. I used CAPS as an example above, but know that other religiously-oriented mental health organizations struggle as well. For example, I used to be the Membership Chair for Division 36: Psychology of Religion of the American Psychological Association. I am pretty sure the mean age was in the low 70s. Young people need to be engaged in our leadership, research and teaching. If nor, then our system will simply die as the older members age out and pass on. On a related note, we simply do not have sufficient representation from a racial/ethnic diversity perspective. We live in a global world and are part of the international body of Christ. We need to actively recruit people from around the world to be part of our network. I too seldom see African, Asian, and Latin American faces in my integration circles.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Opportunities. Opportunities are external to the organization and are the vehicles for growth, strengthening, and refinement ("SWOT Analysis," n.d.). Organizations leverage their strengths to capitalize on opportunities. There are two big and related opportunities that we are currently presented with: globalization and web/mobile technology. Globalization is the process of moving from a state focused world to a unified world (Ritzer, 2011). For example, markets are international, so jobs that were once located in Detroit, Michigan, can now be located in Shanghai, China. Web-based technology and mobile technology accelerates the process of globalization. Ideas once localized can now spread around the globe in seconds. Billions of people are coming online making it much easier to work with and communicate with people from around the world.

Threats. Threats are external to the organization and are generally thought of as competition or other outside influence that threatens the health and strength of an organization ("SWOT Analysis," n.d.). Competition can be a firm that offers the same product or related products that can replace your product. So from a competition perspective, if we look outside the integration system, what do we see as potential threats? One possibility might be forms of integrating spirituality and mental health that do not provide space for traditional Christian ways of understanding the world. A primary focus on a more loosely defined spirituality could crowd out, via research and publications, space for genuine Christian engagement. Alternatively, as the global south rises with its unique blend of very conservative, fundamental, Pentecostal Christianity, one might see a re-emergence of a type of Biblical counseling that minimizes the role of science. Other threats might include external bodies not accrediting religiously-based degree programs. Another external influence that could be considered a threat might be the broader education bubble. If our students are graduating with upwards of $100,000 in debt, then they simply might not be able to pay their debt off and enjoy any sort of quality of life. It is important to realize that these threats are speculative what-ifs. The goal is for us to think about how our integration field can thrive in the context of these potential future threats.

Analysis and Goals Now that we have looked at our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, it is time to pull the information together to synthesize it and identify measurable objectives (Armstrong, 1982). Our goal is to leverage our strengths to overcome our weaknesses and capitalize on opportunities. We also want to actively take steps to neutralize or minimize threats. To quickly recap:

* Strengths--Flexible and growing loose integration system

* Weaknesses--Limited diversity; we need increased younger people and minority involvement.

* Opportunities--Globalization and Technology

Threats--Spirituality that displaces a Christian voice; potential emerging Biblical Counseling; education bubble

If we review the above information, then helpful goals and objectives appear to be:

Goal 1: Make our integration system more diverse. We live in a diverse world. Voices from different backgrounds and ages need to be an active part of the dialog. The body of Christ is becoming increasingly rich and diverse and the integration system should be following this same trajectory.

Objectives might include:

1. Assess current levels of minority involvement in academic programs and membership organizations. Work deliberately to recruit and increase minority involvement by 10% annually. Assess current age of faculty and membership organizations. Increase younger people on faculty when opportunity arises and increase younger person (under 35) at CAPS and AACC by 10% year over year.

2. Implement programs to train young integrative scholars at religiously affiliated institutions and secular universities to work at integration institutions (e.g., Regent grad teaching at Biola and vice versa). There is a limited pool of integration scholars, so sometimes it can be tempting to try to 'recruit' a faculty member from a neighboring institution. This leads to a zero-sum game in which we all angle for the best part of the integration scholar pie. Competition is a reality, and I do not want to discount it; however, I do think we need to deliberately grow the size of that pie, so that more young scholars focus on integration.

Goal 2: Make our integration system more global. If we want integration to be a credible and relevant voice in all corners of our world, then we need to be proactive about learning, engaging and collaborating with Christian mental health professionals outside of North America. ur faith is already booming in these contexts and many economies are too (Jenkins, 2002). Soon the mental health professions will also scale up. We want to get in on the ground floor--not once institutions are already established. Kelly O'Donnell has insightfully called this "global integration.

Objectives might include:

1. Academic institutions can partner with academic institutions, para-church organizations, and churches in the emerging world to learn from one another and share resources. Schools in the United States can connect with these groups and conduct need assessments. Then, we can co-create programs to help them solve problems in their local contexts.

2. Actively recruit faculty or speakers from emerging world to be a part of our programs.

3. Create integration-based certificate programs or academic programs that make financial sense for students in late-developing countries. There is no need for us to continue to look at the emerging world through our bulky, crystallized, accreditation process. Rather, we should create new models that are streamlined and optimized for new markets.

4. Provide support to assist faculty in regularly going overseas to promote integration.

5. Utilize web-based platforms to connect institutions, non-profits, educators, clinicians, and students. We tried this with Psychology Crossroads on Ning. It started strong, but then kind of fizzled out. We need to learn from this experience and iterate on the model to take it to the next level.

Goal 3: Continue to make inroads in non-religious settings like the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Counseling Association (ACA).

Objectives might include:

1. Play an active role in Division 36 (Psychology of Religion) of the APA and ACA's Association for Spiritual, Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling (ASERVIC).

2. Increase publishing in APA and ACA journals

3. Serve on leadership positions in both APA and ACA Goal

4: Make integration-based education affordable.

Objectives might include:

1. Figure out ways to attract more funding to support scholarships

2. Provide faculty with opportunities to generate extra income, so teaching continues to be an attractive profession.

3. Teach students business skills, so that they can remain active participants in integration and generate sufficient income.

Conclusion

The above list of goals and objectives is not exhaustive. It is just a starting point to get us to start thinking about where we are heading. I would argue that many of us already share the above concerns and have rightly implemented steps to help reach these objectives. If you take # 3 for example, Bill Hathaway has served on APA Council, Clark Campbell was recently the President of NCSPP, Everett Worthington was Division 36 President and Julie Exline is Division 36 President Elect. Similarly, Regent has supported a team of faculty on mental health and mission trips to Tanzania, Singapore, Malaysia, Jamaica and, soon, Honduras. These are great steps, but we need to take more of them. We in the integration field find ourselves in a unique position. Unfortunately, globalization and technology have caught us flat footed. Fortunately, the broader church has been way out ahead in understanding and leveraging globalization and technology. Global Christianity is booming and shows no signs of slowing down. We have a time-limited opportunity to make a huge impact on the future of faith and psychology. We just need to work together to identify a solid strategy and then execute against our objectives. We can begin by answering the question I started with: Where do we want to be in 10 years ?

Where Do We Want to be in 10 years? Thoughts on an Integration Strategy

Should our mean age be 65?

Do we want our typical student to have over $100,000 in student loan debt?

Do we want to he 85-90% Caucasian?

References

Armstrong, J. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions. Strategic Management Journal 3 (3): 197-211.

Jenkins, P. (2002). The next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ritzcr, C. (2011). Globalization: The essentials. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

SWOT Analysis (n.d.). In Wikipedia Online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis

SWOT Analysis (n.d.). In Qnick MBA Online. Retrieved from http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/swot/

Glendon L. Moriarty

Regent University Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Glendon L. Moriarty, Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.), Regent University, 1000 Regent University Dr., CRB 161, Virginia Beach, VA 23464. E-mail: [email protected]

Author Information

MORIARTY. GLENDON. Address: [email protected]. Tide: Associate Professor, Regent University, Department of Psychology. Degree: PsyD. Areas of interest: integration of psychology and technology; God images.