Issaco:(2) Notes on Outnumbered, but Meaningful: The Experience of Male Doctoral Students in Professional Psychology Training Programs

Overview

• Topic: The experience of male doctoral students in professional psychology training programs in the context of gender composition changes in the field.
• Key finding: Men are outnumbered in professional psychology training programs but report both advantages and disadvantages associated with being a gender minority, along with a generally satisfying view of their career choice.
• The study used Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified (CQR-M) to explore experiences, perspectives, and advice from male professional psychology doctoral students.
• Context: Historically male-dominated field; by 2009, 25\% of psychology doctorates earned were male, down from 50\% in 2003 and 80\% in 1973 (APA, 2011). This shift has implications for training, recruitment, retention, and client preferences.
• Relevance: Addresses recruitment, retention, and training in male psychology trainees; explores gender socialization, privilege, and diversity in female-concentrated settings.

Background and Rationale

• Higher education trends in the US show more females than males attaining baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral degrees; similar trends exist in psychology with women earning ~75\% of new psychology doctorates (APA, 2014).
• Gender distribution varies by subfield: clinical, counseling, and school psychology doctorates have male proportions of 23\%, 26\%, and 18\% respectively (APA, 2014).
• Importance of gender diversity due to potential effects on productivity, creativity, well-being, and client preferences (cited literature: Herring, 2009; Wegge et al., 2008).
• Theoretical framing: gender socialization theory (e.g., men avoiding feminine roles to preserve masculinity) and related research in other female-dominated professions (nursing, teaching) that show entry into these fields can be motivated by self-actualization, care for others, earnings, etc. (Lupton, 2006; Simpson, 2004, 2005; Singer et al., 2005; Zysberg & Berry, 2005).
• Conceptual lenses: token theory and privilege, which explain how numerical minority status intersects with discrimination and privilege; interest in how masculinity, power, and diversity influence training dynamics and career trajectories.

Research Focus and Questions

• Purposes of the study (exploratory, using CQR-M):
  • (a) Why do male trainees enter psychology?
  • (b) What strengths and weaknesses do men bring to professional psychology?
  • (c) What advantages and disadvantages do men experience in being a man in psychology?
  • (d) What advice would men give to other men considering psychology?
• Gap addressed: Little prior research on male psychology students’ perspectives in female-concentrated training environments; the study aims to illuminate these experiences and inform recruitment, retention, and training strategies.

Method

• Design: Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified (CQR-M), adapted for larger samples with written online survey data.
• Procedures: Open-ended survey questions derived from four topics, analyzed with a four-step domain coding approach; an independent auditor reviewed the final coding.
• Participants and recruitment:
  • Population: APA-accredited doctoral programs in counseling, clinical, and school psychology.
  • Initial pool: N = 368 invited; final analyzed sample: N = 255 respondents (after attrition). Demographics below.
• Demographics and key characteristics (sample size and percent, where provided):
  • Ethnicity: 202 White; 16 Latino/Hispanic; 14 Asian/Asian American; 9 African American/Black; 7 Middle Eastern/Arab American; 3 American Indian/Native American; 4 undisclosed.
  • Sexual orientation: 212 heterosexual; 33 gay; 8 bisexual; 1 other; 1 undisclosed.
  • Relationship status: 115 married/partner; 76 dating; 47 single; 7 engaged; 6 divorced/separated; 4 undisclosed.
  • Geographic region (region of school): 76 Middle Atlantic; 50 Pacific; 35 South Atlantic; 28 East North Central; 14 West North Central; 12 East South Central; 12 Mountain; 10 West South Central; 3 New England; 15 undisclosed.
  • Degree type: 156 PhD; 99 PsyD.
  • Subfields: 187 clinical; 39 school; 17 combined; 12 counseling.
  • Population with children: 55.
  • Age: sample mean M = 29.70, SD = 6.28.
• Measures: Four open-ended items corresponding to the four research questions; responses analyzed using a start list of priori domains derived from the questions.
• Data analysis specifics (CQR-M):
  • Start with domains based on the four questions: interest in psychology, strengths/weaknesses, advantages/disadvantages, advice.
  • Coders independently assign data to domains, then identify categories and subcategories within domains.
  • Regular meetings to compare and resolve disagreements; consensus-based final coding.
  • Auditor provided external verification and refinement suggestions (e.g., merging categories, clarifying definitions).
  • Frequencies: category frequencies and percentages computed across cases; infrequent (<5%) and miscellaneous categories omitted from final write-up (18 categories omitted).
• Ethics: IRB approval; informed consent; no participant compensation.
• Reflexivity: Two analysts (one male, White; one female, White) conducted analysis; reflexivity checks and power-dynamics discussions were used to mitigate bias; checks included rotating leadership and using first names.

Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified (CQR-M) Details

• Distinctions from standard CQR:
  • Focus on breadth rather than depth; no core ideas coding; larger sample suitability.
  • Start lists of a priori domains to structure large qualitative data sets.
• Data saturation and consensus process ensured through systematic discussion and an auditor’s input.

Results

• Organization of results by question; frequencies reflect the number of respondents who discussed a given domain or category (not mutually exclusive).
• Note: Pseudonyms used to protect anonymity; Table 1 (supplemental material) lists all domains with frequencies.

Why Men Choose Careers in Professional Psychology (n = 255)

• Four categories identified: Fulfillment and meaning; Interest and understanding; Personal experience; Personal strengths and abilities.
• Fulfillment and meaning (most common): 177/251 participants (≈ 70.5\%) described psychology as meaningful; helping others and serving a greater purpose.
  • Example: “Clinical psychology is the only profession I can envision myself in… desire to make a positive impact on the lives of others.”
  • Social justice alignment: opportunities to help oppressed/marginalized groups.
• Interest and understanding (≈ 60\%): 150/251 participants noted lifelong interest in human behavior and in specific subfields (neuropsychology, clinical psychology, counseling; statistics/research).
  • Example: Rob’s lifelong interest in what makes us human.
• Personal experience (≈ 16\%): 40/251 participants; drove interest via personal experiences or coursework; family background in helping professions.
  • Example: Doug’s personal experiences with depression and therapy.
• Personal strengths and abilities (≈ 12\%): 29/251 participants; saw themselves as natural counselors; empathy and listening identified as strengths.
  • Example: Jared’s calm presence as a strength in counseling.

Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses That Men Bring to Professional Psychology (n = 227)

• Three primary strengths identified:
  • Male perspective (strength) — 123/227 participants (≈ 54\%):
  • Perceived as providing unique vantage points on masculinity and men’s issues; contributes balance and diversity of perspectives.
  • Examples: “a unique perspective… attention to masculinity and men’s issues”; male presence adds balance in cohorts.
  • Positive clinical match (strength) — 65/227 (≈ 29\%):
  • Clients may prefer male therapists for certain issues or populations; gender parity in couples/family therapy; some men relate better to male therapists.
  • Example: George on client comfort and preference for male therapists.
  • Role model of masculinity (strength) — 37/227 (≈ 16\%):
  • Positive impact on clients and peers; expressive emotion appropriately; challenges restrictive masculinities.
  • Examples: Bert’s note on challenging negative views of men; Levi’s emphasis on multicultural awareness and acting as a social change agent.
• One primary weakness identified:
  • Poor clinical match with some clients (weakness/disadvantage) — 36/227 (≈ 16\%):
  • Risks include intimidation, rapport difficulty, and vulnerability to misconduct accusations; some populations (e.g., babies, women with PTSD) may be better served by female therapists.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Being a Man in Professional Psychology (n = 236)

• Outnumbered status: 85/236 participants (≈ 36\%) described feeling like a minority.
• Advantages:
  • Finding an internship or job (advantage) — 62/236 (≈ 27\%):
  • Perceived supply-and-demand effects in field; male applicants may be favored or welcomed in predoc sites.
  • Respect and authority (advantage) — 32/236 (≈ 14\%):
  • Perceived inherited privilege; male clients may attribute more authority to male therapists.
• Disadvantages:
  • Stigmatization (disadvantage) — 54/236 (≈ 23\%):
  • Perceived as immature, unemotional, cold, overly analytical; concerns about sexual misconduct accusations; age-related stigma for younger men.
  • Impact on career goals may steer away from subfields (e.g., child psychology).
  • Lack of support (disadvantage) — 37/236 (≈ 16\%):
  • Fewer social/family/programmatic supports (e.g., maternity leave but not paternity leave); fewer male role models and mentors; social isolation from female-dominated cohorts; limited male peer networks.
  • Additional notes: Some participants felt uncomfortable in female-dominated groups and moderated behavior; concerns about earning income and traditional provider roles outside academia.

Advice for Men Considering Entering Professional Psychology (n = 209)

• Two main categories emerged:
  • Increasing awareness (≈ 35\%): 74/209 participants urged openness about self, manhood, and social relationships; importance of self-reflection to align masculinity with psychology.
  • Key ideas: definitions of “man” may not resonate with all clients; emotional expression and empathy are compatible with professional care.
  • Proper preparation (≈ 16\%): 33/209 participants suggested structured preparation, including mentorship, program research, and financial/demographic considerations; multiple mentors may be beneficial, especially for intersecting identities.
  • Practical tips: seek male and/or diverse mentors; explore connections outside psychology for social support; verify program demographics and presence of other male applicants.
• Additional practical guidance: gaining field experience before applying (e.g., jobs in clinical or research roles) to understand diversity awareness and to build credibility.

Discussion and Implications

• Overall interpretation: Men’s experiences in female-dominated psychology programs reveal a mixed landscape of privilege and challenge; they report meaningful work, opportunities for leadership, and multiple pathways to support, but also risk of stigma and need for social/professional support.
• Implications for training programs and recruitment:
  • Emphasize fulfillment and meaning in recruitment messages to engage men (rather than focusing on prestige or money).
  • Leverage the reported strengths (e.g., male perspective, clinical matching for certain populations, role modeling) in curriculum design and clinical supervision to maximize training benefits and client outcomes.
  • Prepare for potential disadvantages by integrating discussions of privilege, microaggressions, and gender dynamics within diversity and multicultural training modules.
  • Develop mentorship structures, including multiple mentors for men with intersecting minority identities; encourage cross-program and cross-field connections to broaden social support.
  • Address biases among faculty and peers; promote openness to feedback and constructive discussions about gender privilege and diversity within training environments.
• Diversity, power, and privilege considerations:
  • The study situates masculinity within broader diversity efforts, highlighting that some male trainees view privilege as a resource to be leveraged for change, while others may lack awareness of their own privilege.
  • Advocates for training programs to create space for conversations about power, privilege, and inclusion, while respecting different expressions of masculinity and cultural identities.
• Practical implications for practice and policy:
  • Training programs should provide paternity leave and related supports to reduce gender-based inequities in faculty and student experiences.
  • Inclusion strategies should include attention to microaggressions and the potential for tokenism or pressure to represent the gender as a whole.
• Theoretical connections:
  • Connects to gender socialization theory (masculinity norms) and to token theory—how being a numerical minority can confer both constraints and opportunities.
  • Aligns with broader literature on men in female-dominated occupations (nursing, teaching) regarding perceived strengths, client preferences, and role strain.

Implications for Practice and Training

• Training and supervision:
  • Integrate discussions of gender identity, privilege, and cultural diversity into practicum and supervision settings.
  • Develop targeted modules on navigating a male minority status in clinical training (e.g., building rapport with male clients, addressing counters transference, etc.).
  • Use immediacy and reflective practices to help male trainees process experiences of privilege and stigma.
• Recruitment and retention:
  • Highlight meaningful work and contributions to client care when recruiting men; provide real examples of male role models and successful trajectories.
  • Promote diversity initiatives that explicitly address male trainees’ experiences in female-dominated fields, including mentorship networks and inclusive environments.
• Diversity as a learning objective:
  • Recognize masculinity as a form of diversity; encourage exploration of different masculine identities and their relation to professional practice.
  • Encourage critical reflection on privilege and power dynamics among all trainees, irrespective of gender.

Limitations and Future Research

• Limitations:
  • Self-selected sample; results may not generalize to all male doctoral students in health service psychology.
  • Predominantly White sample; underrepresentation of men of color, gay/bisexual/transgender men; precludes broader generalizations about all male trainees.
  • Focused on counseling, clinical, and school psychology; other subfields (e.g., social psychology) not represented.
  • Four open-ended questions limited depth; no in-person probing.
• Future research directions:
  • Use in-depth interviews or mixed-methods designs to explore nuanced experiences and to verify findings with more diverse samples.
  • Examine how each subfield (clinical vs. counseling vs. school) affects training contexts and male trainees’ experiences.
  • Investigate how gender identity, masculine norms, and norms of professional psychology intersect in long-term career outcomes.
  • Compare experiences of men who initially considered psychology but chose other paths to identify additional determinants of career choices.
  • Examine predictive factors for satisfaction and retention among male trainees; assess interventions to improve outcomes.
• Broader implications:
  • Consider how changes in gender composition in psychology influence client access and treatment preferences, and how training programs can respond to these dynamics.

Key Theoretical References and Concepts Mentioned

• Gender socialization theory (masculine roles and avoidance of feminine domains) and literature on men entering female-dominated occupations (Lupton, 2006; Simpson, 2004, 2005).
• Token theory and privilege in explaining fast-tracked leadership opportunities for men in male-perceived dominant contexts (Kanter, 1977).
• Precarious manhood framework (Vandello & Bosson, 2013) and considerations of power/privilege in male identities within diverse settings.
• Diversity and microaggressions literature relevant to classroom and training contexts (Sue et al., 2009).
• Prior research on men in nursing, teaching, and other female-dominated professions as comparative anchors (Kelly et al., 1996; Cushman, 2005; Lupton, 2006; Williams, 1995).

References (Selected Anchors)

• American Psychological Association, Center for Workforce Studies (2011, 2014).
• Hill, Thompson, & Williams (1997): Guide to Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR).
• Spangler, Liu, & Hill (2012): CQR-M methodology details.
• Kanter (1977); Vandello & Bosson (2013); Lupton (2006); Simpson (2004, 2005); Sbaratta, Tirpak, & Schlosser (2015).
• Additional sources cited in the article provide context for diversity, privilege, and gender in professional settings.

Summary Takeaways

• Men in psychology training programs report meaningful, fulfilling work and value in being able to help others, with a strong emphasis on personal fit and interest.
• The principal strengths continually highlighted include the unique male perspective, improved client matching for certain populations, and the potential to model positive masculinity.
• The primary challenges center on being a numerical minority, stigmatization, and limited social/financial support, which can influence career paths and subfield selections.
• Practical guidance from participants stresses increasing self-awareness of masculinity and privilege, thorough program research, mentorship, and pre-entry field experience.
• Training programs should integrate diversity, privilege, and masculinity discussions into curricula, provide robust mentorship, and address structural supports to improve recruitment and retention of male psychology trainees.
• The study is exploratory with limitations; future research should broaden diversity, subfields, and methodological depth to illuminate generalizability and deeper mechanisms.