@bernadette This research literacy you reference isn't taught exclusively in graduate school. In fact, the general rule is that in order to pursue advanced degrees in psychology (which is one of the most over-bloated throw-away undergraduate majors that currently exists) you have to complete not only the mandatory coursework (which includes mandatory statistics/quantitative methods courses, as well as a "lab" component) but also pursue undergraduate research under the supervision of a professor or graduate student, among other extracurricular activities and engagements. If you graduate with a Bachelor's in Psychology without having gained at least some "research literacy" that is quantifiable in terms of credits or citations, you have basically no chance of pursuing an advanced degree from any respectable establishment. Of course, shoehorning and favoritism may have been doled out toward Dr. Janke given her background, but that would be an exception to the rule.
It would also be patently false to say that when pursuing a Psy.D., you are not going to be exposed to studies, instructed on how to interpret them in a clinical setting, etc. However, you are much more likely to be exposed to studies which are
relevant to the practice. As a Ph.D. student, you might be injecting rat brains with glow-in-the-dark chemicals to see if there is a reaction when you say the word "cheese" (facetious example obv), which certainly helps you become versed in study methodology and even more advanced statistical analyses, could see you branch out into other fields like neurology, neurochemistry, psychopharmacology, etc. to get a base level understanding of what is being measured in this study, but I think you will agree that this is not directly relevant to practicing psychology.
If you think that everyone who goes into practicing psychology is following a path which is laden with lab work and research that is only relevant to their ultimate career goal, you are sorely mistaken. For the first year or two at LEAST, you are used as a straight up slave, at the whim of your laboratory supervisor, department head, etc. You will teach classes to inner city kids who would mug you on your way home, you will clean up rat feces out of cages, you will fill out mountains of paperwork without as much as a thank you, and you will do as you are told even if you disagree with the methodology, all in order just to pay for your degree so you can get the fuck out of there and practice psychology - and then, the results of "your" study, if you are lucky enough to be even third on the list of contributors, may be published in some journal and be yet another study that can't be reproduced due to the extreme failure of psychology as a science in general in the modern era (aka the "replication crisis").
These were mostly Ph.D.'s and Ph.D. students publishing these studies, of which a huge percentage are failing to be reproduced, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say that gauging the legitimacy and limitation of studies is something that is "polished" among Ph.D.s. It's a racket, no matter which way you slice it - whether you are a Psy.D. and willfully sidestepping the racket in exchange for not having a stipend/full ride and thus missing out on some of this "research literacy" which leads to fraudulent studies, or whether you are a part of the racket and are treated like a slave for some crusty old boomer who wants to push some theory they have and they will slice and dice the results of the research in a million different ways until they find some numbers that support their hypothesis and then in turn publish those numbers as fact. Either way, it's a joke to believe there is any real research
integrity being promoted on either side of the divide. At least as a Psy.D., your studies and duties will focus more on what you actually want to be doing for the rest of your life, which is pushing your pre-existing opinions and gut instincts as fact (edit: on a practical level), backed by bullshit studies.
www.wsj.com
