Psychology Training Falls Short on Policy Skills, New Research Shows
A recent study reveals a significant gap in how psychologists are prepared to engage with public policy during their graduate training, potentially limiting their ability to create broader social change.
Researchers interviewed 18 school and counseling psychologists from the United States and United Kingdom who have experience working on policy issues affecting children and young people. What they found suggests that current training programs may not be equipping future psychologists with the tools needed to influence policy decisions that affect their clients and communities.
Missing Elements in Graduate Programs
Nearly all participants reported that their graduate training programs included little to no formal instruction on policy advocacy. Many described never hearing terms like "public policy" or "advocacy" during their entire educational experience. This absence sent a clear message that policy work was considered outside the traditional scope of psychological practice.
When policy was mentioned at all, it typically focused on compliance with existing laws rather than how to actively influence or change policy. Some participants described policy work as presented as an "aspirational idea" without any practical guidance on implementation.
Transferable Skills Exist, But Knowledge Gaps Remain
Despite the lack of formal policy training, participants identified several skills from their psychology education that proved valuable in policy work. Their training in communication, active listening, systems thinking, and understanding research evidence all translated well to working with policymakers.
Participants noted that psychologists are uniquely positioned for advocacy work because of these interpersonal and analytical skills. They described using their ability to facilitate difficult conversations and communicate complex information clearly when working with government officials.
However, participants emphasized that while they had developed useful "soft skills," they lacked crucial "hard skills" and knowledge about policy processes. Many admitted they didn't understand basic elements like how bills become laws, who the key decision makers are, or how to effectively engage with the political system.
Confidence and Professional Identity Issues
The research identified confidence as a major barrier to policy engagement. Participants described policy work as potentially intimidating and requiring a certain boldness to reach out to policymakers and assert that their voices deserve to be heard.
More fundamentally, the study revealed tension about whether policy advocacy should be considered a core responsibility of psychologists. Some participants viewed it as a moral obligation, arguing that psychologists have a duty to use their knowledge to improve lives beyond individual therapy sessions. Others seemed to view it as an optional specialty area.
This uncertainty appears rooted in traditional training approaches that emphasize individual treatment over broader systemic change, despite psychology's increasing focus on social justice principles.
Geographic Differences
The study found some differences between countries. American participants noted that their professional organization, the National Association of School Psychologists, had begun offering policy training opportunities and seemed more advanced in encouraging this type of work. British participants felt their professional organizations could do much more to support policy engagement among psychologists.
Training Recommendations
Participants suggested several ways training programs could better prepare psychologists for policy work. They recommended including basic education about how legislative systems work, who the key players are, and practical strategies for engagement.
They also suggested incorporating classroom activities like mock legislative testimony, policy analysis assignments, and opportunities to hear from psychologists already engaged in policy work. Some recommended practice placements in policy focused settings to give students hands on experience.
This research highlights a disconnect between psychology's stated commitment to social justice and the practical preparation of new professionals. If psychologists are truly meant to work toward broader social change, their training needs to reflect that mission more clearly.
The findings suggest that until policy advocacy becomes a standard part of psychology curricula, it will continue to be viewed as peripheral to the profession rather than integral to it. This may limit the potential impact psychologists could have on important social issues affecting the populations they serve.
The study authors argue that both individual training programs and professional organizations need to take greater responsibility for developing these capabilities in current and future psychologists. Without this support, the gap between psychology's social justice aspirations and actual practice may persist.
As mental health issues increasingly intersect with broader social and political factors, the ability of psychologists to engage effectively with policy makers may become even more crucial for the profession's relevance and impact.
Winter, L. A., Wood, M., & Shriberg, D. (2025). Practitioner psychologists as policy advocates, or policy as outside of our scope? Experiences and views of training in school and counseling psychology. School Psychology International, 46(2), 153-171.
