A Note On Professional Integrity
Why I'm (probably) a more reliable source of social media content...
This is a transcript of a future episode of The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast. You are getting a preview of the transcript because you subscribe to this blog, which means you (probably) like my work, and I would like to give you something to look forward to. Have a read if you would like, or you can wait for the episode, which I am hoping to record later this week and hopefully post sometime next week. Either way, thanks for subscribing. It means a lot.
Hello, and welcome to what I’m officially calling Season 3 of the Nice-ish Ramblings podcast. For the first episode of this season, I thought a lot about what would make sense as an opener, and I kept returning to the question, “Why should my listeners trust me?”
Part of the reason this question is on my mind is that many people – on social media and podcasts – share information that sounds good but isn’t always accurate. Additionally, this information is often delivered with a confidence that doesn't necessarily reflect the speaker’s qualifications or expertise. And sometimes, I see those who are qualified to speak on things related to mental health and psychology deliver information in a way that feels vague and non-specific. For example, and I won’t name names here, but I have seen someone say, “According to psychology…” and then make a statement that is supposedly backed up by psychological theory or research but without any reference to where this fact about the human condition originates in the psychological literature. On the one hand, this is acceptable if it accurately reflects the literature, but it's not so acceptable if it doesn't. However, I get ahead of myself – this is something I will address later.
So, as an opening gambit for season three, I thought I would take this opportunity to reintroduce myself (for anyone who might be new) and take some time to discuss professional integrity and think about why you, as a listener and consumer of the things I talk and write about, can trust what I say. However, as a side note, before we delve into it, when I wrote this episode, it took on a shape different from what I had initially intended. It’s possible that what you hear next could be taken as boasting, which is fair. However, I delve into the level of detail I do not to show off, but rather to highlight that if you listen to or read content by a psychologist, they have invested a significant amount of time and effort to reach their current level of expertise, enabling them to discuss the topics they cover online.
For those who don’t know me or are new to this podcast, I am a registered forensic and clinical psychologist. This means that I am trained in two distinct fields of psychology. One field is dedicated to researching and understanding how and why people experience mental distress or develop mental illnesses and how to work with them to deal with and recover from those experiences. During my training, I developed skills in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Behaviourism, but I also took an interest in Systemic Family therapy, a model of therapy that aims to understand that individuals exist within various systems or environments and how these systems impact their mental well-being. Along the way, I have also trained in Dialectical Behavioural Therapy and Schema Therapy. So, those are five different models of psychology that I can draw on to try to understand why people might feel the way they do or think the way they think.
The other field is dedicated to researching and understanding how and why people commit crimes and how, once they enter the criminal justice system, to work with such individuals to reduce their risk of committing further offences. This kind of work can take place at any point along the criminal justice route: from assessment of an offender’s risk to assist sentencing decisions in court; to a focus on rehabilitation while in prison or forensic psychiatric hospitals; to working with probation services in the community to make sure those who are still on license don’t commit further offences. For my part, I work more on the rehabilitative side of things both in a prison and in the community. This forensic aspect of my training has given me insights into and knowledge of why people do bad things (in a very simplistic nutshell).
Alongside this, I work in two different personality disorder services, which involves a lot of understanding of relationships and attachments. And the individuals I have worked with have all experienced significant trauma and childhood adversity, so I am also very aware of the impact of trauma both in terms of PTSD symptoms, like flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, avoidance and hypervigilance, and in terms of Complex PTSD, which can result in difficulties with sense of identity and self-worth, the formation of relationships, and the management of emotions.
All of this makes me what is known as a practitioner psychologist, which is different to an academic psychologist (I did a whole episode on this, so I won’t repeat all of that here). But, in brief, what that means is that I am an applied psychologist – in that I take the research, literature and evidence that exists within my fields, and I apply them to working with the individuals that I do. So, I work from an evidence-based perspective, but I am also a practice-based practitioner, meaning that because not everyone fits into nice, neat boxes, and not everything that is evidence-based works exactly as it should for everyone, sometimes there is a necessity to work with people in a more flexible way based on how much they do or don’t respond to a particular intervention. Alongside this, as part of my doctoral training to become a practitioner psychologist, I had to submit a research thesis. And when I say it like that, it sounds like, “Oh, I just did a thesis,” which doesn’t quite do it justice. It was a four-year-long intense project which involved sourcing participants, sitting an ethics board, conducting interviews, analysing data, producing a 10,000-word document and a 10,000-word literature review, all while doing multiple placements and submitting other academic assignments throughout those years spent on placement. It was a lot.
Overall, I have about 15 years’ worth of experience in working in the field of mental health. Before pursuing a doctorate, I worked as a health care assistant in two different community psychiatric hospitals while also doing my Masters in Forensic Psychology. I then worked for two years as an Assistant Psychologist before getting on Doctoral Training. And all of this still only puts me in the lower end of the spectrum of experience as a practicing psychologist. Some popular psychologists on social media have had fifteen years of practicing as a psychologist, never mind all the different forms of experience they may have had before becoming registered. So I am still what I colloquially refer to as a baby psychologist, even though I am technically a Senior Practitioner.
Aside from all my work with clients, I also supervise Assistant Psychologists, who are working their way to getting onto a Doctorate, and Trainee Psychologists who are on the Doctorate and do placement in the services I work in. Therefore, part of my role also involves developing and teaching junior and aspiring psychologists. Now, to make sure I am actually being helpful to their development and assisting them learn about the latest and most up-to-date psychological theory, I also have to keep up with the most up-to-date developments in psychological theory. Some of this I am able to get through the Trust I work in, but some of it I do off my own back. I am not saying I am fully up to date with all the latest developments, because there would be too much for me to keep up with, but there is an expectation that I do this. This is something that is required of me by my professional governing body, the Health and Care Professions Council (or HCPC). Every time I renew my registration with the HCPC, I could be one of the 2.5% of randomly selected registrants from my profession who has to demonstrate that I am keeping up with my Continued Profession Development (CPD). This expectation is in place to prove and ensure that I am working with my clients from the most up-to-date evidence base on psychological theories and models.
Now, speaking of the HCPC. As mentioned literally 20 seconds ago, they are a governing body for – as the name suggests – health and care professionals. This does not include doctors, nurses, or social workers, as they have their own professional governing bodies. However, the HCPC does govern a whole raft of professions such as practitioner psychologists like me, but also art therapists, occupational therapist, dieticians, paramedics, podiatrists, radiographers, and a group of professionals called clinical scientists. No judgement if you are a clinical scientist, I have just never heard of one of you and so have literally no idea what you might do.
Another thing to note is that the titles of “therapist”, “psychologist”, and “counsellor” are not protected titles under the HCPC. What this means is that someone can only call themselves, as I do, a forensic or clinical psychologist if they have completed an appropriate Doctoral degree. However, what this also means is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist”, but that does not mean they have gone through the intensive training I outlined earlier. This is why I make sure I call myself a forensic and clinical psychologist, not because I want to show off, but because it is my official title and indicates that I have done all the hard graft needed to be given that title.
But what does being registered by the HCPC actually mean? Well, being a registrant (as I am officially known) means that I must adhere to specific guidelines and regulations – there are a whole lot of them. These guidelines and regulations are put in place to ensure that I am accountable for my practice and the way I conduct myself as a professional. And in recent years, with there being a growing presence of mental health information online – and on social media specifically, which inevitably produced an influx of psychologists and other psychological practitioners, the HCPC has also released new guidance for professionals on their register regarding the use of social media. The guidance, released on September 1, is an updated version, building on older guidance that had been in circulation for some time. But I think the HCPC went away and thought a bit more about what they had previously suggested. The new guidance is also freely available online, which you can go have a look at if it interests you (and is also linked in the show notes, because – you know – this is a podcast and that’s what expected, right). Now, while a podcast is strictly not social media, I think it can be argued that it is a form of social networking of some kind. And as a producer of content in podcast form, I think a few of the HCPC guidelines for social media still apply.
For example, one key guideline emphasises the importance of communicating appropriately. As an HCPC registrant, the guidance states that I must use media-sharing networks and social networking sites responsibly. This means I have to ensure that the information I share online is accurate, truthful, and does not mislead the public, aligning with my duty to promote public health. Therefore, when sharing information online, I need to verify the accuracy and credibility of the content I distribute. In the guidance it is noted that it is essential for me to check the sources of the information I share and ensure they are trustworthy. Additionally, as and when I participate in online discussions or debates, I must ensure that my views are evidence-based and accurate to the best of my knowledge. And if I find that I've shared false, inaccurate, or misleading information, I have an obligation to correct it.
Another piece of guidance that we are instructed to follow is regarding honesty and trustworthiness. According to the documentation, we, as HCPC practitioners, need to carefully consider what we share online through our use of social media. We need to ensure that what we share does not bring the profession into disrepute. So, when using either a professional or a personal account or representing the profession in some form, such as a guest speaker anywhere, we are expected to conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner. Now, while there is some flexibility in what that might be, for example, the use of swearing in discussions, overall, we are expected to uphold the profession and ensure that psychological practitioners are seen as reliable and trustworthy. In this respect, if we disagree with another professional or anyone on social media or a podcast, we can be critical, but we must focus on the facts. We can have an opinion about individuals or an individual’s work, but we have to ground that in something – we can’t just be belligerent and cruel and enter into the realm of character assassination.
I also have to state when something is my opinion and distinguish that from what the research says. The reason for this is that, due to the authority my profession carries, opinions can sometimes be misconstrued as fact if stated by someone who, in the public's view, is considered an expert in their field. Therefore, if I discuss areas in which I work, I must be clear about whether what I say is grounded in the evidence base or if I am stating something I have hypothesised on my own accord. For example, as I noted earlier, I have seen instances of psychologists who simply state, “according to psychology,” and then make a statement about some kind of behaviour. Whilst the statement begins with, “according to psychology,” the comment about the behaviour mentioned could simply be the speaker's opinion, as there is no indication of where psychology allegedly makes that statement. It would be better if, within the video or the caption, the reader/viewer/listener is directed to where exactly in the research literature that piece of psychological knowledge is stated so that their audience can go and read up on that if they want to. This then lends further credibility and trustworthiness of the professions.
This is not to say that everything a psychological practitioner shares is wholly objective and without bias. There will sometimes be an agenda that we, as practitioners, have when we share information. This isn’t necessarily malicious, but it is also worth being curious about what a practitioner is sharing and why, which is where providing references for what we share is also helpful as we are then being transparent about the information we are sharing and opening ourselves up for correction if we have got something wrong (which, as noted before, we should then be able to hold our hands up and acknowledge). Finally, I also have to declare that any views I have are not that of my employer or the NHS or the HCPC, and they are not necessarily representative of all psychologists throughout the world.
All of this is not to say that I am right about everything and that I am the preeminent authority on anything I talk about and discuss – even if what I say is presented with research. I do not consider myself an expert, but I do have certain expertise, and I am guided by a set of guidelines that – even though I am anonymous – I adhere to because I think it is important that those who listen to this podcast are given access to trustworthy and accessible sources of information and ideas about the world we live in. But I am not without my faults and my biases. So, while this whole episode has been about why you as a listener should be able to trust me, I encourage you to also be critical about what I say. If something I talk about doesn’t sit well with you, access the resources I have provided to challenge me. I'm always open to a healthy discussion. And, if I have also made a claim and have not provided evidence or directed you to where you can read up on what I have said, ask me for it, or tell me to include it, and I will.
But hopefully, with everything I have shared about what it takes to get to the position as a psychologist that I currently hold, it has also given you some insight into why you should at least be cautious about those who speak so authoritatively about things when they are not necessarily in a position to do so. Some of you might hold the view that this is somewhat of an elitist position for me to take, and that might be true. However, as a recent article in the Guardian highlighted, there are people out there who will use the title of “psychologist” or “therapist” to engage in harmful and abusive practices, so much so that there have been petitions for the government to enforce the mandatory regulation of psychotherapists and psychologists in England. Currently, therapists in England can register with a governing body on a voluntary basis, whereas for psychologists like me it is mandatory. And while in this podcast I am talking about psychological practitioners on social media, the same principle applies. There are those on social media who will use the title of therapist or psychologist who may, intentionally or not, cause some kind of harm to those who follow them based on the information they give out. Therefore, it is always worth doing a little digging with anyone you follow. Feel free to ask them what their qualifications are and if they are registered with any kind of governing body. Anyone who gets defensive about that kind of question and refuses even to have that kind of conversation with you is likely doing so because they are unable to provide any of those details. As for me, I know I am anonymous and therefore you can’t check my name on a register, but if it is any kind of reassurance, there are enough registered psychologists out there who follow me and who know who I am who can report me to the HCPC if they feel my behaviour online is out of order.
Anyway, I think that is enough said on that subject for now. It is highly likely that despite taking several weeks to write this episode I have not covered everything that I would like to have covered, or that should have been covered. But, as I like to say, I think this has been “good enough,” and hopefully you have learned something from listening to it. As always, if you think someone else might benefit from hearing this in some way, please send it to them or share it online. And as always, thanks for your time and I’ll chat to you soon.
All the best.