Although it is clear that psychology's workforce has not yet reached parity, it is also obvious that the workforce of the future, given the pipeline data, will look rather different. It is therefore hard to avoid the term "feminization," and a growing body of research is being done under that particular rubric. To date, this research has shown that when a profession becomes less attractive to men relative to other occupations with similar educational and time requirements, men leave. Women are then hired in increasing numbers, while the occupation/profession's prestige and earning power declines further. We do know (although we had limited salary data) that earnings, in constant dollars, have declined since the seventies. When compared with other sciences and fields requiring similar or even less training, such salary declines may lead a good portion of career aspirants to look elsewhere. Reskin and Roos (1990) also noted that increased external regulation and declines in autonomy make fields less attractive. Although psychologists in private practice have had a great deal of autonomy in the past, with the advent of managed care and insurance regulation on the increase in the health service domain, autonomy is declining.

In academia there are also major changes and great flux. On the positive side, behavioral science research is in some ways in the forefront. The recent report by the Committee on Personnel Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1994) recommended increasing predoctoral training awards in psychology funded by the Public Health Service for the first time in several years, arguing for the important role of behavior in the prevention and treatment of disease. There is now an Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research at the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation has increased its support for behavioral science by establishing a separate directorate and targeting specific funds to the Human Capital Initiative. On the other hand, there is also increased administrative control of departmental decisions about hiring and promotion, and it has become more common for departmental decisions and even college-level committee recommendations to be overturned at a higher level. This, in addition to the growing competition for research dollars, the lack of financial resources to support graduate students, and the growing use of part-time faculty to teach classes, has undermined autonomy and independence in academia.

These potentially negative indicators for academic and professional psychology may reduce the attractiveness of careers in psychology for those who aspire to high income, opportunity for promotion, and a degree of autonomy. Research has shown that all of these are aspects of jobs that have been demonstrated to be attractive to both men and women (Reskin, 1993), and this will probably affect the future recruitment. Although polls suggest that the public continues to view psychology as an occupation with some respect, skepticism of the professional and the scientific communities in general has surfaced, with the well-publicized reports of fraud, abuse, and dishonesty (e.g., the breast cancer studies and the treatment practices of corporations running psychiatric hospitals).

The work of the task force indicates that organized psychology must continue to ensure that parity exists for psychologists, regardless of characteristics that have little relationship to performance. In order to avoid further depreciation of psychology, we must look at the changing demographics in the United States. Women are entering the workforce at a much higher rate than men. In addition, it is predicted that people of color will represent over 50% of the U.S. population by the year 2025. Psychology must respond to the new workforce and population. Professions in the U.S. can no longer survive and succeed under the old paradigms and outdated philosophies. Thus, the task force is advocating for psychology to rethink and redesign the profession.

The data summarized in Section III of the full report highlight sex differences in terms of employment sector and primary work activity. Moreover, although the index of segregation suggests that these differences are relatively small compared to other occupations, we do know that the use of aggregate data often masks sharper disparities in terms of specific types of jobs and work functions (Reskin, 1993). For example, a specific gender may be more likely to be in roles that involve psychological testing rather than psychotherapy or undergraduate rather than graduate teaching. In addition, based on the available data, a gender gap in salaries remains. Although it has been reduced in some instances, the fact that this was probably a product of greater reductions in men's earning power is neither the desired nor appropriate strategy for ensuring pay equity.

Table of Contents