Time to modernise our attitude towards driving?

As a Clinical Psychologist with a disability, who is involved in course selection for the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, I write to express my disgust that most of the clearing house entries specify that prospective clinical psychologists must drive a car to be accepted onto the Doctorate.

I believe this is ridiculous, of dubious legality and a massive obstacle to diversity in my profession. It is very hard to justify in practical terms. Other career routes which require more travel (e.g. Social Work) do not use ability to drive a car as part of their selection due to diversity implications. This year's trainee cohort have spent the bulk of their time working online, and some form of 'blended' learning is very likely for future cohorts, so the need for travel has greatly reduced. In any case, how someone travels should not be part of selection for a role as a Psychologist as it is not a key skill of our profession.

Some courses state there will be exceptions for candidates who can prove they don't drive due to a diagnosed disability, but I don't feel this is satisfactory. Diagnosis is a privilege that a lot of disabled people don't have. It also forces someone to disclose a disability during a competitive selection process that may have no relevance whatsoever to the skills of a Psychologist and can expose the candidate to unconscious bias. Moreover, disability is not the only valid reason to not be a driver. There are also environmental and economic reasons someone may choose not to drive, and these are valid too. Surely we need all sorts of people in our profession, rather than the narrow identikit workforce we are often accused of having?

A candidate who doesn't drive due to disability should not have to declare this at the selection stage. It is invasive and fraught with potential for discrimination. Once on the course, if there are issues with placement location, individuals can apply to Access to Work who will fund transport arrangements. My experience of this has been very straightforward.

There are obviously courses which will be easier for non-drivers than others due to location constraints. Courses need to be much more transparent and describe where placements are likely to be – it's very hard to find out in advance which geographical areas are covered, even when accepted onto the course (due to an assumption everyone drives). People who choose not to drive could decide for themselves whether they can travel in a timely fashion across that area. This strategy, I feel, would be in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005), which protects people's right to make their own decisions (even if others may regard that decision as unwise). If someone wants to do a remote rural course whilst choosing not to drive, but they are prepared to fund a stay overnight or get up at early and cycle, that is surely their choice, and they should not be pre-emptively excluded.

To get a place on clinical training you have to be bright, resilient and a good problem solver. Realistically, no one is going to get that far if they can't sort out their own travel arrangements when needed. What happens at present is the worst of all possibilities. Non-drivers (even those with a disability) wishing to train to be Clinical Psychologists often find themselves excluded.

Because of the prejudice and barriers around this issue, someone may well be the only non-driver in their cohort, on a course that doesn't know how to deal with this and struggles to accommodate it. My own experience as a disabled Trainee was that there was a complete lack of clarity from courses about where the placements were likely to be, which compromised my ability to pick the right course for me. On the course I was pathologised and given excessively long commutes which affected my ability to qualify on time. We really need to modernise our attitude to this. The BPS, DCP and ACP-UK should take a firm line on this issue and have driving removed as a 'requirement' from all courses. It's not a required skill of a Psychologist and its antithetical to diversity in our profession to insist that it is.

Dr Ilona Singer
Clinical Psychologist (writing in a personal capacity)
 

As an aspiring psychologist who has an invisible disability, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr Ilona Singer.

I'm often reminded how my health conditions can impact my life, such as being unable to drive. I appreciate that having a driver's licence is useful and necessary in some occupations, but is it truly a requirement for aspiring psychologists?

As Singer said, if courses were more transparent about the location of placements, and whether there's flexibility with these, applicants could make informed decisions about which courses they would be most suited to.

Removing driving as a 'requirement' from courses would improve accessibility in Clinical Psychology. Along with the inclusion of more part-time courses (such as at Lancaster University), this would help break down some of the barriers in the profession and encourage more people to enter.

In a world where we are striving for equality, equity and the removal of 'labels', Clinical Doctorate courses are unintentionally forcing those with disabilities to identify themselves, which not everyone is comfortable with and can be seen as an invasion of privacy.

While reading Singer's piece, some reoccurring thoughts appeared. Am I less of an applicant because I have a disability? Am I less of an applicant because I'm unable to drive? Would these 'faults' make me less of a Clinical Psychologist? How many other aspiring psychologists are doubting their abilities and career goals because of these 'requirements'?

- Abigail Lee, PhD Candidate, University of Nottingham 
 

I totally agree with Dr Ilona Singer's sentiments about driving as a selection criterion for clinical psychology courses. Surely this is archaic, illegal and discriminatory and needs to stop immediately. I was advised by recruitment for the last post I advertised that the criterion of being able to travel between sites in a timely manner was more appropriate.

- Judith Storey
 

I agree with the comments made by Ilona Singer about asking applicants for the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology about their ability to drive a car. When I did my clinical training (in another country) I did not have a car and I could not have afforded one. I have not needed a car for my job throughout my 22 years as a clinical neuropsychologist. If the ability to afford a car is a requirement to apply for the Doctorate, then it seems unfair as it would exclude low income students.

- Margaret Newson

 

I am a psychology and sociology student about to start my 4th year. I am a disabled citizen because of my epilepsy. I have been fighting my own driving issues with society for some time.

I have a driving licence for cars, and an A2 for motorcycles, which I love driving. However, because of my epilepsy, I had to be one year free of seizures to get back my right to drive. Recently, I received a letter from my doctor that allows me to drive again, but if I have even one seizure, I will be out of driving for 6-12 months. 

I fought with the discrimination from not being able to drive for a year, and had to deal with the frustration of not being able to do something I am passionate about.

I found many job opportunities for which I had the knowledge and was a perfect fit for the role, but the last requirement was always a driver's licence and/or your own car. We have a car at home, and I always thought that if someone asked me if I had a car at an interview, I would tell the truth and say yes, even though I wasn't able to drive. I think it is discriminative to require a license, because as long as I can arrive at my workplace, I shouldn't be asked to drive. I found solutions with public transport or my boyfriend driving me – however, this is a privilege that not everyone has.

I completely agree that we have to modernise our attitudes. I would love to know what we can do. I would love to hear some ideas of how I can move forward to do my part in changing the attitudes of others. 

- Alexia Forschner
[email protected]

 

I understand a need for access to a vehicle that certain courses require due to rural placements. However, the lack of flexibility towards this prerequisite will continue to contribute to a workforce that limits representation with respect to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as other protected characteristics. 

As the eldest of four raised by a single-mother, my childhood was plagued by financial instability. Aged 16, I became financially independent, working throughout college and my university degrees. Despite attaining scholarships for both my postgraduate degrees, I had to work full-time throughout these to cover rent and additional living expenses. Living in London, driving is not essential – I considered obtaining a license primarily for the purpose of the clinical doctorate in psychology. To ensure I would pass my test in time for the doctorate interview, I paid a substantial amount from my savings for a crash course.

A close bereavement this year halted my lessons, and I was unable to sit my test prior to the interview. Despite sharing these mitigating conditions, my interview was terminated. I did not receive a call or follow-up once the decision had been made. Soon after, I noticed I felt anxious when thinking about Dclin Psychology training. I questioned my belonging on the course, and I wondered about how containing and supportive the training would be.

Within NHS health careers, this pre-requisite for a driving license is unique to clinical psychology trainees. For example, medical and nursing students are not required to obtain a license despite both being required to attend placements in varying locations. Currently, approximately 10 DclinPsy courses require a driving license as part of the application process. Some courses have demonstrated flexibility to this pre-requisite such as the Universities of Oxford and Surrey, by supporting trainees in attaining driving tests and extending the deadline by which the license is required. Other courses such as Lancaster, Exeter, Sheffield and Essex have relayed that whilst a driving license is strongly recommended, it is not mandatory. However, this flexibility has not been adopted by all universities.

Upon my interview being terminated, I took to Twitter to express my disappointment and received a number of direct messages from aspiring psychologists whose anxieties about this structural barrier mirrored my own. Many shared that this pre-requisite majorly impacted or delayed their application to courses. Other responses included:

From Lancaster Dclin Psychology @LancsDclinPsy: "We don't think there is a need for a driving licence to do training & haven't had this requirement for a decade+. It makes life easier but we've had many people qualify without one. It's clearly one of a number of issues that programmes could be looking at to address access."

From Dr Malcom Clayton @Malcomclayton: "That's very disappointing…I had my license but didn't drive once, relying on my bike and trains. It was perfectly possible in and across Coventry, Warwickshire, Birmingham, and Worcestershire!"

From an aspiring psychologist: "Think [x] and [y] also require a licence at interview. Been on hold for lessons for ages so it's influencing where I apply – so frustrating."

From Dr Claire Williams @drcsquare "@UK_ACP were very clear in their recent document about addressing inequalities that the requirement to have a driving licence was not okay and reinforces the very issues that prevent diversity in the workforce"

Surely employers should consider alternatives, such as:

• Rides with other trainees or staff who work nearby,
• Public transportation such as local buses,
• Bicycling or other forms of transport (e.g., scooters in some areas),
• Taxis or ridesharing services,
• Placements that are accessible by other modes of transport (train, bus and cycling).

Dr llona Singer puts it clearly – driving is not a required skilled of a psychologist and it is antithetical within the profession to insist it is. Furthermore, Singer explains that such a requirement leaves disabled applicants with an absence of choice as to whether they desire to share their disability, especially amidst a competitive process which may lead to unconscious biases. Finally, social and environmental reasons for not driving are just as valid and should be considered. It's also worth noting that in many parts of the country, it is virtually impossible to get a driving test at the moment, in part due to backlogs from the pandemic.

As a racially minoritised, Muslim female, my identity is visible but I am placed in a position to also share the invisible parts of me – this means I have to be vulnerable and exposed to those I do not know. I am conscious of the imbalance of power this creates, where I am to share more parts of me to those who do not need to reciprocate. Upon reflection, it is evident that such a requirement fuels the historic middle-class nature of the profession. Whilst certain universities have expressed an anti-racist/discriminatory ethos, racial inequalities cannot be tackled if social inequalities are neglected – there is an abundance of evidence to showcase the intimate relationship between the two. For example, a recent article in The Guardian reveals and emphasises the need to address the disproportionate rise of cost of living for ethnic minorities including greater food and housing insecurity:

"The report offers several explanations besides benefit cuts. Prominent among these is the overrepresentation of people of colour, especially women, in low-paying and insecure jobs. Another factor is the low level of home ownership, and lack of other assets, among some minority groups."

A failure to consider socio-cultural factors that impact applicants will halt the progression of a truly inclusive workforce that is representative of all the differing intersections present within the populations we serve. I therefore call on clinical psychology doctorates to reconsider their policy on possessing a driving licence, as a step to help create equitable and inclusive training environments.

Rubbia Ali
Acknowledgement – Dr Sabinah Janally for offering her mentoring and guidance throughout the process.

 

Since I started training on the Doctorate of Clinical Psychology, between September and December I was requested to attend in person an initial six-week teaching bloc followed by bi-weekly lectures. Living in a remote area devoid of public transport, I had no alternative but to drive the 70-mile round trip. That is 2800 miles in the space of three months; 300 litres of fuel; 787kg of CO2 emitted in the atmosphere. To pursue my higher education, I will leave a black trail of carbon that will long outlive me.

This cloud of emissions hangs above my conscience. For many years, I have been making difficult changes in my life: buying second hand clothes and furniture, reducing my meat consumption, sourcing seasonal fruits and vegetables from local farmers. Even my car is small and efficient. This is where my power ends. 

I could attend my lectures remotely, yet my School of Psychology is reluctant to enable remote attendance. Every time I put fuel into my car to attend a university lecture, I use a resource that is not renewable, a resource that has been millions of years in the making.

Our profession needs to acknowledge how the ways we study, train, and work do not tally with a finite supply of fossil energy. We drive to our office spaces, even though the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that we can effectively and securely work from home on a report, presentation, session plan, or literature review. We travel for meetings that were successfully hosted remotely for two years.

Many arguments are routinely used to justify physical presence over remote contact: it is better for our mental health, for socialisation, for concentration. I wholeheartedly concur. Indeed, when formally petitioned to enable remote teaching, the official response from my School of Psychology was that the technology is not mature enough, and that it was a considerable relief when in-person teaching returned. However, how privileged do we remain to choose personal preferences over local and global needs? Isn't this yet a further example of colonialist psychology? We opt for options that are inherently not sustainable, extracting what we need and ignoring the consequences.

Human-caused climate change is an emergency, one that most of our profession remains aloof to. We refer to it as this vague stressful concept, one that creates anxiety and depression in others. A condition for us to treat, as opposed to a situation in which we have a causal responsibility. We fail to account for the fact that Psychology will not exist in a world where climate has become so unpredictable that crops will cease to grow, famine will hit on many continents, and economic growth will be a nostalgic souvenir of the past.

As a profession guided by leadership, we have a collective and individual responsibility to model and enable behaviour changes in how we burn fossil fuels within our academic curricula and our services, radically transforming how we study and work. Extraordinary actions are continuously being made to tackle social inequalities and injustices; we need to urgently include climate change in those efforts. Even the smallest actions can lay a foundation for the future. It can be as simple as replacing our car keys with our computer.

• Claira Moro is a trainee on the Doctorate of Clinical Psychology.

 

Editor's note: We continue to seek comments from interested and informed parties, and hope to return to this topic. Send your comments on [email protected]

Illustration: Tim Sanders