Undergraduate Psychology Teaching and Education at Argentinian Universities: A Sociobibliometric Investigation (1999

Abstract

This study is an empirical analysis of the recent past and current state of Argentinian undergraduate psychology education in the context of psychology programs’ ongoing evaluation and accreditation processes. We used six bibliometric parameters to retrieve the required listed readings (N = 16,085) of the 452 compulsory undergraduate courses’ syllabi from Argentina’s 12 most populated psychology programs at public and prívate universities. We then compared our data with analyses from the 2000–2010 period and with official accreditation criteria. Results showed a marked obsolescence and a limited updating of required readings. Syllabi showed a clear hegemony of psychoanalytically-oriented authors and readings, dominance of books and faculty-written manuscripts over scholarly articles, and a very limited internationalization. Our findings suggest that accreditation processes have not modified Argentinian psychology’s main, historical characteristics.

Keywords

psychology teaching and education internationalization of psychology psychoanalysis history of psychology in Argentina accreditation of psychology programs

Psychology occupies a central place in Argentinian higher education. The Argentinian university system is currently constituted of a total of 129 universities, 66 of them state universities and 63 of them private institutions. Altogether, these institutions offer 71 psychology programs: 10 programs are housed at national public universities, one at a public provincial university, and 60 at private universities. This marked prevalence of private programs is the product of State-directed privatization politics that were common in both Argentina and Latin America during the 1980s and 90s, and which led to the proliferation of private institutions of higher education (Teske, 2008).

According to the last available nationwide survey, 101,217 psychology degrees had been granted from 1960 to 2015, 63% of them by public universities and 37% by private universities (Alonso & Klinar, 2016). Regarding enrollment and active students, by November 2016 there were more than 61,000 students enrolled in public universities’ psychology programs, and almost 26,000 in private programs. This figure means that although eight of 10 undergraduate psychology programs are found at private universities, 70% of psychology students are currently attending public universities, and nearly two-thirds of active psychologists obtained their degrees at public universities (Piñeda & Klappenbach, 2018). This discrepancy can be explained in part by institutional and socioeconomic variables: Argentinian public universities are tuition-free, while most of their private counterparts are usually very expensive. Thus, public universities are mostly attended by students from the middle and lower classes, which leads to highly attended programs and high student-to-teacher ratios, while private programs have mostly upper-class students and smaller enrollments (Balán & de Fanelli, 2002). While there are no published studies comparing both kinds of psychology programs in terms of faculty pay, faculty qualifications, scholarships, and other related variables, it is clear that public institutions appeal to a wider, more varied array of students, while private institutions attract a more clearly defined demographic (Plotkin, 2006).

Diverse Traditions: Differences Between Argentinian and International Universities

Argentinian universities differ from European and North American universities in several important ways. One of the differences is that neither public nor private schools can determine their own psychology curricula in an arbitrary fashion: in order for their programs to be accredited, schools must follow basic guidelines regarding curricular contents and professional training, which are devised by psychology associations and sanctioned by the State. This requirement explains the fact that course offerings are broadly similar in both public and private universities. Psychology programs at Argentinian universities have highly structured and defined curricula. These programs are mostly composed of highly delimited, stable, and required courses that tend to maintain their contents and staff over the years without significant variations (Fierro et al., 2018).

Psychology programs at local universities have limited variability in course offerings. This means that students seeking a psychology degree must pass approximately 40 required courses, the contents of which are modified only to a small extent each year. About two-thirds of these courses are strictly psychology courses. Argentinian psychology’s core curriculum includes history, systems, and philosophy of psychology; developmental psychology; psychoanalysis, professional ethics; and several applied fields such as clinical, educational, industrial, forensic, and community psychology (Klappenbach, 2004).

Most Argentinian psychology programs are divided into two cycles, tracks, or levels. The first, basic, scientific, or introductory 2- or 3-year level aims at educating students in psychology’s history, theory, research methodology, and in empirical advances in areas such as learning, cognition, emotions, etc. The second, professional or advanced 2- or 3-year level, aims at training students in applied psychology, professional competence, and service provision (Vilanova, 2001). Although they have different structure and contents, both levels are mandatory, and the students only graduate when they have passed all the courses included in both levels. This stipulation also applies to psychology programs at private institutions. Thus, in this study we discuss basic and advanced levels at public and private institutions.

Finally, and in sharp contrast with North American and European psychology curricula, undergraduate psychology education in Argentina involves virtually no elective courses. This arrangement has a direct impact on the profession, if we also consider that across Argentinian higher education (not only in psychology), undergraduate programs center on a single field of knowledge or profession. In psychology the undergraduate degree, the licentiate degree, is granted after the customary 5 or 6 years of study. This degree is the sole entry requirement to professional practice: thus, the licentiate degree is usually the first, last, and only university degree held by professional psychologists (Klappenbach, 2004).

Indeed, 50% of Argentinian psychologists only have a licentiate degree, and around 96% of the graduates are qualified below the master’s level, holding specialization degrees or professional diplomas (Alonso et al., 2019). This underlines the central place of undergraduate psychology education in the development of psychology as a science and as a profession in Argentina, in contrast with countries with more developed, graduate and postgraduate education systems such as the United-States (Lawson et al., 2012; Norcross et al., 2016). Of course, as has been mentioned, obtaining a degree through undergraduate education in Argentina usually implies 5 years of education. Perhaps this experience does not differ greatly from the standard education in the United States—4 years of undergraduate studies and 2 years of master’s-level training.

Evaluation and Accreditation Processes in Argentinian Higher Education

In the early 1990s, Argentinian psychologists initiated a collective debate on the need to evaluate and improve psychology programs (Fierro, in press). Drawing from several regional and international conferences and resolutions (Ardila, 1978; Bickman, 1987; Raimy, 1950) Argentinian psychologists concluded that the evaluation and accreditation of psychology programs was a potential way of addressing some of the main deficits of Argentinian psychology, such as its overdependence on a single theoretical system (psychoanalysis), its dated or anachronistic content and readings, its scarce research activities and outputs, and its exclusive emphasis on applied, professional, and clinical training (Di Doménico & Piacente, 2011; González, 2018). Accreditation standards and parameters were debated and established by Argentinian public and private professional and academic associations between 2004 and 2009 (Fierro, 2018). In September 2009, Argentina’s Ministry of Education passed the 343/09 Ministerial Resolution, which approved and adopted the aforementioned standards for the accreditation processes (Ministerio de Educación, 2009). These standards thus became the parameter for the compulsory and periodic evaluations each program in the country had to undergo.

Besides establishing a core curriculum, and at a more fundamental level, the Resolution argued for a scientific, pluralistic, and dynamic definition of psychology for university education (Fierro, in press). Psychology is defined by the Resolution as a science as well as a profession. According to the Resolution, psychology graduates should be trained not only as technical and professional experts, but as scientists as well; that is, as producers of new scientific knowledge and as critical consumers of available knowledge. Secondly, psychology curricula should encompass a general education through “theoretical pluralism” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 3); that is, it should encompass the discipline’s diverse, heterogeneous, and varied theoretical and methodological paradigms and systems, both at the basic and advanced, professional-training curricular levels. For example, regarding psychotherapy, undergraduate students must be trained in the theoretical, methodological, and instrumental knowledge provided by different theoretical perspectives regarding the assessment, diagnosis, and delimitation of different psychological and psychopathological entities (Ministerio de Educación, 2009). Finally, psychology is defined as a constantly changing, evolving science, driven by research and empirical advances. Thus, psychology curricula are to be structured in a way that they allow continuous updating: they should convey recent, state-of-the-art knowledge and information in order to avoid stagnation.

How did this Resolution and the overall accreditation processes impact psychology education in Argentina during the last decade? And consequently, what is the current state of psychology education in public and private Argentinian universities? These are two key questions. Regarding the former, toward August 2014 and after a first round of evaluations, only 28 of the then 70 existing psychology programs in the country—less than a third—had been accredited, and only six of them—less than 10%—had obtained the highest qualification. The rest of the psychology programs had to devise improvement plans and undergo systematic curricula and faculty changes in order to be evaluated again and achieve accreditation (Di Doménico & Piacente, 2011; Klappenbach, 2015). By March 2017, 52 undergraduate psychology programs had been provisorily accredited, under the condition that they would implement further improvement plans in order to fully meet accreditation criteria. Thus, less than 10% of total undergraduate programs fulfilled the required minimum standards established by Argentinian psychologists and endorsed by the State, a figure that reflected the weaknesses of undergraduate programs in the country (Piñeda & Klappenbach, 2018).

Nonetheless, currently we cannot make any further detailed statements on the status of Argentinian psychology education. Most published, quantitative published studies on Argentinian psychology education predate the accreditation processes (Di Doménico & Vilanova, 2000; Vázquez Ferrero, 2016; Vázquez Ferrero & Colombo, 2008). Recent quantitative studies have focused on either single courses (Fierro et al., 2018) or universities (Benito & Elmasian, 2010; Fierro et al., 2019), precluding a nationwide, comparative analysis. And while it has been stated that undergraduates are being currently exposed to an increasingly diverse body of works, especially on cognitive perspectives, at private universities in Buenos Aires (Dagfal, 2018; Fernández, 2007), no further data have been provided to support these claims. Indeed, no previous published study on syllabus readings has included psychology programs at private universities in their samples, although those institutions house almost a third of active Argentinian psychology students.

In conclusion, there appears to be no current, nationwide data on the status of undergraduate teaching at Argentinian universities. A more detailed, empirical analysis of Argentinian psychology education is needed. The current study aims to bridge this gap in the literature. Our research involved a bibliometric, quantitative, and qualitative analysis of the references listed as required reading in the compulsory courses’ syllabi of the 12 most populated psychology programs in Argentinian public and private universities after the accreditation processes and their subsequent curricular revisions.

Method

Sample

With the aim of obtaining a clear, nationwide picture of the current state of undergraduate psychology education in Argentina, we reviewed the texts listed as course bibliography (N = 16.085) for a total of 452 compulsory undergraduate courses at 12 psychology programs in Argentina and subjected them to a quantitative and qualitative analysis. We retrieved digital versions of psychology courses’ syllabi from the websites of Argentina’s 12 most populated psychology undergraduate programs (eight at public universities and four at private universities). Retrieved syllabi corresponded to courses offered during the first semester of 2018.

Selected public institutions included the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), the National University of Córdoba (UNC), the National University of La Plata (UNLP), the National University of Rosario (UNR), the National University of Tucumán (UNT), the National University of Mar del Plata (UNMDP), the National University of San Luis (UNSL), and the National University of Comahue (UNCo). Selected private institutions included the University of El Salvador (USAL), the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Argentinian University (UJFK), the Abierta Interamericana University (UAI), and the Catholic University of Salta (UCS). Table 1 shows the composition of the readings in our sample in relation to curricular levels and universities. The advanced professional level of the UNSL psychology program includes two alternative groups of seven courses (one psychoanalytic and one cognitive-oriented), from which the student has to choose only one. Thus, we have distinguished between a “cognitive” and a “psychoanalytic” advanced level for this psychology program.

Table 1.

Mandatory Readings Listed in Argentinian Public and Prívate Psychology Programs Undergraduate Syllabi.

University^a
	UBA	UNLP	UNMDP	UNSL	UNR	UNT	UNC	UNCo	UJFK	UCS	UAI	USAL	Total
n basic level	1,617	1,234	886	534	1071	597	601	537	771	298	457	520	9,123
n advanced level	954	838	574	1,461	383	649	339	697	612	231	283	661	7,682
Total	2,571	2,072	1,460	1,995	1,454	1,246	940	1,234	1,383	529	740	1,181	16,085

^a: UBA: University of Buenos Aires. UNLP: National University of La Plata. UNMDP: National University of Mar del Plata. UNSL: National University of San Luis. UNR: National University of Rosario. UNT: National University of Tucumán. UNC: National University of Córdoba. UNCo: National University of Comahue. UJFK: John Fitzgerald Kennedy University. UCS: Catholic University of Salta. UAI: Abierta Interamericana University. USAL: El Salvador University.

Toward the end of 2016, the eight selected public institutions registered an enrollment of 60,564 active psychology students, which represented 69.24% of the total active psychology students in the country and 98.44% of the total active psychology students in the national public university system (Alonso & Klinar, 2016). The four selected private institutions registered an enrollment of 12,210 psychology students, which represented 16% of the total active psychology students in the country and 47% of the total active psychology students in private universities. Altogether, active students at the 12 selected universities represented 85.29% of the total active psychology students in the country in 2016 (Alonso & Klinar, 2016).

Most of the 12 selected universities also have a marked historical significance. With the exception of the UNCo program, established in 2005, the other public university programs in our sample were established between 1955 and 1962, and comprise the first and main psychology programs established in Argentina. With the exception of the UAI program, the private university programs in our sample were established between 1956 and 1967. In fact, the USAL psychology program, created in 1959, was the first Argentinian private psychology program. By having trained 82.1% of Argentinian psychologists who graduated since 1955 (Alonso & Klinar, 2016), these 12 programs have truly crafted and defined Argentinian psychology since its university institutionalization 60 years ago.

Materials

We downloaded the 452 syllabi from the official websites of each university. When they were unavailable, the syllabi were requested directly from the chairs and titular professors at the relevant institutions. The information contained in the syllabi includes what educational psychologists have called the “first level” of curricular development, which includes the declared, explicit knowledge that courses intend to convey to undergraduate students. More important to our aims, the syllabi detail the specific, mandatory readings through which the professors carry out their instruction (Klappenbach, 2003).

Undergraduate courses’ mandatory readings are the core of Argentinian psychologists’ education, and thus are representative of both national psychology teaching and overall psychological culture in the country, for several reasons. First, as we described above, most Argentinian psychology curricula are comprised of a clearly defined set of core, compulsory undergraduate courses, with few elective courses. Second, Argentinian psychology education is content rather than competence driven, which means that the emphasis on concrete contents and knowledge areas, represented by specific readings. Third, Argentinian undergraduate syllabi are entirely designed by titular professors, and thus are reflective of their orientation, knowledge, and expertise. Fourth, Argentinian psychology curricula and faculty tend to be stable for long periods of time—sometimes decades—and thus changes in compulsory readings are truly minimal from year to year. Finally, given that the licentiate degree is the first, last, and only required university degree for the professional practice of psychology, a considerable percentage of psychology graduates do not pursue any kind of systematic, postgraduate education, most of them focusing on private psychotherapy instead (Alonso et al., 2019). All these facts highlight the role of undergraduate courses’ readings.

Procedure

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 16,085 references listed as required readings in the 452 syllabi. We selected six bibliometric indicators to break down and classify each bibliographic reference on each syllabus. These indicators included the author of the listed text, the title of the text, the original year of the text’s first publication, the theoretical orientation or perspective of the text, the text main author’s nationality, and the type of text. This last indicator refers to the editorial genre of each text—book, peer-reviewed article, conference paper, etc. These indicators allowed us to assess course materials in terms of several relevant variables: most-read authors, most-read texts, obsolescence (aging), updating, dominant theoretical perspectives, and dominant types of editions, among others.

After classifying each reference, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the six indicators in terms of frequencies and percentages. We first analyzed each indicator separately and across the sample of the 12 psychology programs. After a first cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the entire sample, we compared the required readings at the eight public university psychology programs and the readings at the four private university programs. At this stage, and in order to provide a more detailed description of our results, we divided our sample into basic and advanced education levels for both types of institutions: we first compared the readings of basic public levels (N = 7.077) with the readings of basic private levels (N = 2.046) (that is, the introductory levels at public programs versus the introductory levels at private universities). We then compared the readings of advanced levels at public universities (N = 5.895) with the readings of advanced levels at private universities (N = 1.787). Finally, we compared our findings with data from previously published analyses on Argentinian psychology education.

Results

Aging, Obsolescence, and Updating of References

As shown in Table 2, the mean publication date of the readings of each separate psychology program in our sample is between the 1970s and the 1980s. The mean publication date of all the retrieved references is 1979. Ten percent of required readings were published before 1924, and roughly 25% of readings at both public and private basic levels were originally published between 1874 and 1950. Regarding the updating of course readings, as shown in Figure 1, the share of texts published from 2014 to 2018 for each separate psychology program in our sample is between 0% and 9%, with a mean of 4%. The share of texts published during the last decade (from 2009 to 2018) is between 6% and 20%, with a mean of 15.2%.

Table 2.

Obsolescence, Aging and Updating of Required Readings for Undergraduate Courses in Argentinian University Programs.

	Program
	UBA	UNLP	UNMDP	UNT	UNC	UNSL	UNR	UNCo	USAL	UCS	UJFK	UAI	Average
Mean	1976.71	1979.98	1981.09	1980.19	1981.11	1985.31	1971.92	1982.44	1972.02	1973.23	1980	1982.06	1978.83
Median	1997	1996	2000	1992	1997.50	1996	1988	1999	1989	1987	1993	1995	1994.13
Mode	2010	2006	2009	2000	2006	2013	2005	2005	2012	1996	2000	2000	2005.17
SD	83.2	34.3	37.5	34.5	35	20.2	46	100	92	98	30.75	37	54
P10	1915.60	1921	1932	1934	1915	1950	1916	1924	1920	1922	1928	1921.40	1924
P25	1965	1970	1980	1971.5	1965.75	1977	1956	1978	1964	1958	1962	1979	1968
P75	2008	2006	2009	2003	2006	2005.75	2003	2007	2003	1999	2003	2002	2004
% of texts published from 2014 to 2018	9	6.6	5	1	6.4	6	5.8	4.2	3.6	0	0.1	0.4	4

Figure 1.

Percentages of mandatory readings published from 2009 to 2018 in Argentinian public and private psychology programs’ undergraduate courses.

After comparing public and private basic levels, we found negligible differences regarding the age of required readings in the undergraduate courses. The readings’ mean publication date is 1974 for public basic levels, and 1973 for private basic levels. Texts at public basic levels which were published from 2014 to 2018 double the percentage of texts at private basic levels which were published during that period.

Regarding public and private advanced, applied, or “professional” training education levels, we found differences in the age and obsolescence of required readings. The mean publication age for public professional levels and for private professional levels is of 31 and 37 years, respectively. Also, 90% of readings in public advanced levels were published between 1950 and 2018, while the other 10% were published between 1874 and 1949. In contrast, 48.1% of readings in private advanced levels were published between 1949 and 2018, and 51.9% between 1874 and 1949. Texts at public advanced levels which were published from 2014 to 2018 double the percentage of texts at private advanced levels which were published during the same period. Finally, 17.7% of required readings at public levels and 15% of required readings at private levels were published between 2009 and 2018.

Prevalent Authors and Most-Read Titles

A group of 10 authors comprise between 17% and 33% of the total readings for each program, suggesting a considerable centralization of the bibliography around a relatively small group of figures. The frequency of citations (or publications) by authors in our sample broadly follows Lotka’s Law, an inverse-square law that states that the number of authors making n contributions (publications) in a sample is about l/n2 of those making one contribution (López López, 1996). Sigmund Freud is the most-cited author in every program, and thus the most widely read author, with a share of the readings between 6.2% (UNSL) and a 16.5% (UBA) of the program’s total readings. French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan is the second-most read author in most of the programs in our sample, with a share of readings between 1.5% (UNSL) and 7.2% (UNR). For each 100 mandatory readings in our sample, between 10 and 11 have been authored by Freud, and three have been authored by Lacan.

Other authors common to the group of the 10 most read authors across the 12 programs in our sample include British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott (at six programs), French psychoanalyst Jacques Alain Miller, Argentinian psychoanalyst José Bleger, Argentinian psychoanalyst Silvia Bleichmar and French psychoanalyst Colette Soler, all at two programs. The only non-psychoanalytic figure that is among the group of the 10 most-read authors and that is present in more than one program is Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, at two programs. Interestingly, the vast majority of most-read authors in our sample are men. Our data indicate a very limited number of women and gender-diverse authors. Most of these findings apply to both public and advanced levels at public and private institutions.

We found several works that are cited repeatedly across several programs, and even cited multiple times in the same program. Centenary essays by Freud appear in most of the 12 programs in our sample, are frequently cited, and comprise 2% of the entire sample. A second group of highly cited texts are Lacan’s public seminaries, comprising 1% of the entire sample. A third group of works, albeit cited less frequently, is comprised of diagnostic and statistical manuals, such as the CIE-10, the DSM-IV, and the DSM-IV-TR. Finally, a fourth group of works is comprised of neuroscience and biology handbooks.

Theoretical Orientation of Readings

Psychoanalysis is the dominant theory in each of the 12 surveyed programs, with 57% of the mandatory readings. Considering each program separately, in several cases psychoanalytic readings comprise almost 75% (UNR), 66% (UBA, UNLP, UJFK) or roughly 33% (UAI) of syllabus references. In no program does psychoanalysis comprise less than one fourth of bibliographic references.

In decreasing order, and with a clearly smaller percentage, psychoanalytic readings are followed by general, thematic, or methodological texts that show no clear, theoretical orientation. These readings comprise 20% of our sample. In third place we found texts that show a clear cognitivist orientation. Nevertheless, in no single program does cognitivism represent more than 16% of the readings, comprising 7.39% of our entire sample. Cognitive-oriented texts are followed by other psychological theories, with very small sizes each. According to our data, if we limit ourselves to readings with clear theoretical perspectives in psychology, then psychoanalytic texts comprise seven times the number of cognitive readings, and more than double the number of aggregated readings pertaining to every other theoretical perspective.

Psychoanalysis is the dominant theoretical perspective in both public and private basic levels, with over 50% of required readings. Generalist or methodological readings with no clear theoretical perspective comprise roughly 20% of required readings in both types of institutions. Cognitivism is the third most prevalent theoretical perspective, with 10% of readings at public basic levels and 9.5% of readings at private basic levels. Thus, on average there are five times more psychoanalytic readings than cognitive readings. In decreasing order, Piagetian or neo-Piagetian constructivism is the fifth theoretical perspective, with 4.5% and 3.86% of required readings in public and private basic levels, respectively. The final 15% of required readings in both types of institutions is distributed across several theoretical perspectives, mainly cognitive-behavioral, socioconstructivist, constructionist, systems-theory, humanistic, and behavioral approaches.

Regarding theoretical orientation of readings at public and private advanced levels, psychoanalysis is also the dominant theory in the advanced levels of both public and private programs. Nevertheless, its dominance is more pronounced in advanced levels at public programs, where 61% of the readings are overtly psychoanalytic, compared to 49% of psychodynamic texts in advanced levels at private programs. In second place, we find generalist readings, which comprise 20.3% of syllabi references at public advanced levels and 28.2% at private advanced levels. Third, we find cognitive readings, which comprise 3.7% of public advanced levels and 2.9% of private advanced levels’ readings. The remaining readings are distributed across several theoretical orientations, such as constructivism and cognitive-behaviorism. This means that there are 16 times more psychoanalytic texts than cognitive texts in public advanced levels and 17 times more psychoanalytic texts than cognitive texts in private advanced levels. Moreover, there are 4 times more psychoanalytic texts than non-psychoanalytic readings in public advanced levels, and almost three times more psychoanalytic texts than non-psychoanalytic readings in private advanced levels.

Types of Editions

Six different types of editions comprise 81% of the readings in our sample: complete chapters from single-author books (31.4%), entire single-author books (19.3%), faculty-written manuscripts (8.78%), book chapters retrieved from an author’s complete works (7.3%), chapter sections from unitary books that have been edited by faculty members (7.3%), and articles published in periodical, non-scientific journals (6.9%). If we consider each program separately, book chapters are the dominant type of edition in five cases (UBA, UNMDP, UNT, UNSL, UAI) and entire books are dominant in three cases (UJFK, USAL, UCS). Private programs seem to emphasize the use of entire books, while programs at public universities rely on book sections and faculty-written manuscripts.

Faculty-written manuscripts are a relatively popular type of work in Argentinian psychology education, but have very serious limitations from a sociology of science perspective (Carballo, 1986). These manuscripts are not peer-reviewed, they have no standardized formal structure, their contents are not collectively or publicly debated, and they often reflect only the theoretical views and the knowledge level of the professor who writes them. Thus, their contents have not been subjected to any kind of disciplinary “quality control” process. Our findings suggest a relatively high percentage of these works in Argentinian undergraduate education at public universities (about 18%). In some programs such as the UNSL, the UNC, and the UBA, one of each 10 mandatory readings is a faculty manuscript; in the UNT and UNMDP programs, one of each five mandatory readings is a faculty manuscript. This finding suggests greater numbers of faculty writing readings that are not discussed or criticized by their national or international colleagues. Besides, there seems to be a relation between the readings’ age and the inclusion of faculty manuscripts in the syllabi: 8.97% of mandatory readings published between 2005 and 2006 in our sample are faculty manuscripts. This share increases to 20.51% for readings published between 2011 and 2012, and to 57.73% for readings published between 2017 and 2018. Thus, the more recent a required reading is, the higher the chance that it is a faculty-written manuscript with no peer-review and thus not included in the official system of published science. This would also suggest that when looking for updating their course readings—that is, when introducing recently published texts—professors choose to do so through their own manuscripts, not through books or scientific, peer-reviewed papers.

Scientific, scholarly articles—that is, peer-reviewed papers published in indexed journals—are minimal to nonexistent in our sample. Only 3.3% of mandatory readings are peer-reviewed research papers. In several programs (UNT, UNR, UCS), this share is less than 2%. None of the 12 programs present students with more than seven scientific papers for each 100 mandatory readings. Regarding publication outlets, most cited journals are Argentinian or Latin-American journals, with a scarce presence of North-American (American Psychologist) and European (Anales de Psicología, Anuario de Psicología, Papeles del Psicólogo) scholarly journals.

Nationalities

Authors from four nationalities compose more than three fourths of the readings in our sample. These are Argentinian (46%), Austrian (11.7%), North-American (10.4%), and French (9.79%) authors. Between 90% and 95% of each separate program’s mandatory readings have been published from authors in 11 countries. In decreasing order, these countries are Argentina, France, Austria, the United States, Spain, Germany, England, Switzerland, Italy, México, and Brazil. In all programs the share of Argentinian texts is between 34% and 58.2%. Additionally, in every program the share of Argentinian texts comprises between two and a half and five times the number of texts by the second nationality in decreasing order.

Texts by non-Argentinian, Latin-American authors are scarcely present in our sample. Only Brazil and Mexico are part of the 11 most prevalent groups of nationalities. Their share is rather small: Brazilian authors are responsible for 0.5% of the readings, and Mexican authors are responsible for 0.9%.

Regarding basic education levels, Argentinian dominance and the exact same pattern of nationalities were found in both public and private universities. For each 10 readings at both public and private institutions, between four and five come from Argentinian authors, between one and two from Austrian authors, between one and two from authors in the United States, and one from French authors. In advanced education levels, for each 10 readings, between five and six belong to Argentinian authors, between one and two to French authors, and less than one to Spanish, North American and Austrian authors.

Discussion

The Hegemony of Psychoanalytic Authors and Readings

Our results suggest that theoretical pluralism advocated in Argentina since the early 1990s is lacking in undergraduate education. Most-read authors and works are classical figures in psychoanalysis, Freud having written between one and two of every 10 texts in most of the psychology programs in our sample. Other disciplinary figures that have been considered influential or historically relevant by international reviews (Annin et al., 1968; Haggbloom et al., 2002; Korn et al., 1991; Simonton, 2013) are practically absent from Argentinian psychology education. The ratios between Freudian writings and writings by some of those other historically relevant figures are illustrative: 20-1 for Piaget, 34-1 for Vygotsky, 103-1 for Skinner, and 103-1 for Rogers. Moreover, most of the works that are repeatedly cited throughout and across several programs are mostly psychoanalytic “classics.”

Not only is psychoanalysis the dominant theoretical orientation, it is so in a mostly exclusive way, given that other theoretical perspectives are minimal to nonexistent in course readings. In fact, the psychoanalytic-nonpsychoanalytic readings ratio is 7.5-1 for cognitive readings, 44-1 for cognitive-behavioral readings, 44-1 for systems-theory readings, 47-1 for socioconstructivist readings, 55-1 for behavioral readings, and 89-1 for humanistic readings. These ratios are even more pronounced in advanced, professional training education levels. It would seem that faculty and chairs’ preference for psychoanalysis precludes the systematic, thorough consideration of other psychological perspectives. This predominance diverges from psychology education in Europe and North America, where trainees are exposed to the major orientations and systems in psychology through course work (Farber, 2014; Norcross et al., 2010).

Freud’s relevance to the history of psychology cannot be understated; nonetheless, it should not be assumed as a starting point. Moreover, as suggested by Dunn and Dougherty (2005), Freudian ideas should be analyzed and assessed through course work: students should learn about and critically evaluate the veracity of Freud’s ideas, “including whether they contribute to psychological science” (p. 114). Our data suggest this critical evaluation seems more prevalent in North America than in Argentina.

This situation leads to psychology being depicted to Argentinian undergraduates as a discipline dominated by only one centenary perspective, and generally reinforces students’ strongly held beliefs regarding psychoanalysis as the only true, scientific psychology (González, 2018), a hypothesis supported by the fact that the most-read psychoanalytic figures in undergraduate courses are identified by students as their “role models” (Menéndez & Acosta, 2011). Students themselves have recognized that psychology programs do not include contents on psychology’s main, current theoretical perspectives and that “a graduate can obtain his or her degree without ever having read a single text with behavioral, cognitive, systems-theory, or gestaltic orientations, just to name a few [orientations]” (González, 2018, p. 1184). These findings help explain why most professional psychologists in Argentina adopt a strictly Freudian or Lacanian framework (Müller, 2008). At Argentinian universities, psychoanalysis “sets the agenda” for psychology, demarcating its field, defining its phenomena, and providing the orientation for professional work.

From a historical perspective, from the 1960s to the early 2000s, clinical and psychoanalytic biases were dominant in Argentinian psychology education (Piñeda & Klappenbach, 2018). Shortly before the accreditation processes, psychoanalytic approaches still prevailed at most public universities (Vázquez-Ferrero & Colombo, 2008). The incorporation of different theoretical perspectives such as behaviorism, cognitivism and humanism into psychology programs was seen as indispensable (Klappenbach, 2004). Nonetheless, our findings indicate that this incorporation has yet to occur.

Our data also suggest that certain conclusions from previous works should be reviewed. It seems false that, as has been suggested (Fernández, 2007), cognitive and cognitive-behavioral readings and perspectives are dominant in psychology programs at private universities in the province of Buenos Aires. As we have shown, psychoanalysis is still the prevalent orientation in the country’s most populated private programs, including those in Buenos Aires (USAL, UJFK, UAI). Additionally, few curricular changes have taken place during the last 30 years regarding theoretical orientations. Thus, it is inaccurate to state that “in the academic field, following regional and international requirements, psychology majors tend to diversify their programs, even if the main subjects stay more or less psychoanalytic” (Dagfal, 2018, p. 267. Emphasis added). Additionally, it has been recently argued that ‘new’ therapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapies “penetrated some public universities, such as San Luis and Mar del Plata, but also Córdoba and even Buenos Aires” (Dagfal, 2018, p. 268). While it is true that those programs do include required readings on cognitive-behavioral and integrative perspectives, these readings account for only 1.27% of our sample—a 45 to 1 ratio when compared to psychoanalytic readings. Thus, such “penetration” is very limited, and it hardly constitutes a challenge to psychoanalytic dominance.

High Obsolescence and the Rapid Aging of Required Readings

Psychology is no different than other natural and social sciences in regard to its rapidly growing information base and the necessity to keep up to date. The “half-life” of knowledge in psychology’s fields point to the need for continuous updating (Baker & Cox, 2014). Pozo and Monereo (2009) have likened curriculum contents in psychology to yogurts: “They both have an expiration date that is always located in the near future” (p. 23). This fact makes it necessary for students to recognize the dynamic, provisory nature of what is today deemed as “definite knowledge,” which in turn requires curricula to stay up to date regarding disciplinary changes and advances (Fierro, in press).

Nonetheless, our data suggest that overall obsolescence of required readings in Argentina’s psychology programs both in basic and advanced education levels is quite high. There also seems to be very limited inclusion of recently published materials. This situation leads to a relatively outdated education in psychology’s research findings and phenomena at basic education levels, and to an outdated training in effective and evidence-based psychological interventions at professional education levels. During the 20th century, multiple theories developed and enriched both psychological practice and university education (Farber, 2014). This is especially true for applied, professional training, where both professional ethics and scientific standards compel psychologists to apply current and evidence-based techniques and procedures (Ardila, 2011). Nonetheless, our data suggest that Argentinian psychologists will not be exposed to developments, debates, and innovations, given that these developments are systematically communicated in recent scholarly publications.

From an historical, comparative perspective, not only have there been no updates in psychology programs during the past decade, the magnitude of programs’ outdating has greatly grown during the last 10 years. This again contrasts with accreditation standards and criteria, which state that psychology curricula should aim to educate both professionals and researchers willing to consider their profession as a task that involves a permanent and constant updating (Ministerio de Educación, 2009). These findings also dispute conclusions drawn by previous works. The statement that nowadays “there is more room for innovative proposals, above all in elective subjects or in private [Argentinian] universities (that tend to be more flexible and more in tune with market demands)” (Dagfal, 2018, p. 267) should also be reviewed in light of our data. Obsolescence of required readings and the limited updating of literature in private institutions reveal that the actual room for “innovative proposals” is rather small.

Dominance of Books and the Scarce Use of Published, Scholarly Articles

Scientific literature in psychology is broadly comprised of two literature genres: books, and scientific articles (Carballo, 1986). The former have been defined as broader, general, and even “personal” in nature (Carpintero, 2010), especially when they are not instruction handbooks, or when they have not been peer-reviewed. Scientific articles tend to be concise, specific, and objective, laying the results of cutting-edge research or at least providing a critical analysis and assessment of previous works. Thus, scientific articles have been deemed as the building blocks of scientific disciplines, given that they contribute to the development of science with some kind of novelty.

While textbooks offer broad presentations of specific fields (Carpintero, 2010), journal articles present students with current developments and promote their critical thinking (Bizer, 2019). Thus, both kinds of scientific literature are central to psychology education. Nonetheless, Argentinian undergraduate courses have tended to include only selected paragraphs or chapters from textbooks as reading materials (Vázquez-Ferrero & Colombo, 2008). Our findings indicate an dependence on books, book chapters, and book sections over scholarly articles as course readings. In fact, only 3% of the courses’ mandatory readings published by Argentinian authors are papers in peer-reviewed journals. The results is that psychology undergraduates are not systematically exposed to psychology’s current debates, advances, or even methodological research strategies as conveyed in peer-reviewed publications.

It must be noted that most book chapters and single-author books in Argentinian curricula are not part of updated and periodically reviewed handbooks or instruction textbooks such as North American ones (Griggs, 2013), nor do they base their arguments on the results of systematical, empirical studies. Typical books or book sections read by Argentinian students are mostly conceptual reflections and abstract elaborations on classical, centenary works (Vilanova, 1994).

Finally, Argentina’s marked dependence on unpublished faculty manuscripts for educating psychologists must be underlined. More than half of these manuscripts are explicitly psychoanalytic, while cognitive, behavioral, and nonpsychoanalytic writings are scarce to nonexistent. Regarding obsolescence, faculty manuscripts have a mean age of 15 years. Additionally, our data suggest that professors tend to choose their own, non peer-reviewed manuscripts when attempting to introduce new or updated readings in their courses. If we consider the fact that only 1.3% of psychology faculty in Argentina hold a doctorate (Klappenbach, 2004), the fact that professors choose this kind of literature over public, scholarly articles to update their syllabi may be an indication of their limited scientific literacy and research training.

The Limited Internationalization of Argentinian Psychology Education

Several critical assessments have qualified Argentinian psychology as internationally isolated and even provincialist (Klappenbach, 2015; Vilanova, 1997). It has been argued that Argentinian psychologists are trained “with their backs to the world’s scientific centers, only read newly reprinted versions of obsolete texts, do not question their professors’ opinions, and do not contrast those opinions with international databases or foreign publications” (Vilanova, 2003a, p. 70). This isolation has meant that the average Argentinian psychologist is unaware of disciplinary developments and advances that are taking place outside his or her own country. While such “provincialism” could be potentially true for any country, Argentina constitutes an acute case, as most graduates in the country do not read scientific or professional journals, conduct research, or attend regional or international scientific meetings. The lack of research databases, well-stocked libraries, and relevant international bibliography in universities has caused a divorce between Argentinian and foreign psychologists, furthered by the weak institutionalization of psychological research in the country (Fierro, in press).

It must be emphasized that sometimes this oblivious attitude has been supported by “socio-centric stereotypes” (Vilanova, 2003b, p. 32) and “ideological prejudices” (Alonso, 2001, p. 15). Non-Argentinian authors and theorists, especially those from English-speaking countries, are cast in a negative light, and pejoratively dismissed by teachers and professors as positivistic, imperialistic, and/or neoliberal (Fierro, in press; Yamil, 2017). This has led to the a priori rejection of international advances and perspectives, especially those coming from the United States, without any serious consideration. For example, cognitive and cognitive-behavioral theories and technologies are usually derided in Argentinian psychology education as “positivistic,” without any thorough attempt to become acquainted with those theories before criticizing them in the first place.

This issue constitutes a departure from internationalization processes that have been deemed as necessary for an authentically plural and heterogeneous scientific psychology. As a process, internationalization requires a person, organization, or university program to understand itself in a global context, to be aware of its history, assumptions, and perspectives, and to appreciate the diversity of perspectives provided by the transnational community (Bullock, 2015). As noted by Bullock, internationalization does not mean exactly the same to all groups of psychologists. In the case of emerging, developing countries such as Argentina, internationalization means situating local disciplinary developments in a broader, more diverse international forum. Among other things, this requires changes in the way psychology is taught at universities. In fact, internationalizing psychology education and education requires including foreign content. Internationalizing psychology curricula requires adjustments and changes regarding ways of knowing (epistemology), ways of practicing (praxiology), and ways of constructing human nature (ontology) (Marsella, 2011).

The limited internationalization of Argentinian psychology, tied to the fact that most psychology programs follow the same pattern of nationalities, suggests an underlying rationale for overemphasizing local production over foreign proposals. Furthermore, it seems to emphasize works by men over those by women and other diverse authors. This situation raises concerns on the diversity, equity, and inclusion of Argentinian psychology education.

It could be argued that readings by Argentinian authors at psychology programs do not necessarily entail a limited internationalization, but our data suggest otherwise. Most readings by Argentinian authors in our sample are book chapters and faculty manuscripts, with less than 3% of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, more than half of these readings are clearly psychoanalytic, while non-psychoanalytic Argentinian readings account for less than the 15% of the sample. Finally, undergraduate readings published by Argentinians are clearly outdated, with only 6% being published during the last 5 years. Internationalization means “reaching out to represent one’s own work in a more international forum” (Bullock, 2015, p. 105), for example through publishing in international journals, sending students and faculty abroad, or fostering international collaboration. Argentinian psychology education currently faces several challenges on this front.

Our findings should also be read in the light of how professional psychology has developed in Argentina during the last 4 decades. As we described above, most graduates do not pursue postgraduate education, do not conduct research, and work exclusively as clinical, psychoanalytic therapists. Less than two out of every 100 psychologists have doctoral-level education (Alonso et al., 2019). Psychology-related research projects as funded by national and federal agencies devoted to scientific and technical research are scarce (Fierro, in press). In other words, Argentinian psychologists are mostly practitioners, not scholars, and this is reflected in their output, which in turn is included as reading material in psychology programs. The bulk of hired faculty and professors at psychology programs are practitioners with little or no postgraduate education, many of them psychoanalytic-oriented. This could explain both their syllabi and their overdependence on texts written by their Argentinian colleagues. The circular, recursive logic of this dynamic is evident.

Limitations

Our sample did not comprise all Argentinian psychology programs, and included a limited number of private psychology institutions. This was primarily because the inclusion of all 60 private psychology programs was deemed unfeasible. These limitations notwithstanding, our study included the more historically-relevant and most populated programs in the country, and thus provides information on the current status of the psychology education experienced by more than 85% of Argentinian psychology students.

Conclusions

Our research shows several consistencies in Argentinian undergraduate psychology programs. Undergraduate courses are clearly psychoanalyticly-oriented, and non-psychoanalytic theories are drastically underrepresented. Course readings show a high obsolescence and a limited updating. They also show a limited internationalization and an overdependence on books and faculty-written manuscripts compared to handbooks and scholarly, peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, our findings sharply contrast with the recommendations contained in the standards and criteria used for the evaluation and accreditation of psychology programs between 2009 and 2015. Finally, a comparative analysis in historical perspective shows that there have been little to no systematic changes in psychology education during the last 40 years. This necessarily means that curricular revisions and improvement plans undertaken between 2011 and 2015 as required by the programs’ evaluation and accreditation process have not introduced any significant changes in undergraduate psychology education.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank María Eugenia González, Modesto Alonso, Alejandro Yamil and Sebastián Vázquez-Ferrero, who generously provided bibliography at our request. The first author thanks Matías Cincunegui for his assistance in regards to coding software and data entry. We also wish to thank Andrew Christopher and two anonymous reviewers, whose comments on a previous version of this paper contributed to its final form. The conclusions and results presented in this paper are nonetheless responsibility of the authors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by a Doctoral Grant from Argentina’s National Scientific and Technical Research Council granted to the first author in the context of his doctoral studies.

References

Alonso

(2001). Psicología en Argentina. Psicodebate, 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18682/pd.v1i0.518

Alonso

Gago

Klinar

(2019, November). Distribución ocupacional de los/las psicólogos/as en Argentina. 2019 [Paper presentation]. Eleventh International Congress on Research and Professional Practice in Psychology, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Alonso

Klinar

. (2016, November). Los Psicólogos en Argentina. Relevamiento cuantitativo 2015 [Paper presentation]. Eighth International Congress on Research and Professional Practice in Psychology, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Annin

Boring

Watson

(1968). Important psychologists, 1600-1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–315.

Ardila

(1978). I Conferencia Latinoamericana sobre Entrenamiento en Psicología. In Ardila

(Ed.), La Profesión del Psicólogo (pp. 220–227). Trillas.

Ardila

(2011). Investigación y psicoterapia. In Ardila

(Comp.), El mundo de la psicología (pp. 227–236). El Manual Moderno.

Baker

Cox

D. R.

(2014). The history and importance of specialization in professional psychology. In Kaslow

Brad Johnson

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and training in professional psychology (pp. 120–132). Oxford University Press.

Balán

de Fanelli

A. M.

(2002). El sector privado de la educación superior. In Kent

(Comp.), Los temas críticos de la educación superior en América Latina en los años noventa. Estudios comparativos (pp. 169–253). Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Benito

Elmasian

. (2010). La formación en Psicología en la Universidad de Buenos Aires: Una investigación bibliométrica [Paper presentation]. Second International Congress on Research and Professional Practice in Psychology, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

10.

Bickman

(1987). Graduate education in psychology. American Psychologist, 42, 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.12.1041

11.

Bizer

G. Y.

(2019). The use of published articles with questionable conclusions in a research methods course. Teaching of Psychology, 46, 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319853939

12.

Bullock

(2015). Internationalization in psychology: A process, not an outcome. Psiencia, 7, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.5872/psiencia/7.1.0109

13.

Carballo

(1986). Consideraciones en torno al lugar metodológico del análisis de textos en psicología. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 7, 13–24.

14.

Carpintero

(2010). Los géneros literarios en psicología. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 31, 9–30.

15.

Dagfal

(2018). Psychology and psychoanalysis in Argentina: Politics, French thought, and the university connection, 1955–1976. History of Psychology, 21, 254–272. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/hop0000071

16.

Di Doménico

Piacente

(2011). Acreditación en Psicología en el Cono Sur de América. Psicolatina, 22, 1–18.

17.

Di Doménico

Vilanova

(2000, September). Formación básica en psicología en carreras de universidades públicas de Argentina [Paper presentation]. First Spanish-Portuguese Congress of Psychology, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

18.

Dunn

Dougherty

(2005). Teaching Freud by reading Freud: Controversy as pedagogy. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_8

19.

Farber

(2014). Theoretical orientation in the education and training of psychologists. In Kaslow

Brad Johnson

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and training in professional psychology (pp. 67–86). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199874019.013.011

20.

Fernández

M. L.

(2007, October). Inserción de los modelos cognitivos en la formación de grado del psicólogo pública y privada [Paper presentation]. Eighth Argentinian Meeting on the History of Psychiatry, Psychology and Psychoanalysis, Mar del Plata, Argentina.

21.

Fierro

(2018). Pluralism and heterogeneity as criticism: Undergraduate history and systems of psychology courses in Argentinian psychology education (1983–2017). History of Psychology, 21, 126–150. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/hop0000085

22.

Fierro

. (in press). Formación de grado en Psicología en Argentina. Período 2009-2015. Nueva Editorial Universitaria. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16744.49920

23.

Fierro

Di Doménico

Klappenbach

(2019). A comparative socio-bibliometrical analysis of the psychology program at the University of Buenos Aires (1996-2017). Universitas Psychologica, 18, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy18-2.asbc

24.

Fierro

Ostrovsky

A. E.

Di Doménico

M. C.

(2018). Current state of history of psychology teaching and education in Argentina: An empirical bibliometric investigation. Teaching of Psychology, 45, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318762874

25.

González

M. E.

(2018). Psychoanalysis in the 21st century: A study about universities of Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 18, 1175–1194.

26.

Griggs

R. A.

(2013). Topical coverage in introductory textbooks from the 1980s through the 2000s. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313514171

27.

Haggbloom

S. J.

Warnick

J. E.

Jones

V. K.

Yarbrough

G. L.

Russell

T. M.

Borecky

C. M.

McGahhey

Powell

J. L.

III Beavers

Monte

(2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139

28.

Klappenbach

(2003). La Globalización y la Enseñanza de la Psicología. Psicología em Estudo, 8, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-73722003000200002

29.

Klappenbach

(2004). Psychology in Argentina. In Wedding

Stevens

(Eds.), Handbook of international psychology (pp. 129–150). Brunner-Routledge.

30.

Klappenbach

(2015). La formación universitaria en Psicología en Argentina. Perspectivas actuales y desafíos a la luz de la historia. Universitas Psychologica, 14, 937–959. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-3.fupa

31.

Korn

J. H.

Davis

S. F.

(1991). Historians’ and chairpersons’ judgments of eminence among psychologists. American Psychologist, 46, 789–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.7.789

32.

Lawson

Reisinger

Jordan-Fleming

(2012). Undergraduate psychology courses preferred by graduate programs. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450430

33.

López López

(1996). Introducción a la bibliometría. Promolibro.

34.

Marsella

A. J.

(2011). Internationalizing the clinical psychology curriculum: Foundations, issues, and directions. In Leong

Pickren

Leach

Marsella

(Eds.), Internationalizing the psychology curriculum in the United States (pp. 179–200). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0073-8_9

35.

Menéndez

Acosta

(2011). Formación teórico-clínica de psicología en Argentina: Universidades de Buenos Aires, de Córdoba y de Rosario. Anuario de Investigaciones, 18, 61–67.

36.

Ministerio de Educación (2009). Resolución 343/09. Ministerio de Educación de la Nación.

37.

Muller

F. J.

(2008). Psychotherapy in Argentina: Theoretical orientation and clinical practice. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 18, 410–420. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0014318

38.

Norcross

J. C.

Evans

K. L.

Ellis

(2010). The model does matter II: Admissions and training in APA-accredited counseling psychology programs. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009339342

39.

Norcross

J. C.

Hailstorks

Leona

Pfund

Stamm

Christidis

(2016). Undergraduate study in psychology: curriculum and assessment. American Psychologist, 71, 89–101. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0040095

40.

Piñeda

M. A.

Klappenbach

(2018). Psychology education in Argentina. In Rich

Padilla-López

de Souza

Zinkiewicz

Taylor

Jaafar

J. L.

(Eds.), Teaching psychology around the world (Vol. 4, pp. 80–117). Cambridge S. Publishing.

41.

Plotkin

(2006). La privatización de la educación superior y las ciencias sociales en Argentina. Un estudio de las carreras de Psicología y Economía. CLACSO.

42.

Pozo

J. I.

Monereo

. (2009). La nueva cultura del aprendizaje universitario o por qué cambian nuestras formas de enseñar y aprender. In pozo

J. I.

del Puy Pérez Echeverría

(Coords.), Psicología del aprendizaje universitario: La formación por competencias (pp. 9–28). Morata.

43.

Raimy

(Ed.) (1950). Training in clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall.

44.

República Argentina (1995). Ley 24.521 de Educación Superior. Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina, 103, 1–5.

45.

Simonton

K. D

. (2013). Scientific eminence, the history of psychology and term paper topics: A metascience approach. In Ware

Johnson

(Eds.), Handbook of demonstrations and activities in the teaching of psychology (Vol. I, pp. 302–308). L. Erlbaum.

46.

Teske

E. G.

(2008). Auge y decadencia del desarrollismo en América Latina. Análisis desde una de sus estrategias centrales: el planeamiento de la educación. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 46, 1–18.

47.

Vázquez Ferrero

. (2016). Análisis de la bibliografía de programas vigentes en carreras de psicología de universidades nacionales argentinas [Doctoral dissertation]. Universidad Nacional de San Luis.

48.

Vázquez Ferrero

Colombo

(2008). Undergraduate psychology programs in Argentina: Bibliometrical analysis of texts listed in the syllabo of 14 advanced courses at the National University of San Luis. International Psychology Bulletin, 12, 16–18.

49.

Vilanova

(1994). Un cónclave divisor de épocas. Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 40, 267–269.

50.

Vilanova

(1997). Las deudas de la psicología del Cono Sur. Acta Psiquiatra y Psicológica de América Latina, 43, 103–111.

51.

Vilanova

(2001). La formación académica del Psicólogo. Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 47, 73–78.

52.

Vilanova

(2003a). Ciencias de la vida y ciencias del papel. In Vilanova

(Comp.), Discusión por la psicología (pp. 68–71). National University of Mar del Plata.

53.

Vilanova

(2003b). Psicología: El mundo y el país. In Vilanova

(Comp.), Discusión por la psicología (pp. 32–35). National University of Mar del Plata.

54.

Yamil

(2017). Injerencias del contexto político en la Escuela de Psicología de la UNC (1973-76). Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.

Undergraduate Psychology Teaching and Education at Argentinian Universities: A Sociobibliometric Investigation (1999–2018)

Abstract

Keywords

Diverse Traditions: Differences Between Argentinian and International Universities

Evaluation and Accreditation Processes in Argentinian Higher Education

Method

Sample

Materials

Procedure

Results

Aging, Obsolescence, and Updating of References

Prevalent Authors and Most-Read Titles

Theoretical Orientation of Readings

Types of Editions

Nationalities

Discussion

The Hegemony of Psychoanalytic Authors and Readings

High Obsolescence and the Rapid Aging of Required Readings

Dominance of Books and the Scarce Use of Published, Scholarly Articles

The Limited Internationalization of Argentinian Psychology Education

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References