Editorial

He aha te kai ō te rangatira? He kōrero, he kōrero, he kōrero.

“What is the food of chiefs? It is discussion, discussion, discussion”

Clinical psychology is a profession trained in the rigour of research and the demands of real-world complexity. We’re taught to think critically, reflectively, and compassionately - not just about our tāngata whai ora, but about the systems that we work in, our models of practice, our own lens and positionality, and, at times, our profession itself.

At the time of this edition’s publication, the field of psychology in Aotearoa New Zealand is facing a period of uncertainty. While clinical psychology training numbers are at an all-time high, the recent review of the Psychologists Board’s scopes of practice, including the proposed new Associate Psychologist scope, has generated intense discussion across our profession and the healthcare sector about our future. Questions about professional identity, competencies, training pathways and standards, the safety of the public, workforce needs, and the roles of legislative and professional bodies have all been areas of debate.

It is in this context that the role of the Journal and its kaupapa feels especially important. As the professional publication of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP), our purpose is not simply to document new and emerging research evidence, but to provide a platform for thoughtful, informed and, at times, provocative dialogue relevant to practice in Aotearoa. As such, we continue to welcome - and indeed encourage -submissions that offer diverse perspectives, even, or especially, when they challenge prevailing assumptions. When done with respect and evidence, disagreement is not a threat to our profession. It is a sign of its intellectual health.

At the same time, it would be naïve to ignore the potential for polarisation and fragmentation. In moments of tension and when we are under high workloads, we commonly retreat to what is familiar - drawn to those who share the same or similar perspective. But such silos can create isolation and echo chambers. In this issue, you may find articles that provoke strong reactions. Some readers may feel affirmed, while others may be challenged. We hope that the pages of this Journal can serve as a place not just for knowledge dissemination but for the kind of collegial, evidence-based discussion that is increasingly hard to find elsewhere. Our peer review process remains robust, but our editorial philosophy also recognises that not all contributions will offer “answers” - some are valuable precisely because they ask new questions or name tensions that are yet to be resolved.

With that spirit in mind, we invite you to read this issue with curiosity and self-reflection. If an article challenges your perspective, we encourage you to sit with that discomfort. Ask what it is about that viewpoint that challenges you. Consider whether and how you might wish to respond- be it a letter to the editor, a formal article of your own or through further academic research. Academic freedom and professional critique are not threats to our cohesion. They are core to our training and our practice.

Clinical psychology has never been static. The profession we inhabit today is markedly different from that of 20 years ago and almost unrecognisable from the profession formed by Lightner Witmer over 100 years ago. Our understandings of mental health, our models of care, our commitments to inclusion and responsiveness - all of these have evolved, often through rigorous internal critique. That tradition continues. If anything, the increasing emergence of diverse voices within psychology - voices shaped by lived experience, cross-disciplinary practice, cultural knowledge, and different models of training - enriches rather than dilutes our field.

The editorial team remain committed to ensuring that the Journal remains a space where clinical psychologists can think deeply, write bravely, and debate respectfully. We are, at our best, a profession of critical thinkers as well as practitioners. The Journal is offered in that spirit - not to resolve all tensions, but to hold space for them, and perhaps, in doing so, to help us stay connected, even in times of change.