Lauren Offermann, Cheryl E. Gray, Jennifer D. Bragger, Rick A. Laguerre
,
，
{"title":"It takes a [helpful] village: Recognizing and minimizing unhelpful help to better support female caregivers in academia","authors":"Lauren Offermann, Cheryl E. Gray, Jennifer D. Bragger, Rick A. Laguerre","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.14","url":null,"abstract":",","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"233 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56656678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Logan L. Watts, J. Lefkowitz, Manuel F. Gonzalez, Sampoorna Nandi
Abstract Opinions have been divided regarding the relevance of the APA Ethics Code to non-mental health specialties and even whether the code should attempt to encompass all psychology specializations. However, these opinions have crystallized without the benefit of any appreciable empirical data, until now. This study investigates the applicability of the ethical principles and standards of the code to 398 first-person narratives of ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists. On average, 2.8 (of the 5) principles enumerated in the code were deemed applicable to each incident, and each principle was applicable to more than half the incidents provided. Of the code’s 89 ethical standards, 75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident. Among the 10 categories of standards, resolving ethical issues and human relations were the most frequently applicable, whereas therapy standards were virtually never applicable. However, for 42.7% of the incidents, trained judges identified a substantive deficiency or ambiguity for I-O psychologists in the code. These deficiencies were subsequently grouped into seven higher order categories (assessments in organizations; research practices; data management; professional interactions; business practices; student ethics; and proactive ethical behavior). Recommendations are offered for improving those putative deficiencies, and implications are discussed for I-O psychologists, the APA’s Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), and other nonclinical domains of psychology.
{"title":"How relevant is the APA ethics code to industrial-organizational psychology? Applicability, deficiencies, and recommendations","authors":"Logan L. Watts, J. Lefkowitz, Manuel F. Gonzalez, Sampoorna Nandi","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Opinions have been divided regarding the relevance of the APA Ethics Code to non-mental health specialties and even whether the code should attempt to encompass all psychology specializations. However, these opinions have crystallized without the benefit of any appreciable empirical data, until now. This study investigates the applicability of the ethical principles and standards of the code to 398 first-person narratives of ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists. On average, 2.8 (of the 5) principles enumerated in the code were deemed applicable to each incident, and each principle was applicable to more than half the incidents provided. Of the code’s 89 ethical standards, 75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident. Among the 10 categories of standards, resolving ethical issues and human relations were the most frequently applicable, whereas therapy standards were virtually never applicable. However, for 42.7% of the incidents, trained judges identified a substantive deficiency or ambiguity for I-O psychologists in the code. These deficiencies were subsequently grouped into seven higher order categories (assessments in organizations; research practices; data management; professional interactions; business practices; student ethics; and proactive ethical behavior). Recommendations are offered for improving those putative deficiencies, and implications are discussed for I-O psychologists, the APA’s Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), and other nonclinical domains of psychology.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"143 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43063583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Three categories of modern dilemmas are immediately apparent in relation to reimagining and committing to a more proactive code in I-O, given their overlap with contemporary issues in technology and data management, health and accessibility, and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion: ethical use of assessments (e.g., AI in selection);ethical conduct of research and data analysis;and ethical imperatives for fairness, inclusiveness, wellness, and equity in organizations, particularly in light of recent world events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic, social justice movements, inflation and economic challenges). Algorithms are then bound by the quality (and bias) incorporated into the data upon which they are trained and tested. [...]with the regulatory landscape in flux, it becomes even more important to utilize an ethical code to develop assessments. [...]relatedly, I-O psychologists who conduct research in organizations may not have regulatory oversight (e.g., institutional review board governance, peer review processes, expectations for pre-registration and open science practices) to guide their studies;if present and applicable, regulatory oversight may still be mismatched with organizational research, often ill fitted to certain types, disciplines, and contexts, or only focused on particular elements or stages of the research process while neglecting others (e.g., Bell & Wray-Bliss, 2009;Buchanan & Bryman, 2009;Greenwood, 2016). [...]I-O psychologists may also find themselves in ethical dilemmas as workers return to the office post pandemic. [...]proactive behavior is more likely and important within uncertain contexts, particularly those
{"title":"Improving conditions or conditional improvements? A modern code, and mode, of I-O ethics","authors":"R. Rauvola, M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.15","url":null,"abstract":"Three categories of modern dilemmas are immediately apparent in relation to reimagining and committing to a more proactive code in I-O, given their overlap with contemporary issues in technology and data management, health and accessibility, and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion: ethical use of assessments (e.g., AI in selection);ethical conduct of research and data analysis;and ethical imperatives for fairness, inclusiveness, wellness, and equity in organizations, particularly in light of recent world events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic, social justice movements, inflation and economic challenges). Algorithms are then bound by the quality (and bias) incorporated into the data upon which they are trained and tested. [...]with the regulatory landscape in flux, it becomes even more important to utilize an ethical code to develop assessments. [...]relatedly, I-O psychologists who conduct research in organizations may not have regulatory oversight (e.g., institutional review board governance, peer review processes, expectations for pre-registration and open science practices) to guide their studies;if present and applicable, regulatory oversight may still be mismatched with organizational research, often ill fitted to certain types, disciplines, and contexts, or only focused on particular elements or stages of the research process while neglecting others (e.g., Bell & Wray-Bliss, 2009;Buchanan & Bryman, 2009;Greenwood, 2016). [...]I-O psychologists may also find themselves in ethical dilemmas as workers return to the office post pandemic. [...]proactive behavior is more likely and important within uncertain contexts, particularly those","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"174 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43849802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The timely focal article by Gabriel et al. (2023) spotlighted critical issues that women academics face around fertility, pregnancy, motherhood, and caregiving. We add to this perspective by argu-ing that it is not sufficient to only focus on women during motherhood and caregiving, and that for women to truly succeed in academia (and beyond) we need men to become equal partners in childcare, alleviating the burden placed mostly on women. We thus aim to highlight that childcare is not only a women ’ s issue but rather a parents ’ issue. Positioning childcare and caregiving as a women ’ s issue risks perpetuating traditional gender stereotypes. Instead, bringing men into the picture provides both men and women with greater opportunities to succeed in both work and family domains. 1 We therefore argue that, in addition to supporting women during motherhood and caregiving, traditional gender stereotypes need to be challenged, and men should be encouraged and provided with pathways to become equal partners during these critical periods. This, we believe, can in turn help change the norms surrounding childcare and performance cultures in academia, which are not aligned with caregiving.
{"title":"Supporting women during motherhood and caregiving necessary, but not sufficient: The need for men to become equal partners in childcare","authors":"Ivona Hideg, A. Krstić, D. Powell, Yujie Zhan","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.12","url":null,"abstract":"The timely focal article by Gabriel et al. (2023) spotlighted critical issues that women academics face around fertility, pregnancy, motherhood, and caregiving. We add to this perspective by argu-ing that it is not sufficient to only focus on women during motherhood and caregiving, and that for women to truly succeed in academia (and beyond) we need men to become equal partners in childcare, alleviating the burden placed mostly on women. We thus aim to highlight that childcare is not only a women ’ s issue but rather a parents ’ issue. Positioning childcare and caregiving as a women ’ s issue risks perpetuating traditional gender stereotypes. Instead, bringing men into the picture provides both men and women with greater opportunities to succeed in both work and family domains. 1 We therefore argue that, in addition to supporting women during motherhood and caregiving, traditional gender stereotypes need to be challenged, and men should be encouraged and provided with pathways to become equal partners during these critical periods. This, we believe, can in turn help change the norms surrounding childcare and performance cultures in academia, which are not aligned with caregiving.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"215 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46148666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Allison S. Gabriel, T. Allen, Cynthia E. Devers, L. Eby, L. Gilson, Mikki R. Hebl, Rebecca R. Kehoe, E. King, Jamie Ladge, L. Little, A. Y. Ou, Deidra J. Schleicher, Kristen M Shockley, A. Klotz, Christopher C. Rosen
Abstract Despite becoming increasingly represented in academic departments, women scholars face a critical lack of support as they navigate demands pertaining to pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving. In addition, cultural norms surrounding how faculty and academic leaders discuss and talk about tenure, promotion, and career success have created pressure for women who wish to grow their family and care for their children, leading to questions about whether it is possible for these women to have a family and an academic career. This paper is a call to action for academia to build structures that support professors who are women as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. We specifically call on those of us in I-O psychology, management, and related departments to lead the way. In making this call, we first present the realistic, moral, and financial cases for why this issue needs to be at the forefront of discussions surrounding success in the academy. We then discuss how, in the U.S. and elsewhere, an absence of policies supporting women places two groups of academics—department heads (as the leaders of departments who have discretion outside of formal policies to make work better for women) and other faculty members (as potential allies both in the department and within our professional organizations)—in a critical position to enact support and change. We conclude with our boldest call—to make a cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success. Combined, we seek to launch a discussion that leads directly to necessary and overdue changes in how women scholars are supported in academia.
{"title":"A call to action: Taking the untenable out of women professors’ pregnancy, postpartum, and caregiving demands","authors":"Allison S. Gabriel, T. Allen, Cynthia E. Devers, L. Eby, L. Gilson, Mikki R. Hebl, Rebecca R. Kehoe, E. King, Jamie Ladge, L. Little, A. Y. Ou, Deidra J. Schleicher, Kristen M Shockley, A. Klotz, Christopher C. Rosen","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.111","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite becoming increasingly represented in academic departments, women scholars face a critical lack of support as they navigate demands pertaining to pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving. In addition, cultural norms surrounding how faculty and academic leaders discuss and talk about tenure, promotion, and career success have created pressure for women who wish to grow their family and care for their children, leading to questions about whether it is possible for these women to have a family and an academic career. This paper is a call to action for academia to build structures that support professors who are women as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. We specifically call on those of us in I-O psychology, management, and related departments to lead the way. In making this call, we first present the realistic, moral, and financial cases for why this issue needs to be at the forefront of discussions surrounding success in the academy. We then discuss how, in the U.S. and elsewhere, an absence of policies supporting women places two groups of academics—department heads (as the leaders of departments who have discretion outside of formal policies to make work better for women) and other faculty members (as potential allies both in the department and within our professional organizations)—in a critical position to enact support and change. We conclude with our boldest call—to make a cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success. Combined, we seek to launch a discussion that leads directly to necessary and overdue changes in how women scholars are supported in academia.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"187 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42190774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While the implications of Watt et al.’s (2023) analysis are undeniable, if the code is to be utilized as a general guide, why then does the code need to be enforced for I-O psychologists? Furthermore, how do I-O psychologists use the code to promote ethical behavior within their organizations? This argument does not assert that I-O psychologists should ignore the code’s standards. It is assumed that those working in this field are interested in advancing moral responsibility in enterprises. However, given the striking discovery that most code violators are not I-O psychologists, promoting ethical behavior in organizations requires us to leverage the code in nonregulatory ways. With I-O psychologists working in a wide array of job industries and sectors, it may be near impossible to implement a standardized code that could be necessitated or pertinent for all members. Understanding these complex issues first requires uncovering why good-intentioned ethical systems go awry.
{"title":"Moving beyond compliance to conventional wisdom: How I-O professionals can promote an ethical organizational culture","authors":"Will Q. Thai, Jorge Lumbreras","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.10","url":null,"abstract":"While the implications of Watt et al.’s (2023) analysis are undeniable, if the code is to be utilized as a general guide, why then does the code need to be enforced for I-O psychologists? Furthermore, how do I-O psychologists use the code to promote ethical behavior within their organizations? This argument does not assert that I-O psychologists should ignore the code’s standards. It is assumed that those working in this field are interested in advancing moral responsibility in enterprises. However, given the striking discovery that most code violators are not I-O psychologists, promoting ethical behavior in organizations requires us to leverage the code in nonregulatory ways. With I-O psychologists working in a wide array of job industries and sectors, it may be near impossible to implement a standardized code that could be necessitated or pertinent for all members. Understanding these complex issues first requires uncovering why good-intentioned ethical systems go awry.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"170 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48435242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Watts and colleagues ’ (2022) focal article, the authors demonstrate the relevance of the APA Ethics Code for the field of I-O psychology, while also highlighting some key deficiencies, including those pertaining to I-O trainees; “ The code is silent regarding its relevance to students ” (Watts et al., 2022, pg. 25). In this statement, the authors were suggesting that a revised Ethics Code should explicitly clarify the extent to which it applies to students and should include more references to ethical situations students may encounter (e.g., academic integrity). We extend this statement to also point out the deficiency in the code regarding how to properly train graduate students in ethics. A relevant and revised Ethics Code can only help guide I-O psychologists if they have proper education and training around it. Accordingly, we respond to two of the questions posed by Watts and colleagues (i.e., questions #3 and #6).
在Watts及其同事(2022)的焦点文章中，作者展示了APA道德准则与I-O心理学领域的相关性，同时也强调了一些关键缺陷，包括与I-O学员有关的缺陷;“该准则对其与学生的相关性保持沉默”(Watts et al.， 2022，第25页)。在此声明中，作者建议修订后的道德准则应明确澄清其适用于学生的程度，并应更多地提及学生可能遇到的道德状况(例如，学术诚信)。我们扩展这一说法，也指出了规范中关于如何正确培养研究生道德的不足。一份相关的、经过修订的道德守则，只有在对I-O心理学家进行了适当的教育和培训后，才能对他们起到指导作用。因此，我们回答了Watts及其同事提出的两个问题(即问题#3和#6)。
{"title":"Instilling ethics in I-O: The responsibility of graduate training programs","authors":"Rebecca M. Brossoit, Jacqueline R Wong","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.4","url":null,"abstract":"In Watts and colleagues ’ (2022) focal article, the authors demonstrate the relevance of the APA Ethics Code for the field of I-O psychology, while also highlighting some key deficiencies, including those pertaining to I-O trainees; “ The code is silent regarding its relevance to students ” (Watts et al., 2022, pg. 25). In this statement, the authors were suggesting that a revised Ethics Code should explicitly clarify the extent to which it applies to students and should include more references to ethical situations students may encounter (e.g., academic integrity). We extend this statement to also point out the deficiency in the code regarding how to properly train graduate students in ethics. A relevant and revised Ethics Code can only help guide I-O psychologists if they have proper education and training around it. Accordingly, we respond to two of the questions posed by Watts and colleagues (i.e., questions #3 and #6).","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"182 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41706967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Applying an intersectional lens to consider disparities in historically marginalized women’s access to caregiving resources","authors":"Nina Carmichael-Tanaka, Brandon Y. Kang","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.18","url":null,"abstract":"We wholeheartedly agree with Gabriel and colleagues ’ (2023) call to increase support for women academics as they seek out pregnancy, postpartum","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"257 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49240514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The arguments in the focal article go like this: “ Women professors during pregnancy, postpartum, and caregiving phases face real struggles in their academic career and we have a moral obligation to help them succeed; otherwise, it could be very costly to our institutions. Department heads and other faculty members, take actions to support female caregivers. We will give you some sugges-tions. ” While I resonate with this message both on a personal and a professional level, I could not help but notice a fundamental assumption underlying this argument: that faculty members actively want to be good moral agents and want to help their colleagues and institutions. Supporting colleagues is not explicitly spelled out in faculty job descriptions, thus it would not be surprising if faculty members are indifferent to this ask, or even worse, push back when asked to do so. This is especially true if they do not sympathize with their colleagues ’ experience or if they are simply struggling with their own issues and needing help themselves. The authors essen-tially asked those that received their message to perform positive duties ( “ do good ” ) in addition to their negative duties ( “ do no harm ” ). Given how the former is much more controversial than the latter (Lichtenberg, 2010), I found myself questioning how likely it is that the authors ’ excellent recommendations would be turned into actions. To be honest, I was not optimistic. In this commentary, I present an experiential learning case to supplement the recommendations laid out by the authors and argue that academia needs more empathy and emotions to support (not just) women professors.
{"title":"Experience, empathy, and emotions: What our academic systems need to support (not just) women professors","authors":"Mai P. Trinh","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.13","url":null,"abstract":"The arguments in the focal article go like this: “ Women professors during pregnancy, postpartum, and caregiving phases face real struggles in their academic career and we have a moral obligation to help them succeed; otherwise, it could be very costly to our institutions. Department heads and other faculty members, take actions to support female caregivers. We will give you some sugges-tions. ” While I resonate with this message both on a personal and a professional level, I could not help but notice a fundamental assumption underlying this argument: that faculty members actively want to be good moral agents and want to help their colleagues and institutions. Supporting colleagues is not explicitly spelled out in faculty job descriptions, thus it would not be surprising if faculty members are indifferent to this ask, or even worse, push back when asked to do so. This is especially true if they do not sympathize with their colleagues ’ experience or if they are simply struggling with their own issues and needing help themselves. The authors essen-tially asked those that received their message to perform positive duties ( “ do good ” ) in addition to their negative duties ( “ do no harm ” ). Given how the former is much more controversial than the latter (Lichtenberg, 2010), I found myself questioning how likely it is that the authors ’ excellent recommendations would be turned into actions. To be honest, I was not optimistic. In this commentary, I present an experiential learning case to supplement the recommendations laid out by the authors and argue that academia needs more empathy and emotions to support (not just) women professors.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"225 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45869927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hyland (2023) called for our field to question assumptions and explore new ideas, suggesting a need for I-O psychologists to challenge paradigms in our field through a reflexive process. Paradigm shifts, however, can take decades to occur and often they are a culmination of successive approximations toward that goal (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Hyland, 2023). Therefore, the purpose of this commentary is to provide strategies for incrementally challenging assumptions in our field, specifically, those that occur in research studies and practice environments. These strategies are guided by problematization principles for generating research questions (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, 2020), which is a method of inductive reasoning that is highly reflexive. Specifically, the problematization method encourages scholars to evaluate the underlying assumptions of our constructs and dominant theories and consider ways that alternative theoretical perspectives may challenge the prevailing school of thought (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, 2020). Hyland (2023) states that “our field does not have a robust body of literature or set of established practices for engaging in introspection and scientific self-examination” (p. 104); therefore, this commentary aims to serve as an initial blueprint for systematically engaging in reflexive processes in research studies and practice settings. In what follows, I highlight the problematization approach for generating research questions that challenge assumptions in our field. Then, I provide concrete examples of this approach in research and offer suggestions for using its principles in practice.
{"title":"Challenging assumptions in research and practice using problematization principles","authors":"Rick A. Laguerre","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.94","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.94","url":null,"abstract":"Hyland (2023) called for our field to question assumptions and explore new ideas, suggesting a need for I-O psychologists to challenge paradigms in our field through a reflexive process. Paradigm shifts, however, can take decades to occur and often they are a culmination of successive approximations toward that goal (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Hyland, 2023). Therefore, the purpose of this commentary is to provide strategies for incrementally challenging assumptions in our field, specifically, those that occur in research studies and practice environments. These strategies are guided by problematization principles for generating research questions (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, 2020), which is a method of inductive reasoning that is highly reflexive. Specifically, the problematization method encourages scholars to evaluate the underlying assumptions of our constructs and dominant theories and consider ways that alternative theoretical perspectives may challenge the prevailing school of thought (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, 2020). Hyland (2023) states that “our field does not have a robust body of literature or set of established practices for engaging in introspection and scientific self-examination” (p. 104); therefore, this commentary aims to serve as an initial blueprint for systematically engaging in reflexive processes in research studies and practice settings. In what follows, I highlight the problematization approach for generating research questions that challenge assumptions in our field. Then, I provide concrete examples of this approach in research and offer suggestions for using its principles in practice.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"101 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45434213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：