Dillon Stewart, Karyssa A. Courey, Yaojia R. Chen, Nick J. Banerjee
Comments on an article by Patrick Hyland (see record 2023-54807-014). Hyland provides a model for reflection and reflexivity to prevent industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology research from growing stale. Authors focus is to expand upon Hyland's model by first reflecting on the recent sociohistorical forces that have shaped I-O psychology and then by proactively future-proofing their field through graduate education focused on transparency, software accessibility, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Recent history has seen an upsurge of unprecedented macro events such as COVID-19, nationwide racial division, political unrest, and mental health crisis;these events make authors aware of blind spots within our societal, scientific, and economical systems. Such events force us as a field to be reactive and adaptive by transitioning from old methods to new and developing methods (e.g., work shifting from in-person to online). However, as humans, authors tend to cling to what is familiar and comfortable, and likewise, their field has often chosen to remain comfortable. Authors believe that the proclivity to resist change results in an overreliance on outdated practices and to combat this, authors suggest a grassroots approach to transformation by focusing on future-proofing graduate coursework. In line with the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology's (SIOP) strategic goals, authors envision a future that equips future generations of researchers and practitioners with the skills and knowledge to be lifelong learners, so they are prepared for ever-changing challenges. Authors suggest updating the I-O graduate course curriculum by (a) implementing open science practices throughout courses, (b) embracing the latest open-source coding technologies (e.g., R and Python), and (c) advancing inferential inclusivity by teaching Bayesian statistics in addition to traditional methods. This three-pronged approach addresses the need for transparency, software accessibility, and multidisciplinary research to prepare graduate students to theorize, plan appropriate study design, thoughtfully consider necessary analyses, interpret meaningful results, and share those results in a clear and far-reaching manner. Researchers can then prepare for (rather than react to) unprecedented macro events, clarifying our collective identity and future-proofing the field with an updated skill set to overcome obstacles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
{"title":"Future-proofing I-O psychology: The need for updated graduate curriculum","authors":"Dillon Stewart, Karyssa A. Courey, Yaojia R. Chen, Nick J. Banerjee","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.110","url":null,"abstract":"Comments on an article by Patrick Hyland (see record 2023-54807-014). Hyland provides a model for reflection and reflexivity to prevent industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology research from growing stale. Authors focus is to expand upon Hyland's model by first reflecting on the recent sociohistorical forces that have shaped I-O psychology and then by proactively future-proofing their field through graduate education focused on transparency, software accessibility, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Recent history has seen an upsurge of unprecedented macro events such as COVID-19, nationwide racial division, political unrest, and mental health crisis;these events make authors aware of blind spots within our societal, scientific, and economical systems. Such events force us as a field to be reactive and adaptive by transitioning from old methods to new and developing methods (e.g., work shifting from in-person to online). However, as humans, authors tend to cling to what is familiar and comfortable, and likewise, their field has often chosen to remain comfortable. Authors believe that the proclivity to resist change results in an overreliance on outdated practices and to combat this, authors suggest a grassroots approach to transformation by focusing on future-proofing graduate coursework. In line with the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology's (SIOP) strategic goals, authors envision a future that equips future generations of researchers and practitioners with the skills and knowledge to be lifelong learners, so they are prepared for ever-changing challenges. Authors suggest updating the I-O graduate course curriculum by (a) implementing open science practices throughout courses, (b) embracing the latest open-source coding technologies (e.g., R and Python), and (c) advancing inferential inclusivity by teaching Bayesian statistics in addition to traditional methods. This three-pronged approach addresses the need for transparency, software accessibility, and multidisciplinary research to prepare graduate students to theorize, plan appropriate study design, thoughtfully consider necessary analyses, interpret meaningful results, and share those results in a clear and far-reaching manner. Researchers can then prepare for (rather than react to) unprecedented macro events, clarifying our collective identity and future-proofing the field with an updated skill set to overcome obstacles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49414383","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}
Annika L. Benson, Kelsie Colley, Joshua J. Prasad, Colin M. G. Willis, Tracy E. Powell-Rudy
We believe that readers of the focal article by LeFevre-Levy et al. (2023) would benefit from aligning neurodiversity in the workplace and broader arguments for pursuing and researching organizational diversity in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. Often referred to as the “case for workplace diversity,” practitioners and scholars have offered various arguments in its defense. In this commentary, we adopt the labels from van Dijk et al. (2012) of (a) the business case, (b) the equality case, and (c) the values and virtues case to discuss the approaches for arguing why organizational diversity ought to be pursued. We briefly summarize each case and its consequences. The goal of this commentary is to connect the key points made by LeFevre-Levy et al. to each argument, clarify the values being promoted, and identify who may (and importantly may not) stand to benefit. We encourage the field to consider the implications of oversimplifying claims about neuroatypical individuals and their impact in organizations. In doing so, we hope to further contextualize the important points made by LeFevre-Levy et al.
{"title":"Contextualizing cases for neuroatypical inclusion in the workplace","authors":"Annika L. Benson, Kelsie Colley, Joshua J. Prasad, Colin M. G. Willis, Tracy E. Powell-Rudy","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.108","url":null,"abstract":"We believe that readers of the focal article by LeFevre-Levy et al. (2023) would benefit from aligning neurodiversity in the workplace and broader arguments for pursuing and researching organizational diversity in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. Often referred to as the “case for workplace diversity,” practitioners and scholars have offered various arguments in its defense. In this commentary, we adopt the labels from van Dijk et al. (2012) of (a) the business case, (b) the equality case, and (c) the values and virtues case to discuss the approaches for arguing why organizational diversity ought to be pursued. We briefly summarize each case and its consequences. The goal of this commentary is to connect the key points made by LeFevre-Levy et al. to each argument, clarify the values being promoted, and identify who may (and importantly may not) stand to benefit. We encourage the field to consider the implications of oversimplifying claims about neuroatypical individuals and their impact in organizations. In doing so, we hope to further contextualize the important points made by LeFevre-Levy et al.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45707138","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}
Rick A. Laguerre, Jennifer D. Bragger, Edileide Cavalcanti, Christina Christodoulou, Sara Stavely, Morgan Russell
{"title":"Serving decision makers and their employees simultaneously: Adopting a balanced approach","authors":"Rick A. Laguerre, Jennifer D. Bragger, Edileide Cavalcanti, Christina Christodoulou, Sara Stavely, Morgan Russell","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.91","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46178116","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":"Opening a “closed door”: A call for nuance in discussions of open science","authors":"J. A. Morgan, B. Lindsay, C. Moran","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.72","url":null,"abstract":"hypothetico-deductive","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48495543","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}
Lindsay Y. Dhanani, Christopher W. Wiese, LeVonte’ Brooks, Kyana Beckles
Abstract The country has been gripped by the events that have unfolded in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. In response to these new examples of long-standing police violence, there have been calls to substantially reimage policing to reduce the number of violent incidents that occur between officers and the public and to combat officers’ disproportionate use of force with Black Americans. In this article, we call on industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to leverage their expertise to help actuate meaningful change within law enforcement. To help guide our collective efforts as a field, we provide a review of the current state of affairs as they relate to recruitment, selection, training, performance management, occupational stress, and organizational culture in law enforcement and then offer recommendations for ways to change current practices to encourage more equitable and responsible policing. We also highlight areas in which further investigation is needed and urge I-O psychologists to invest in building the knowledge necessary to inform future practices. We hope this article can facilitate a discussion about how our field can contribute to achieving evidence-based and lasting change that benefits officers and the members of the communities they serve.
{"title":"Reckoning with racialized police violence: The role of I-O psychology","authors":"Lindsay Y. Dhanani, Christopher W. Wiese, LeVonte’ Brooks, Kyana Beckles","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.62","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The country has been gripped by the events that have unfolded in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. In response to these new examples of long-standing police violence, there have been calls to substantially reimage policing to reduce the number of violent incidents that occur between officers and the public and to combat officers’ disproportionate use of force with Black Americans. In this article, we call on industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to leverage their expertise to help actuate meaningful change within law enforcement. To help guide our collective efforts as a field, we provide a review of the current state of affairs as they relate to recruitment, selection, training, performance management, occupational stress, and organizational culture in law enforcement and then offer recommendations for ways to change current practices to encourage more equitable and responsible policing. We also highlight areas in which further investigation is needed and urge I-O psychologists to invest in building the knowledge necessary to inform future practices. We hope this article can facilitate a discussion about how our field can contribute to achieving evidence-based and lasting change that benefits officers and the members of the communities they serve.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44451346","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}
Richard A. Guzzo, B. Schneider, Haig R. Nalbantian
Abstract This paper advocates for the value of open science in many areas of research. However, after briefly reviewing the fundamental principles underlying open science practices and their use and justification, the paper identifies four incompatibilities between those principles and scientific progress through applied research. The incompatibilities concern barriers to sharing and disclosure, limitations and deficiencies of overidentifying with hypothetico-deductive methods of inference, the paradox of replication efforts resulting in less robust findings, and changes to the professional research and publication culture such that it will narrow in favor of a specific style of research. Seven recommendations are presented to maximize the value of open science while minimizing its adverse effects on the advancement of science in practice.
{"title":"Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice","authors":"Richard A. Guzzo, B. Schneider, Haig R. Nalbantian","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.61","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper advocates for the value of open science in many areas of research. However, after briefly reviewing the fundamental principles underlying open science practices and their use and justification, the paper identifies four incompatibilities between those principles and scientific progress through applied research. The incompatibilities concern barriers to sharing and disclosure, limitations and deficiencies of overidentifying with hypothetico-deductive methods of inference, the paradox of replication efforts resulting in less robust findings, and changes to the professional research and publication culture such that it will narrow in favor of a specific style of research. Seven recommendations are presented to maximize the value of open science while minimizing its adverse effects on the advancement of science in practice.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46484168","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 focal article (Dhanani et al., 2022) discusses practices and recommendations in several important I-O domains. Regarding staffing (i.e
重点文章（Dhanani等人，2022）讨论了几个重要I-O领域的实践和建议。关于人员配置（即
{"title":"Identifying I-O and HRM practices is necessary but not sufficient for lasting change","authors":"Kyle E. Brink","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.78","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.78","url":null,"abstract":"The focal article (Dhanani et al., 2022) discusses practices and recommendations in several important I-O domains. Regarding staffing (i.e","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48184151","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}
Whereas Guzzo et al. (2022) describe the perils and potential of open science for practitioner– researchers and practice-oriented research in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, this commentary will focus on a related—but often neglected—voice in the conversation on open science: practitioners who are consumers of the research. Although there are benefits to open science for practitioners, the one-sided adoption of open science practices may unwittingly exacerbate the gap between scientists (who develop and test theories) and practitioners (who solve problems in the professional world).
{"title":"Holding the door open for the practitioner community","authors":"Jessica J. Sim","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.71","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.71","url":null,"abstract":"Whereas Guzzo et al. (2022) describe the perils and potential of open science for practitioner– researchers and practice-oriented research in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, this commentary will focus on a related—but often neglected—voice in the conversation on open science: practitioners who are consumers of the research. Although there are benefits to open science for practitioners, the one-sided adoption of open science practices may unwittingly exacerbate the gap between scientists (who develop and test theories) and practitioners (who solve problems in the professional world).","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42503607","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}
Racialized police violence is a devastating reality that has gained particular notoriety in the United States. As I-O psychologists, we have a unique position that can contribute to society ’ s collective responsibility to address this violence and prevent it from occurring in the future. As discussed in their focal article, Dhanani et al. (2022) posit that one opportunity for the field to have an impact is through training. In this commentary, we propose that an understudied and underutilized modality for training in police academies is virtual reality (VR); further, we highlight that VR can poten-tially be a more effective way of preparing police for the demands they face in the field. Although by no means should training be considered the only solution, we are optimistic that the positive attributes associated with training in VR will have a positive impact on both policing and the communities they serve.
{"title":"From simulations to real-world operations: Virtual reality training for reducing racialized police violence","authors":"Jo M. Alanis, Rachael H. Pyram","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.80","url":null,"abstract":"Racialized police violence is a devastating reality that has gained particular notoriety in the United States. As I-O psychologists, we have a unique position that can contribute to society ’ s collective responsibility to address this violence and prevent it from occurring in the future. As discussed in their focal article, Dhanani et al. (2022) posit that one opportunity for the field to have an impact is through training. In this commentary, we propose that an understudied and underutilized modality for training in police academies is virtual reality (VR); further, we highlight that VR can poten-tially be a more effective way of preparing police for the demands they face in the field. Although by no means should training be considered the only solution, we are optimistic that the positive attributes associated with training in VR will have a positive impact on both policing and the communities they serve.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44060740","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}
Broadly, open science can be defined as “transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks” (Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018, p. 434). Hence, it refers to a broad range of practices aimed at detecting scientific fraud and enhancing transparency and replicability of research. In their focal article, Guzzo et al., (2022) highlighted several tensions between these values and applied research in organizations. In this commentary, we develop a slightly different argument: the open science movement, as a direct offspring of (post)positivist research paradigms1, has the potential to stifle epistemological and scientific pluralism and reproduce historical scientific hierarchies it purports to redress. In doing so, we distinguish between the spirit of open science (i.e., promoting participation, transparency, and access to science) and its implementations (e.g., OSF badges, TOP guidelines, and multi-laboratory research, but also sexist attacks on social media and podcasts by other scholars in the field [e.g., the Twitter pile-on in November 2021 regarding Roxanne Felig and her coauthors’ paper], and a general disregard of feminist epistemologies; Brabeck, 2021). In the first part of this commentary, we focus on open science’s ideals and examine a few unstated assumptions, advancing a set of equally valid assumptions based on constructionist thought, and then we discuss how unchecked implementations of open science practices can marginalize scholars that do not subscribe to its epistemic premises. We conclude with a few thoughts to improve the open science movement.
{"title":"Open science and epistemic pluralism: A tale of many perils and some opportunities","authors":"A. Bazzoli","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.67","url":null,"abstract":"Broadly, open science can be defined as “transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks” (Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018, p. 434). Hence, it refers to a broad range of practices aimed at detecting scientific fraud and enhancing transparency and replicability of research. In their focal article, Guzzo et al., (2022) highlighted several tensions between these values and applied research in organizations. In this commentary, we develop a slightly different argument: the open science movement, as a direct offspring of (post)positivist research paradigms1, has the potential to stifle epistemological and scientific pluralism and reproduce historical scientific hierarchies it purports to redress. In doing so, we distinguish between the spirit of open science (i.e., promoting participation, transparency, and access to science) and its implementations (e.g., OSF badges, TOP guidelines, and multi-laboratory research, but also sexist attacks on social media and podcasts by other scholars in the field [e.g., the Twitter pile-on in November 2021 regarding Roxanne Felig and her coauthors’ paper], and a general disregard of feminist epistemologies; Brabeck, 2021). In the first part of this commentary, we focus on open science’s ideals and examine a few unstated assumptions, advancing a set of equally valid assumptions based on constructionist thought, and then we discuss how unchecked implementations of open science practices can marginalize scholars that do not subscribe to its epistemic premises. We conclude with a few thoughts to improve the open science movement.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49264719","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：