Abstract
Bergman and Jean (2016) have contributed an important essay to the continuing self-reflection and maturation of the field of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology—or as it is known in much of the world outside the United States, work psychology.1They clearly and adequately document that the field has relatively neglected to study the world of (largely lower-level) workers who are not managers, executives, professionals, or students and that this has affected adversely the validity of our science and the relevance of our professional practice in a number of not-so-intuitively obvious ways. But as critical as those observations are, I believe the most important aspect of their piece has to do with the inferences they offer as towhyour published literature is so skewed. They suggest six potential, not mutually exclusive, explanations, including the possibility of personal biases among I-O psychologists. However, before focusing on those explanations, it should be informative to place the Bergman/Jean thesis in context. There is a growing, recent body of critical evidence and/or commentary concerning this and similar issues—although less consideration generally has been given to their likely causes.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Applied Psychology,Social Psychology
Reference24 articles.
1. Educating Industrial–Organizational Psychologists for Science and Practice: Where Do We Go From Here?
2. Educating Industrial–Organizational Psychologists for Science, Practice, and Social Responsibility
3. The impact of practice values on our science;Lefkowitz;The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist,2012
4. The values of industrial-organizational psychology: Who are we?;Lefkowitz;The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist,2005
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献