 A Means Not an EndPaul M. Muchinsky Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2010, vol. 3, issue 3, 269-271 Abstract: Ryan and Ford (2010) asserted that the identity of I-O psychology is blurred with other allied disciplines (OB, HRM, IR, ODC, etc.). I agree. They are concerned with identifying what sets I-O psychology apart from these other disciplines and concluded that the science (italics in original) component of I-O psychology is the critical differentiating marker variable. I disagree. Ryan and Ford equate “I-O psychologists” with “I-O psychological knowledge”; therefore, only individuals trained as I-O psychologists can produce I-O psychological knowledge. The less-than-subtle implication that only I-O psychologists are scientists is not born out by the scientific literature. Our top scientific journals (i.e., those that have the P-word in the title) have had editors, associate editors, and members of the editorial review boards whose academic training is not in psychology. Articles published in these journals are also authored by nonpsychologists. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has given awards and granted fellowship status to nonpsychologists whose scholarly work has been deemed to be of special merit and significance. Quite clearly, I-O psychologists do not have a monopoly on I-O psychological research. Date: 2010 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:inorps:v:3:y:2010:i:03:p:269-271_00 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.