Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:02:18.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yes, We're Fishing—In Rough Waters for Hard-to-Find Fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Rebecca Thompson ,
Mindy Bergman ,
Satoris S. Culbertson  and
Ann H. Huffman
Rebecca Thompson*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Mindy Bergman
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Satoris S. Culbertson
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
Ann H. Huffman
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
*
E-mail: BeckersD13@tamu.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843–4235
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their focal article, Ruggs et al. (2013) outline the missed opportunities for researchers within industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology in examining marginalized employees. The authors identify seven groups as having been overlooked by I–O psychologists and thus deserving greater attention in the future. They conclude their focal article by noting that, “Instead of being on the front line serving as scientists and allies for those who are marginalized and treated poorly, we have let these individuals take a backseat while we have gone fishing.” We disagree with this assertion. It is not that we have gone fishing and ignored marginalized employees. Rather, we have gone fishing, in rough waters, to locate hard-to-find fish. We are not purposefully ignoring marginalized employees. On the contrary, we are conducting research while battling numerical representation issues and ethical and administration issues. The focus of our commentary is to highlight these challenges and offer suggestions for addressing them in an effort to assist researchers in actually doing what the authors of the focal article are calling for them to do—to successfully engage in more focused research on these under-represented members of the workforce.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 61 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.10.2307/259136Google Scholar
Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates' responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress, 25, 309–320.10.1080/02678373.2011.634281Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). U.S. Department of Labor, occupational outlook handbook, 2012–13 edition, career guide to industries, Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/career-guide-to-industries.htm Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348–1366.10.1037/a0012743Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (2002). What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123–128.10.1111/1467-8721.00183Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: An integrated model. In Keita, G., & Hurrell, J. Jr. (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 55–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, H. B., Comrey, A., Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.Google Scholar
Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 236–254.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (2008, July 25). Disabled employees make up less than 1 percent of the federal workforce. Government Executive. Retrieved from http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2008/07/disabled-employees-make-up-less-than-1-percent-of-the-federal-workforce/27318/.Google Scholar
Ruggs, E. N., Law, C., Cox, C. B., Roehling, M. V., Wiener, R. L., Hebl, M. R., & Barron, L. (2013). Gone fishing: I-O psychologists' missed opportunities to understand marginalized employees' experiences with discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 39–60.Google Scholar
Samnani, A., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 581–589.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S., & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2 ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
U.S. Census. (2010). The American Indian and Alaska Native population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf Google Scholar