No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
All we like sheep: The need for reflection and reflexivity in I-O psychology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2023
Abstract
In recent years, various I-O psychologists have raised concerns about the state of the field, with some arguing that we are experiencing a collective identity crisis and have lost our way. In this article, I explore why these concerns have emerged by reviewing the development of our field from a philosophy of science perspective. Then I discuss how the concepts of reflection and reflexivity can help us clarify our professional worldviews and find a way forward. I conclude by suggesting ways to incorporate reflection and reflexivity into I-O research and practice. My hope is to spark a conversation about the role that reflection and reflexivity could play in our field.
- Type
- Focal Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
References
Argyris, C. (1976). Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. American Psychologist, 31(9), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.31.9.638
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry. Science Editions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M.O., Reichmann, W., Klobas, J., MacLachlan, M., Hui, H.C., & Carr, S.C. (2009). Humanitarian work psychology: The contributions of organizational psychology to poverty reduction. Journal of Economic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.009
Google Scholar
Bonaccio, S., Connelly, C., Fisher, S., Gellatly, I., Gignac, M., & Jetha, A. (2018). Beyond managing research partnerships: Partnered research as an integrated methodological approach. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(4), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.123
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Briner, R., & Rousseau, D. (2011). Evidence-based I–O psychology: Not there yet but now a little nearer? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camargo-Borges, C., & Rasera, E. F. (2013). Social constructionism in the context of organization development: Dialogue, imagination, and co-creation as resources of change. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013487540
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963–2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Celik, P., Storme, M., Davila, A., & Myszkowski, N. (2016). Work-related curiosity positively predicts worker innovation. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0013
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C., & Meindl, J. (1992). The construction of leadership images in the popular press. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 521–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung-Judge, M. (2012). The self as an instrument: A cornerstone for the future of OD. OD Practitioner, 44(2), 42–47.Google Scholar
Chilisa, B., & Kawulich, B. B. (2012). Selecting a research approach: Paradigm, methodology and methods. In Wagner, C., Kawulich, B. B., & Garner, M. (Eds.), Doing social research: A global context (pp. 51–61). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cook, G. A. (1977). G.H. Mead’s social behaviorism. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13(4), 307–316.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi- experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastava, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Woodman, R. W. & Pasmore, W. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development: An annual series featuring advances in theory, methodology, and research, vol. 1. JAI Press.Google Scholar
Cox, J., & Hassard, J. (2005). Triangulation in organizational research: A representation. Organisation, 12(1), 109–133.Google Scholar
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56(8), 983–1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267030568004
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904264440
Google Scholar
Darwin Holmes, A. G. (2020). Researcher positionality - a consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research - a new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Sage.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10903-000
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Stefano, G., Gino, F., Pisano, G. P., & Staats, B. (2014, March). Making Experience Count: The Role of Reflection in Individual Learning. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 14-093 (Revised June 2016).Google Scholar
Dowling, M. (2006). Approaches to reflexivity in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 13(3), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2006.04.13.3.7.c5975
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubé, V., & Ducharme, F. (2015). Nursing reflective practice: An empirical literature review. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 5, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eby, L. T., Hurst, C. S., & Butts, M. M. (2009). The redheaded stepchild in organizational and social science research? In Lance, C. E. & Vandenberg, R. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 219–246). Routledge.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. and McManus, S. (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26586086
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erciyes, E. (2020). Paradigms of inquiry in the qualitative research. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 16(7), 181. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n7p181
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031454
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. Q. & Bartell, T. G. (2011). Pathways to equity in mathematics education: How life experiences impact researcher positionality. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, L.R., Seers, A., & Neumann, J. (2013). Honoring complexity: Set-theoretic analysis as a complementary method in leadership research. Management Research Review, 36(7), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2012-0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, P. (1985). Reading the world and reading the word: An interview with Paulo Freire. Language Arts, 62(1), 15–21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41405241
Google Scholar
Geldenhuys, D. J. (2015). Social constructionism and relational practices as a paradigm for organisational psychology in the South African context. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 41(1), Art. #1225. https://doi.org/10.4102/
Google Scholar
Gerard, N. (2017). Handmaidens to capitalism. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10(3), 410–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2017.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. (2004). Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304263860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrodette, T. (2011). Inference without significance: measuring support for hypotheses rather than rejecting them. Marine Ecology, 32, 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00466.x.Google Scholar
Gloss, A.E., Carr, S., Reichman, W., Abdul-Nasiru, I., & Oestereich, W.T. (2017). From handmaidens to POSH humanitarians: The case for making human capabilities the business of I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10, 329–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E. (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In Guba, E. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–27). Sage.Google Scholar
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more from crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, orchestras, and hospitals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, B. D. (2005). An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.371
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harre, R. & Moghaddam, F. M. (2006). Historicity, social psychology and change. In Rockmore, T. & Margolis, J. (Eds.), History, historicity and science (pp. 95–120). Ashgate Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Harvester.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. and Schmitt, N.W. (2012). A snapshot in time: Industrial–organizational psychology today. In Weiner, I., Schmitt, N.W., & Highhouse, S. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, (2nd ed.), (pp. 3–13). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212001
Google Scholar
Hoff, D.F. & Burke, W.W. (2017). Learning agility: The key to leader potential. Hogan Press.Google Scholar
Holland, R. (1999). Reflexivity. Human Relations, 52(4), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905200403
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houts, A.C., Cook, T.D. and Shadish, W.R. Jr. (1986), The person-situation debate: A critical multiplist perspective. Journal of Personality, 54, 52–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00390.x
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. A. (2005). Albert Einstein as a philosopher of science. Physics Today 58, 34–40 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2169442
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Chandler.Google Scholar
Kellert, S., Longino, H., & Waters, K. (2006). Scientific pluralism, studies in the philosophy of science. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12045
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. S. (1999). Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01005.x
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolb, D.A., & Fry, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In Cooper, C. (Ed.), Theories of group process (pp. 33–57). John Wiley.Google Scholar
König, C., Bajwa, N., Schui, G., & Fell, C. (2018). How industrial-organizational psychology can benefit from scientometrics (and vice versa). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(3), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.90
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppes Bryan, L. (2021). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, A. (1947). Industrial psychology as management technique and as social science. American Psychologist, 11, 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korten, D. (2001) When corporations rule the world, (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landers, R. (2019). The existential threats to I-O psychology highlighted by rapid technological change. In Landers, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 3–21). Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.002
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapierre, L., Matthews, R. A., Eby, L. T., Truxillo, D. M., Johnson, R. E., & Major, D. (2018). Recommended practices for academics to initiate and manage research partnerships. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(4), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2010). Industrial-organizational psychology’s recurring identity crises: It’s a values issue! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01243.x
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2019). The conundrum of industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 12(4), 473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letourneau, N., & Allen, M. (1999). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(3), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01133.x
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/10019-000
Google Scholar
Lewis, M. A., & Grimes, A. I. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipscomb, M. (2012). Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nursing Philosophy: An International Journal for Healthcare Professionals, 13(4), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2011.00532.x
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307636
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, G. R. (1996). Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(6), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512376
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, P. (1998). Philosophy of science: An overview for educators. Science & Education, 7(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mamede, S., Schmidt, H. G., & Penaforte, J. C. (2008). Effects of reflective practice on the accuracy of medical diagnoses. Medical Education, 42(5), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03030.x
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, K., Gordon, J., & MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 595–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshak, R.J., & Bushe, G. R. (2018). Planned and generative change in organization development. OD Practitioner, 50(4), 9–15.Google Scholar
Maton, K. (2003). Reflexivity, relationism, & research: Pierre Bourdieu and the epistemic conditions of social scientific knowledge. Space and Culture, 6(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331202238962
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the perspective of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/4609267
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezirow, J. (1997) Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miraglia, R., & Asselin, M. (2015). Reflection as an educational strategy in nursing professional development: An integrative review. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 31, 62–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagda, B. A., Yeakley, A., Gurin, P., & Sorensen, N. (2012). Intergroup dialogue: a critical-dialogic model for conflict engagement. In Tropp, Linda R. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 210–228). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747672.013.0013. ISBN 9780199747672. OCLC 761538086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, S. (2012) The lost path to emancipatory practice: towards a history of reflective practice in nursing. Nursing Philosophy, 13(3), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2011.00535.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. (1933). On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 231, 289–337. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/91247
Google Scholar
Nguyen, Q. D., Fernandez, N., Karsenti, T., & Charlin, B. (2014). What is reflection? A conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five-component model. Medical Education, 48(12), 1176–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12583
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S., & Dryzek, J.S. (2007), The ends of deliberation: Meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review, 13, 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00087.x
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olenick, J., Walker, R., Bradburn, J., & DeShon, R. (2018). A systems view of the scientist–practitioner gap. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11
(
2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.8
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D. S, Kaiser, R. B., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Svensson, C. (2017). Has industrial-organizational psychology lost its way? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 54(4).Google Scholar
Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R. Jr. (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 95(5), 690–694. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pawar, M. & Anscombe, A. W. (2015). Reflective social work practice: Thinking, doing and being. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, D. (1990). Postpositivistic science: Myths and realities. In Guba, E. (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue (pp. 31–45). Sage.Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E. (2012). The psychology of competitive advantage: An adjacent possibility. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Bonaccio, S. (2016). Qualitative research in I-O psychology: Maps, myths, and moving forward. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(4), 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabenu, E., & Tziner, A. (2018). What curbs frontiers research? A reaction to Rotolo et al.'s article. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(2), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.9
Google Scholar
Rice, A. K. (1969). Individual, group and intergroup processes. Human Relations, 22(6), 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676902200606
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rioch, M. J. (1971). All we like sheep–(Isaiah 53:6): Followers and leaders. Psychiatry, 34(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1971.11023673
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotolo, C., Church, A., Adler, S., Smither, J., Colquitt, A., Shull, A. C., Paul, K. B., & Foster, G. (2018). Putting an end to bad talent management: A call to action for the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(2), 176–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.6
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, W. (2014). Positionality. In Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (pp. 628–628). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n277
Google Scholar
Rozeboom, W.W. (1960). The fallacy of the null hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042040
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubenstein, R. A. (1991). Reflection and reflexivity in anthropology. In Rubinstein, R. A. (Ed.), Fieldwork: The correspondence of Robert Redfield and Sol Tax (pp. 1–35). Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M. (2003). Defining ourselves: I-O psychology’s identity question. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41, 21–33.Google Scholar
Salzman, P.C. (2002). On reflexivity. American Anthropologist, 104, 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.805
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandars, J. (2009). The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 44. Medical Teacher, 31(8), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590903050374
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Shadish, W.R. (1993), Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 13–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1660
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shandomo, H. M. (2010). The role of critical reflection in teacher education. School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 101–113.Google Scholar
Smythe, W. E., & McKenzie, S. A. (2010). A vision of dialogical pluralism in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2),
227–234
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2016). Guidelines for education and training in industrial-organizational psychology. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.Google Scholar
Steyaert, C., Bouwen, R., & Looy, B. (1996). Conversational construction of new meaning configurations in organizational innovation: A generative approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. (2017). When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: A reassessment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanlaka, E. F., Ewashen, C., & King-Shier, K. (2019). Postpositivist critical multiplism: Its value for nursing research. Nursing Open, 6(3), 740–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.306
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trafimow, D. & Marks, M. (2015) Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1012991
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A multidimensional, resource-based framework. In Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. (Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 123–142). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.009
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuren, P. J. M. (2001). Holism versus reductionism in modern social science research. Quality & Quantity 35, 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012242620544
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbord, M. R., & Janoff, S. (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities (2nd ed.) Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Weiss, H.M., & Rupp, D.E. (2011) Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01302.x
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. International Forum of Women’s Studies, 11(5), 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, S. (2019). Big data opportunities for advancing turnover theory: A case for inductive and abductive research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12(3), 330–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.55
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, V., Schmidt, G., Aiken, J., Islam, S., Albeg, A., DePatie, T., Gelesko, G., & Voss, J. (2021). Where no one has gone before. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(1–2), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.20
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J. A., & Yoo, J. (2018). A critique of methodological dualism in education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060213
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yvonne Feilzer, M. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zickar, M.J., & Gibby, R.E. (2021). Four persistent themes throughout the history of I-O psychology in the United States. In Koppes, L. L. (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.) Erlbaum.Google Scholar