Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T23:30:22.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Review of the Field or an Articulation of Identity Concerns? Interrogating the Unconscious Biases That Permeate I-O Scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

Gerard P. Hodgkinson  and
S. Alexander Haslam
Gerard P. Hodgkinson*
Affiliation:
Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester
S. Alexander Haslam
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gerard P. Hodgkinson, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, F34 AMBS East, Booth Street East, Manchester M13 9SS, UK. E-mail: gerard.hodgkinson@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Aguinis et al.’s (2017) analysis of the “most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks” is a commendable piece of scholarship. Certainly, they have applied themselves to an important question and articulated a meaningful set of answers. We have no doubt too that for many readers the insights and answers they provide will be informative, compelling, and even reassuring—if only because they reinforce a view of the world with which they are familiar and by which they are comforted, even if that familiarity and comfort are framed in terms of a set of knotty professional concerns (Morton, Haslam, Postmes, & Ryan, 2006).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 621 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

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

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the expert division of labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., & Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks: Implications for the science–practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial-Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (4), 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. (2007). The practitioner-researcher divide revisited: Strategic-level bridges and the roles of IWO psychologists. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.Google Scholar
Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011a). Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 3–22.Google Scholar
Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011b). Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not yet there but now a little nearer? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 76–82.Google Scholar
Gelade, G. A. (2006a). But what does it mean in practice? The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology from a practitioner perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelade, G. A. (2006b). Response to commentaries: Wider and wider. Broadening the readership of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 179–181.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. 2009. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. In Hodgkinson, G. P. & Ford, J. K. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39–118). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2006). The role of JOOP (and other scientific journals) in bridging the practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2012). The politics of evidence-based decision making. In Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 404–419). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification: A critical realist design science perspective. Group and Organization Management, 38, 145–157.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Re-aligning stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management, 12, 41–48.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research: It's already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534–546.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: Reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22, 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornung, S. (2012). Beyond “new scientific management”: Critical reflections on the epistemology of evidence-based management. In Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 389–403). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69.Google Scholar
Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 516–533.Google Scholar
Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2011). On the social construction of relevance: A rejoinder. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 891–898.Google Scholar
Morrell, K., Learmonth, M., & Heracleous, L. (2015). An archaeological critique of ‘evidence-based management’: One digression after another. British Journal of Management, 26, 529–543.Google Scholar
Morton, T. A., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2006). We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology, 27, 823–838.Google Scholar
Peters, K., Daniels, K., Hodgkinson, G. P., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). Experts’ judgments of management journal quality: An identity concerns model. Journal of Management, 40, 1785–1812.Google Scholar
Romme, A. G. L., Avenier, J. M., Denyer, D., Hodgkinson, G. P., Pandza, K., Starkey, K., & Worren, N. (2015). Towards common ground and trading zones in management research and practice. British Journal of Management, 26, 544–559.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (2012). Preface. In Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. xxiii–xxviii). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 667–692.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010). Organizational psychology and the tipping point of professional identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 241–258.Google Scholar
Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2009). Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 547–558.Google Scholar
Starkey, K., & Madan, P (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12, 2–26.Google Scholar
Symon, G. (2006). Academics, practitioners and the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology: Reflecting on the issues. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranfield, D., & Starkey, K. (1998). The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9, 341–353.Google Scholar
Van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.Google Scholar
Vicari, S. (2013). Is the problem only ours? A question of relevance in management research. European Management Review, 10, 173–181.Google Scholar
Wall, T. (2006). Commentary: Is JOOP of only academic interest? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar