Educating Industrial–Organizational Psychologists for Science and Practice: Where Do We Go From Here?

Abstract

Graduate training in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has long prepared students with skills and knowledge that are highly valued by employers, both in practice and academe alike. Our article, based on a panel discussion, explores what aspects of graduate training are sought out by employers in multiple fields, what new I-O hires need to know, and ways we can improve professional preparation for both practice and academics. Although the current SIOP Guidelines for Education and Training are satisfactory for present market conditions, we explore areas where the Guidelines could be made more forward thinking in determining the kind of training I-O students should be receiving.

A review of a decade’s scholarly publications (2004–2013) in the <i>South African Journal of Industrial Psychology</i>

“…From an I-O psychology perspective, neuropsychology relates to the industrial psychologist who works at the nexus of the behavioural and neurosciences. The focus is on understanding how individual psychological phenomena in the work context arise from neurological processes (Byrne et al, 2014). Typical research themes relate to the study of how neurological processes influence individual differences in tendencies towards positive emotions, behavioural approaches and vocational and job behaviour (Hansen, Sullivan & Luciana, 2011).…”

“…The professional training of I-O psychologists focuses on equipping students with the knowledge and skills to conduct research in an effort to increase knowledge and understanding of human-work behaviour and to apply that knowledge to improve work behaviour, the work environment and the psychological conditions of workers (APA, 2007;Byrne et al, 2014;Riggio, 2009). In this regard, it stands to reason that scholarly publications in journals such as the SAJIP become important in informing the training of the I-O psychologist and advancing knowledge for evidencebased (empirical research-based) practice that addresses pressing contemporary business needs.…”

Psychology Departments Versus Business Schools: Tempest in a Teapot?

“…Critical self‐reflection is a potentially good and valuable process for a profession—when done constructively and positively. For example, “We foresee a future marketplace that requires even more of I–O Psychologists than ever before, and therefore our focus has been on how we adopt a forward‐thinking proactive approach to anticipate these needs” (Byrne et al, , p. 13).…”

“…But there seems to be a long‐term ongoing thread of self‐doubt, worry, and perceived crisis among many I–O psychologists in our reflections on the status of the field, so that the predominantly negative tone uncovered in study 2 is not entirely surprising. Some have pointed to an “identity crisis” (Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, ; Ryan, ; Ryan & Ford, ), including “concerns about the visibility of the field” (Ryan, , p. 21), and “increasing competition from other disciplines” (Byrne et al, , p. 2; also, Steiner & Yancey, ). I have called attention previously to “industrial–organizational psychology's recurring identity crises” (Lefkowitz, ): threats to our status as a science in the 1940s and 1950s; challenges from the newly articulated field of OB in the 1960s and the values‐based process consultation model of organizational development (OD) in the 1970s; incursions into our corporate turf by clinical psychologists in the 1980s; and marketplace pressures from business school graduates during the 1990s to the current time.…”

News Flash! Work Psychology Discovers Workers!

“…Byrne et al (2014) were concerned about how the education and training of I-O psychologists could be improved. Byrne et al (2014) were concerned about how the education and training of I-O psychologists could be improved.…”