School of Applied Human Sciences
Discipline of Psychology Postgraduate Studies
Title: Industrial Psychology as a so called Science:
Epistemological considerations.
By: Fatima Essack
Industrial and organizational psychology is an increasingly salient discipline in the world of
work; however, there are various issues related to it as a discipline and more specifically, as a
so called scientific discipline. This essay will attempt to examine these issues in terms of the
epistemological issues it faces, along with how the discipline goes about generating
knowledge and making truth claims, and the validity of these truth claims. Additionally, I/O
psychology as a science is explored in terms of its credibility in relation to that of the natural
sciences and whether it is indeed value and bias free, as it claims.
According to Schreuder & Coetzee (2010) I/O psychology can be defined as “the scientific
study of people within their work environment, which includes the application of
psychological principles, theory and research to the work setting”. It has two objectives,
namely 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 (Schreuder&Coetzee, 2010). Hence
I/O psychologists are trained to be scientists and practitioners, which is termed the scientist–
practitioner model (Riggio, 2009). In other words, they conduct research as well as apply
their knowledge and theories to the work setting.
In order to understand and make sense of how I/O psychology produces knowledge, the
concept of epistemology must be explored. According to Neuman (2011), epistemology
refers to “an area of philosophy concerned with the creation of knowledge; and focuses on
how we know what we know or what are the most valid ways to reach truth” (p. 93). In other
words, epistemology explores the methods that are used to produce knowledge i.e. how
knowledge is produced and whether the knowledge derived from these methods are
essentially valid. I/O psychology generally operates within a positivist, analytical framework,
and almost exclusively adopts an analytical-empirical epistemology (Pietersen, 1989 as cited
in Rothmann & Cilliers, 2007). In order to understand the framework within which I/O
psychology operates, it is important to understand what positivist social science essentially is.
According to Neuman (2011), positivist social science is defined as:
“an organized method for combining deductive logic with precise empirical
observations of individual behaviour in order to discover and confirm a set of
probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human
activity” (p. 95).
Hence in accordance with this framework, I/O psychology’s position of knowledge is located
in the epistemological differentiation between the knower or researcher, and the known or
worker and organization, and it also takes on a value free perspective of the employee
(Cilliers, 1991 as cited in Rothmann & Cilliers, 2007). However, is the discipline’s
perspectives value free as it claims? This shall be explored further.
By using a positivist framework, I/O psychology goes about producing knowledge in the
following ways: (1) Choosing or formulating a specific conceptual framework; (2) Within a
specific theoretical frame, behavioural constructs are defined and are then taken as
independent variables, which are then brought into one or more hypothesized relationships
with many other measures of the two main types of dependent variables, such as job
satisfaction; (3) These independent and dependent variables are then turned into operational
measures, generally as questionnaire items that are accompanied by multiple choice options;
and (4) The research results and findings that were obtained are interpreted within the chosen
theoretical framework of the research and also generalized to some extent to other
organizations, or workers and managers (Pietersen, 1989).
This positivist epistemology that I/O psychology uses is not always valid and reliable, as
shall be illustrated next.
By trying as much as possible to adopt an objective, positivist stance, I/O psychology makes
knowledge claims through the appeal to empirical facts, which thus protects it from
metaphysical dogmatism and provides it with security and credibility as a discipline (Johnson
& Cassel, 2001). This could essentially be seen as a security blanket which protects I/O
psychology from being scrutinized due to its positivist stance and its strong claims of being
value neutral. This strong positivist stance has however led to issues within the discipline.
Due to the analytical nature of I/O psychology, its nature of knowledge has not been
questioned nor has there been any debate surrounding its assumptions (Hollway, 1991 as
cited in Johnson & Cassel, 2001). In other words, it lacks epistemological reflexivity. By
failing to rethink its assumptions and nature of knowledge, or consider other epistemological
approaches which may be more appropriate and valid in relation to what is being researched,
how then can I/O psychology claim to produce results that are always valid?
Another consequence of using positivism in I/O psychology is its exclusion of human
subjectivity from the domain of science in an effort to remain truly positivist (Johnson &
Cassel, 2001). Instead, human behaviour is seen as measurable in terms of their responses to
external stimuli (Johnson & Cassel, 2001). I/O psychology hence adopts the machine model
with the assumption that much like a machine; a person reacts towards an external stimulus
(Fox et al, 2009). The machine model hence postulates that powerful external social pressures
shape people’s actions and that free will is largely an illusion (Fox et al, 2009). There are
many problems associated with adopting this model in I/O psychology. Firstly, it fails to take
into account human subjectivity, free will, and meaningful reflection and action in specific
and actual contexts (Holzkamp, 1992; Tolman & Maiers, 1991 as cited in Fox et al, 2009).
Selecting certain variables in accordance with the positivist social science framework of
focusing on isolated aspects of human mental life, does not sufficiently account for the
integration of human life, which, in essence, forms the basis of human subjectivity (Fox et al,
2009). In mainstream psychology and I/O psychology, it is taken for granted that studying
parts of human life is sufficient to explain the whole or human subjectivity in general. From
the perspective of the subject, human subjectivity and aspects of it are experienced in terms
of their connection to real life situations (Fox et al, 2009). Hence in order for psychology to
sufficiently account for human subjectivity, it needs to understand human experience in terms
of its connection to real life situations (Fox et al, 2009).
Another consequence of using the machine-model in human mental life is that it views a
person as an individual and society as just merely an external variable and by doing so, it
separates the individual and society, which is fundamentally flawed as social and historical
contexts are embedded in the environment within which an individual interacts (Fox et al,
2009). By failing to take into account the interaction between an individual and their
environment and the social and historical contexts embedded in these environments, how
then can the assumptions I/O psychology makes about workers/employees be valid if these
factors are not taken into consideration? In order to be a true scientific discipline, I/O
psychology needs to take these factors into consideration.
Positivism in general has been under attack for a long time in both the natural and social
sciences and as a response to this, many more qualitative and interpretive methods have
emerged (Johnson & Cassel, 2001). I/O psychology could benefit from adopting a more
epistemologically reflexive stance so as to recognize other methods of research that may be
relevant and more appropriate to what is being studied (Johnson & Cassel, 2001).
By using the positivist epistemological framework, I/O psychology makes claims that
individuals/workers differ in their abilities in terms of the following categories: cognitive
abilities; skills; personality; and interests (Landy & Conte, 2013). The main assumptions
made with regard to this are (1) Adults have many attributes, such as intelligence and
interests, and the level of these attributes are stable over a certain rime period, usually several
years; (2) People differ in terms of these attributes and these attributes are related to job
success; (3) The differences between people in terms of these attributes remain the same even
after they have been involved in training, have gained job experience or after implementation
of some intervention, (4) Different attributes are required by different jobs and lastly; (5)
These attributes can be measured (Landy & Conte, 2013). An important aspect of point 5 is
how I/O psychology goes about measuring these attributes and are they essentially valid?
These methods shall now be discussed.
Psychological assessment is an important component and measure, and is generally used as a
guideline to measure an individual’s skills, abilities and aptitudes, with its main aim being to
understand an individual’s psychology in any given setting (Coaley, 2009). Psychometrics is
a part of psychological assessment and its main aim is to carry out the various measurements,
whilst psychological tests are a part of these measurements, that measure abilities and skills
by using tasks or questions that have correct or incorrect answers (Coaley, 2009). Having
defined these measures, it is important to note that the use of these measures are highly
controversial and there are many issues related to using these tests. Firstly, whilst a
psychological ‘test’ is so called as it measures skills and abilities by using tasks and questions
that have a right or wrong answer, how then can a personality test be explained by having
right or wrong answers (Coaley, 2009). Such a test may seem contradictory in relation to
what it is trying to measure, namely personality, and hence may not be seen as valid and
reliable.
Secondly, these tests employed by I/O psychologists may not be valid and reliable when
applied to a specific context, namely the multicultural South African context. To illustrate
this, a study by Paterson & Uys (2005) shall be explored. In Paterson & Uys’ (2005) study of
the use of psychological measures in the workplace, it was found that tests which were used
in the past, are still used in the present, which can be seen as inappropriate to use as the
workforce has changed considerably in relation to the past and the workplace is a dynamic
environment. The effects of using these inappropriate and outdated tests can be considered
adverse as it does not sufficiently account for the changing workforce and hence can lead to
incorrect inferences being made which is disadvantageous not just to the individual taking the
test, but also to the organization (Paterson & Uys, 2005). The use of contextually
inappropriate and outdated tests could lead to results that may not be valid or reliable.
Another major downfall in terms of the use of psychological assessment tests is the issue of
language and culture. In Paterson & Uys’ (2005) study, when it came to the issue of language
and its use in psychological tests, two arguments emerged from this. On the one hand, it was
argued that the individuals taking the test should write the test in English and should be able
to comprehend the language as English is the desired lingua franca and an inability to
communicate or comprehend this language could consequently lead to an inability to perform
effectively in the workplace (Paterson & Uys, 2005). On the other hand, it was argued that if,
for example, English is not the testee’s first language and they already possessed an inability
to comprehend the English language, they would then perform poorly on, say, a cognitive test
as English is not a language that they are proficient in and this poor performance would be
solely due their inability to comprehend what is being conveyed or asked to them in a test,
instead of their actual cognitive capacity (Paterson & Uys, 2005). Without taking language
into consideration in the administration of psychological tests, the results yielded may not be
valid or reliable.
Another factor that serves as a major downfall in terms of the use of psychological measures
in the South African context, is using tests that are not registered with Health Professions
Council of South Africa, which is a board that ensures the ethical and non-discriminatory use
of such measures and tests (Paterson & Uys, 2005). Many of the unregistered tests that are
used are borrowed from international sources and whilst they may seem to be relevant and
accurate due to their accuracy internationally, they are utilized without consideration of the
context within which they are being used (Paterson & Uys, 2005). That is, according to
Paterson & Uys (2005), they are not standardized for utilization in the South African context
and hence could prove to be unethically used without consideration for various factors such
as the language and culture of the various race groups in South Africa.
Perhaps the most cited hindrance when investigating cross-cultural relevance of measures and
tests, is language (Paterson & Uys, 2005). Paterson & Uys (2005) found 3 ways in which
language can pose a problem in testing and these are “the language in which the test is
constructed; the difficulty level of the test language, especially if the test is administered in
the testee’s second or third language; and the language competence of the testee” (p. 19).
Hence from this, it can be seen that language is an important if not the most important factor
to consider when administering psychological tests. According to Paterson & Uys (2005),
language and culture are closely linked and psychological measurements and tests can be
seen as problematic in terms of culture as the constructs can be interpreted differently among
testees’ according to their cultures. In other words, a construct can mean something different
to what was meant to be conveyed in the psychological test, and how a testee interprets such
constructs is dependent on their culture. If culture and language are not taken into
consideration in the administration and use of psychological assessment tests, the tests could
yield unreliable and invalid results.
From this, one can see how the assumption I/O psychology makes about individuals abilities,
may not always be correct due to the unreliability and lack of validity that the psychological
assessment tests yield, especially in the South African context. This also questions its practice
as a science.
Given that I/O psychology uses a positivist epistemological/analytical framework with strong
claims of being value-free and objective, this also means that from this, it should be free of
ideological perspectives. In order to explore this further, it is important to understand what
ideology essentially is. According to Prilleltensky (1989) ideology is defined as “the social
beliefs of a community developed with the purpose of justifying and promoting their
economic and socio-political interests” (p. 796). Every group in power that is part of an
organized community requires there to be cultural mechanisms in place to assist in the
perpetuations of its position (Prilleltensky, 1989). Thus many strategies are used by these
groups to convince the public that the current social arrangement and way of life is the most
desirable and civilized one (Prilleltensky, 1989). At the same time, in an effort to secure their
powerful positions, these groups use deception and disguise in their strategies as well
(Prilleltensky, 1989). It should be noted that the ideology of modern society appreciates
psychology due to the fact that psychology studies the individual as one that is asocial and is
free from socio-political and socio-historical context within which the individual is embedded
(Prilleltensky, 1989). In other words, the individual and their environment and social context,
are seen as separate entities according to psychology. Therefore, problems are located within
the individual only and thus the social order is left unaffected, which supports the reigning
ideology (Prilleltensky, 1989).
In terms of psychology’s support for the reigning ideology, its support is noted in concrete
governmental policies and “in the advancement of heralded cultural beliefs” (Prilleltensky,
1989, p. 796). Furthermore, according to Prilleltensky (1989) “activities carried out in the
name of psychological science have been used to rationalize social policies whose purposes
were not always “to promote human welfare”” (p. 796). An example of this can be noted in
industrial psychology in South Africa, in terms of the use of psychological assessment tests in
the past. In terms of psychological measurement post 1960, apartheid was rampant at some
point in this era and due to segregation of the various race groups, these psychological
measures were developed mainly for whites so as to be politically beneficial to them and help
them secure jobs, with fewer measures developed for other race groups (Foxcroft et al, 2005).
This is an example of how psychology and I/O psychology was ideologically tainted.
I/O psychology claims to be free of ideology so as to maintain its positivist stance. However,
this is not the case due to: (1) Concentrating excessively on the individual and individual
factors, which is used as a means to explain individual and social behaviour, and in the case
of I/O psychology, work behaviour, thus omitting the socio-economic and political variables
which separate the individual from their environment, suggesting that the two are
independent of each other; (2) Not enough consideration being given to the potentially
conformist prescriptive bias that is prevalent in psychological theories or practices, thus
leading to the recipient of psychological knowledge or counselling to believe that the theories
and practices of psychology are truly value-neutral and objective; (3) A tendency to depict
values that are beneficial to those of the ruling class or those in power, as values that are
beneficial to all of society; and (3) The introduction of new knowledge or services that may
reduce critical insight into the social system, thus reducing criticism where innovative
techniques that propose to create significant changes, are brought into the social system
(Prilleltensky, 1994).
Given that I/O psychology lacks epistemological reflexivity; objective understanding of
natural and social phenomena is not possible unless the researcher is aware of the historical
framework within which his thought is entrenched. According to Habermas et al (1988):
“If we cannot simply derive a standard of evaluation from a positivistic concept,...then we cannot
exclude the possibility that a methodological distinction could very well reflect a moment of truth in
the philosophic, religious, or mythical traditions to which it can be historically traced ”
Thus I/O psychology cannot be considered a science by failing to evaluate its own
positivistic framework and failing to take this historical framework and context into account.
Furthermore and in accordance with the Marxian argument, social science, and in this case,
I/O psychology, mirrors the interests of the dominant, capitalist, class (Newlan, 1990). I/O
psychology in itself can be seen “as a natural ideological response to the drive for
increasingly efficient, mechanized, and highly quantified labour activity” (Kovel, 1980, p.
75). Thus I/O psychology emerged as a field for the purpose of rationalizing and making the
process of capital accumulation more efficient (Newlan, 1990). The Marxist argument
contends that I/O psychology is an ideological artefact of late capitalism (Newlan, 1990). I/O
psychology is hence used as a means to get ahead of competitors both quantitatively and
qualitatively (Newlan, 1990). I/O psychology is thus seen as a one-sided application of social
science that exists to serve the needs of capital owners only (Whyte, 1987, p. 489, as cited in
Newlan, 1990). Thus, claims of I/O psychology being free of ideological perspectives are
rejected as I/O psychology is clearly contaminated by ideology. It is thus not a true objective
science in light of this.
I/O psychology constantly claims to be value-free, but herein lies the problem with the field.
As there was an increasing need to acknowledge value dilemmas, at the same time there was
an increasing resistance on the part of the psychologists to consider these issues
(Prilleltensky, 1989). Thus, according to Robinson (1985), “where the social sciences once
defensively insisted they were value-neutral, they now tend to present themselves as
unavoidably value-loaded” (p. 142). By asserting itself as value-free, psychology can hence
be seen to have been used for various ideological purposes, such as promoting an image of
being depoliticized, which can be used to further the agenda of the ruling class (Prilleltensky,
1989). According to Steininger et al (1984), psychology in itself “has shown a clear bias in
supporting the interests of the powerful and the status quo, many times in the name of
scientific objectivity” (p. 216-218). This suggests that by trying to assume a positivist
epistemological stance, psychology and in this case, I/O psychology, is essentially
ideologically tainted and not bias free as it claims. Thus, the notion of a value free
psychology has been used as a tool to advance the agenda of the ruling class and thus, meet
their ideological objectives (Prilleltensky, 1989).This suggests that as much as psychologists
and I/O psychologists claim that their methods are objective and value-free, values
automatically enter this process unconsciously, which affects the discipline’s credibility as a
true science. With this in mind, I/O psychology cannot be considered a science.
I/O psychology’s scientist-practitioner is in itself flawed. It is both deficient and
contaminated – deficient in that it fails to represent the interests of individuals and society;
and contaminated in that it is consumed by the economic free-enterprise, by putting the
shareholder value above the interests of the individuals in the workplace, which leads to
exploitation (Lefkowitz, 1990). This model is thus plagued with the business values of a free-
market capitalist society (Lefkowitz, 2008). This represents a biased rather than a value free
and objective model, thus weakening I/O psychology’s credibility as a science.
I/O psychology makes claims that it is objective in its methods; however, organizations have
economically driven goals and objectives, thus not making it truly objective. In addition,
many of the “facts” that organizations consider to be value-free, are in fact value-plagued,
such as the bias that occurs with psychological assessment tests as mentioned earlier; or these
so called “facts” represent organizational policy decisions which are represented by
institutional values that are deemed as “appropriate” by us; however, this is not the case as
they are represented values that exist to serve the interests of the shareholders (Lefkowitz,
2008).
It should be noted that the notion of a value-free method is debatable even in the hard/natural
sciences where ‘‘Developments in philosophy of science over the past several decades have
challenged the assumption of the value neutrality of science. The result has been a growing
consensus that science is not and cannot be value free. . .’’ (Kurtines et al, 1990, p. 283). If
even the natural sciences can be seen to be value-laden to some extent, it seems ludicrous for
I/O psychology to assert that it is value-free given that it is value-laden and ruled by a
capitalist ideology that serves the interests of the shareholders rather than the employees
(Lefkowitz, 2008). As Lefkowitz (2008) states:
“The practitioner aspect of the S-P model is not value free, it incorporates all of the
traditional corporatist values; and those values drive even our supposedly objective,
scientific research;and they are often incompatible with psychology’s humanist
tradition”
This model is not value-free and hence, in order for the discipline of I/O psychology to be a
salient and credible one, it needs to incorporate a humanist framework into the S-P model so
as to be truly beneficial, not just to the shareholders, but to the employees as well. It is the
corporate value system that has filled the space that has been created by I/O psychology’s
denial of the humanist tradition in the service of denying the eligibility of any ideology
(Lefkowitz, 2008). Yet it has been shown time and again that psychology and I/O psychology
especially, is ideologically tainted (Prilleltsky, 2008; ref). As Ghoshal (2005, p. 87) states:
‘‘social scientists carry an even greater social and moral responsibility than those who
work in the physical sciences because, if they hide ideology in the pretence of science,
they can cause much more harm.’’
I/O psychology’s strong denial for being value-free, objective and free of any ideological
perspectives is itself an irony – it views humanistic values as not being objective, yet it fails
to recognize that by being overly concerned with productivity and performance effectiveness,
is value-plagued in the same way (Lefkowitz, 2008). To illustrate this, a study was conducted
by Russell et al (1994) based on 20 years of research to assess the validity of results. It was
found that the validity generalization results “can still be influenced by the capabilities and
motivational agendas of the original investigators and must be used with caution inguiding
theory development’’ (p. 169). Despite this and in 13 years, there was no caution displayed
on the part of I/O psychologists in terms of the potential influence personal and social values
may have in the research process, especially with regards to test-validity results (Lefkowitz,
2008; Russell et al, 1994).
Another illustration of I/O psychology research not being truly value-free and bias from an
positivist epistemological framework, is reported by Stauffer & Buckley (2005, p. 589) that
many important reviews and meta-analyses have failed to take note of the evidence for bias
that was found in in the performance ratings made by black and white supervisors of their
subordinates. The main concern here is not the actual bias that occurred, but rather the failure
on the part of the researchers to consider this data appropriately in several prior analyses
(Lefkowitz, 2008). The failure to consider these biased results is the greatest problem in I/O
psychology, and it raises the question of whether I/O psychology deliberately ignores these
results as it could potentially call into question the apparent scientific knowledge these results
are supposed to yield, given I/O psychology’s strong stance on being a strongly positivist and
value-free science (Lefkowitz, 2008). It is hence paramount that I/O psychology recognises
how it could be potential bias in its results as well as the values that unconsciously enter the
research process, as well as to stop viewing ideological values as contaminants, but to rather
view it as something that is part of what we do and who we are (Lefkowitz, 2008). As
Lefkowitz (2008) states “the terms of debate should change from ‘‘value-free scientific
objectivity versus social values’’ to ‘‘which goals and associated sets of values should we
advance, under what circumstances, in what proportions and by means of what necessary
compromises?’’” (p. 446). Doing so could contribute to I/O psychology being more credible
as a discipline.
The current debate in psychology and I/O psychology has moved away from ‘if’ values are
inherent in the discipline to rather ‘how’ values influence the discipline (Prilleltensky, 1989).
It is argued that values are inherent in all scientific discourse (Kurtines et al, 1990); and
hence scientific theories and models are never value-free (Reese & Overton, 1970).
In terms of the knowledge I/O psychology produces in relation to theories developed, there
appears to be a gap that exists between the theory and practice i.e. between the scientist and
the practitioner (Augustyn & Cillie, 2008). This is due to the organizations within the
workplace that have a tendency to impatiently pose questions; hence the positivist
epistemological framework that scientists use to gain knowledge is seen as ‘irrelevant’ in the
workplace, hence rendering their goals different from each other and thus making science and
the workplace incompatible (McIntyre, 1990). In terms of academic publishing, there existed
a reward system in academia for publications, which led to what Guion (1988) termed
“publication fever”, where publishing as much as possible is paramount despite not having
anything important to say (Augustyn & Cillie, 2008).
One of the causes that separate the science from the practice is the difference that exists in the
assumptions that academics and researchers make in creating what they consider to be
knowledge, and the assumptions practitioners make in using what they consider to be
knowledge (Augustyn & Cillie, 2008). Academics and researchers usually conceptualize a
problem without checking if it is applicable and relevant in the real world; whereas
practitioners implement solutions and interventions in the workplace that lack sound theory,
hence creating a gap between the scientist and the practitioner (Augustyn & Cillie, 2008).
This gap should be bridged in order for I/O psychology to be a more valuable discipline.
Given that I/O psychology is not epistemologically reflexive, a postmodernist approach
would be ideal to overcome the shortcoming and limitations of I/O psychology.
Postmodernism asserts that I/O psychologists “should be sceptical about how they engage
with the world; the categories they deploy; the assumptions that they impose and the
interpretations that they make” (Johnson & Cassel, 2001, p. 137). Postmodernism makes
people reflect on their own thinking and the taken-for granted truth claims that I/O
psychology makes (Johnson & Cassel, 2001). This approach thus incorporates
epistemological reflexivity that I/O psychology has been criticized for lacking within the
discipline. It would also make I/O psychology more credible as a discipline.
In conclusion, I/O psychology uses a positivist framework and goes about creating and
producing knowledge in terms of this framework. This positivist framework claims that it is
value-free and objective and thus, I/O psychology asserts the same. However, as shown, I/O
psychology does not always yield valid and reliable results (in the case of psychological
assessment tests), nor is it value-free or free of ideological perspectives, as shown by how it
is used as a means to serve the interests of the dominant class so as to further their agenda, at
the expense of considering the worker. It is essentially profit driven and ruled by a capitalist
society. The positivist epistemology it uses to assert it is a science, is hence not proven
credible as it cannot be considered a science if it is ideologically tainted and value-laden. It
can be hoped that I/O psychology moves away from this strong positivist epistemology, to a
more postmodern epistemological approach so as to overcome its shortcoming and
limitations and be epistemologically reflexive. This would make the discipline truly
beneficial, not just to managers, shareholders, and the organization as a whole, but most
importantly to workers and employees.
References
Augustyn, J. C., & Cillie, G. G. (2008). Theory and practice in industrial psychology: quo
vadis?: theoretical research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(1), 70-75.
Cilliers, F. (1991). The changing role of Industrial Psychology in South Africa. Inaugural
lecture, department of Industrial Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria. 12
September.
Coaley, K. (2009). An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. Sage.
Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (Eds.). (2009). Critical psychology: An introduction.
Sage.
Foxcroft, C. (Ed.). (2005). An introduction to psychological assessment in the South African
context. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management
practices. Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), 75-91.
Guion, RM (1988). Pitfalls in the march of science. Invited address presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta.
Habermas, J. (1988). On the logic of the social sciences (p. xv). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hollway, W. (1991). Work psychology and organizational behaviour: Managing the
individual at work. Sage.
Holzkamp, K. (1992). On doing psychology critically. Theory & Psychology,2(2), 193-204.
Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2001). Epistemology and work psychology: New
agendas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(2), 125-143.
Kovel, J. (1980). The American mental health industry. Critical psychiatry: The politics of
mental health, 72-101.
Kurtines, W. M., Alvarez, M., & Azmitia, M. (1990). Science and morality: The role of
values in science and the scientific study of moral phenomena.Psychological Bulletin, 107(3),
283.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2013). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial
and organizational psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
Lefkowitz, J. (1990). The scientist–practitioner model is not enough. The Industrial-
Organizational Psychologist, 28(1), 47-52.
Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should… expand the values of
organizational psychology to match the quality of its ethics. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29(4), 439-453.
McIntyre, R. M. (1990). Our science-practice: The ghost of industrial-organizational
psychology yet to come. Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice, 25-
48.
Neuman, W. L., & Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches.
Newlan, C. J. (1990). Late capitalism and industrial psychology: A Marxian critique.
Paterson, H., & Uys, K. (2005). Critical issues in psychological test use in the South African
workplace. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(3), p-12.
Pietersen, H. J. (1989). An epistemological view of industrial/organizational psychology:
Some perspectives and implications for future knowledge development. South African
Journal of Psychology, 19(2), 101-108.
Prilleltensky, I. (1989). Psychology and the status quo. American Psychologist,44(5), 795.
Prilleltensky, I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and
the status quo. SUNY Press.
Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of
development. Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theory, 115-145.
Riggio, R. E. (2009). Introduction to industrial/organizational psychology. London: Pearson
Rothmann, S., & Cilliers, F. V. N. (2007). Present challenges and some critical issues for
research in industrial/organisational psychology in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 33(1), 8-17.
Schreuder, D., & Coetzee, M. (2010). An overview of industrial and organisational
psychology research in South Africa: A preliminary study. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 36(1), 1-11.
Stauffer, J. M., & Buckley, M. R. (2005). The existence and nature of racial bias in
supervisory ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 90(3), 586.
Steininger, M., Newell, J. D., & Garcia, L. T. (1984). Ethical issues in psychology. Dorsey
Press.
Tolman, C., & Maiers, W. (1991). Critical Psychology: Toward a Historical Science of the
Subject.
