Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T20:11:35.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“This Is Our House!” Why Are I-O Psychologists Losing at the Gender Disparity Game?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

Ann Hergatt Huffman ,
Satoris S. Howes  and
Kristine J. Olson
Ann Hergatt Huffman*
Affiliation:
WA Franke College of Business and Department of Psychological Sciences, Northern Arizona University
Satoris S. Howes
Affiliation:
College of Business, Oregon State University
Kristine J. Olson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Dixie State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ann Hergatt Huffman, WA Franke College of Business and Department of Psychological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, South San Francisco Street, Flagstaff, AZ 86011. E-mail: ann.huffman@nau.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Aguinis et al. (2017) highlighted the gender disparity in authorship of publications within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree with the authors that this is a troubling finding and think that this gender disparity within our field is the most critical implication of the focal article. I-O psychologists are specifically trained to address employment issues, including gender disparities at work. To see such disconcerting findings in our area of expertise is akin to a sports team losing to a competitor when they have the home court advantage. Namely, we are left feeling deflated and asking ourselves, “What went wrong?”

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 584 - 588
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

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., & Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks: Implications for the science-practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (4), 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, L. V., Snyder, L. A., & Mavriplis, C. (2009). Diverse faculty in STEM fields: Attitudes, performance, and fair treatment. Journal of Diversity and Higher Education, 2, 195–205.Google Scholar
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369–386.Google Scholar
Glass, C., & Minnotte, K. L. (2010). Recruiting and hiring women in STEM fields. Journal of Diversity and Higher Education, 3, 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, R. (2014). Antecedents of mentoring support: A meta-analysis of individual, relational, and structural or organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84 (3), 367–384. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.009 Google Scholar
Gibby, R. E., Reeve, C. L., Grauer, E., Mohr, D., & Zickar, M. J. (2002). The top I-O psychology doctoral programs of North America. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39 (4), 1725.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. J. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49, 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar