The importance of reflectivity across generations

Society is in a rapid flux of change that has never been seen before. As I-Os, our aim is to understand social mechanisms and implement respective changes at workplaces that would be applicable now, not that were needed 10 years ago. But the issue lies in the fact that the underlying values and principles that guide us were developed in a world that differs drastically from today and thus can be outdated, which questions whether we are able to adjust to new ideas that would benefit the field of I-O with lasting change. In such a world, the decision makers of I-O (executives, journal editors, reviewers, stakeholders, etc.) could benefit from the habit of reflective practices, as it would help them determine their guiding values and principles, and in turn, how these values are in concurrence with where we believe the field should go.

Graduate I-O programs aim to teach students the majority of KSAOs that they might need to enter the field. This is where the focal article’s argument makes logical sense: If a systematic change is desired to be implemented, graduate (and undergraduate) education would be the most ideal point of intervention. Although trainees are the future of I-O, the changes in the field come from leadership executed by decision makers. Thus, if we would like to see changes now, the point of intervention would be the people who are already in higher positions, rather than the ones who will be there in 10 or 20 years. Furthermore, because younger generations are more flexible and naturally more liberal (Horn & Cattell, Reference Horn and Cattell1967; Schaie & Hertzog, Reference Schaie and Hertzog1983), it might be easier to get them on the reflective practice train, and thus, reflective practice within them could be established quickly. Thus, reflective practice is (a) more important for the I-Os who are already in leadership positions to be able to take a step back, conduct introspection, and calibrate their values and behaviors to be more in line with the actual goals of the field and themselves; and is also (b) harder to become routine practice for them due to the lack of an easy intervention point and lower natural plasticity. So, although it is harder to implement, it makes it more important to preach the importance of reflective practices among already established I-O psychologists. Even though trainees and fresh graduates could be extremely knowledgeable and conducting cutting-edge high-quality science supported by reflective and reflexive practices, if it isn’t recognized by senior stakeholders with publication and funding decision-making authority, and who also might be the trainers of new I-Os themselves, positive feedback and progress may be curtailed. Thus, younger scholars, despite possibly being reflective and well intentioned, may continue to follow the patterns of the field that have existed for decades. Through this mechanism, we question how much innovation and development of the field is truly possible. In the following paragraphs, we discuss several professional and personal benefits of the key stakeholders and decision makers in our field engaging in reflectivity.

Benefit #1. Accounting for subjectivity in key decision-making processes

A study conducted by Peters and Ceci (Reference Peters and Ceci1982) illustrates the potential benefits of reflective practices to key decision makers and stakeholders. In the context of the study, 12 previously published research papers in prestigious psychology journals were resubmitted for publication. Three of the papers were recognized, and eight of nine papers that went through the review process were rejected. What makes this study interesting is the fact that the main comments recommending rejection were related to methodological shortcomings. This study clearly shows the subjectivity of the reviewing process, and although conducted 40 years ago, it seems that the situation has not improved much (for discussions about biases related to the peer-reviewing process, see Bazoukis, Reference Bazoukis2020, Lee et al., Reference Lee, Sugimoto, Zhang and Cronin2013, and Sato et al., Reference Sato, Gygax, Randall and Schmid Mast2021). Although many aspects of the peer-review process can be criticized, it frequently comes down to the subjectivity of the process, such as the different biases and underlying reasons, as to why reviewers (and editors) make their decisions (Eve et al., Reference Eve, Neylon, O’Donnell, Moore, Gadie, Odeniyi and Parvin2021). Realizing those biases and understanding how they guide their decisions through reflective and reflexive practice would likely help reviewers and editors to make more thorough decisions that better align with their true aims.

Benefit #2. Becoming aware of personal shortcomings and biases

In the focal article, Hyland asks the following question: “How do we account for our humanness as we practice our profession?” (p. 16). The importance of objective and bias-free research has been emphasized for many decades. However, we should also ask: How does reflectivity lead to improved practices and decision making? Olmos-Vega and colleagues (Reference Olmos-Vega, Stalmeijer, Varpio and Kahlke2022) argued that engaging in these processes might provide a way to become aware of personal, interpersonal, and contextual factors, and provide a way to evaluate one’s own shortcomings. In our everyday lives, we make decisions based on values and principles that are mostly molded by our surrounding environment and the personal and professional experiences that have shaped us as people. Often, these values and principles are deeply rooted and not adaptive. Thus, reflective practices would aid an individual to understand the reasons behind their own beliefs, values, and principles, and through them, biases and how they influence their everyday life, research, work, and even society. Aside from the numerous personal benefits, key stakeholders engaging in reflective practices could tremendously benefit the field in terms of creating a culture where this practice is valued and accepted, as well as passing knowledge and advice to less experienced academics and practitioners.

Benefit #3. Fostering change in discipline

As Wilkinson (Reference Wilkinson1988) put it, “one of our most powerful tools in working for change is a serious application of the concept of reflexivity” (p. 498). Wilkinson believed that reflexivity can help us think about how our subjective experience determines the kind of research we conduct, how epistemological foundation and methodological preferences limit the methodology we use, and how dominating ideology restricts the evaluation to which we are accustomed. Specifically, reflexivity provides us the opportunities to notice the shackles and encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and rebellious ideas in our discipline. It helps us create transformative change in science. Although not all change can be good, change is needed for natural development and to aid the field to find its path and get over the existential crisis. Reflexivity as a practice could play a guiding role in deciding which changes could be beneficial and thus help the field to become better established.

If we focus on the idea that proper reflection increases self-awareness and self-confidence, improves decision making and performance, and enhances the ability to manage complexity and ambiguity (Lyons, Reference Lyons2010), then this should be something for which everyone would like to strive. But for some reason, reflective practices are still not as popular as they could be. In the next sections, we focus on the challenges that are associated with implementing these practices.

Challenge #1: Personal challenges

Engaging reflectivity poses several obstacles even for the most experienced researchers and professionals in many ways. Submitting oneself to thorough self-analysis requires vulnerability and the ability to confront one’s own limitations, mistakes, and shortcomings. Even the most experienced researchers and practitioners may feel threatened, perhaps resistant, when critically interrogating themselves (Hsiung, Reference Hsiung2008). Finlay (Reference Finlay2002) described the process as a “swamp” in which individuals must navigate between interminable deconstructions and self-analysis. The process of reflectivity is further complicated by its idiosyncratic nature; there is no recipe for best practice (Probst, Reference Probst2015). Sometimes, the most important things lie deep inside and might be difficult to access. In general, humans have a natural tendency of being unreflective. Mortari (Reference Mortari2015) stated:

This suggests that reflection is not a natural ability that we possess but rather a conscious cognitive process that requires effort and the use of different personal resources.

Challenge #2: Professional challenges

In a fairly recent study, Probst (Reference Probst2015) found that a lack of valuation by journals, colleagues, funders, and administrators posed a major obstacle when engaging in reflective and reflexive practices. One participant of the study stated that: “You need colleagues who believe in and practice reflexivity to be able to maintain your own resilience.” (p. 45). The way academia and organizational practices are currently set up may inhibit engagement in reflectivity and reflexivity at a deeper level. Oftentimes, scholars and practitioners face pressure from peers, co-researchers, and journals in regard to adherence to certain procedures and deadlines. This pressure, paired with additional occupational commitments (i.e., teaching, advising, etc.), prohibits the ability to thoughtfully prepare, draft, and submit reflective and coherent thoughts. This challenge further emphasizes the importance of a collective effort from key decision makers and stakeholders in I-O in terms of having the ability and capacity to implement a systematic change. By being the role models for the field, the main stakeholders and decision makers of the field have the opportunity of creating a culture of accepting and encouraging reflective and reflexive practices that would help remove these obstacles.

Opportunities

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, a systematic change may be needed to promote reflective and reflexive practices in our field. A potential way of involving key decision makers and stakeholders in collaboration with younger scholars and practitioners in reflective–reflexive practices could be through the development of mentoring programs. As part of the mentoring program, early career scholars and practitioners could be paired with senior I-O psychologists and engage in these practices together. Furthermore, the development of training curricula on reflective and reflexive practices is also much needed in our field. As Hyland mentioned, these practices are not considered common in I-O psychology, and we lack clear guidelines on how to engage in these practices. Thus, training materials and curricula should be developed and made available to the public. Moreover, research on the benefits and challenges of reflective–reflexive practices should be encouraged in order to gain a better understanding of these practices and their potential implications.