Ryan and Ford (2010) asserted that the identity of 1-O psychology is blurred with other allied disciplines (OB, HRM, IR, ODC, etc.). I agree. They are concerned with iden-tifying what sets 1-O psychology apart from these other disciplines and concluded that the science (italics in original) component of 1-O psychology is the critical differenti-ating marker variable. I disagree. Ryan and Ford equate "1-O psychologists" with "1-O psychological knowledge"; therefore, only individuals trained as 1-O psychologists can produce 1-O psychological knowledge. The less-than-subtle implication that only 1-O psychologists are scientists is not born out by the scientific literature. Our top scientific journals (i.e., those that have the P-word in the title) have had editors, associate editors, and members of the editorial review boards whose academic training is not in psy-chology. Articles published in these journals are also authored by nonpsychologists. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SlOP) has given awards and granted fellowship status to nonpsychologists whose scholarly work has been deemed to be of special merit and significance. Quite clearly, 1-O psychologists do not have a monopoly on 1-O psychological research.
展开▼
