"Gone Fishing: I-O Psychologists' Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees' Experiences with Discrimination"--response

This literature-review style article is actually surprisingly interesting!  Ruggs et al focus on 7 different groupings of people (or identity categories) that have been largely ignored in Industrial-Organizational Psychology research.  These categories include:

• Racial minorities
• LGBT individuals
• older workers
• workers with disabilities
• those who are overweight
• religious minorities
• and those who face marital discrimination (39-40).

In discussing these populations, the authors separate the article into 7 body sections, each section focusing on one category.  Within that category the authors address "the importance of the problem," "Reviews of Relevant Research in Focal Journals," and "Recommendations."

In the literature review, the authors found 19 articles on racial minorities, 10 on LGBT and Disability, 9 on Age, 8 on Weight, 1 on Religion, and none on Marital Status.  And this was in 7 major journals over the last 20 years.

Because much of their goal seems to have been to point out the lack of research, the authors issue a call to action:

It has been almost 50 years since the CRA passed, and we firmly believe that I-O Psychologists have missed a great opportunity.  Instead of being on the front line serving as scientists and allies for those who are marginalized and treated poorly, we have let these individuals take a backseat while we have gone fishing.  Where have SIOP members been in studying protected groups and groups that need protection?  It is really time to act. We must start looking at underresearched protected groups, but we must also look at groups that do not have legal protection to understand limitations they have in accessing the workplace and optimally thriving in it. We urge the I-O psychology community, editors included, and those who benefit from our research, to get on board, take action, and attend to these marginalized groups so that we can lead and not follow in the pursuit of guaranteeing workplace rights for all. (57)

 I really appreciated the political leanings of this article, and thorough discussion of challenges faced by those in these categories.  For example, the authors point out that people who are heavy and those who are LGBT are often discriminated against for similar reasons: others feel that these are choices that can be changed by the individual.  Recognizing this can help I-O Psychologists develop ways to address the needs of these people.  Also, the authors point out that there are laws that prohibit discrimination due to race and gender and disability and religion, but these kinds of laws do not exist for those who are LGBT, heavy, or married.  Thus, the author's call goes beyond just the field of I-O Psych and enters into a political discussion about discrimination and rights.

One thing I would have liked to see, though, is more intersectional discussion.  There were hints that these categories could be overlapping, but this was not discussed in depth.  Thus, this article could prompt people to think that individuals fit into one of these categories cleanly, rather than likely fitting into many categories at the same time.

Overall, reading this article helped me see that there is definitely something in I-O Psych that can be carried over into discussions of labor in the academy.  The authors start out the article with this statement:

One of the main goals of industrial-organizational (I-O) Psychology is to ensure an equitable and fair workplace for all.  (39)

This is what I want too.  So, I think it's time to keep hunting and find some concrete things that I can potentially carry over.  If our goals are the same, hopefully I-O Psych can provide me with some new frameworks, ideas, or methods.


Ruggs, Erica N. et al.  "Gone Fishing: I-O Psychologists' Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees' Experiences with Discrimination."  Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 39-60. Web.