Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:48:41.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Representation of Women in I-O to Producing Gender-Inclusive Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Margaret S. Stockdale  and
Alice H. Eagly
Margaret S. Stockdale*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis
Alice H. Eagly
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margaret S. Stockdale, Department of Psychology, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford St. LD 124, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5143. E-mail: pstockda@iupui.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provided an excellent and much-needed analysis of the status of women in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Although others have produced overall assessments of the status of women in psychology (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Kite et al., 2001), these are not sufficient to identify conditions within the subfields of psychology. As shown by statistics on the divisions of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.aspx), the subfields differ greatly in their gender balance, with some being male dominated (e.g., experimental and cognitive science), others female dominated (e.g., developmental psychology), and still others representing women and men more equally (e.g., social and personality psychology). I-O psychology is among the more gender-balanced fields, with an increasing proportion of women over time. It would seem that I-O's gradual inclusion of more women should have changed aspects of research and discourse in this field. In this comment, we argue that these women have produced impressive changes.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 448 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

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

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 137–151. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.137Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (2016, August 18). What does social science say about how a female president might lead? The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/what-does-social-science-say-about-how-a-female-president-might-lead-61255Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. C. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67, 211–230.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Heilman, M. (2016). Gender and leadership: Introduction to the special issue. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 349–353. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.04.002Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Miller, D. (2016). Scientific eminence: Where are the women? Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11, 899–904. doi: 10.1177/1745691616663918Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Riger, S. (2014). Feminism and psychology: Critiques of methods and epistemology. American Psychologist, 69, 685–702. doi: 10.1037/a0037372Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578Google Scholar
Gardner, D. M., Ryan, A. M., & Snoeyink, M. (2018). How are we doing? An examination of gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (3), 369–388.Google Scholar
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–326. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2728.Google Scholar
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: The impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and the organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kite, M. E., Russo, N. F., Brehm, S. S., Fouad, N. A., Hall, C. C. I., Hyde, J. S., & Keita, G. P. (2001). Women psychologists in academe: Mixed progress, unwarranted complacency. American Psychologist, 56, 1080–1098. doi: 0.1037/0003-066X.56.12.1080Google Scholar
Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422–438. doi: 10.2307/2392831Google Scholar
Loden, M. (1985). Feminine leadership or how to succeed in business without being one of the boys. New York, NY: Times Books.Google Scholar
Logrip, M. L., Milivojevic, V., Bertholomey, M. L., & Torregrossa, M. M. (In press). Sexual dimorphism in the neural impact of stress and alcohol. Alcohol. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2018.02.002.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., Day, D., Zaccaro, S., Avolio, B., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (3), 434–451. doi: 10.1037/apl0000089Google Scholar
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women: Implications for employees' well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.107.Google Scholar
Offermann, L. R., & Malamut, A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 885–893. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.885.Google Scholar
Paquette, D. (2017, October 12). Analysis: The depressing truth about sexual harassment in America. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2017/10/12/analysis-the-depressing-truth-about-sexual-harassment-in-america/Google Scholar
Reuters. (2017, November 10). Despite @MeToo, U.S. workers fear speaking out about sexual harassment. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-women-sexcrimes/despite-metoo-u-s-workers-fear-speaking-out-about-sexual-harassment-idUSKBN1DA0NYGoogle Scholar
Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119–125.Google Scholar
Rosser, S. V. (1994). Women's health—missing from U.S. medicine. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sargent, A. G. (1981). The androgynous manager. New York, NY: Amacom.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, L. (2000). Has feminism changed science? Signs, 25, 1171–1175.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, L. (2014). Scientific research must take gender into account. Nature, 507 (7490), 9. doi:10.1038/507009a.Google Scholar