Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T00:56:53.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenging assumptions in research and practice using problematization principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2023

Rick Laguerre Open the ORCID record for Rick Laguerre [Opens in a new window]
Rick Laguerre*
Affiliation:
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA
*
Email: laguerrer@montclair.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 101 - 104
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

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

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0188 Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290–1304. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, P. (2023) All we like sheep: The need for reflection and reflexivity in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16.Google Scholar
Laguerre, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Hughes, J. M. (2022). An examination of the predictive validity of subjective age and core self-evaluations on performance-related outcomes. Work, Aging and Retirement, waab038. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waab038 Google Scholar
Punnett, L., Cavallari, J. M., Henning, R. A., Nobrega, S., Dugan, A. G., Cherniack, M. G., & CPH-NEW Research Team. (2020). Defining “integration” for total worker health®: A new proposal. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 64(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, C. W., Kunze, F., & Zacher, H. (2019). Getting objective about subjective age: Introduction to a special issue. Work, Aging and Retirement, 5(4), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waz019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2019). Just a mirage: On the incremental predictive validity of subjective Age. Work, Aging and Retirement, 5(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar