IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v11y2018i02p262-266_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical Reflection or Existential Trap: Are We Making Too Much of Scientific Rigor in a Dynamic Business World?

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Joseph A.
  • Miller, Ashley A.
  • Sarette, Michael J.
  • Johnson-Murray, Rachael M.
  • Alonso, Alex

Abstract

Ralph Waldo Emerson is known to have said, “the greatest wonder is that we can see these trees and not wonder more.†As industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, we often encounter this very dilemma when we examine how numerous professions rise and fall in relevance. More recently, however, we have encountered this dilemma from an existential perspective as we strive to understand the evolution of our own profession and the situational characteristics making change inevitable. We have fallen into a trap—we, too, now look at all of our practices, aiming to reconfigure the makeup of our profession while losing sight of the macrotrends affecting more than just our evolved existence. Rather than focusing on the smaller issue first, we need to start by examining the broader issues affecting it.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Joseph A. & Miller, Ashley A. & Sarette, Michael J. & Johnson-Murray, Rachael M. & Alonso, Alex, 2018. "Critical Reflection or Existential Trap: Are We Making Too Much of Scientific Rigor in a Dynamic Business World?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 262-266, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:02:p:262-266_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942618000160/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:02:p:262-266_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.