The aim is to assess the nature of knowledge development in industrial/organisational psychology (hereafter: I/O psychology) in South Africa, with a view to determine progress, strengths and weaknesses and to suggest directions for future development.For this purpose a broadly applicable, meta-theoretical approach to knowledge (Pietersen, 2000) is introduced and its suitability for I/O psychology as knowledge discipline discussed. This is followed by a meta-theoretically informed analysis and discussion of recent research trends, based on the contents of publications in the discipline's flagship journal, the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology. Past and recent reviews of the discipline are also incorporated in the discussion.The paper reviews the meta-theoretic (meta-type I) and scientific (meta-type II) approaches in local I/O psychological research. In order to contribute to an expanded approach to research and knowledge development in the discipline, the narrativeinterpretive approach (meta-type III) is briefly outlined.
THEORETICAL REVIEWMeta-paradigmatic knowledge orientations The discussion in this paper utilizes an encompassing framework of four basic orientations or modes of knowledge (alternatively denoted as: meta-paradigms, meta-orientations, meta-perspectives, meta-theory, and by other terms similar in meaning-intent) developed by Pietersen (2000). These are regarded as super-ordinate and joint epistemological-cumontological orientations or predispositions consisting of partially overlapping core characteristics. Meta-paradigms are to be viewed as fundamental and distinctive 'ways of understanding' and function as universal and collective 'windows of mind' -as basic outlooks on the world. This, meta-scientific level of sense making needs to be distinguished from Thomas Kuhn's (1970) intra-scientific application of the term 'paradigm'. Kuhn uses various (overlapping) definitions for what he primarily takes to be guiding basic models of empirically established puzzle-solving knowledge within a scientific community. 'Paradigm' for Kuhn initially referred to "… accepted examples of actual scientific practice -examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together -provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research" (Kuhn, 1970, p. 10). Elsewhere, he regards a 'paradigm' as a "… strong network of commitments -conceptual, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological …" (1970, p. 42). In reaction to criticism, he finally settled (in the Postscript to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") on 'paradigm' as referring to two types of meaning "… the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by members of a given community …" (p. 175) and also as: "… the concrete puzzlesolutions…employed as models or examples …" (p. 175).In short, 'paradigm' for Kuhn primarily serves as an umbrella term for a number of related elements (having a Wittgensteinian 'family resemblance') that constitute the scientific undertaking it...