Educating Industrial–Organizational Psychologists for Practice and Science: Where Not to Go

Abstract

We want to start our response to Byrne et al.'s (2014) focal article by commending the authors for challenging the status quo that exists today for the training and development of graduate students in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. As applied psychologists working internal to large corporations and former interns in various internal and external organizations, we agree with the need for I-O psychology to (a) evaluate its value proposition relative to other fields with which I-O psychologists compete for jobs, (b) think more holistically about how we are training and developing students, and (c) enable students to be more relevant upon starting applied or academic positions.In reviewing the next steps proposed by Byrne et al. to address current gaps, however, we question whether or not the

The Licensure Issue in Consulting and I-O Psychology: A Discussion Paper

“…The LCIOP Joint Task Force considered the possibility of "certification" or "accreditation" by SIOP or other groups outside of APA to approve programs to qualify for supervised experience. However, commentaries from I-O practitioners have cautioned against formal certification of internships arguing that such requirements could threaten the very experiences the certification program would seek to foster (Gibby, McCance, Pusilo, Ducey, & Biga, 2014;Mueller-Hanson, 2014;Pratt & Massman, 2014;Sund et al, 2014). For example, organizations would likely hire interns from allied fields instead of subjecting themselves to a bureaucratic I-O internship certification process.…”