Fellowship Committee Year-end Report
Committee Chair: Ann Howard
Belle Rose Ragins
Ann Marie Ryan
- Goal: Make online nomination process more user-friendly. To overcome some confusion and resulting problems from last year, the Chair worked with Jeremy Hopkins at the AO on improving the instructions for nominators and endorsers. The process went more smoothly this year with very few problems encountered. Jeremy quickly resolved any difficulties that people had.
- Goal: Administer Fellowship nomination and election process. This year 18 nominees were put forward, one more than last year. The Fellows Committee recommended 13 of the 18 candidates for Fellowship to the Executive Board at the meeting on January 22-23; all of the Committee’s recommendations were approved.
Nine new Fellows, at their request, were put forward as APA Fellows and two will be submitted for APS Fellowship.
Arrangements have been made for presentation of the new SIOP Fellows at the Fellows breakfast and the plenary session at the SIOP conference.
Recommendations for Next Year
- Check APA and APS status earlier. The nominations for APA Fellow must be submitted shortly after the Executive Board’s meeting in January where decisions about SIOP Fellowship are made. This leaves little time to check the eligibility of candidates for APA and APS Fellowship. This year we had several last-minute inconsistencies to resolve, and one SIOP Fellow was not considered by APA because he didn’t get his status upgraded fast enough from international affiliate to full member. I suggest that these checks be made during the initial review of candidates so that eligibility can be rectified if needed in advance. This will probably mean that we check some candidates that ultimately are not accepted as SIOP Fellows. Nevertheless, because requesting interest in APA and APS Fellowship is part of the SIOP nomination process, it does not seem inappropriate to check it for all candidates in the beginning.
- Provide a place for outsiders to support candidates. Although the Fellowship criteria for practitioners includes “research reports and endorsements by individuals in organizations familiar with these contributions” and related language, there is no place to provide these statements in the online nomination process. Formal endorsements must be made by SIOP members. This year our workaround was to have additional letters attached as part of the nominator's letter. We could put this suggestion in the instructions that are part of the nomination software, in the Fellowship criteria on the SIOP Website, or both. Changing the software to accept such supporting letters is a more elegant solution; however, a software engineer would need to investigate its practicality.
- Add contributions to society as evidence of impact. One issue that came up in the Executive Board meeting in January was whether I-O psychologists’ contributions to society could also be considered evidence of impact. I think this is implied in our criteria (as part of SIOP's value of contributing to “the well-being of individuals in work settings,” or “promotion of the status of I-O psychology as a force on the social-political scene”). However we could spell it out better in the criteria by indicating we include impact on the well-being of those that organizations serve or on society generally.