Letters to the Editor

I was impressed with the theme track, “Preparing for the Future: A Critical and Constructive Look at I–O Education” at SIOP in San Francisco. Panel members debated the value and necessity of PhD internships, a topic of interest to me, both as student and employer.

It is ironic that we even consider the possibility that students graduate with an I-O doctorate without any applied experience. Are we not supposed to be “dedicated to applying psychology to people in the workforce” (SIOP.org Web site, emphasis added). How can we churn out doctoral students who have never seen the inside of an organization or consulting firm? Would we expect clinical psychologists to treat patients without internships or hands-on experience? Would we trust physicians to examine our loved ones without having previous patient experience via residency programs? How can we expect I-Os to move from coursework to practice without the requisite applied training, like our colleagues in other professions?

Some might say there is inherent value in programs that focus solely on research and prepare students for a life of academia, and I agree, with one important caveat: truth in advertising. These programs should clearly identify themselves and drop any reference to the “scientist–practitioner” model.

The majority of our graduate programs claim to follow the “scientist– practitioner” model, but some programs focus purely on research. Programs with a strong teaching/research focus and no requirements for applied experience should wear the “scientist” label proudly. Why is there a need to affix the “practitioner” moniker when it is untrue and misleading? Greater clarity allows for a more realistic job preview and helps student match their interests to the appropriate program.

Some might say, “Our current system, although not exactly accurate, does no harm so why rock the boat? Is anyone really getting hurt?” Unfortunately, yes. Students embarking on multi-year educational journeys need to know the truth about prospective programs. Otherwise they are at a distinct disadvantage when they attempt to enter the workforce. Having recruited at SIOP numerous times, I have seen many ABDs and soon to be PhDs with resumés consisting of presentations, posters, and chapters and with work experience limited to teaching courses in I-O and undergraduate statistics. Who do employers select, prospects with only teaching experience, or those with applied I-O experience? Hopefully, that is a rhetorical question.

Academics may retort that as a naïve and misinformed practitioner, I do not understand the intrinsic value of well-conceived research and strong theory. That could not be further from the truth. I have nothing but the utmost respect for academics who do the heavy lifting, building models and testing theories. That very effort enables practitioners to thrive in their work. Many of my own professors were pure academics, providing an incredibly enlightened and well-rounded education. I only ask for accurate labeling of graduate programs. I have seen too many resumés of bright, young students, seeking applied positions with absolutely no work experience.

It may seem like I am picking on research-focused programs, but that is only based on my experience reading so many resumés of highly intelligent, but under qualified students. Purely applied programs should also be required to advertise as such. Can SIOP somehow be involved in policing how I-O programs classify themselves to the public? Perhaps it would make for another interesting debate next year at SIOP.

Allan Fromen
Reuters Insight