The Invisible Pipeline: I-O at the Undergraduate Level
Jennifer P. Bott
Ball State University
Alice F. Stuhlmacher
DePaul University
Patrick R. Powaser
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Although graduate training in I-O is shaped by SIOP guidelines and program faculty, very little is known even about the existence of I-O training at the undergraduate level. Undergraduate exposure to I-O psychology offers the potential of wider training in important concepts, visibility to the field, and a broader and improved pipeline for advanced training in the discipline. As a subcommittee of SIOP’s Education and Training (E&T) Committee, we explored undergraduate I-O offerings and concentrations. In this article, we share survey results regarding the prevalence of I-O at the undergraduate level and encourage further SIOP attention to undergraduate I-O.
The most recent data from the American Psychological Association (http://research.apa.org/baccalaureatedat.html) reports that the major work activities of 44% of baccalaureate degree recipients in psychology is management, sales, or administration. This is a substantial number of undergraduate degree holders in psychology who do I-O-related work in I-O-related settings. In addition to psychology majors, many other careers involve I-O-related work, but have no I-O-related training. We would expect that solid I-O education is useful preparation for many careers, and students would benefit if it was available.
In addition to benefits that students may garner, the field gains by offering undergraduate training. Employees with I-O training can increase the visibility of I-O in the workplace. Visibility has become an active area of discussion within SIOP in recent years, and informing just a portion of the college population about the field could ripple into wider name recognition and awareness.
Although not everyone can, should, or wants to get more training in I-O, an undergraduate I-O course is often pivotal in decisions to pursue further education in I-O. For those students considering graduate studies, undergraduate I-O courses offer not only an awareness that I-O is an option but also provide a realistic preview of the types of subjects and skills important to our field. I-O theory and research addresses the value of Realistic Job Previews (RJPs): we can think about I-O exposure at the undergraduate level as RGSPs (Realistic Grad School Previews).
Survey and Data Collection
As a first step, we created a survey on the frequency of I-O courses and concentrations, course offerings, as well as interest in support for undergraduate education and educators. An e-mail invitation to complete the online survey was sent to all SIOP members with an “.edu” e-mail extension. Only one response per school was requested. When there were multiple responses per school, a single respondent was selected with preference given to responses with complete data and responses from program directors. In the end, we had a total of 106 responses. We are very grateful to all the respondents for taking the time and effort to complete the survey and share their thoughts.
Table 1
Frequency of I-O Concentration and Courses
____________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate I-O Concentration Percent N
____________________________________________________________________
|
Formal program
|
17.9 |
19
|
| Informal program |
11.3 |
12
|
| No program but I-O courses |
65.1 |
69
|
| No courses or concentration |
4.7 |
5
|
____________________________________________________________________
n = 105
The final sample represented psychology departments from very small to very large, ranging from as few as 12 psychology majors to as many as 2,400 (mean = 75). The majority of the programs were on the semester system, but 8.5% reported quarters, trimesters, or another schedule. Most of the responses (64.2%) came from programs that offer graduate degrees in I-O, 13.2% were from programs with graduate degrees in areas other than I-O, and 17% were from departments that did not offer any graduate programs.
Findings
Although a limited number of programs offer either formal (17.9%) or informal specialization (11.3%), nearly all (95%) respondents indicated that one or more I-O courses are offered at the undergraduate level at their institution (See Table 1).
Table 2 reports the frequency of specific I-O courses. Not surprisingly, the most frequently offered I-O course was Introduction to I-O (76.4% of respondents). Perlman and McCann (1999) reported that I-O is the 14th most frequent course offered at the undergraduate level in psychology, and that 44% of universities overall had an I-O course. Our percentage is understandably higher because SIOP members were specifically sought as respondents. Perlman and McCann (1999) also found I-O undergraduate courses were more prevalent in departments that grant doctoral degrees (67%) than at master’s universities or colleges (57%), baccalaureate colleges (37%), or 2-year institutions (16%).
Table 2
I-O Courses at the Undergraduate Level or in the I-O Concentration in Order of Frequency
_________________________________________________________________________
Course Percent
_________________________________________________________________________
| Introduction to I-O |
76.4 |
| Psychometrics/Measurement |
57.6 |
| Independent Study |
43.4 |
| Org Psych/Org. Behavior |
42.5 |
| Advanced Statistics |
26.4 |
| Leadership |
27.4 |
| Groups/Teams |
24.5 |
| Personnel Psychology |
25.5 |
| Human Factors |
16.0 |
| Work Motivation |
16.0 |
| Industrial Psychology |
15.1 |
| Training and Development |
12.3 |
| Consumer Psychology |
11.3 |
| Special I-O topics/Other I-O |
11.3 |
| Organization Theory |
9.4 |
| Advanced or I-O Research |
8.5 |
| Fieldwork/Practica/Internship |
7.6 |
| Diversity/Gender Related |
6.6 |
| Health/Stress |
6.6 |
| Business Course |
5.7 |
| Advanced I-O |
4.7 |
| Other Psychology |
4.7 |
| Conflict/Negotiation |
3.8 |
| Work Attitudes |
1.9 |
_________________________________________________________________________
It appears that many of the central topics at the graduate level are present at the undergraduate level. Specifically, results show a high frequency for measurement (57.6%), independent study (43.4%), and advanced statistics (26.4%). Also popular were separate courses on the“O” side and “I” side of the field. Forty-two percent of the programs offered an organizational psychology or organizational behavior course. Comparably, 40.6% percent of programs offer either personnel psychology or industrial psychology.
Table 2 suggests that although there is variation across programs, many traditional I-O content areas are represented. Although smaller in number, some I-O concentrations drew from other core areas of psychology (e.g., personality; social), related disciplines (e.g., management; communication), or special topic courses (e.g., interviewing; careers; compensation). Finally, some programs offer combined topic courses (e.g., selection & training; motivation & attitudes) as well as the opportunity to take some graduate courses.
The survey proposed several areas as avenues of support for I-O education at the undergraduate level. Respondents were most interested in benchmarks or guidelines for creating undergraduate programs (64.2%), links on SIOP Web page to departments with undergraduate concentrations (48.1%), and increased SIOP conference activities relating to undergraduate I-O (42.5%). Interest was lower for a program directors listserv (32.1%).
In open-ended comments, several of the respondents requested support that SIOP already offers, such as teaching exercises, teaching resources, and brochures for undergraduates. These comments could imply that SIOP could create greater awareness regarding undergraduate resources currently available on its Web site and at conferences. On the other hand, it may be that respondents are aware of the SIOP resources but that there is interest in even further support in these areas.
Discussion
This research represents only a snapshot of opportunities for education in I-O at the undergraduate level. The sample was limited in that the survey was sent only to SIOP members. Non-SIOP members are likely teaching I-O at the undergraduate level. The survey also missed some critical SIOP members: academics using a non-university e-mail, adjunct instructors using a non-university e-mail address, or those opting out of the SIOP mailing list. Although the cover letter encouraged respondents to forward the survey link on to others, it is likely our sample missed some smaller programs where there are few I-O psychologists or non-SIOP member instructors.
The results suggest that there has been a largely independent and invisible community of programs and scholars working to make I-O available to undergraduates. Although we venture that many SIOP members could name a couple of schools that offer an I-O specialization or courses to undergraduates, we think it unlikely that members could come close to listing the 31 programs that reported a formal or informal concentration. Our profession has paid relatively little attention to undergraduate training, and most of us are unaware of the variety of programs that exist.
For programs, these results offer a beginning for discussion about the potential for offering undergraduate specializations where they do not exist. In some cases, the courses for a more focused concentration may already exist. In our survey, programs without concentrations offer an average of 4.6 I-O-related courses, and programs with concentrations offer an average of 6.4 I-O courses (with a range of 3 to 14). Interestingly, the number of majors was not related to the existence of an I-O specialization. Programs with concentrations had an average of 459 majors, programs without actually had more, with an average of 551, but this difference is not significant.
Our goal was to gain an understanding of how widespread undergraduate education in I-O is. Although we have a much better idea following this survey, the importance of this project lies in the benefits it can bring to undergrad I-O psychology instructors and their students. To that end, we request your help on a couple of items. First, we are recommending a working session be held at the 2007 SIOP conference in New York City or a future conference. Second, please forward your ideas and suggestions to us so they can be collected as part of the conversations on undergraduate I-O. We, as well as the SIOP E&T Committee, look forward to hearing your thoughts on I-O in the undergraduate curriculum. Please contact Jennifer Bott (jpbott@ bsu.edu), Patrick Powaser (Patrick_Powaser@oxy.com) or Alice Stuhlmacher (astuhlma@depaul.edu) with your comments or questions.
Reference
Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (1999). The most frequently listed courses in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 177–182.