Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 1147–1161 | Cite as

How much is research in the top journals of industrial/organizational psychology dominated by authors from the U.S.?

  • Nida ul Habib Bajwa
  • Cornelius J. KönigEmail author
Article

Abstract

Industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, the subfield of psychology applied to the context of work, has been criticized for being dominated by U.S. authors because this dominance could prevent the generalizability of results and the enrichment of theories, paradigms, and approaches by researchers from other parts of the world. Previous estimates on the extent of the U.S. dominance are, however, likely restricted in scope, outdated, and likely biased by non-U.S. researchers who were socialized in the U.S. or received help by U.S. co-authors. As such, we measured the level of U.S. dominance by analyzing 5626 papers published from the top ten journals of the field of I/O psychology in the last eleven years and their authors. The results show that the U.S. dominance continues, although the internationalization of I/O psychology has steadily increased. An additional analysis of the gender distribution across our sample revealed that female first authorship is slightly more common among authors with no U.S. affiliation. We suggest several steps to further increase the level of internationalization.

Keywords

Internationalization Work and organizational psychology Generalizability Publications Gender differences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Hannah Honecker, Vivien Busch, Caroline Lehning, Clara Beck, Doris Mast, and Ricarda D. Laufer for their help in coding authors’ affiliation and research socialization, and Clemens B. Fell for his help in coding the gender of authors.

References

  1. Academy of Management. (2019). Member statistics. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from http://aom.org/Member-Services/Member-Statistics.aspx.
  2. Adair, J. G., & Díaz-Loving, R. (1999). Indigenous psychologies: The meaning of the concept and its assessment: Introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 397–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00061.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adair, J. G., & Huynh, C.-L. (2012). Internationalization of psychological research: Publications and collaborations of the United States and other leading countries. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 1, 252–267.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030395.Google Scholar
  4. Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 72–95.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial-organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 284–303.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Zhao, L. (2013). Turning good research into good publications. Nankai Business Review International, 4, 92–106.  https://doi.org/10.1108/20408741311323317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arasli, H., Bavik, A., & Ekiz, E. H. (2006). The effects of nepotism on human resource management: The case of three, four and five star hotels in Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26, 295–308.  https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330610680399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.7.602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bajwa, N. ul H., & König, C. J. (2017). On the lacking visibility of management research from non-Western countries: The influence of Indian researchers’ social identity on their publication strategy. Management Research Review, 40, 538–555.  https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2016-0036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bajwa, N. ul H., König, C. J., & Harrison, O. V. (2016). Towards evidence-based writing advice: A linguistic analysis of HR articles. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15, 419–434.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bajwa, N. ul H., Langer, M., König, C. J., & Honecker, H. (2019). What might get published in management and applied psychology? Experimentally manipulating implicit expectations of reviewers regarding hedges. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03164-2.Google Scholar
  12. Barkema, H. G., Chen, X.-P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 460–479.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baruch, Y. (2001). Global or North American? A geographical based comparative analysis of publications in top management journals. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1, 109–126.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Begeny, J. C. (2018). A working definition and conceptual model of internationalization for school and educational psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 924–940.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Begeny, J. C., Levy, R. A., Hida, R., Norwalk, K., Field, S., Suzuki, H., et al. (2018). Geographically representative scholarship and internationalization in school and educational psychology: A bibliometric analysis of eight journals from 2002–2016. Journal of School Psychology, 70, 44–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, 84–113.  https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571211209314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262–290.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40. British Journal of Management, 21, 627–648.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00701.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Industrial and organizational psychology 1963–2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Roberts, S. K. (2008). Chinese students in US accounting and business PhD programs: Educational, political and social considerations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19, 199–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. A. (2005). Profiles in coping: Responses to sexual Harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 182–192.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. D’Amico, R., Vermigli, P., & Canetto, S. S. (2011). Publication productivity and career advancement by female and male psychology faculty: The case of Italy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 175–184.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Raad, B., & Peabody, D. (2005). Cross-culturally recurrent personality factors: Analyses of three factors. European Journal of Personality, 19, 451–474.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eden, D., & Rynes, S. (2003). Publishing across borders: Furthering the internationalization of “AMJ”. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 679–683.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2003.11901933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fell, C. B., & König, C. J. (2016). Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists. Scientometrics, 108, 113–141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1967-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gardner, D. M., Ryan, A. M., & Snoeyink, M. (2018). How are we doing? An examination of gender representation in I–O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 369–388.  https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffiths, A., MacLennan, S. J., & Hassard, J. (2013). Menopause and work: An electronic survey of employees’ attitudes in the UK. Maturitas, 76, 155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guillén, M. F. (1994). Models of management: Work, authority, and organization in a comparative perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Harzing, A.-W. (2008). On becoming a high impact journal in international business and management. European Journal of International Management, 2, 115–118.  https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2008.017763.Google Scholar
  32. Harzing, A.-W., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach. Management International Review, 53, 169–187.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0124-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horn, S. A. (2017). Non-English nativeness as stigma in academic settings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16, 579–602.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Institute of International Education. (2017). Open doors 2017 executive summary. https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2017/11/2017-11-13-Open-Doors-2017-Executive-Summary. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  36. Iverson, C. (2002). US medical journal editors’ attitudes toward submissions from other countries. Science Editor, 25(3), 75–78.Google Scholar
  37. Kirkman, B., & Law, K. (2005). International management research in AMJ: Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 377–386.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. König, C. J., Fell, C. B., Kellnhofer, L., & Schui, G. (2015). Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology? Scientometrics, 105, 1931–1952.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1646-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lages, C. R., Pfajfar, G., & Shoham, A. (2015). Challenges in conducting and publishing research on the Middle East and Africa in leading journals. International Marketing Review, 32, 52–77.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2014-0374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213.  https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leung, K. (2009). Never the twain shall meet? Integrating Chinese and Western management research. Management and Organization Review, 5, 121–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00135.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leung, K. (2012). Indigenous Chinese management research: Like it or not, we need it. Management and Organization Review, 8, 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2012.00288.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Libbus, M. K., & Bullock, L. F. C. (2002). Breastfeeding and employment: An assessment of employer attitudes. Journal of Human Lactation, 18, 247–251.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089033440201800306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280, 246–247.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Majcher, A. (2002). Gender inequality in German academia and strategies for change. German Policy Studies/Politikfeldanalyse, 2(3), 1–34.Google Scholar
  46. Martinko, M. J., Campbell, C. R., & Douglas, S. C. (2000). Bias in the social science publication process: Are there exceptions? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 1–18.Google Scholar
  47. Mayer, S. J., & Rathmann, J. M. K. (2018). How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions. Scientometrics, 117, 1663–1693.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2933-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muchinsky, P. M., & Howes, S. S. (2018). Psychology applied to work (12th ed.). Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the US: Criticisms, facts, and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17, 183–199.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Davila Castilla, J. A., Sanchez Garcia, J., & Rivera Pesquera, M. (2011). Latin America management research: Review, synthesis, and extension. Journal of Management, 37, 1178–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311403151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Boyle, E., Jr., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Gorman, J., Shum, D. H. K., Halford, W. K., & Ogilvie, J. (2012). World trends in psychological research output and impact. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 1, 268–283.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030520.Google Scholar
  54. Piocuda, J. E., Smyers, J. O., Knyshev, E., Harris, R. J., & Rai, M. (2015). Trends of internationalization and collaboration in U.S. psychology journals 1950–2010. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3, 82–92.  https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34, 641–720.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A.-W. (2008). The golden triangle for MNCs: Standardization towards headquarters practices, standardization towards global best practices and localization. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 394–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114, 159–179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Romeo, M., Yepes-Baldó, M., Boria-Reverter, S., & Merigó, J. M. (2017). Twenty-five years of research on work and organizational psychology: A bibliometric perspective. Anuario de Psicología, 47, 32–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpsic.2017.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  60. Salas, E., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chen, G. (2017). A century of progress in industrial and organizational psychology: Discoveries and the next century. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 589–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shen, W., Kiger, T. B., Davies, S. E., Rasch, R. L., Simon, K. M., & Ones, D. S. (2011). Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1055–1064.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Siemens, J. C., Burton, S., Jensen, T., & Mendoza, N. A. (2005). An examination of the relationship between research productivity in prestigious business journals and popular press business school rankings. Journal of Business Research, 58, 467–476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomson Reuters. (2014). Journal citation reports. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/JCRJournalHomeAction.action. Accessed February 1, 2016.
  65. Tourish, D. (2011). Leading questions: Journal rankings, academic freedom and performativity: What is, or should be, the future of Leadership? Leadership, 7, 367–381.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715011407385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Transparency International. (2013). Corruption perceptions index 2013. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://transparency.org/cpi2013/results.
  67. Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1353–1364.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Üsdiken, B. (1996). Importing theories of management and organization: The case of Turkish academia. International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3), 33–46.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1996.11656686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Üsdiken, B. (2004). Americanization of European management education in historical and comparative perspective: A symposium. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 87–89.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492604265224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). Contributions of internationalization to psychology: Toward a global and inclusive discipline. American Psychologist, 68, 761–770.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Witteman, H. O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S., & Tannenbaum, C. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet, 393, 531–540.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zdravkovic, M., Chiwona-Karltun, L., & Zink, E. (2016). Experiences and perceptions of South–South and North–South scientific collaboration of mathematicians, physicists and chemists from five southern African universities. Scientometrics, 108, 717–743.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1989-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zickar, M. J. (2004). An analysis of industrial-organizational psychology’s indifference to labor unions in the United States. Human Relations, 57, 145–167.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704042925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachrichtung PsychologieUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations