This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A 'Worldwide view' of the profession much needed in this article title
Industrial, work and organizational psychology (IWO) psychology is the correct term used internationally to accurately reflect the international nature of the profession/discipline and standards. Worldwide, the profession is increasingly defining the field as IWO psychology and I think Wikipedia as an 'international encyclopedia' needs to reflect this and not be biased in its content.
I quote from the current Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2: Organizational Psychology Neil Anderson & Deniz S. Ones & Handan Kepir Sinangil & Chockalingam Viswesvaran to provide an example. In the preface they state...."From scientific management to human relations movement, from cottage industries to craft guilds, from the industrial age to the informational society, the issues that have dominated the field of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have changed over the years. In the 21st century, IWO Psychology is becoming a global science and an arena for professional practice."
Given Wikipedia is meant to be representing a worldwide view, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (and that using I/O psychology is mostly used only in the USA), IWO psychology seems to make most sense, and be the most representative and balanced title we should use. In fact, throughout Europe for instance, the terms Occupational psychology, or Organisational and Work Psychology are used. Industrial psychology is not even mentioned. And in Australia and New Zealand, Organisational psychology is used. Again, the word 'Industrial' is not even used.
IWO therefore seems like the least biased, and most representative title for the international profession, and to cater for ALL of the 3 different titles used around the world not just the USA, and this being an 'international' Wikipedia article. Other editor's opinions? to this issue of representing a world wide view of the profession please?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Will leave this here for a bit longer, for an open discussion, before going ahead and making a bold edit based on all of these reasons detailed above, and change this global profession's article title throughout, to industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology and address the current bias and imbalance using only industrial and organizational, without reference to work psychology as it is referred to throughout much of Europe for instance.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)