Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:46:33.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How We Are Doing What We Are Doing: Network Mechanisms of Gender Representation in I-O Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Christopher Sterling Open the ORCID record for Christopher Sterling [Opens in a new window] ,
Rich DeJordy  and
Julie Olson-Buchanan
Christopher Sterling*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno
Rich DeJordy
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno
Julie Olson-Buchanan
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher Sterling, Department of Management, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno, 5245 N. Backer Avenue M/S PB7, Fresno, CA 93740. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The field of psychology has a long history of tracing the lineage of modern day psychologists back to their academic roots (Benjamin, Durkin, Link, Vestal, & Accord, 1992), and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is no exception (Culbertson, 2016). Why do we do it? Well, it is intriguing to see how our initial training may be linked back to some of the pioneers of our field. Perhaps it also represents how we are connected with one another—through our extended family relationships. But of course an academic family tree only reflects a portion of how we might be interconnected with one another—certainly our networks go much further than our dissertation chairs. Indeed, they might include our collaborators, coworkers and former coworkers, fellow former graduate students, and a host of people with whom we have connected at conferences or through other professional and personal relationships, and the composition of these networks, arguably, matters.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 410 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (5), 957–983.Google Scholar
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure's effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 49–68.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. T. Jr., Durkin, M., Link, M., Vestal, M., & Accord, J. (1992). Wundt's American doctoral students. American Psychologist, 47, 123–131.Google Scholar
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 47 (3), 423–441.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1992). Notions of position in social network analysis. Sociological Methodology, 22, 1–35.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1168–1181.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323 (5916), 892–895.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10 (1), 5–46.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (6), 977–991.Google Scholar
Cain, C. L., & Leahey, E. (2014). Cultural correlates of gender integration in science. Gender, Work & Organization, 21 (6), 516–530.Google Scholar
Culbertson, S. S. (2010). The Academics’ Forum: Fun with family trees (tracing your academic lineage). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48 (1). http://www.siop.org/tip/july10/12culbertson.aspxGoogle Scholar
Feeney, M. K., & Bernal, M. (2010). Women in STEM networks: Who seeks advice and support from women scientists? Scientometrics, 85 (3), 767–790.Google Scholar
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1 (3), 215–239.Google Scholar
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: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (3), 369–388.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60 (1), 91–102.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women's expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59 (2), 202–239.Google Scholar
Kulik, C. T., & Ambrose, M. L. (1992). Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review, 17 (2), 212–237.Google Scholar
Laursen, S. L., Austin, A. E., Soto, M., & Martinez, D. (2015). ADVANCing the agenda for gender equity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47 (4), 16–24.Google Scholar
Lutter, M. (2015). Do women suffer from network closure? The moderating effect of social capital on gender inequality in a project-based labor market, 1929 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 80 (2), 329–358.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), 415–444.Google Scholar
Morimoto, S. A., Zajicek, A. M., Hunt, V. H., & Lisnic, R. (2013). Beyond binders full of women: NSF ADVANCE and initiatives for institutional transformation. Sociological Spectrum, 33 (5), 397–415.Google Scholar
Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (2), 219–244.Google Scholar
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91–115.Google Scholar
Shah, P. P. (1998). Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent others. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3), 249–268.Google Scholar
Steffen-Fluhr, N., Gruzd, A., Collins, R., & Osatuyi, B. (2010, April). N is for network: new tools for mapping organizational change. Presented at the National Association of Multicultural Engineering Program Advocates (NAMEPA)/Women in Engineering Program Advocates Network (WEPAN) 4th Joint Conference.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18 (1), 69–89.Google Scholar