|
Article Excerpt
We thank our distinguished colleagues for their comments on our paper 'What have we forgotten--and why?' (Kwiatkowski, Duncan, & Shimmin, 2006). We are glad that Highhouse (2006) described our paper as 'provocative' and, with caveats, concluded by saying he 'celebrates' the piece. Similarly, we are delighted that Ackers (2006) suggests that the paper is 'interesting and thought provoking ... asks many important questions that should stimulate interesting debate'. However, we are disappointed by much of Guest's commentary (2006). Despite his generous recognition of the recent growth in occupational psychology, he appears to rely on secondary sources to refute claims we have not made. We barely recognize the phantom paper which he criticizes.
Ethical and philosophical position
Guest (2006) commences with Henry Ford's quote 'History is more or less bunk'. Given the anti-humanistic and Taylorist stance associated with 'Fordism' (Watson, 1995, p. 246), Guest has an unlikely hero. However, it illustrates an important facet of our thesis which he ignores: the humanistic orientation of early occupational psychology. This humanistic concern is, we believe, fundamental to our approach as psychologists and worth defending, but it cannot be preserved if it is not known and acknowledged. More than just the theories or methods employed, the way in which actions are undertaken, in an ethically deontological sense, is crucial. Professional psychologists understand the rationale and ramifications of psychology better than managers. We are well aware, by dint of our training, of the problems of using ideas more suited to 'popularist' science (Arnold, 2004). Further, in addition to technical and methodological issues, others' underpinning philosophical positions and values may be very different from our own. For example, as psychologists, our actions have to be informed, inter alia, by data, research findings, reliable and valid information and the wishes of our clients and paymasters. Additionally, we have a responsibility to multiple external stakeholders; for instance, our profession and wider society. All these factors have to be balanced and the new British Psychological Society (BPS) code explicitly contains statements of values, illustrating the fact that the profession as a whole recognizes that values are core to who we are as psychologists (British Psychological Society Code of Ethics, 2006).
This perhaps leads into another misunderstanding; the apparent viewing of technique as synonymous with intention and by implication, consequences. For example, Guest (2006) suggests that the National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) was heavily involved in time and motion studies--and states that we cite 'without irony' Crombie (1928) which he says is about NIIP investigators persuading employees to accept piecework. We can see that reading our piece from a particular perspective may make him think that, but actually the specific example illustrates the level of trust that (then) could exist between psychologists and workers; piecework is not its topic. As another example of the use of secondary (or perhaps tertiary) sources, Guest cites Shimmin and Wallis (1994) citing Hollway (1991) referring to suspicion of the NIIP investigators who were thought by workers (and by Hollway) to be using 'time and motion' (based on Taylorism) methods. But they were not--the workers were suspicious because they had erroneously assumed that the investigators were Tayloresque 'efficiency experts' who were going to maltreat them, rather than psychologists who had their unnecessary fatigue, working conditions and consequent welfare firmly in mind. Duncan (1999) points out a number of similar errors in Hollway's account, and there are numerous instances (some of which we cite) where Myers and others critique the 'efficiency expert', (e.g. Myers, 1923) for example describing this simplistic approach as 'psychologically unwarrantable and vicious' (1920, p. 26). It is clear that Myers and colleagues desired an increase in efficiency, a decrease in fatigue (Including mental fatigue), and an increase in wages. They wanted to end monotony and boredom and to positively engage people in their work. Thus we...
|
