Jump to content

Talk:Occupational health psychology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)
4,328 edits
Line 359: Line 359:
The history of iss246 and the numerous editors who opposed him, follows:.....
The history of iss246 and the numerous editors who opposed him, follows:.....


{{collapsetop|This is not the place to discuss user behaviour. Please use user talk pages for that}}

'''Note''' - content added with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupational_health_psychology&diff=next&oldid=558708834 this edit] was removed, since the talk page had become entirely disrupted. See page history. This is not the place to discuss this. Please use user talk pages to discuss user behaviour. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 09:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"RfC: Should Occupational health psychology be included in Template:Psychology sidebarIssue: Should Occupational health psychology be included as a category in the sidebar? Ward3001 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

Previous discussionI would like to add occupational health psychology, a relatively new field that has its own journals, to the list of disciplines within applied psychology. How do I do that? Iss246 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's an unimportant field, but I'm a little concerned about overspecification and a resulting oversized sidebar. There already is a category for Health psychology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't occupational health psychology a subdiscipline, at least right now? I fear that if we start adding subdisciplines, the size of the sidebar will become unwieldy. Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I figured out how to add to the sidebar. Aside form that, occupational health psychology is an emerging discipline. It emerged out of two fields, industrial/organizational psychology and health psychology. It has its own organizations and journals. APA publishes it the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. It also has its own meetings.Iss246 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition (temporarily at least) pending the outcome of this discussion. We have only two opinions here, and there is no clear agreement. See WP:CON. Again, this appears (by your own statement) to be a subdiscipline, albeit emerging from two major areas. If we continue the trajectory of adding subdisciplines, we could add many others, such as "Clinical child psychology", "Group psychotherapy", "Clinical hypnosis", "Psychoanalytic psychotherapy", "Humanistic psychotherapy", "Clinical assessment", etc. The list could go on. Each of these has an organization (in some cases more than one), has its own publications, and has its own meetings. If we keep expanding with subdisciplines the template could extend longer than some articles. At this point I see no reason that occupational health psychology needs to be included any more than many other subdisciplines. Ward3001 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you. I do so for four reasons. First there is a growing literature within the OHP discipline. Moreover, the discipline has its own journals (the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress). Second, there are graduate programs in the discipline that are separate from health psychology. Third, OHP has developed its own organizations, e.g., the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Fourth, just as we no longer list industrial/organizational psychology as a subdiscipline of social psychology or psychometrics (measurement plans a large role in I/O), we should not stifle the development of this new cross-disciplinary division of OHP. In fact, it is peopled by more researchers who come out of I/O psychology and experimental psychology than health psychology--the members of the discipline who come from NIOSH tend to be experimental psychologists. I therefore ask you to restore the term "Occupational Health" to the Psychology template. I will check in again in a day or so. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You really haven't added any new argument. As I said, all of the subdisciplines that I have listed above (and others) have their own organizations (some more than one), publications ("growing literature"), meetings, etc. Please specifically address why occupational health psychology is any more deserving of inclusion than the other subdisciplines that I have listed above.
I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, but I am concerned about the quality of the template and the potential for an unmanageable number of additions to it. The template is only for the very major areas within the field of psychology. I only ask that you step back and consider psychology as a whole instead of just a subdiscipline that you obviously are very devoted to and knowledgeable about. If we continue to disagree (and that's OK; it's common on Wikipedia) we may need to post an RfC to get more opinions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've added to the argument. The field is not as narrow as you assert. APA recognizes OHP. It supports the OHP journal, which has developed a high impact rate. APA's Practice Directorate co-underwrites the work, stress, and health conferences. APA provided seed money to start OHP graduate programs. There is constant change in psychology. Change occurs in the field. OHP is an emergent field that merits recogntion. A parallel expansion has occurred in European psychology. In fact the European and North American OHP organizations began to coordinate activities, including the aligning of European and North American conferences. Expanding the template recognizes that such change happens. I therefore ask you to restore "Occupational Health" to the Psychology template.Iss246 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see any new argument. APA is very supportive of "Clinical child psychology", "Group psychotherapy", "Clinical hypnosis", "Psychoanalytic psychotherapy", "Humanistic psychotherapy", "Clinical assessment", and others. In fact, each of these has its own Division within APA. Again, I'm not trying to minimize the importance of occupational health psychology, but I am not seeing any argument that it is any more deserving of an item in the template than the other subdisciplines I have listed. And I agree that psychology is changing (it always will), but please read WP:RECENT; Wikipedia generally waits until after the changes occur before it makes major changes in its content. That's what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a newspaper. And adding an item to a template is a major change. If OHP reaches the status of neuropsychology, clinical psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, etc., then it might be appropriate to add to the template. But I really don't think we're there yet.
I think it's great that there is an article on Occupational health psychology, and I appreciate your additions and hope the article will continue to be improved and expanded. I just think we need to wait and see where things go before adding it to the template. Ward3001 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
A key feature of this sidebar template is brevity. There is a larger and more comprehensive psychology template that appears at the bottom of some psychology-related pages. If the sidebar template becomes too large it will become less useful and more redundant. Therefore, we must be quite selective about the links that appear in the template. This implies that arguments to add a link should compare it to existing links, explaining why the candidate link is more important (i.e. would attract more clicks) than links already in the template. Number of google hits is probably the easiest way to measure the size and level of popular interest of a field in psychology. Occupational health psychology gets only about 40,000 hits from my location (results vary somewhat by the country from which the search originates, so try it yourself). I think this number of hits is well below the other fields listed in the template. For example, the field of psychophysics has about ten times as many hits. Unless other objective criteria are brought forward that demonstrate the relative importance of occupational health psychology, I would vote not to include it. Nesbit (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Other data that could be examined would be numbers of practitioners, graduate programs in the specific field, and graduates from those programs. I don't have those data in front of me, but I do think it's a safe bet that number of graduate programs in OHP is significantly smaller than the general disciplines of clinical, neuropsychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, etc. Ward3001 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The psychology of emotion is another respectable field of psychology that is probably too small to be listed in this template. It does seem to get fewer google hits than occupational health psychology. If the outcome of this discussion were to add OHP, I think we should eliminate the emotion link. Possibly we should do it anyway. Nesbit (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I counted OHP doctoral programs at these institutions (although the list may not be exhaustive): Bowling Green State University, Clemson University, Colorado State University, Kansas State University, Portland State University, Tulane University, UCLA, the University of Connecticut, the University of Houston, the University of Minnesota, the University of South Florida, the University of Texas, and University of Nottingham in the UK.Iss246 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I add that there are no PhD programs to speak of in Emotion Psychology. By contrast there are legitimate PhD programs in OHP. I agree with Nesbit. I think Emotion Psychology should come off the list and Occupational Health Psychology should join the list. Iss246 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I also add that there are not many doctoral programs in evolutionary psychology. When I look for them they are tucked in under another program or are in an anthropology department. I support the idea that evolutionary psychology remain on the template. But I think OHP is just as deserving of belonging on the template, and ask you to restore it. Iss246 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are over two million google hits for evolutionary psychology. Unless there is more comparative information, my preference is exclude both emotion and OHP from the sidebar template. I notice that there are about twice as many psychology fields listed in Template:Psychology as the sidebar template. The sidebar template should list a subset of those listed in the larger template. Therefore I'd recommend that you make the pitch to include OHP in the larger template first. It should be much easier. It currently includes a couple of fairly obscure fields. Nesbit (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree completely with Nesbit unless compelling contradictory evidence emerges. I would suggest we wait a while to see if there are other opinions before removing anything. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting to compare the two up-and-coming fields of OHP and evolutionary psychology. Looking at google scholar, google books, and PsycInfo, I get the following numbers of hits:
/////////////// OHP // EP
Google books // 623 // 1,607
Google scholar // 5,770 // 19,700
PsycInfo // 450 // 2,481
You have to put the terms in quotes to get more precise numbers. Sorry about not using a table. Nesbit (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I conducted a search of PsycInfo. On one line I entered "occupational health psychology". Then I entered "or" to concatenate OHP with what I inserted on the second line, the terms, "job", "and", and "stress". A great deal of OHP centers around job stress or work stress. I didn't use the word "work" as a synonym for "job"; I didn't use the word "burnout", which is also the subject of considerable OHP research and practice. Had I used those terms, I am positive that I would have gotten many more hits. As it stands, I got 9706 hits. That number of hits, together with the presence of doctoral programs, merits Ward3001's including Occupational Health Psychology in the template. Iss246 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed everything you said immediately above until you went from 9706 hits to "merits Ward3001's including Occupational Health Psychology in the template". Maybe I missed something. Just as a point of comparison, I did a search of "clinical child psychology" on PsycINfo and got 18,064 hits. I wouldn't use that statistic to argue that "Clinical child psychology" should be added to the template. If I concatenate with "or" (as you did) and add "psychotherapy", the hits increases to 143,228. I still wouldn't argue for inclusion of clinical child psychology in the template. If I change the search to "clinical psychology" in the top line and then "or" and "psychotherapy" the hits jumps up to 238,657. Maybe I missed something in your argument. I don't think then 9706 hits you got is persuasive. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I add that one of the two leading journals in occupational health psychology is called "Work and Stress." It is the journal of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Given the journal and the large number of hits (9706) in PsycInfo, I believe occupational health psychology belongs in the psychology sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, all of the subdisciplines I list above have one and sometimes several related journals. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to the comparison to evolutionary psychology and emotion psychology. You came in with the clinical child psychology analogy, it seems to me, because you are dead set against my suggestion regarding OHP, and you exercise some power over the sidebar in question. Since you brought up the matter, psychotherapy is not necessarily clinical psychology. By contrast work stress is OHP. Psychotherapy is not always clinical psychology because psychotherapy overlaps with psychiatry and social work. Some child clinicians call what they do applied behavior analysis. Complicating the picture, treatment of children is usually very different from treatment of adults. In psychiatry, there is a division between adult and child psychiatry. There are different sets of journals. Different organizations. But back to psychology. The different nature of the treatment may even warrant a separate heading for child clinical psychology. But that is not my concern here. My concern here is with OHP. It merits an entry. And I ask that you restore OHP to the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point we certainly don't have a consensus to make any changes in the sidebar. The usual procedure on Wikipedia in such cases is to wait a while to see if other editors weigh in. Then if necessary we post an RfC to get more opinions and wait to see if a consensus emerges.
By the way, please try not personalize the issue with statements such as "You came in with the clinical child psychology analogy, it seems to me, because you are dead set against my suggestion regarding OHP." I came up with the analogy because I misunderstood what you were trying to convey in your statements about your PsycInfo search. That was not a personal matter. I simply sought clarification. This is not (or should not be) a personal matter between you and me. This is about doing what is best for Wikipedia, and there are procedures to follow that I have outlined. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As per the earlier comment by Nesbit, I added OHP to the Template:Psychology but left untouched the sidebar, which I think is more important because it has been inserted into many psychology entries. I would like to settle this business about including OHP in the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It almost certainly will be settled, but like many matters on Wikipedia, it will not be settled in a matter of hours. At this point we only have three editors expressing opinions. It is not unusual when there are disagreements on Wikipeida for consensus to require a week (or even more) to emerge. Keep in mind that some editors who may be interested in contributing to this discussion may not log in every day. It can take some time.
In the mean time, please consider my request for keeping the focus on the content and not on the contributors. If you haven't already, you might want to read WP:CON, Help:Edit conflict, and WP:AGF (I don't mean that as belittling if you are already familiar with those policies). I'm sincerely not trying to run roughshod over your opinions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and requires the cooperation of everyone involved. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
New discussionI argue for the inclusion of occupational health psychology in the sidebar. 1. Sports psychology is on the sidebar. I'm agnostic about its remaining on the sidebar. Since I'm advancing the view that OHP should be on the sidebar, I don't want to start a movement to push sports psychology or another division off the sidebar. However, I underline that sports psychology content is weak, and remains weak after two years. The content of sports psychology contrasts with the strong content of OHP. OHP has deep historical roots in psychology, and strong research and practice content that is relevant to the well-being of people who work.

2. Literature in occupational health psychology is rich. Searches in PsycInfo under "occupational health psychology" go so far because much of the literature is under keywords such as "work" and "stress", where a vast literature will unfold. The work in OHP is particularly relevant because of the impact of work and financial stressors. OHP is a branch of psychology that is deeply concerned with those matters.

3. I also want to emphasize the contemporary relevance of the discipline in a couple of other ways. The readers of this may not have considered that OHP has relevance to the military (e.g., Lang, J., Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Adler, A. B. (2007). Job demands and job performance: The mediating effect of psychological and physical strain and the moderating effect of role clarity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 116-124.). OHP is also relevant to helping first responders (e.g., Stellman et al., Enduring mental health morbidity and social function impairment in World Trade Center rescue, recovery and cleanup workers: the psychological dimension of an environmental health disaster. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 1248–1253.)

In summary, I think OHP, on its merits, deserves to be on the sidebar. I've been working perhaps a sentence or two every day on the occupational health psychology entry in my spare time—although I don't have that much of it. As I add that sentence or two, I revise earlier material to ensure that article coheres. OHP is the world outside. More than sports psychology, to say the least. Iss246 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a few responses to the above comments. Some of these I have previously stated on Iss246's talk page, and some may reiterate and expand on comments I have made earlier in this RfC:
"sports psychology content is weak, and remains weak after two years": The length and quality of the Wikipedia article on a discipline or subdiscipline (whether sports psychology, OHP, or any other) should not determine whether that discipline or subdisclipine should be included in the sidebar. The sidebar should reflect the prominence of the discipline in the world in general, not just how the articles stack up on Wikipedia. There are a variety of reasons an article may not have as much length or substance on Wikipedia compared to other articles. Some of these may have little, if any relationship, to the relative positions of the two topics in the world outside of Wikipedia.
"I've been working perhaps a sentence or two every day on the occupational health psychology entry": That is a very laudible and needed effort, for which I thank Iss246. But again, length and quality of OHP's Wikipedia article (or any other subdiscipline's article) is not an adequate basis for adding OHP or other subdiscipline to the sidebar and make the sidebar too long.
"Literature in occupational health psychology is rich": Literature in many subdisciplines is rich (as I have noted elsewhere in this RfC), but that does not justify unnecessarily extending the size of the sidebar, which by definition should be extremely brief. Such subdisciplines may belong in the Psychology template, but not the sidebar.
"OHP has relevance to the military ... Job demands and job performance ... helping first responders": I could provide numerous examples of relevance of many other subdisciplines. But that is not sufficient basis for including them in the sidebar. Ward3001 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I respond to items 1, 2, and 3.

1. What evidence is the evidence that articles in Wikipedia are not related to the discipline's prominence in the real world? I contend that the sports psychology entry is weak because the discipline itself is either weak or not that important, relative to other disciplines, in the real world.

2. Laudable. The reward for hard work should be a place in the sidebar. If I didn't have solid content to mine, the occupational health psychology entry would be as paltry as sports psychology. Hard work should be rewarded.

Regarding subdisciplines. Psychology was a subdiscipline of philosophy. You can make the case, that psychology should fall under philosophy. Or neuroscience under neurology. Or clinical under abnormal. Subdisciplines get out from under. That is why OHP should get a place. This scholastic argument about subdisciplines is specious. Psychology changes and grows. It is not this static Aristotelean thing. It is dyanamic. It's Galilean. It grows. And splits. And recombines. And that is what should happen to the sidebar.

3. With regard to the numerous examples of many subdisciplines, then provide the numerous examples. Let's see them. Do the heavy lifting. I'm doing the heavy lifting. OHP earned a place at the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses:
"What evidence is the evidence that articles in Wikipedia are not related to the discipline's prominence in the real world?": I never said it is not related, I said the length or quality of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily an accurate reflection of prominence in the world outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the entirety of the world. If Wikipedia's article on Barack Obama is better (or longer) than the article on John McCain, that does not mean that Obama should be President of the US. If there were a sidebar on psychological tests and I wrote a lengthy, first-rate article on test XYZ, that does not mean that XYZ deserves to be included in the sidebar more than prominent tests such as the Rorschach or the MMPI; it simply means I (one person) put more work into the article.
"I contend that the sports psychology entry is weak because the discipline itself is either weak or not that important, relative to other disciplines, in the real world.": I contend that having an excellent article on occupational health psychology because (among other reasons) an editor is very dedicated to making it an excellent article does not make OHP more prominent in the world outside of Wikipedia. Neither OHP's nor sports psychology's prominence in the world is determined by how good the editors are in writing articles on them. Wikipedia is not the center of the universe.
"The reward for hard work should be a place in the sidebar": That could not be farther from the truth, and if you really believe that I suggest that you go back and read some fundamental policies on Wikipedia, beginning with the five pillars. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that operates by consensus. Those are core principles of Wikipedia. No one owns an article, another core principle. Show me the policy in Wikipedia that says an editor who writes a good article should be awarded the authority of sole decider (despite the policy of consensus) of changes in other articles. The reward is the satisfaction of making a quality contribution. Writing good articles is not a stepping stone to power over anything. Neither the most prolific editors, nor administrators, nor anyone else has that kind of authority. I've said this repeatedly. Nothing (except in cases of blatant policy violations) carries more weight in determining content in a dispute more than consensus. Nothing.
"examples of many subdisciplines": Clinical child psychology has relevance to educational issues, political issues, pediatric medicine issues, mental health issues, economic issues, and third-world issues. Clinical child psychology should not be in the sidebar. Clinical hypnosis has relevance to forensic issues, pain management issues, memory issues, health psychology issues, and anesthesia issues. Clinical hypnosis should not be in the sidebar. Assessment psychology has relevance to employment issues, educational issues, psychiatric diagnostic issues, medication issues, and forensic issues. Assessment psychology should not be in the sidebar. I don't need to beat a dead horse and continue here.
One last point: Consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by who can repeat the same arguments the most, who can shout the loudest, and who can come up with the most retorts that add nothing new to the discussion. Unless there are additional substantive matters that are raised, there is no point in my continuing to repeat myself. I have no problem with leaving this RfC in place for some length of time to see if there are other comments (although an admin may decide to remove it). The consensus may or may not change if other editors find this discussion and express an opinion. And if a consensus emerges to add OHP I will have no problem because that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Until then, however, there is no consensus to add OHP (or any other subdiscipline) to the sidebar. I'm finished quibbling, but the absence of additional comments by me in no way changes the current lack of consensus to change the sidebar. Ward3001 (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Response The analogy with the Rorschach and the MMPI does not work. Both are personality measures and the MMPI is a measure of psychopathology although projective tests such as the Rorschach have questionable validity. Such personality measures would, however, be good candidates to be on a sidebar devoted to prominent personality tests. And that is what is important, and it could appear as one goes from one prominent personality test to another.

With regard to another aspect of your argument, if some day the idea gets endorsed, perhaps there will be a separate entry for child clinical. That is for specialists in those areas to discuss. In psychiatry, there has been a division between adult and child psychiatry.

Finally, I don't argue that the Wikipedia entry is in exact proportion to the prominence of the field in the real world. That is a straw man. The relation of an entry to the real world, however, is nonzero. There is a rough relation. The relation depends a good deal on the quality of the content. And the content of occupational health psychology is an important part of psychology. At least as important as sports psychology. See for yourself.Iss246 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the time to read everything above. I appreciate the fact that Iss246 has worked hard on the occupational health psychology article. On the other hand, and I'm hesitant to be so blunt, but I'm afraid I don't find his/her arguments for adding occupational health psychology to the sidebar persuasive in the slightest. The sidebar is about the right length in my opinion. It should be reasonably concise to make it easy to spot the most important fields in psychology as well as a few key psychology pages. It should not include any subdisciplines. We have Template:Psychology for important topics in psychology including key subdisciplines, and I think occupational health psychology qualifies there. One solution for making the occupational health psychology article more available to Wikipedia readers is to add that template to the bottom of psychology articles.
I would like to ask for suggestions. Maintaining Template:Psychology is more difficult than maintaining this one, because lots of editors want to add their pet psychology topic to it. This has been especially true of important psychologists, but in fact this is where we've had some success. A widely cited research study examined the question of who the most eminent psychologists were, detailed results are on the talk page, and we have stuck to that as a criterion. Where help is needed is in coming up with some guidelines, preferably somewhat objective, for inclusion of other items, particularly subdisciplines. There will obviously be more borderline topics needing a decision than for this sidebar.
Google results were mentioned above, which is an objective, though blunt, instrument. Google Scholar results are probably a bit better. If we use them (perhaps as one of several criteria?) we would have to make an allowance for the fact that in some cases adding the word "psychology" to the phrase will be necessary (e.g., "Evolutionary psychology"). Taking a stab at this, it looks like requiring about 10,000 Google Scholar results for a phrase that does not need to have "psychology" added, or about 5,000 results if "psychology" does need to be added. What do people think? What other objective criteria might we use? Having a division of APA? If there are a number of good, objective criteria, editors could argue for inclusion even if all criteria weren't met, but rather on the basis of being very strong on the others. Comments? -DoctorW 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Please post such suggestions to Template_talk:Psychology -DoctorW 18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to DoctorW, occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress. That is the primary subject matter. In fact, one of the prominent OHP journals is called Work & Stress. I conducted a Google search under the terms work stress, and got 19,400,000 hits. I had 2,090,000 hits when I searched sports psychology. I don't think that that the number of hits should be the only criterion for a division of psychology making its way into the sidebar. I recognize that it is one of the criteria that editors/administrators such as yourself weigh. I also think content should also be a criterion, in which case the content of OHP is at least as substantial as, say, sports psychology, which is on the sidebar. Please consult the respective entries. I think OHP has as much right to be on the sidebar as sports psychology.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We can selectively Google a specific topic pertaining to any subdiscipline and come up with millions of hits. That doesn't mean all of those hits have anything to do with the subdiscipline. For example, the subdiscipline "Assessment psychology" directly pertains to mental retardation because MR cannot be diagnosed without an assessment. If I Google "mental retardation" I get 6,720,000 hits. But that's not a credible argument for including "Assessment psychology" in the sidebar because not all of those hits have something to do with assessment. Similarly, pain management is an important focus in "Clinical hypnosis". If I Google "pain management" I get 23,100,000 hits. But it is absurd to then leap to the conclusion that all of those hits pertain to clinical hypnosis and, therefore, "Clinical hypnosis" should be in the sidebar. We could go on and on with this process and end up arguing to include every one of dozens of subdisciplines in the sidebar. The 19,400,000 hits for work stress may or may not relate to OHP; we simply don't know how many, just as we don't know for any of the subdisciplines that I mention above.
I agree completely with DoctorW that none of the subdisciplines belong in the sidebar. At most some should be included in the Psychology template at the bottom of the page. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Response. I don't claim that all the Google hits reflect OHP, only that they reflect real-world interest in the subject matter that is at the center of OHP. Ward3001 said that real-world relevance matters. Many people around the world are concerned about how their jobs are affecting their well-being. At least as much as they are concerned with using psychology to improve gymnastics performance, which is important in its own right. A PsycInfo (EBSCO) search in which on one line I entered the synonyms work or job or occupation and another line I entered the word stress produced 21528 articles. I don't claim that these results are the only reason for putting occupational health psychology on the sidebar. I think the quality of the content matters for sports psychology and occupational health psychology. Check the content. I still content that OHP belongs on the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a "real-world interest in the subject matter that is at the center of" every subdiscipline, but none of them belongs in the sidebar. And that's my last word of this particular issue so that we don't again get into the pattern of repeating the same arguments and responses over and over. Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Against both occupational health psychology and sports psychology being included. There are endless sub fields. What about attachment therapy? And so on. In my opinion we should stick with the major traditional divisions for the template. Currently my division is on the template, but I would not die if it were removed. Our objective should be to clarify, no confuse with an ungainly array of specialties, many of which do not require a doctoral level psychologist. That is like saying a psychiatrist does not require a medical degree. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Response to Ward001. You mentioned real-world as a criterion. The degree of real-world interest is the concern. There is great real-world interest in question of work's impact on human well-being. Response to Mattisse. I don't think the sidebar is ungainly. Attachment therapy is not a division within psychology. It is aptly taken up within the framework of psychotherapy although I don't know if it is a doctoral level field. Occupational health psychology is a doctoral level field. If one includes being doctoral level field as a criterion, OHP meets the criterion. If you include a great deal of real-world interest as a criterion, OHP meets the criterion of inclusion. If you include substantial content that matters as a criterion, OHP meets the criterion.Iss246 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "real-world" interest in a subject necessarily coincides with established subdivisions of Psychology and therefore is a criteria for inclusion in the template. "Real-world" interest is apt to be topical and therefore wax and wane with the times. Also, I/O covers issues related to job stress. Perhaps Occupational health psychology can be see as a subdivision of I/O. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand the source of your concern. However, I point out that I/O Ψ is the offspring of social Ψ and psychometric Ψ. That does not mean we should not include I/O as a separate entity because I/O has those sources. Health psychology has its origins in social Ψ, the sociology of medicine, and medicine itself. Health Ψ nonetheless should stand as an entry. (Parenthetically, the health Ψ entry a couple of months ago was very weak, and I completed a good deal of editorial work and conducted library research to upgrade the entry although it could benefit from additional effort--I don't have that much time--; my work on the health psychology entry motivated me to create and develop the OHP entry.) OHP is the offspring of I/O, health Ψ, the medical field of occupational health, and, maybe even, clinical Ψ (see Everly, G. S., Jr. [1986]. An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange). Arguing, therefore, that OHP is the descendant of I/O Ψ doesn't work against excluding OHP from the sidebar because all the current fields come from somewhere.

I also underline that the general public is interested in work, stress, and the impact of occupational stress on physical and psychological well-being. OHP is directly concerned with that very important area of research. In fact, OHP has developed its own journals, professional organizations, and international conferences. One of those conferences, the ICOH-WOPS conference Quebec (you can get abstracts of the meeting to see for yourself http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/program.aspx) just concluded a couple of weeks ago and in two months the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology is running an international conference in Valencia, Spain on work, stress, and health. Scientific meetings are the important grounds on which scientific ideas are shared and debated. OHP has come into its own with these scientific meetings. They make the discipline.

I appeal to you to join my side in supporting the addition of OHP to the sidebar.Iss246 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ... sort of. This side bar could easily grow taller than any article on which it is included. That said, it could be useful to arrange a series of expanded sub-boxes like the taxonomy boxes. Readers interested in Health psychology and related sub-fields would be presented with OHP, but readers of Cognitivism (psychology) would be presented with links like Behaviorism. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose/Include per Eldereft. Expandable boxes, what a great idea. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Eldereft, could you give us a link to the example you're referring to so we can see how it looks? I'm wondering if this will change the sidebar to the point that it no longer looks like a sidebar. Maybe not, but I think we need to see how it looks so editors can express informed opinions. This might be a good alternative to the way the sidebar is now, but if it is a radical change (as opposed to adding or deleting one item from the sidebar), we'll need to set up a new RfC to get a wider consensus beyond this more narrow RfC about whether OHP should go in the sidebar. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not a perfect analogy since taxonomy has a better defined hierarchical structure, but look at the respective taxoboxes at the beginning of Triturus, Salamandridae, and Amphibian - each contains a level of detail appropriate to how "zoomed out" the article is. A list of species at class level would be completely unmanageable, and very few people looking for newts would find a link to Seychelles Frogs to be relevant.
A more centralized solution that might be more applicable would be to use a {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. Negative liberty has a collapsed sidebar, but Liberalism displays the full topic list. The template includes a parameter (for some reason not mentioned on the template page, but described at {{Liberalism sidebar}}) to allow one subheading to be expanded while the rest remain collapsed - inviting but not intruding.
I am not as familiar with psychology, but a similar classification scheme has been established for physics so I expect it should be possible to divvy up the subdivisions reasonably accurately and amicably. If it comes to it, there is no reason a particular subfield should not be included in different branches of the discipline tree. For a working example of such a classification, see {{Physics-footer}}, which links to Condensed matter physics which displays {{Condensed matter physics}} as a sidebar. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the info. I looked at the examples, and at this point I'm not sure whether either approach would be feasible (I'm not saying either wouldn't, I'm just not sure). {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} is the closest to the way the Psychology sidebar is currently set up, but I'm not sure whether it's feasible to use it with each major discipline (Clinical, Educational, etc.) that has a collapsible list of subdisciplines. But this looks like a major change that would require a separate RfC since we would be venturing beyond the issue of OHP in the sidebar and looking at a complete overhaul of the sidebar. I'll wait a couple of days to see if other opinions show up here before starting a new RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please find in the section below a mock-up with one section displayed. It has some crappy formatting and is not necessarily fully vetted, so use at your own risk. Such a change would be definitely beyond the scope of this particular RfC, so I created a new section to discuss the change. If you decide to use it or a modified version, please move it from my userspace and leave a note on my talkpage. Everyone should feel free to edit that page before taking the template live. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology, again [edit]I think it is time to add occupational health psychology to sidebar. There are at least three international organizations that are concerned with the discipline, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP; see http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/), the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP; see http://www.ea-ohp.org/), and the International Conference on Occupational Health with its Psychosocial Factors at Work Conferences (ICOH-WOPS see http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/home.html). The SOHP cooperates closely with the APA's Public Interest Directorate. Occupational health psychology is covered in at least 15 separate journals (e.g., Work & Stress, Social Science & Medicine, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, etc.; see the OHP Wikipedia entry). Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) engage in OHP research (see pp. 16 and 17 of http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf). NIOSH partners with the American Psychological Association and the SOHP to sponsor the biennial Work, Stress, and Health Conference (see http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh.html) which is devoted to OHP. Serious scientific psychology goes on under the banner of OHP. Moreover, there are OHP professionals who work in consulting and in HR units and other divisions within organizations. I ask Stevertigo to be on board about this matter. I also ask Ward3001 to be on board with this, particularly in view of our past disagreements. Iss246 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose for the same reasons previously (and extensively) discussed on this talk page here. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully add to my above comments that OHP has about 700,000 Google hits, and work stress, which is part of the subject matter of OHP, has 38,000,000 hits. Work & Stress is also the name of an OHP journal. OHP is concerned with the impact of the economic conditions on people, including the recent downturn and the ways people cope with the stress of the downturn (see pp. 3-4 of http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf). OHP includes a literature on the impact of unemployment; for example, see Kasl and Cobb's (1970) study of unemployment and blood pressure, which is cited in the occupational health psychology Wikipedia entry. I add that Kasl was honored for his lifetime contribution to OHP at the Work, Stress, and Health Conference held in Washington, DC in March 2008, a conference jointly sponsored by APA, NIOSH, and SOHP. OHP subject matter is highly relevant to people's lives. It is at least as relevant as template mainstays such as sports psychology and psychophysics; I suspect OHP is more relevant. The thoughts I've laid down on this page address the concerns Ward3001 enumerated in archived discussion, which I recently reread.

I continue to ask Ward3001 to reconsider, and permit OHP to be included on the sidebar. 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (2009) [1] for additional evidence for the importance of the field. Iss246 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to weigh in on this should probably read the extensive discussion mentioned by Ward3001 of this very issue. -DoctorW 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Because space on the sidebar template is limited, I think arguments to add a link should specify which existing link should be deleted and should provide comparative evidence. At this point, sufficient comparative evidence favoring the proposal to add occupational health psychology has not been presented. On PsycInfo I found that "occupational health psychology" produces 466 hits. This is far less than "evolutionary psychology" (2700 hits), "sport psychology" (4942 hits) and even "transpersonal psychology" (1041 hits). Nesbit (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Nesbit made a very good point. However, I underline the point that occupational health psychology (OHP) is also found in PsycInfo searches under the terms Work and Stress. The "and" is necessary. I got just under 17,000 hits this morning. That Work & Stress is the name of an important OHP journal published by the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology reinforces the point. It is difficult to divorce the expression "work and stress" from OHP. I add that OHP is also concerned with the impact of unemployment on the health and well-being of individuals. OHP is a discipline that is relevant to world in which we live. I appeal to Nesbit reconsider, and permit OHP to join the sidebar.15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense, Iss246, but that's at least partially an artifact of the search method. If the number of terms are expanded, there's usually an increase in number of hits. For example, if we combine searches for both of the terms "sports" and "recreational" to search for sports psychology hits, it goes up to a whopping 20,356. Some of those may not relate to sports psychology, but that would also be the case for "work and stress". The same would be true of almost any search.
Although anyone is welcome to comment here, I think the same editors rehashing the same arguments serves no purpose. I urge editors to look at the previous discussion on this same issue rather than restating everything again. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No offense taken. The equivalence about the increase in hits is chimerical. If you conduct a search on "recreational psychology", for example, the recently published article by Gaudreau in the journal Developmental Psychology about adolescents playing hockey turns up. It is not sports psychology article. The article principally concerns the development of adolescent affective states. "Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP. It is a topic that provokes great interest. Note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology publishes a journal entitled Work & Stress. Because I am a research psychologist with an interest in the field, I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP: I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but if you're saying that all (or even most) hits for "work and stress" pertain to OHP, that certainly is not the case. I looked at a few of them, and some had nothing to do with OHP, just as some for "recreational" have nothing to do with sports psychology. I wouldn't even know if "most" are relevant to OHP unless I examined all of them in detail. I really don't think playing around with search terms is very productive. As I said, if you change the terms, you get more hits.
Again, I don't wish to rehash all of the previous discussion, and we talked extensively about search hits. Unless/until other editors express opinions, I'm out of this discussion for now. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You have a point. The issue of search results is important. I repeated the search with work in one field and stress in another. The first article that turned up concerns the acoustic startle response in Norway rats; it is certainly not what I am referring to. But right away there on the first page of my search is a study of work stress in doctors and nurses. Then there is a study from Taiwan concerning the application of the effort-reward imbalance model (an important OHP model of stress) to people who care for the retarded. The latter article was published in a journal devoted to developmental disabilities; however, the content of the article is OHP. That is common because journals serving professional groups (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, teachers, psychologists, etc.) include articles about work stress in those professional groups. I have read OHP articles devoted to work stress in clinical psychologists (a major stressor is a suicide attempt or completion in a patient). The articles are there in a work-and-stress search. And they are there in great numbers. Tonight I've only looked at the first couple of pages, but in my professional life I have waded through the literature. It is very large. I added that the journal Work & Stress published by the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Even when the articles extraneous to OHP are culled there are great numbers of OHP articles.Iss246 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One last thought before I quit my computer for the night. I did a search on job and stress, and got 9600 hits with fewer hits that were extraneous to OHP.Iss246 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Term on the sidebar template [edit]I am the research psychologist who has persisted in requesting consensus in placing occupational health psychology on the sidebar. This time, however, I write about a different sidebar-related matter. The divisions on the sidebar are "research psychology" and "applied psychology." The divisions are misleading. There are many individuals like myself who identify themselves with applied psychology, who conduct research in applied psychology. The division on the sidebar suggests that those who work in applied psychology do not conduct research. Some in applied psychology surely don't conduct research. But many do.

Moreover there are psychologists who are professors who teach courses on, say, abnormal psychology (which is under "research psychology"), and may be very expert, but don't conduct research, confining their efforts instead to teaching.

If one looks closely at the sidebar, one observes that for applied psychology there is an internal link to a Wikipedia entry. Not so for "research psychology." Such an entry would not work because research is conducted in most areas of psychology. I would recommend against constructing such an entry because such an entry would amount to psychology itself.

I have also done basic psychological research; however, the term "basic psychology" is somewhat clunky. Some of you with whom I have had the debate over the inclusion of occupational health psychology (Ward, Nesbit) are also psychologists, and I think we should all come up with a better term than "research psychology" for the division on the sidebar. We should get some recommendations, and arrive at a consensus. Iss246 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point, although it could be very difficult to come up with better headings. Part of the problem here is that the sidebar is extremely brief and cannot include many details that might, for example, make it clearer that many psychologists function both as scientists and as practitioners, or that some of the specific areas could easily be placed under either heading. When I was trained, we talked about conducting basic research (e.g., running rats in a maze) and applied research (e.g., effectiveness of a treatment procedure). Today we use the term "scientist-practitioner" to emphasize that a practicing psychologist is also trained in research. Right now I can't think of a better way to do it, other than eliminating the headings and have one list, but I'm not sure that would improve the sidebar. One thing to remember is that the sidebar is designed to give the reader a means of finding out more details by clicking the links. There is a link for "Applied", but not for "Research". It might be a start if someone created an article on "Research psychology" or "Methods of psychological research". Some of that is found in Experimental psychology, and we would need to be careful in having two articles with extensive overlap. I'm open to any ideas, although I would oppose anything that would enlarge the sidebar very much. The sidebar will never be fully explanatory for any topic; that's the price that is paid for brevity. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I don't like the expression "basic psychology" because the word "basic" can mean a variety of things including elementary. But "basic psychology," if it could be made to reflect something like "basic science," would work. There is no confusion about the word "basic" in "basic science." Few people use the term "basic psychology"; its meaning would therefore be ambiguous. I would prefer "basic psychology" over "research psychology" although I would not be pleased with "basic psychology" for the reasons given.

I would recommend NOT using word "scientistic" because "scientism" has a pejorative connotation. Moreover, I don't think I have ever before seen the word "scientistic" in print. I expect that would be the case with many other readers. We have to keep thinking about a heading that is better than "research psychology." Although I think "basic psychology" could serve as a temporary placeholder. I anticipate that we will get to a reasonably good term for the heading in the near future.Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually "scientistic" was my typo for "scientist", which I fixed. I'm not suggesting using "basic". I don't think that conveys any more than "Research". I'm not sure what the best approach is. Maybe others will have some ideas. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I reflected on the matter later in the day, and came up with a solution I would like to present to you. Replace the term "Research psychology" with Basic science. Then replace "Applied psychology" with this Applied science. The result will be that the two lists in the psychology sidebar will have headings "Basic science" and "Applied science". I temporarily will try out this solution. I think it provides better balance. The term "Basic science" is clearer than "Basic psychology." We established that "Research psychology" is not an appropriate term since almost all psychology involves research. Please change it back if you think it doesn't work.Iss246 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree and don't intend to change it, although I don't know that the change clarifies anything for the naive reader, except the links which explain "basic" and "applied" in more detail. There is still the problem that many of the areas can go under either (or both) header. But we can leave as you changed it unless someone else objects or has a better idea. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. I have read OHP research that bears on basic questions such as differential vulnerability to stressors, a vulnerability the lies in the personality, a matter that is more basic than applied. Of course other OHP investigators engage in applied research on evaluating means to ameliorate job conditions that are harmful to workers, and reduce productivity. The basic-applied dichotomy is NOT firm, which is also occurs in pure science and engineering. There is cross-over.

You are right. The template is not optimal. However, the division into basic and applied science is better than the division between research psychology and applied psychology, a division that does not make sense. At least the words "basic science" and "applied science" make contact with the knowledge base of the educated layperson. I look forward to a Wikipedian improving the dichotomy. We make Wikipedia better incrementally.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The major (traditional) perspectives are missing from the sidebar: behavioral, developmental, social-cognitive, humanistic and psychodynamic. Perhaps the subtitles "basic science" and "applied science" squeeze out these perspectives. An alternate may be "major perspectives" and applications. The concern is that not all applications of psychology are consider "applied science" -- it implies a certain science-practitioner POV. ----Action potential discuss contribs 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That might (I'm not sure) solve one problem, but it creates another problem. "Major perspectives" refers to what is traditionally considered "schools of thought" in psychology (psychodynamic, humanistic, etc.), and some of the items currently under "Basic science" don't really belong under "Major perspectives". As I have said previously, this is a sidebar. By definition it can't include much detail. Template:Psychology can include more detail. The sidebar by necessity will never be able to neatly fit everything in the way we want. I think right now it's about as good as we can get it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The sidebar is much more prominent than the template. Perhaps "Research areas" is more appropriate then. "Basic science" is a code word which is advances a position which attempts to portray psychology as if it were a physical science which can be reduced to general laws, i.e. the position that psychology can be reduced to neuroscience. While I think the enthusiasm for this pursuit is worthwhile, the view is far from universal in psychology. ----Action potential discuss contribs 08:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern of Action potential. We have tried several umbrella terms already for the subdisciplines under basic science. By contrast, there is wide agreement that there are subdisciplines within psychology that come under the umbrella of applied science. These subdisciplines include educational psychology, clinical psychology, I/O psychology, etc. What is the umbrella term for the subdisciplines in which psychologists conduct research the purpose of which is not an immediate application?

We once used the umbrella term “research psychology.” However, that term is not workable because applied psychologist also conduct research. The term “basic science,” although not perfect because it has surplus meaning, works because psychologists under the basic-science umbrella conduct research regardless of whether the research we conduct has an immediate application. Of course, many of us (I speak as a research psychologist) hope that ultimately the research we conduct will lead to the betterment of people’s lives. But that is not the immediate concern. The immediate concern is better understanding of thought, behavior, emotion, etc. Although a personality psychologist does not do what a physicist does, the personality psychologist still wants to understand the development of the human personality regardless of where that research takes the psychologist. What the physicist does may or may not lead to an application. The personality psychologist wants to understand the development of the human personality even if that understanding leads to an application or it does not. In the end, the term "basic science" is a pretty good bookend for the term "applied science." I hope this response helps. If you can think of an umbrella term that is more effective than "basic science" it would be good learn about it.Iss246 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Iss246 on this, and Action potential, sorry, but I completely disagree that "'Basic science' is a code word which advances a position which attempts to portray psychology as if it were a physical science". That may have been the case by some psychologists in the past, but those psychologist are a very small minority now (if they exist at all). "Science" and the scientific method are not limited to the physical sciences. The scientific method is used in almost all areas of psychology to one degree or another. It's not psychology pretending to be a physical science; it's using the principles of science (e.g., experimental methodology, inferential statistics, etc.) to conduct research on behavior and mental processes. Ward3001 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I also I appreciate Action potential's concerns. But I'm afraid I have to agree with Iss246 and Ward3001, for the reasons they gave. Though not perfect, these two labels (or very similar ones) are, in fact, a more accurate description than "perspectives" for the two main areas of psychology reflecting the real state of affairs at present. Even if "basic science" has some baggage in the opinion of some, it's the best label proposed so far to contrast with "applied". "Research" doesn't work to contrast with "applied" for the reason Iss246 mentioned (applied research). If a better label than "basic science" can be found, I'm open to suggestions, but it is certainly a legitimate descriptor, as Ward3001 explained. -DoctorW 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that 'Perspectives' is not appropriate nor 'Orientations'. I was thinking of personality psychology when I suggested that. Most psychologists would identify themselves as eclectic and rarely identify themselves with a particular orientation (research or applied). I'll ask my professors in social psychology, physiological psychology (behavioural neuroscience) and cognitive neuropsychology this week. At this point I'd rather keep it as "Research" rather than "Basic science". If the other subtitle "applied" or even "applied psychology" does not exclude the possibility of applied research. ----Action potential discuss contribs 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Action potential, you may have acted in good faith, but please don't change this information again without gaining consensus here. Consensus is the way things are always done on Wikipedia, not unilteral decisions by one editor. Feel free to seek opinions from your professors, but I believe everyone in this discussion is a psychologist, and it's the consensus here that matters, not what your professors say. If you need more info on consensus, please read WP:CON. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss what evidence would be acceptable to decide one way or the other. I'd accept a quote from a notable dictionary of psychology or glossary from a modern psychology text book which clearly emcompasses all the major research areas which we need to list on that side bar. Unforunately there was no entry for "basic science" in the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology which is a good indication it is not often used in psychology. In my medical dictionary there is an entry for "basic medical sciences" which is roughly comparable with "fundamental medical science" and the meaning that you want to portray on the sidebar. I have a quote from the "The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science", basic and applied science. "There is a common distinction in modern science between two types of research. Basic science is supposed to aim for new knowledge; it is also known as fundamental or pure science, suggesting that it is uncontaminated by such worldly concerns as practicality, patents, or profits. Applied science, or mission-oriented research, instead aims to produce technologies for social use, such as for industry or the military."..."Scientists and their sponsors have often posited a directional flow from basic to applied science; basic science, the argument runs, furnishes the foundation for applications." It goes on to conclude that "Locating the blurry boundary between basic and applied research is not a purely academic exercise." Peter J. Westwick "basic and applied science" -- The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. J. L. Heilbron, ed., Oxford University Press 2003. Oxford University Press. None of those areas are fundamental or pure sciences and exhibits the same blurry boundary problem as the research/applied distinction. So, I'm still not convinced that we can use "basic and applied science" distinction here. I can check the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (and a few others) tomorrow. What evidence would you accept to change your vote for consensus? ----Action potential discuss contribs 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You wrote that "basic science is supposed to aim for new knowledge." That is what the psychologists in social psychology, personality psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and developmental psychology try to do. They try to discover new knowledge. Their methods are different from that of physicists and chemists yet these psychologists are engaged in an effort of discovery. The business about being "uncontaminated by such worldly concerns..." is hyperbole even if found in the Oxford Companion. Scientists experience jealousies and hopes for recognition as many nonscientists do. But we are not discussing the motivations of scientists. We are discussing the difference between basic and applied science. Although not perfect, the basic-applied distinction works for many of us. Iss246 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246, including the comment about hyperbole about "worldly concerns". We will never have perfectly neat categorical terms, but I think the ones we are using now are as good as any others that have been suggested so far. And we will never have perfect agreement about the terms to use, which is why we decide by consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What evidence would convince you otherwise? ----Action potential discuss contribs 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A clear consensus to change the heading terminology. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The term 'basic science' (and more generally the principle of a pure vs applied division) is problematic, but it seems the best so far proposed. The supposedly applied areas of psychology do generate new knowledge. Often that knowledge speaks to fundamental aspects of human psychology. For example, educational psychologists' long arc of theory and research on achievement motivation describes motivation in educational contexts. Although achievement motivation theorists frequently do show how the theory can be applied, much of the research proceeds without regard for application and is, in that sense, basic science. Communicating these nuances may not be possible in a navigational sidebar so we settle for the least misleading approximation. Nesbit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Its not perfect but here's a suggestion for the subheadings to replace basic/applied science: Psychological science (research, theory) and practice (evidence-based, other approaches). ----Action potential discuss contribs 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
None of the suggestions up to this point, including the current wording, is perfect, and I doubt that any ever will be. I continue to prefer basic/applied. "Psychological science" and "practice" suggests that there is no science in practice. That only reinforces the common misconception of "practice" as just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that requires no scientific training. My opinion at this point is to leave it as it is. Ward3001 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked the latest APA dictionary of psychology and the latest penguin dictionary (as well as the latest Oxford dictionary of psychology) at the university book store. There is no entry for "basic science" or "applied science" in those dictionaries. I think we should get a WP:3PO from a neutral third party. ----Action potential discuss contribs 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
AP, the consensus is quite clear. But more importantly, 3PO is only for disputes between two editors; in this case, the dispute is between you and several of us. With such a clear consensus, I think dispute resolution is pointless, but it certainly is your right to seek it. Please, however, follow the standard dispute resolution process. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Subtitles for sidebar for main areas of psychology [edit]In the sidebar to differentiate between main areas in psychology:

1.We are having difficulty coming up with a division/categories for the sidebar which includes all the major areas of psychology. Should we use (a) "Basic science" / "Applied science", or (b) "Research" / "Applied"? ----Action potential discuss contribs 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors are referred to Template talk:Psychology sidebar#Perspectives rather than "basic science"? above for previous discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was sorted by research / applied areas for 2 years [2] by User:J. Ash Bowie in 2007. Before that there was just one list of areas and approaches diff Somewhere along the line humanistic and psychodynamic (2 of the 4 major forces in psychology) were dropped from the sidebar. ----Action potential discuss contribs 06:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this template:talk section. Humanistic psychology and psychodynamic psychology are avenues within clinical psychology. See the clinical psychology Wikipedia entry. You, like many others, have a genuine admiration for those two provinces of clinical psychology; however, they are no longer "major forces" within psychology. Both are represented in the clinical psychology entry, as they should be. Both have their own entries in Wikipedia, as they should be. I recommend not reconfiguring the sidebar to include humanistic psychology and psychodynamic psychology.

I also add this note about sorting through the old history of the sidebar. Wikipedia entries evolve over time, mostly in the direction of improvement. I believe that the sidebar has mostly improved. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it was two years ago. YES.Iss246 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard any of my lecturers at my school of psychology use the distinction "basic science" or "applied science" in the way we are using it here. Furthermore, "basic science" and "applied science" is not in the latest APA dictionary of psychology. Surely that is evidence that it is not in use. I searched the literature often when "basic science" is used in social psychology, it is used in quotes. It just does not reflect the current state of affairs in psychology. ----Action potential discuss contribs 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether your lecturers make that distinction depends very much on what sort of dept/school you study in, the research interests of your faculty and whether they even feel it necessary to bring the issue up in the first place. This issue is bigger than just psychology and indeed covers the whole of science. In my experience, Pure/Applied is a more common distinction than Basic/Applied or any of the other suggestions above. The Research/Applied distinction implies that Applied psychology doesn't involve research, which it undoubtedly does, or that Reseach psychology won't result in applications, which it often does. So it really does nobody any favours. As a counterpoint to 'applied', I would prefer 'pure' but I'll accept 'basic'. The term "basic science" is unlikely to crop up in a dictionary of psychology because it is defined as what it is not (rather like the term "atheist"!). What is "basic science"? It's science that does not have immediately obvious applications. And as an aside: I have worked in psychology for about a decade and never had any contact with anybody who gave two hoots about humanistic or psychodynamic perspectives. But that's just the circles I move in, I guess... Famousdog (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Famousdog, when you say Pure/Applied is more common, do you mean "Pure research" v. "Applied research" as definied in the APA dictionary of psych.? ----Action potential discuss contribs 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I've just realised that that distinction only covers research and not practice (such as the practice of therapy, ergonomics, etc), so its not really suitable either. I think the best compromise is Basic science / Applied science. Famousdog (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
AP, as I noted earlier, you are welcome to seek opinions from your professors, but the opinions that matter are the ones here. But following up on your own experiences, I have degrees from four different universities and have taught in two others, and in all of those I have heard frqequent use of "basic" and "applied" to make the distinctions we are discussing. I have heard other descriptors, but by far the most frequent have been "basic" and "applied". Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I agree that it does not matter what an individual or group of professors say. What matters is what is in the authoritative sources. That's why I looked up the APA dictionary of psychology, Penguin dictionary of psychology and Oxford dictionary of psychology. None of those dictionaries had entries for basic science in psychology. There were entries for "pure research", "basic research" and "applied research". On what basis are you making your claim that "basic science" and "applied science" is "the most frequent"? Have you seen this in a major text book? If so, which one? How do you explain that "basic science" when used in social psychology literature is often used in quotes? ----Action potential discuss contribs 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search for "basic science" and "basic research" on psycinfo. As I suspected, "basic science" (800 results) is less common than "basic research" (1500 results). Furthermore, basic science is associated with the basic medical sciences (see Medicine#Basic_sciences) rather than psychology. When the term "basic science" is used in psychology it is often contrasted with clinical practice (e.g. studying basic fear extinction mechanisms in rodents v. translating to human clinical therapies (e.g. exposure therapy). Compare these index term results:

Basic research: Experimentation (400), Treatment (84), Psychology (76), Methodology (73). Scientific Communication (60)
Basic science: Medical Education (107), Medical Students (86), Experimentation (80), Sciences (60), Drug Therapy (51)
The onus of proof is now on the editors who want to keep "basic science" on the sidebar. As I said before, show me a major text book, major psych. dictionary which clearly shows that basic science is used in psychology in the way you want to use it hear. The term is problematic because it has special meaning. I think we have to change it back research/applied. If you narrow the search a bit further and limit the search of "basic science" to "experimentation" you only find neurobiological research on animal models (rodent work, primate work). The clinical research would be the translation studies for human therapies. ----Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Research/Applied categorization is that all the fields and many of the psychologists that would be designated under Applied do a considerable amount of research. In some cases those fields are more research-intensive than some of the "research" fields. For example, a search of PsycInfo using the keyword transpersonal turns up only 972 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the journals were actually in applied fields (e.g., Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Mental Health, Academic Psychiatry, European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, European Journal of Psychological Assessment). In contrast, a search of PsycInfo using the keyword educational psychology returns almost 45,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals. A quick glance suggests that most are empirical research, and that there are also high-ranking journals dedicated to theory and reviews (e.g., Educational Psychologist). They feature theoretical reviews that often deal with quite fundamental aspects of psychology. My conclusion is that the Research/Applied labels don't work for this template. I agree with the comment above that Non-applied/Applied would be more accurate, and would add that somewhat-less-applied/somewhat-more-applied is better and less-contextualized/more-contextualized is probably the most epistemologically correct. But none of those more accurate labels is suitable for the template, so I'm holding on to the Basic Science/Applied Science status quo. Basic/Applied would also be acceptable and possibly better. Nesbit (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with Nesbit, and would add further that the terminology that shows up depends very much on how a search is done and where it is done. Searching dictionaries, searching databases, using various search methods with various terminology -- each will yield different results with different emphases. This decision ultimately comes down to educated opinions. That can be informed by literature searches in one form or another, but it still is ultimately an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Point of order regarding AP's possible attempt to reframe the process by which Wikipedia works. This decision will be made by consensus. This is a legitimate difference of opinion. There is no policy issue here other than consensus. I don't mean to assume too much about your intentions, except the assumption of good faith is legitimately brought into question when an editor makes a disputed change without consensus, and AP already has one incident of changing the template without consensus. Your assertion that the "onus of proof" is on this person or that person does not change the fact that ultimately the decision here will be made according a core principle of Wikipedia: consensus. Discuss all you want. Challenge all you want. Declare onus of proof as you see fit. Just don't go against consensus. If that is not your intention, then we are on the right track and can proceed with this discussion. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes lean toward WP:BRD when the discussion seems to go around in circles. Normally consensus would be shifted in the face of the evidence (latest APA dictionary, psycinfo search, oxford dictionary of psychology). The term "basic science" has a special meaning which is not appropriate for the sidebar. I'd accept "Basic"/"Applied" but not completely satisfied with that. Perhaps something like "Pure/Fundamental research"/"Applied Research & Practice" is better. ----Action potential discuss contribs 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We are in the "Discuss" phase of BRD. And, respectfully, but it's your opinion about what "normally" would shift consensus. Consensus is consensus, regardless of what an editor thinks is normal. Reverting against consensus is a policy violation. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." Wikipedia:STATUSQUO The status quo was "Research/Applied" as it existed for years before "Basic science/Applied science" was added a few weeks ago (as I pointed out earlier: diff). So one might consider your revert to be against policy. I was merely returning it to status quo and waiting for the evidence to be presented to the contrary. ----Action potential discuss contribs 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The consensus changed when editors up to that point agreed to make the change. I did not revert against consensus. You then attempted to seek another change in consensus (perfectly acceptable), but thus far there has been no change in the consensus that existed before you entered the discussion. Your attempts to refactor Wikipedia policies and procedures does not change them. Now, I do not wish to continue a debate over fundamental Wikipedia policy, so let's proceed with the relevant issue of this RfC. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with you over your frustration. I have felt such frustration in my own attempts to effect change in a Wikipedia entry. There was a shift in sentiment away from research/applied to basic/applied because research is conducted in both applied fields (e.g., I/O, clinical, educational psychology) and basic fields (e.g., abnormal, social, cognitive, neuroscience). I don't claim that the basic/applied dichotomy is perfect. But the basic/applied dichotomy more cogently covers the waterfront than the research/applied dichotomy.71.249.54.167 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (I realized that I hadn't logged in, came back, and entered my ID. Sorry.)

It does not make sense to have one umbrella category called "research" and another called "applied" when research is part of both.71.249.54.167 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (I realized that I hadn't logged in, came back, and entered my ID.)

Christ. Shall we try to assertain consensus then? I vote for Basic science / Applied science Famousdog (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With or without a vote, the consensus at this point is clear. One editor wants a change. Everyone else is satisfied the way it is now. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We really need more eyeballs. I have presented evidence to show that the term "basic science" is not commonly used in psychology. It is not in the APA dictionary of psychology and the psycinfo search of "basic science" primarily returned entries related to medicine and medical education. I'm yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary. I'm also considering proposing the "Basic science (psychology)" for deletion for the same reason. And also proposing to change List_of_basic_psychology_topics#Basic_science_.28psychology.29 back to "Research psychology" which is the commonly accepted term in the field. ----Action potential discuss contribs 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
More eyeballs? That's what an RfC is for. It has been up for almost two weeks. If no more eyeballs wander into this discussion, there is no other way to get more eyeballs, unless you were planning to get more eyeballs in unacceptable ways, such as canvassing. If I counted correctly, we have five opinions on this issue (this section and the one immediately above). For a page that isn't visited very often like this one, that's usually about the number of people who determine a consensus. Consensus is not determined by how long one editor can keep saying the same thing over and over. A consensus is usually determined in a week or two, sometimes more, but not often. An RfC expires after 30 days. There is no question what the consensus is as of right now. So unless some more eyeballs show up in the usual way, this consensus is an accomplished fact. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There's plenty of ways we could get more eyeballs without canvassing. If the RfC is not satisfactory, we could put a neutral description of the current dispute on NPOV noticeboard. We could seek expert opinions from psychologists from various research areas. We can present more evidence from the literature. Straw polls are not reliable indicators of consensus. We need to adhere to other policies too: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. ----Action potential discuss contribs 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
AP, I think you need to calm down. I'm currently involved in an arbitration case where a certain user is highly likely to get banned for persistant single-topic disruption (including raising unecessary RfCs, inappropriate application of NPOV and RS, and canvassing), which is what you seem to be suggesting. This is clearly a topic that nobody else has any problem with, or at least the other editors here don't have a problem with. I don't have a copy of the APA dictionary on me but I'm sure that there are lots of terms that I use daily that don't appear there. Try "time dilation", "Bayesian modelling", "corticothalamocortical", "recurrent network" ... They are words/terms I use all the time and I suspect that they aren't all in there. If they are, I'm impressed and might buy a copy myself! Famousdog (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to buy it, just look it up all the psychology dictionaries at the university bookshop, search oxford reference online or psycinfo! heh. Hint: You might get different results in pubmed. I'm still calm but fail to see how can you say that "nobody else has a problem with" this topic. Nesbit and several other editors have acknowledged that "Basic science/Applied science" is problematic. Various editors have suggested that we keep the status quo until we find better umbrella terms. Someone even suggested that we just have one list. With regards to the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies, these are particularly relevant because "Basic science/Applied science" seems to advance a certain position in psychology. Show me the evidence that Basic science/Applied science is commonly used in psychology in general (and not just medical education, neurobiological experiments). I'm still think that "Research Psychology/Applied Psychology" is more general and closer to NPOV. ----Action potential discuss contribs 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's really misrepresenting what's been going on here. "Nesbit and several other editors" have been drawn into this discussion by your editing of the template and constant posting about this topic. Their opinion seems to be that Basic science / Applied science isn't perfect but its the least worst solution, assuming it really is necessary to make this distinction at all. I'm beginning to think it isn't. I've given you my thoughts and attempted some compromises, but frankly I think this has been blown out of all proportion and the best way forward is to eliminate the Basic-Pure-Natural-Fundamental-Research-Science / Applied-Research-Science distinction completely. Famousdog (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am going to take a back seat for a while. I'd accept one list but I'm just an undergraduate student. Some of the other editors here are qualified psychologists. ----Action potential discuss contribs 12:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, AP, for your wisdom of stepping back for a while. This consensus process needs to takes its course. Also, repectfully, there are no issues of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS here. No one here, including you, is arguing for anything outrageous that goes against any Wikipedia policy. This is simply an honest difference of opinion that needs to be worked out in the usual way of consensus. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Revisit an issue [edit]I would like to revisit the issue of placing occupational health psychology on the sidebar template under applied psychology. What prompts me to revisit the issue is that I recently attended the Work, Stress, and Health conference sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. You can see from the November 2009 program how comprehensive the subject matter is: http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh/2009/wsh-2009-program.pdf.

The program indicates that there is a great deal of OHP research devoted to work and stress, work-family balance, safety, workplace bullying and other forms of mistreatment, biomarkers of workplace stress, sexual harassment at work, methodology, workplace interventions to reduce stress, the impact of work life on sleep, work stress in the military, the problem of stress in other specific occupations, and so on.

I also note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology will be conducting a major conference in Rome at the end of March (see http://eaohp.org/conference.aspx). I would like enlist Ward3001 and Nesbit to visit the external sites, and reconsider their past positions, and support the idea of including occupational health psychology in the sidebar.Iss246 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To make an addition to this template you need to present comparative arguments showing that Occupational Health Psychology is more important than some other field(s) listed on the template. This is because, as a sidebar template, it must be of limited size to function effectively as a navigational tool. Without restricting the size of the sidebar it would become as large as Template:Psychology and lose its distinct functional value. Noting that there is a major conference dedicated to occupational health psychology is not by itself sufficient because there are international conferences in other sub-fields of psychology that are not listed in the sidebar. Nesbit (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I showed the link to the conference proceedings held in Puerto Rico in order to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of OHP. The conference was organized by APA and NIOSH. Those two organizations would not organize the conference if OHP was not of major interest. I add that there is growing interest in OHP in Latin America. There was a contingent of Latin American contributors to the conference. I also underline the convergence of developments in the Western Hemisphere with developments in Europe by pointing out the parallel conference that is upcoming in Rome at the end of March. Also note that the ICOH-WOPS (International Commission on Occupational Health, Work Organization and Psychosocial Factors) conference ran in Quebec in September 2008. Here is a link to an overview of that conference: http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/program.html. ICOH-WOPS is a large international conference devoted to psychosocial aspects of work and health. The next ICOH-WOPS conference will be in Amsterdam in June 2010. The field of OHP is burgeoning.

I remain convinced that OHP is more important than sports psychology because topics such as work (and unemployment) and stress, workplace violence and incivility, and work-home carryover are of great importance to most of us. I am not, however, inclined to argue for removing sports psychology from the template. Sports and recreation have a role to play in our lives; so does work. I note that Wikipedia contributor Jcbutler removed transpersonal psychology from the template. Although I think that OHP is more important than transpersonal psychology, I would also not be inclined to remove it. In many ways I am as conservative as you with regard to altering the template. Iss246 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could frame a proposal to add OHP as a replacement for Transpersonal. You might try to develop more objective evidence for the relative importance of OHP. I think OHP gets way more hits than Transpersonal on google web, google books, and google scholar. That is far more convincing to me than conference announcements. What other verifiable metrics are there? Finally, can you do something to address the objection that OHP is a branch of industrial and organizational psychology, which is already listed. For example, any published statements that the area is splitting into two fields, OHP and organizational psychology? Nesbit (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I propose that we include occupational health psychology in the psychology sidebar template.

I give my reasons. I begin, however, by saying that I was not in favor of removing transpersonal psychology from the template. I'm not expert in transpersonal psychology so I admit my searches may have limitations. I did perform a couple of searches, one on Psycinfo and one on Google. In the Psycinfo search, I looked for hits on (job or occupational) and stress, which is the centerpiece of a great deal of OHP research although I am leaving out topics like workplace violence and incivility, work-home carryover and balance, psychological aspects of safety, recovery from work, unemployment stress, etc. I got a little more than 17,000 hits. A Psycinfo search on transpersonal psychology yielded about 1300 hits.

I continued searching on Google. I searched on occupational stress OR job stress OR work stress and got 2,700,000 hits. A Google search on transpersonal psychology yielded about 22,000 hits.

I turn to the concern voiced by Nesbit that OHP is a branch of industrial/organizational psychology. OHP emerged out of three disciplines, industrial/organizational psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. People who identify themselves with the field obtained doctorates in I/O, health psychology, occupational medicine, occupational nursing, and other fields. The next editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology obtained a doctorate in experimental psychology, and was a research scientist at NIOSH for most of his career. Other OHP researchers at NIOSH have come from experimental psychology. I add that I identify myself professionally with OHP, and I did not train in I/O. For the record, I trained in developmental psychology and then did a post-doc in epidemiology, having gotten interested in antisocial conduct in children, and then the impact of that conduct on the health and well-being of teachers; then my interest in OHP simply grew. OHP is a boundary breaker and an emergent field.

I add that APA sees an important role for OHP, and has since 1990 helped to underwrite OHP-related conferences and an OHP journal. To my knowledge APA has not underwritten conferences or journals in either transpersonal psychology or sports psychology. I think the actions of APA speak to the importance of OHP in psychology in general.

Finally, considering the centrality of work to the health and well-being of populations, I think OHP deserves a place on the template. Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like progress. But I noticed that the WP article on I/O psychology identifies OHP as a a topic within I/O psych. Although the description of OHP in that article identifies it as a new discipline, the structural placement of OHP as a topic in I/O seems to contradict that view. Would it be a good idea to move the section on OHP in that article under a separate heading called "Relationship to occupational health psychology"?
My support for your proposal is very much contingent on comparisons between OHP and other disciplines of psychology (e.g., transpersonal, sports). As I explained previously, such comparisons seem inevitable when deciding which disciplines are represented in the small space available in the sidebar template.Nesbit (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Nesbit, I wrote the paragraph on OHP within the I/O entry. I also wrote a parallel paragraph on OHP within the health psychology entry. Actually I wrote the paragraph in the health psychology entry first. I wrote both paragraphs because I thought OHP could be of interest to readers of those two entries. The only thing I didn't do was write a paragraph on OHP inside the occupational health Wikipedia entry. I didn't write such a paragraph there because I was not happy with the occupational health entry. I, however, included a link to OHP at the bottom of the occupational health page. Occupational health, I/O, and health psychology are the fields out of which OHP emerged.Iss246 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd guessed that you wrote it. But the point is that the placement suggests OHP is a "topic" within I/O Psychology which contradicts your argument here that OHP is discipline in its own right and thus deserving a place in the sidebar. Perhaps you should align these bits by pulling the OHP section within I/O psychology out into a top-level heading in that article so that OHP and I/OP are presented more clearly as separate and equal disciplines within psychology.Nesbit (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That is a good suggestion. I also wrote paragraphs for the psychology and applied psychology entries; however, I will leave these. I'm a little pressed for time. Sick relative. Final exams. I will get to it. I promise.Iss246 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit, you have been very helpful. I dashed off changes in the industrial and organizational psychology and health psychology Wikipedia entries regarding the matter of getting better separation of those fields from OHP. I tried to follow your advice above. Perhaps you could review my edits. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the I-O psychology section to further clarify that OHP is a separate discipline and not a subfield. I'm relying on your judgment that this is correct. It's a key point because there's not enough room in the sidebar for fields and their subfields. Nesbit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS NEEDED. Require independent arbitration to look at 4 years of editors consensus being overriden by ISS246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Hi again. Sorry itszippy to again have to make this clear concise point. It is a very important one and has nothing to do with my opinion about OHP subfield or whatever./

Wikipedia is for everyone. When many editors strongly disagree with someone, it is a consensus. ISS246 went against that consensus in the psychology sidebar inclusion of occ health psychology based on many discussions in the talk page.

The psychology sidebar is very important in psychology as ISS246 knows. Having occupational health psychology listed is 'erroneous' based on induistry standards, but more importantly here, all other editor's including now mine. Iss2465 will not answer to what he did by going against consensus. Instead he brings in irrelevant facts about a couple of societies etc. That is not the point. The point is consensus.

We need formal help/intervention here from Wikipedia for someone independent to carefully review the history of the posychology sidebar talk page and other postings and they will clearly see what ISS246 appearfs to be covering up, over 4 or 5 years and make a decision based on consensus of all interested editors with training in psychology it seems. How can we get this done please? Your time is very much appreciatedMrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of Recent Changes by Osubuckeyeguy (talk) [edit]For an explanation of recent changes and a discussion with Iss246 please see (talk) and weigh in before reverting any changes.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychology:Sidebar [edit]We had the debate about the psychology sidebar. OHP is not subsumed neatly under health psychology. It is autonomous field that developed out of at least three separate fields, I/O psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. It has become an autonomous field with its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books.Iss246 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We had extensive discussions, and the consensus was clearly in favor of NOT adding it to the small sidebar, yet Iss246 added it anyway. -DoctorW 05:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A consensus did develop regarding OHP. In my view, DoctorW was excessive in giving the template a haircut.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
ISS246 versus consensus (again) [edit]Thank you doctorW and others, eg.ward, it is very clear that iss246 never had consensus from any other editors to include Occ health psych into the psychology sidebar. But he instead went against consensus and did it anyway.

Iss says recently when questioned him..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago."

No iss246, it was not settled, with all due respect. You saying it had been settled is completely false and needs to be formally noted as being false. The Wikipedia Community should not be duped by you. According to the talk page comments on the Psychology Sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors over a 4 year period now, completely disagreed with you. That is, 'no consensus' to include. As one of these editors,DoctorW stated above in 2011, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ISS246, I am much more concerned about you blatantly going against consensus in the applied psychology section of the psychology sidebar from 2009 until the present.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC) You have noted above that consensus was reached. Please show the community exactly where, with whom, how consensus was met. That is contrary to editor's opinions I have read? But i am open to discourse. If the consensus is leave it then...Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This was despite at least 5 or 6 other editors over many years, it now seems, strongly disagreeing with you and presenting sound evidence and logic behind their well based and accurtate opinions. You ISS246 instead went straight ahead anyway and blatantly against clear consensus not to. Your re-entry in the OHP psychology sidebar, was made against all other editors (I refer any other readers to the Talk Page for Psychology and the Psychology Sidebar) Please post your answer to that.

Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show please, with all due respect ISS246, where others agreed you shoul include occupational health psychology, into to the psychology sidebar?

Please ISS246, instead of undoing mine and other editor's valid and unique additions, please discuss first... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. Please could you explain why the Psychology Sidebar should have an OHP entry in the Applied Psychology section? based solely on the clear, long term consensus of all other editors? If there is clear consensus, the entry should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHP should not be in the sidebar. These are the facts.

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between ISS246 and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly as mentioned, on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else.

This critical issue of deciding on the possible deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. Hi Iss246. Can you answer to this important issue only please? Any other issues aside please, while we look at facts and the facts on the WQikipideia project rules and guiding principles please.

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, 4 years in fact, well before I became a member, clearly and strongly objected to you placing ocuupational health psychology on this psychology page under applied psychology? You went against all others and the overwhelming consensus. You are now avoidin g what you did. Clearly the entry needs to be deleted from the important psychology and applied psychology sidebar.

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged, please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the Psychology and Applied Psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and forcefully added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, between 2009 and until today (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you ISS246 or any other editor, but I am open for discussion and logic and fairness on this important issue. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me iss246, and focus on the issue of possible and deletion of the occupational health psychology entry from the Psychology sidebar and Applied Psychology section within it based on clear consensus within the community.

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was n o consensus, does not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direc t me and other editors/administrators to the szections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus.

Just as added bit of informnation. As an important factor here is the objective reality that there is not even one single postgraduate program anywhere in the world dedicated and titled to occupational health psychology. That is, there is NO Doctorate or Masters program anywhere on the planet in occ health psychology!? Please Iss246, correct me if I am wrong. Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I invite iss246 to make any comments below this mark here, as part of the process to formally review you placing occ health psychology into the sidebar without any consensus. In fact,against consensus opinion from all other editors. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

CONSENSUS NEEDED. Require independent arbitration to look at 4 years of editors consensus being overriden by ISS246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Hi again. Sorry itszippy to again have to make this clear concise point. It is a very important one and has nothing to do with my opinion about OHP subfield or whatever./

Wikipedia is for everyone. When many editors strongly disagree with someone, it is a consensus. ISS246 went against that consensus in the psychology sidebar inclusion of occ health psychology based on many discussions in the talk page.

The psychology sidebar is very important in psychology as ISS246 knows. Having occupational health psychology listed is 'erroneous' based on induistry standards, but more importantly here, all other editor's including now mine. Iss2465 will not answer to what he did by going against consensus. Instead he brings in irrelevant facts about a couple of societies etc. That is not the point. The point is consensus.

We need formal help/intervention here from Wikipedia for someone independent to carefully review the history of the posychology sidebar talk page and other postings and they will clearly see what ISS246 appearfs to be covering up, over 4 or 5 years and make a decision based on consensus of all interested editors with training in psychology it seems. How can we get this done please? Your time is very much appreciatedMrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation from Mrm71717 for me to comment [edit]A number of criteria help to identify a recognizable subdiscipline of psychology. Among these criteria are the following: (a) the existence of professional organizations; (b) the existence journals that publish research in the area; (c) recognition from a large governing body in psychology; (d) a body of research (and even practice). For criterion (a) there are the International Commission on Occupational Health's scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS), the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP). For criterion (b) there are journals dedicated to OHP, for example, Work & Stress and Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (JOHP)) and journals that while not dedicated to OHP, publish OHP research, for example, the Journal of Applied Psychology and the American Journal of Public Health.

With regard to criterion (c) the American Psychological Association (APA) recognizes OHP and helps underwrite an important biennial conference devoted to OHP. This is particularly true of the Public Interest Directorate of the APA. The Public Interest Directorate along with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has had a hand in every Work, Stress, and Health Conference since the conference series began in 1990. APA hosted in 2004 an important organizational meeting that helped SOHP come into being.

With regard to criterion (d) there is a large and growing body of research in OHP that I won't enumerate here but can be viewed looking into journals like JOHP or papers cited on the OHP page. There is a growing number of practitioners in OHP. Presentations at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles were devoted to practice. There is a practice-oriented wing of the EA-OHP. By these criteria OHP should continue to appear on the sidebar along with other applied disciplines within psychology. Iss246 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

CONSENSUS NEEDED. Require independent arbitration to look at 4 years of editors consensus being overriden by ISS246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. Sorry itszippy to again have to make this clear concise point. It is a very important one and has nothing to do with my opinion about OHP subfield or whatever./
Wikipedia is for everyone. When many editors strongly disagree with someone, it is a consensus. ISS246 went against that consensus in the psychology sidebar inclusion of occ health psychology based on many discussions in the talk page.
The psychology sidebar is very important in psychology as ISS246 knows. Having occupational health psychology listed is 'erroneous' based on induistry standards, but more importantly here, all other editor's including now mine. Iss2465 will not answer to what he did by going against consensus. Instead he brings in irrelevant facts about a couple of societies etc. That is not the point. The point is consensus.
We need formal help/intervention here from Wikipedia for someone independent to carefully review the history of the posychology sidebar talk page and other postings and they will clearly see what ISS246 appearfs to be covering up, over 4 or 5 years and make a decision based on consensus of all interested editors with training in psychology it seems. How can we get this done please? Your time is very much appreciatedMrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Mrm7171, consensus eventually formed with regard to OHP on the sidebar. You can go review ALL the threads of discussions but not in a selective way. Although I made no deletions from the discussion on this page, I observed that you made some deletions on your talk page. I think they should be restored.
ISS246 asked to validate his statement about consensus [edit]Where is this consensus please ISS246? Show me where please? with all due respect?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I enumerated criteria but you ignored those criteria in the above comment. Someone else may share the feelings you have about OHP except that he or she may direct against political psychology or the psychology of religion. We don't have to delete those subfields. We can use our judgment about whether they are subfields of psychology. We can have criteria to help us judge.Iss246 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There has been no discussions regarding any other area, only you against all other editor's consensus with occupational health psych? over 4 long years?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Again, please show me the consensus. Identify it please. It is important ISS246Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not touched your inclusion, against all consensus, for occupational health psychology not to be included in the psychology sidebar, where there is limited room. Out of respect for you as a fellow Wkipedian, and respect for protocols on Wikipedia, (which new editors like myself gradually learn), I again read in detail, 'all' of the other editors posts, strongly advising you against including occ health psych.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think in the end, they simply 'gave up' quitre frankly ISS246, as you doggedly re-included the entry into the sidebar, every time someone rightfully deleted it, based on consensus. The fact that it still stands today, shows no real validity for inclusion, but I am afraid instead ISS246's sheer determination to include it, with no regard for the consensus. This is a community site ISS246, not your personal website, where you have freedom to express very singular points of view. If there is long term group consensus, especially on important entries in various professions for example, you should not use Wikipedia as a battlefield. The fact that someone new, that is me; is again standinmg up to you, over this entry, adds further weight to the deletion of the OHP entry from the (applied) psychology sidebar?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So again, please show exactly where you had the consensus that was reached in the end, as you say". Identify it please. This is an important public resource ISS246 and I am going to continue to politely ask you this same question and raise the same matter until it is resolved through the proper means. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A comment on OHP from a distinguished academic colleague. He said it very well. I quote this colleague who is a leader in I/O psychology and a professor at a leading I/O program. He wrote that "there are lots of people in [OHP] who are not from I/O backgrounds, and many of the papers in OHP journals are not by people in I/O, and often they aren't even psychologists [e.g., epidemiologists, medical doctors, sociologists]. To be an I/O psychologist, you have to be an I/O psychologist, or retool to get I/O expertise, which means you become an I/O. To be an OH psychologist, you can be almost any kind of psychologist. You don't have to be an I/O at all." Because people doing work in OHP come from many areas of psychology outside of I/O, myself included, I believe it is important to leave the sidebar in tact. OHP is not a subfield of I/O psychology.Iss246 (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Additions to the sidebar [edit]If anyone were to take the time to read all the discussion above and in the archive, that person would see that there is a consensus for brevity in the sidebar, a reluctance to add items, and that constant vigilance is necessary to prevent people from adding fields or sub-fields that are not major categories in psychology, especially people's own pet items.

I'm confident that the others who've contributed the most to the effort of creating and maintaining this sidebar over the years (who also happen to be well-qualified to say something about psychology, in contrast to the typical drive-by editor) would agree that it is simply not appropriate to add an item to the list without substantive discussion here first, even if that discussion doesn't take place immediately.

Please propose items here first and be patient. -DoctorW 06:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to hastily divide editors into those who are qualified and those who are "drive-by." I added many of the items to the list that you seem to find problematic and I have a PhD in social psychology from a respected institution. I assume you that the additions were made with great consideration. I agree that the inclusion of OHP seems unnecessary, but I've already had this debate with this editor and decided to move on. I am ambivalent about the inclusion of pastoral psychology - my preference would be to include the psychology of religion instead since this area is broader and actually has its own page. Whether the sidebar links to Legal or Forensic doesn't much matter to me, but Law seems more inclusive. Consumer and political are major sub-areas with degree specializations awarded for each. Cultural and comparative are not as big as cognitive or social, I agree, but these areas are not neatly subsumed by others and so seem to warrant inclusion. I invite you to discuss this further. I would agree with some of the other editors, though, who have argued that lack of edit-warring for many months would seem to suggest that consensus has been reached, even if the discussion did not take place on the talk page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Osubuckeyeguy's approach as exhibiting desirable common sense and balance. As he says, including "areas are not neatly subsumed by others" seems a desirable consideration to have in the mix. I think OHP has two strikes against it because it seems a hybrid of health and industrial/organizational, through which it could be located without too much difficulty by interested readers. The main mitigating factor would seem to be that there is indeed a large interest and literature in OHP. But of how many other "hybrid" areas can this be said? If it can be demonstrated that OHP has exceptionally large interest compared to almost all other hybrid areas, then perhaps such exceptional largeness could be introduced as another criterion in the mix. But lacking mitigating criteria, it seems that hybrid areas should be omitted from the shortlist, and readers will still be able to locate them without too much difficulty, by going first to their constituent areas. -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment on why OHP should continue to belong on the sidebar. Fields of psychology emerge out of other fields. Industrial organizational psychology emerged out of social psychology and took a great deal from psychometric psychology. Health psychology emerged out of clinical psychology. OHP emerged out I/O and occupational medicine/industrial hygiene. When fields emerge out of other fields they take on some independence and, like all fields within psychology, show some interdependence. That one field emerged from other fields does not nullify the idea that the emergent field belongs on the sidebar; otherwise we would remove I/O psychology and health psychology. Criteria for determining the emergence of a field and its place on the sidebar include, but are not limited to, (a) recognition by major psychology-related organizations such as APA, (b) the development of organizations dedicated specifically to the emergent field, (c) the creation of journals for the emergent field, (d) the running of conferences devoted to the field and (e) the presence of a large research literature (mentioned by Health Researcher above) and a vibrant research community. OHP meets these criteria.

(a) APA has played a very important role together with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the emergence of OHP. Those two organizations continue to play a major role in OHP.

(b) At least three OHP-specific organizations sustain the discipline, EA-OHP, SOHP, and ICOH-WOPS.

(c) Journals such as Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology play important roles in advancing the field. APA publishes JOHP; the journal is also associated with SOHP. OHP research also appears in other journals including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Science & Medicine, the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, the American Journal of Public Health, &c.

(d) APA, NIOSH, and SOHP run a large OHP-related conference biennially. EA-OHP runs another large OHP-related conference biennially. These two conferences are coordinated by their sponsoring organizations such that they now run on alternate years. ICOH-WOPS runs a major OHP-related conference every two to three years. OHP research appears at the annual meetings of APA and APS (I have presented OHP research at APS).

(e) As mentioned by Health Researcher, there is a large and growing body of research literature in OHP. There is also a large and growing corps of researchers dedicated to OHP. I count myself among them.Iss246 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We had the debate about the psychology sidebar. OHP is not subsumed neatly under health psychology. It is autonomous field that developed out of at least three separate fields, I/O psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. It has become an autonomous field with its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books.Iss246 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We had extensive discussions, and the consensus was clearly in favor of NOT adding it to the small sidebar, yet Iss246 added it anyway. -DoctorW 05:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A consensus did develop regarding OHP. In my view, DoctorW was excessive in giving the template a haircut.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you doctorW and others, it is very clear that iss246 never had consensus from any other editors to include Occ health psych into the psychology sidebar. But he instead went against consensus and did it anyway.

Iss says recently when questioned him..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago."

No iss246, it was not settled, with all due respect. You saying it had been settled is completely false and needs to be formally noted as being false. The Wikipedia Community should not be duped by you. According to the talk page comments on the Psychology Sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors over a 4 year period now, completely disagreed with you. That is, 'no consensus' to include. As one of these editors,DoctorW stated above in 2011, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was n o consensus, doesw not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direc t me and other editors/administrators to the szections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus. It has not been deleted. And i wont delete it until others can see the facts first. This is so I cannot be falsely accused again of edit warring. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I invite iss246 to make any comments here as part of the process to formally review you placing occ health psychology into the sidebar without any consensus. In fact,against consensus opinion from all other editors. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)"


This is what i could find. There may be further history in other archives. Readers should consider whether there is enough consensus, based on Wikipedia's guiding principles and policies and come to a resolution on this matter.
This is what i could find. There may be further history in other archives. Readers should consider whether there is enough consensus, based on Wikipedia's guiding principles and policies and come to a resolution on this matter.

Revision as of 09:15, 7 June 2013

WikiProject iconPsychology B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisability B‑class
WikiProject iconOccupational health psychology is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

If

If you are knowledgeable, please make a contribution to the occupational health psychology entry. Iss246 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Wikipedia is not a collection of links or an opportunity for advertising your favorite organizations, academic journals, or graduate school programs. I have therefore deleted all of this non-encyclopedic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information deleted helps define the subject matter. We should not vandalize Wiki entries under the rubric of combating spam. There is plenty of real spam to combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.65.232 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the list of "other periodicals" that OHP practitioners like to read, and the (incomplete) list of places to study OHP contribute to the encyclopedic nature of the article? Do you really think that the general reader will be unable to understand what OHP is, without a partial list of universities that offer advanced degrees on the topic?
Also, please note that these sorts of lists are expressly rejected by Wikipedia's guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iss246,

Here's the relevant rule:

"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."

When I look at the second and third paragraph of the article, I see a whole lot of external links used in the body of the article. I assume that you also see a whole lot of external links used in the body of the article. Having any external links like these in the body of the article is not appropriate by Wikipedia's style and content guidelines.

Therefore, this needs to be fixed. You have repeatedly objected to my efforts to improve the situation. How do you propose to make this article comply with the necessary guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the rules, and I am aware that you mean well by getting in touch with me. The rules don't cover every situation. The situation here is that of an emerging discipline within the broader landscape of psychology. The idea I am trying to stress is that in a nascent discipline, the journals, particularly given their cross-disciplinary character, and the organizations help the reader understand the outlines of the discipline. With a more mature discipline within psychology (e.g., social psychology), there would be little need to stress the journals and the organization. In the case of OHP, the organizations have been part of the historical development of the discipline.Iss246 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that OHP is still an emerging discipline, but why do we specifically need external links to the journals' websites in the introduction of this article? Isn't a list of the names of the journals sufficient for your stated purpose? Why aren't we linking to the Wikipedia articles for these journals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The journals underline the interdisciplinary character of OHP. The organizations are the only two in the world, to my knowledge, devoted to OHP. The organizations played an important role in the development of OHP. In fact, OHP's history is tightly intertwined with the two organizations. This is not the case with other disciplines within psychology such as social psychology. Iss246 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand my question. You appear to be insisting on this version:

OHP researchers and practitioners also consult a variety of other periodicals including, but not limited to, Social Science and Medicine, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, the American Journal of Public Health...

instead of this:

OHP researchers and practitioners also consult a variety of other periodicals including, but not limited to, Social Science & Medicine, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, the American Journal of Public Health...

Do you see the difference? Both versions list the journal names. However, only one version violates Wikipedia's rules about external links in the middle of articles.
My question for you is whether the journal's websites are actually necessary for the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are now working together. I largely took care of the paragraph with the journals. I will, over the next few weeks, create Wikipedia entries for the journals that are currently in red. I will also create Wikipedia entries for the organizations over the next few weeks. I'm very busy at work.

I encountered one difficulty, namely, the journal named Occupational Medicine has the same name as the Wikipedia entry for that subdiscipline of medicine. You are a very sharp-eyed Wikipedia editor. I would appreciate it if you would start the Wikipedia entry for Occupational Medicine (the journal). Then add a link in the third paragraph of the Occupational Health Psychology entry to the new entry Occupational Medicine (the journal).Iss246 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I set up a redlink for you in the article. You might find some of the templates listed here useful when creating articles. I suggest that you consider taking American Journal of Public Health as your model for the new stubs. Oh, and if you know the standard abbreviations (e.g., Am J Pub Health), then please feel free to set up redirects for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am going to make the changes over the month including developing journal stubs.Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I would like you to review the stub for Occupational Medicine (journal). It is the first time I started a journal stub.Iss246 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine, except that there are no references. If you have any (even if it's just the 'about us' page at the journal's website), then please add them. I have added a ref section that will automatically list any <ref>inline references</ref>. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page devoted to the American Journal of Public Health also lacks a reference section. I will add one. I added one reference to the new Occupational Medicine (journal). The reference needs editing.

I just wanted to say thanks for your work in creating those stubs. I know it takes time and can be fairly tedious. Also, we need to do the same things to the inappropriate links in the second paragraph as we did to the third. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created stubs for all the journals cited and the two organizations that play an important role in OHP.Iss246 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate description of courses

The following is currently on the article page and is totally misleading to readers. Please discuss iss246 who listed them. The facts follow,.....

Doctoral programs in I/O Psychology, Health Psychology, Applied Psychology, and other subfields (with units in Occupational Health Psychology)The truth is, that all of these Doctoral programs are in the I/O psychology field/discipline/faculty......There are only units/subjects/offered 'within' these I/O or Work psychology programs. No argument about this. It is a fact. Graduates of these programs will receive qualifications in I/O psychology NOT occ health psychology.

Further, the above section currently listed on the article, mentions health psychology, applied psychology and other subfields ... There are no current health, applied or other subfield doctoral degress ONLY in the broad overtarching disdcipline of I/O psycvhology. There are literally thousands of I/O postgraduate and undergrauate programs around the world.

importantly, and testament to the lack of important occ health psych has in the world of psychology, there are none, not one.. single... post gradsuate program in OHP anywhere, in the world.

Listing of, or giving the impression they exist, when they clearly don't, could be viewed by others as trying to deceive wikipedia readers, by creating a new discipline which does not exist within the psychology community. maybe even classified as bad faith!

The clear fact that no postgraduate programs dedicated solely to OHP, currently exist anywhere on the planet, is clear testament to this.

Universities globally, obviously do not consider occupational health psychology as a major discipline or a separate discipline at all, and any courses which does exist, are under the I/O program, which completely defuncts the myth being created.

Occupational health psych should not be included in the Psychology sidebar for this reason alone even separate to 4 years worth of other editors tyrying to make Iss246 understand this and that is our 'group consensus' over at least a 4 year, period.

I refer the reader to the separate section about iss246 going againmst consensus, as part of the talk page, detailed below.

The list below if the reader clicks on their link, on the current wikipideia article page, will take you through to websites for the I/O psychology programs toi view objectively and make your own mind up.

If iss246, or indeed anyone wishes to add to this discission, to make it more accurate, or whatever, I fully invite and encourage them to do this, please. I totrally welcome 'non agenda driven,' objective facts seeking, fellow Wikipedians. This section desperately needs an overhaul. Please view and discuss further on this page.

It is currently misleading and deceptive and AGENDA driven, mainly by iss246, who refuses n ow to answer to these questions of blatant article jamming against community consensus over 4 year period.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with iss246 - several of the OHP graduate programs are linked with I/O programs, but indeed provide training to Psychologists across subdisciplines of Psychology. For instance, the Bowling Green program also trains clinical Psychology graduate students, and engineering students take classes and participate in the programs at other institutions. OHP is not a sub-domain of I/O, but an interdisciplinary field closely with strong ties to Psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannainnaija (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado State University

I looked up CSU's program ( http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Psychology/iapr/ohp.shtml ) because I recently visited CSU and spent time with OHP graduate students at that institution. Some come from i/o as Mrm7171 indicates. Some come from applied social psychology. There may be an affiliation with another department but I don't remember. The faculty is diverse, coming from psychology, epidemiology, ergonomics, human development, environmental health sciences, and departments like construction (CSU graduate students are involved in safety and accident-prevention research). All the CSU OHP students are affiliated with NIOSH's Mountain States Education and Research Center (ERC).Iss246 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks iss246 Yes, there is one tertiary institution in the world, which offers units or subjects in their overall doctorate program other than just I/O Doctorate and Masters Degrees. It is indeed at Colorado USA.

However amazingly, on the Wikipideia article pages, including the Society for Occupational Health Psychology article page on Wikipedia you are possibly deceiving readers that programs exist, when they very obviously do not. If there was intentional deception to try and exaggerate the actual truth, then a case for bad faith, genuine bad faith may be made here?

ISS246,.... Can we delete now, or at least edit heavily, this section in both Wikipideia articles to bring the truth to bear here please ISS246? Mrm7171 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green State University Clemson University ; also see pages 5–6 of volume 8 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology Colorado State University ; also see pages 5–6 of volume 4 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology Kansas State University ; also see pages 5–6 of volume 9 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. this program is bgeing disconiuned even and should be deleted from the article immediately. Taken from their website.."We apologize, but this certificate is no longer available for new students." Portland State University; also see pages 8–10 of volume 5 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of Connecticut ; also see pages 8–10 of volume 6 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of Houston ; also see pages 10–11 of volume 7 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of South Florida; also see page 5 of volume 3 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of Texas at Austin

Importance

Subspecialties of psychology will never be high-importance for WPMED; in fact, it's possible that this article isn't even within the diseases-and-their-treatments scope of WPMED at all, but should instead belong solely to WP:PSY. Please read the project's assessment guidelines for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC) I removed the entry altogether from the WPMED given WhatamIdoing's suggestion that the entry isn't within the diseases-and-their-treatments scope.Iss246 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Workplace incivility and violence

The following sentence really annoys me: "Although one work-related homicide is too many, ..." It sounds like the type of rhetorical crap spewed forth from the depths of the OHS propaganda machine... get rid of it! It has no place in an encyclopedic article.... unless you wanted to rename the article "list of annoying OHS phrases that sound good, but mean nothing" HдLϋcń8 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work and mental disorder

Nothing about personality disorders, Aspergers, psychopathy, bipolar disorder etc. --Penbat (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no research suggesting that working conditions play a causal role in the development of personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, or bipolar disorder. Autism spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder have substantial genetic loadings. I am not that up on the research on personality disorders. The research cited on schizophrenia and working conditions does not contradict the hypothesis that there is a genetic loading for schizophrenia--the Link-Dohrenwend-Skodal study is consistent with the diathesis-stress model. Penbat, if you can find research linking working conditions to personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, or bipolar disorders, you should include that research in the OHP entry. But I recommend being careful to only cite research that employs high-quality methods and avoid more speculative papers or articles in the popular press. There is research linking work to more common disorders such as depression and alcoholism.Iss246 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links, one more time

Over two years ago there was discussion here of the Wikipedia rule that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article", and it seemed to me the understanding was that such external links should be removed. But they are still there under "Doctoral programs in OHP". I think sufficient time has passed. Before I begin unlinking, however, I would like to see if anyone who has worked on the article might want to undertake the task? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all the external links that were in the text of the entry. External links are where they should be, at the end of the entry in one section devoted to external links, which is appropriate. Where possible, external links were associated with the references, which is also appropriate because it helps readers find sources. The key is to remove external links from the text, and they have been removed (allowing for one or two stray links--I think I got to the strays too). The external links for doctoral programs take the reader to a detailed description of the programs. Many readers are college students, making those links, which are also at the end of the article, invaluable to them when they are exploring opportunities for a graduate education. Iss246 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. But there are external links in the text of the article. The section "Doctoral programs in OHP" is part of the text of the article. External links belong in the "External links" section, not the text of the article, per WP:ELPOINTS. Even if you feel they should stay where they are or that they are useful where they are, you need a consensus here to make such an exception. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest moving "Doctoral programs in OHP" to a subsection of "External links". That would solve the problem without having to remove the links. Cresix (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DONEIss246 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

URLs

A number of URLs changed. I updated the URLs one by one as I identified the changes.Iss246 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Changes by Mrm7171

Mrm7171 views OHP narrowly, as a specific province of I/O psychology. While some I/O psychologists have been concerned with health, other concerns have dominated I/O, including with personnel recruitment, organizational culture, job analysis, leadership, motivation in the workplace, organizational development, personnel selection, performance appraisal, psychometrics, employee compensation, training and the evaluation of training, counterproductive workplace behavior,job satisfaction, and job commitment. One can see this at the I/O psychology site. That some I/O psychologist have become interested in health is because of the emergence of occupational health psychology. Of course OHP stood not just on the shoulders of I/O psychology but also on the shoulders of health psychology and occupational medicine.

In paragraph 1, the debt of OHP to these other disciplines is acknowledged. Mrm7171 keeps inserting changes, some minor, and others more major, with the intention of making OHP a narrow province of I/O. That could be Mrm7171's point of view. I have kept inviting him to go to his talk page (I inlcuded a link to his talk page in the event he doesn't know about talk pages, to discuss the changes. He ignores my requests. I was hoping some other Wikepedians would intervene to impress on Mrm7171 that he should talk about changes he proposes.Iss246 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the original edits to OHC by Mrm7171 are not productive. Lots of material was deliberately deleted without any comment, and material that was added does not seem to care much about encyclopaedic standards beginning with the first sentence. As to a dialogue, it does not seem to look like Mrm7171 is willing to comment on his/her talk page or the article's talk page (except for the all-caps edit comments). As Iss246 seems to have background knowledge in the area, it should be a good idea for him/her, particularly regarding the points that Mrm7171 advocates in his/her edit comments, to produce sources which are suitable to support the respective claims. However, even if OHP should be considered a subfield of I/O Psy, the mere removal of whole sections on OHP does not make much sense. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment by 㓟. I/O psychology emerged out of social psychology and psychometrics. We don't look at I/O psychology as a subfield of those two fields. Health psychology emerged out of clinical psychology. We don't view health psychology as a subfield of clinical psychology. Occupational health psychology emerged out of the confluence of I/O and health psychology and occupational health. OHP is not a subfield of any of those three. It has its own journals and professional organizations. APA publishes an OHP journal.

I just returned from the biennial Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles. In response to the contentions made by Mrm7171, I asked a small number of individuals in the conference who had trained in I/O psychology if they thought OHP was a subfield of OHP. They all responded negatively. They pointed out that I/O psychology has concentrated its attention on such topics as job analyses, personnel recruitment, organizational culture, and so on. I/O-related research on health has been far less common. As a result, some I/O psychologists have begun to identify with OHP.

The individuals involved in OHP come from diverse disciplines including I/O psychology. Some OHP researchers come from health psychology. Some OHP researchers come from occupational health and occupational medicine. Others come from nursing. The leading figures in OHP who come from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) trained in experimental psychology. I have a doctorate in developmental psychology and a post-doc in epidemiology (I first had a research interest in children and adolescents, then a research interest in schools, and then a research interest in the teachers and what bad school conditions can do to their health). I state this to underline the fact that individuals in OHP come from diverse backgrounds, and have coalesced around the OHP and identify with OHP.

I prefer to have some dialogue with Mrm7171 about OHP rather than have him/her make many changes without consultation.Iss246 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Mrm7171, I invite you to a dialogue. In the spirit of cooperation, I am not going to change the edit you made on May 23, 2013, at 22:49, for now. OHP is not a subdiscipline of I/O psychology. You want to say that it is. It isn't. Let's talk about why you think it is and what your sources are. It is true researchers from I/O psychology have done OHP research as have researchers from health psychology, occupational medicine and nursing, and epidemiology.Iss246 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an opportunity to express a very important and long term issue quite separate from whgat are talking about and focusing on above and other places on Wikipedia. Please let's just agree to disagree on the subfield issue for a while. It is simply not so important and you have either misunderstood or misrepresented any opinion I may have, and focused on that topic rather thasn the real issue for Wikipideia that has been avoided for a long while.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]


OHP, the brand, versus occupational health psychology, the domain: not the same thing

A point which needs to be discussed on this page, is that there is a big difference between what seems in this article, to be referring to as 'OHP' (as it has been coined) groups/societies' which like any society, has rules, regulations, membership dues, an executive etc. etc. and then, in complete contrast... the general, broad areas of occupational health psychology and occupational stress. This valid point of distinction, should not be confused, and no-one should try and confuse it, and readers should be clearly aware of the big difference here. This article, for some reason has confused the two and seemingly has treated OHP as being the same as the broad domain of occupational health psychology?

That is, 1/... 'OHP' has been 'coined/branded by a group of individuals and has a couple of societies you keep quoting, these being "the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) & the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP), and have meetings etc etc...(which is fine) and 2/... there is the growing area of occupational health psychology itself and occupational stress, both of which no-one owns. They are broad areas, or domains, just like occupational health or occupational safety are broad areas or domains. Please add comments to this, if any editors disagree and let's discuss it.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think this Wikipedia article titled occupational health psychology, definitely needs to reflect this important difference between the two and NOT treat 'OHP' as an invented brand, synonymously with occupational health psychology, as it appears the couple of OHP groups do not own the field of psychology as it relates to occupational health or occupational stress. Open discussion as changes/edits need to be made to reflect this plain fact.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For 3 days now, i having been asking for a dialogue, so someone doesn't just delete my entry once i do it. If needed I will then show these actions i have taken to discuss it with anyone who wishes to and reach a possible consensus.

So I will place it firstly in the contents page and then within the occ health article itself, explaining this significant and important relationship I/O psych has woth occupational health and occupational stress, and an invite similar to "For more detail on I/O psychology, see the section I/O psychology so that readers can clearly identify it and be re-directed accordingly. I will do this today as it seems there are no reasonable objections. If there are please read my full section here oin the talk page and respond the number of points and logical reasoning i have put forward.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mrm7171's branding comment of 4 June 2013

Mrm7171 brought up branding. I wrote this on the Talk page for i/o psychology too. However, before I turn to that subject I want to say that I reject Mrm7171's accusation that I am hostile toward i/o psychology. My work on starting the SIOP encyclopedia entry speaks for itself. Let's turn to the accusation of branding. One could interpret the activities of the individuals involved in incorporating SIOP as being engaged in branding. In 1997, Milton Hakel, a leader in i/o psychology, wrote that "Incorporation as The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology was proposed to provide Division 14 with an independent and secure base, to sharpen our public identity, to increase member identification with our organization"[1] My guess that in Mrm7171's language that would be branding. Any time one wants to put a pejorative slant on the activities of others one does not like, one reduce those activities branding.

Talk about branding is baloney. Just as the work of of i/o psychologists to form SIOP has been worthwhile, the work involved in the development of OHP and the work involved in creating OHP-related institutions (e.g., ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, SOHP) represent the hard work of many people who conduct research, teach, form organizations, organize conferences, and so on. That Mrm7171 reduces all of that to branding, as if they are marketing a new color lipstick, is a disservice.Iss246 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Iss246 comments

Again, rather than attack me personally iss246, let's work on how to make this article better. Also forget the issues of branding through please iss246. I was talking about tyhe term 'OHP' being branded. We should refer to the psychology of occupational health or occupational health psychology as exactly that. Similar to job design or recruitment or occupational health or oh&s or ...However it is irrelevant here and against the principles of Wikipedia by going on about it. It was just a point.

If you wish to work on developing a page for the SIOP, which is the US society for I/O psych thats fine. However the point i made elsewhere was SIOP is only one of the international, albeit the largest, society group representing the fioeld of work psychology. There are other groups in other countries also. But if you do start an article for SIOP do it for the right reasons. Your comments about starting a SIOP page as 'proof you are not anti I/O psychology are questionable.'Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't personally accuse me of focussing only on the I/O psychology and occupational health psych articles. I am tiring of you personally attacking me. I am taking time from my own working/personal life to improve Wikipedia and doing it in good faith! I have stated this before and refrained from any attacks on you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have only recently joined the Wikipedia community. I think it is great. And while it took a bit of time to learn the rules, I believe i am now adding value to the community, in areas I have a fair degree of experience. I would not edit others work in articles/areas I personally know nothing about.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, no-one, no society, no profession, owns the psychology of occupational health, or occupational stress. Further it is not a separate field to the broad area of work psychgology. It is just a 'domain' of the psychology profession/discipline, involved in the workplace, just as job design, performance management etc etc are. I have no idea why anyone would say it was separate to work psychology? That goes against logic and does the psychology profession an injusticeMrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, you cannot research or just as importantly apply, interventions properly, without a knowledge also of other aspects of work psychology. They are all interrelated. That is, the psychological health of workers relates strongly to stress which relates to job design, which relates to recruitment and so on....

My point has simply been, the field of psychology most suited to these workplace issues and the health and wellbeing of humans at work is work psychology. That does not say other interested researchers cannot contribute to the field of occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However iss246, and on a practical note please, and how we can work together here as i am trying to do, to make these articles better for the community, you continue to avoid a number of clear points i have continued to raise. Please respond as sooin as possible to these points as I am going to attempt to make some much needed edits and trust when i do you don't just delete them. The fact is, to date, you have simply not shown why I should otherwise.

I also think if edits are to be made to 'any' specific Wikipedia article, they should be done by editors with experience and knowledge of the article they are editing? You have openly admitted your background is in educational/child psychology and epidemiology? Please correct me if wrong. I am not saying you cannot edit. I am encouraging it. But please don't think you can avoid a proper discussion here with me on the valid points raised, and then go ahead and delete any article edits/additions I do make in the near future.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

2/ You have not addressed the fact that, apart from one program in applied psychology, all other doctorate and masters programs, listed at the bottom of this occupational health psych article, are in fact, subjects/units in the I/O doctorate and masters programs where students receive a qualification in I/O psychology. The article needs to reflect this by giving the title of each program from each univeristy/institution listed.

3/ There needs to be a link in this occ health psych article back to the I/O psychology article discussing the significant relationship between I/O psychology and occupational health. They are very much related.

Let's just work together here iss246 and any other editors, to make these articles more accurate, current and of real value to readers who may not have the knowledge of work psychology and in this article the psychological aspects of occupational health.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editors summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar. I encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly disagreed with Iss246 including it. He just went ahead and did it anyway!

This was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

Response to Mrm7171

1. I am not attacking you but I found the comment about branding insulting. All my colleagues' work in creating organizations, journals, conferences, etc. boil down to Madison Ave.

2. I already pointed out that the Colorado State University program in OHP is cross-disciplinary and is not housed in the i/o department. I also point out that the OHP program at Portland State University is open to students in i/o, social, and developmental psychology. The i/o program at the University of House IS housed in the i/o program, which you probably cheers you; however, students from public health, engineering, and other disciplines also take courses in it. How do I know? I gave a talk there and know faculty at UH.

My suggestion here is that I include the current, accurate title of these qualifications for each of the universities/institutions as of today, so they are current. I have noted some references to the year 2001, that's all. I quote from another related article society for occupational health psychology..."By 2001, there were OHP graduate programs at 11 US universities. By including this 12 year old statement, it is very misleading to readers, without reference to the current set of courses and what those courses/title of those courses actually are today.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Why question my work on SIOP? At least I work on something other than OHP. I did not want to work on that entry but I felt obligated because the link to it on the i/o page was in red, which means there was no entry. It is a lot of work to create an entry. It means locating publications, reading them, writing, re-writing, re-re-writing, and re-re-re-re-writing (that's the way I write).

I was wondering why you mentioned your work on the article. It had no relevance to our edits. That's all. Wikipedia editing is voluntary and should be enjoyable. So if you think it is too much work, don't do it. But please don't be sarcastic/attacking of me by saying and assuming directly above.."At least I work on something other than OHP." I also am working on I/O psychology entry. But isn't that my business?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also working on occupational health psychology article, not the terms OHP, which I don't recognise.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. I admitted my background. I don't think I never indicated that my background was in "child psychology." The term is anachronistic. I believe that I used the term "developmental psychology." But since you have been studying my background, you may know it better than I do. What's your background? You've made me curious, since you know mine.

5. OHP has significant relationships with i/o and health psychology and medicine and epidemiology. I don't think you are concentrating on i/o psychology. I think you are training your guns on OHP. It is as if you are on a campaign to take OHP down.

6. In 1954, Case, Hosker, Mcdonald, and Pearson published a retrospective cohort study in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine in which they showed that workers in the English dye industry were at greater risk for developing bladder cancer than workers in other sectors or the English population in general. Just because they conducted a study based on workplace exposures does not make the study i/o psychology. But what if they had used as their outcome DSM-IV or -V major depression or one of the anxiety disorders? Would research on the exposure to chemical dyes and mental disorder make the study an i/o study? No. What if their exposure variable were job insecurity or unemployment experience?

7. Or what about Kuper and Marmot's 2003 study on the impact of the combination of low decision latitude and high job demands (called job strain) and coronary heart disease? Is that i/o psychology? I don't think so. I think it lends itself more to OHP. Of course segments of the i/o literature would be relevant. But so would segments of the health psychology literature and the epidemiology literature. OHP has multiple roots. It is not right to say that one root dominates it.Iss246 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC) So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:[reply]

=Response to iss246

Iss246, once again, you have almost completely avoided my topics clearly marked for discussion. I am concerned that you refuse to discuss editing and just want an argument? You are becoming sarcastic, in my opinion, and presuming things or 'hidden meanings,' when honestly, none exist, and when I am trying to avoid doing the same.

But, i do want to make some changes/edits to the areas outlined. I don't want to be deleted afterwards, when you have refused to discuss them.

Wikipedia is not your personal website, nor is it mine, or anyone else's personal website, where they have much more control/freedom over content. It is an international community resource. And a very good one, i believe.

Apologies for referring to developmental psych as "educational/child psych." That was my recollection, without trying to find where you told me that? However given you brought it up, developmental psychology is very much related to educational psychology, thus my reference to educational/child psych. That's all! Apart from that, I don't care to be honest. Believe me, I'm not that interested in your training. So no offence intended. Let's move on please, with all due respect.

I stated before, no-one 'owns' occupational health psych or the psychological aspects of occupational/work health. It is just a domain. An area of work psychology, like performance management, job design, occupational stress etc etc. I make the point again. You cannot effectively consider occupational health psychology, without considering the full holistic picture, which includes many areas of work psychology. I do believe work psychologists are obviously in a gooid position in that regard.

I am concerned though by your comments iss246, and you avoiding edit discussions by instead making comments like.. For example, " All my colleagues work in creating organizations, journals, conferences, etc. boil down to Madison Ave." Your colleagues? The psychology of occupational health is part of work and the psychology of the workplace. It is not just for you iss246 and/or 'your' colleagues. And the Wikipedia article is as much mine, as it is yours, or any other editor in the community. You need to understand that. And you need to understand that if I or any other editor wishes to make changes, you need to let them, or discuss why in detail you oppose the changes.

I have no idea why you are so defensive of the occupational health psychology? Why you do not discuss editing? Why you believe you have authority over shared, community articles? Why your experience in developmental psych, as you say, is more relevant than my extensive experience and training in work psychology? I only ever comment on areas I know about. Both in life, and now Wikipedia.

Anyway, these questions are much less important than the actual editing discussion we need to have, before i go ahead and make some much needed changes and additions to the articles. I thought my last detailed post could not have made my intentions any clearer, so i again will paste this last part of my detailed section in full. My genuine apologies to other readers for repetion. Mrm7171 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

2/ You have not addressed the fact that, apart from one program in applied psychology, all other doctorate and masters programs, listed at the bottom of this occupational health psych article, are in fact, subjects/units in the I/O doctorate and masters programs where students receive a qualification in I/O psychology. The article needs to reflect this by giving the title of each program from each univeristy/institution listed.

3/ There needs to be a link in this occ health psych article back to the I/O psychology article discussing the significant relationship between I/O psychology and occupational health. They are very much related.

Let's just work together here iss246 and any other editors, to make these articles more accurate, current and of real value to readers who may not have the knowledge of work psychology and in this article the psychological aspects of occupational health.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


ISS246 gone against clear consensus

ISS246, I am much more concerned about you blatantly going against consensus in the applied psychology section of the psychology sidebar from 2009 until the present.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was despite at least 6 other editors over many years, it now seems, strongly disagreeing with you and presenting sound evidence and logic behind their well based and accurtate opinions. You ISS246 instead went straight ahead anyway and blatantly against clear consensus not to. Your re-entry in the OHP psychology sidebar, was made against all other editors (I refer any other readers to the Talk Page for Psychology and the Psychology Sidebar) Please post your answer to that.

Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show please, with all due respect ISS246, where others agreed you shoul include occupational health psychology, into to the psychology sidebar?

Please ISS246, instead of undoing mine and other editor's valid and unique additions, please discuss first... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. Please could you explain why the Psychology Sidebar should have an OHP entry in the Applied Psychology section? based solely on the clear, long term consensus of all other editors? If there is clear consensus, the entry should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHP should not be in the sidebar. These are the facts.

I am patiently asking why you iss246 won't respond to this issue and what you did and the actions you took violating Wikipidea consensus. I am asking you again please, why the Wikipideia project and community should not delete the entry you have 'jammed in' for want of a better word, to the Psychology Sidebar and entry and the sidebar and entry under Applied Psychology?

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between ISS246 and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly as mentioned, on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else.

This critical issue of deciding on the possible deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. Hi Iss246. Can you answer to this important issue only please? Any other issues aside please, while we look at facts and the facts on the WQikipideia project rules and guiding principles please.

I am patiently asking why you won't respond to this issue and what you did and the actions you took violating Wikipidea consensus.

I am asking you again please, why the Wikipideia project and community should not delete the entry you have 'jammed in' for want of a better word, to the Psychology Sidebar and entry and the sidebar and entry under Applied Psychology?

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, 4 years in fact, well before I became a member, clearly and strongly objected to you placing ocuupational health psychology on this psychology page under applied psychology? You went against all others and the overwhelming consensus. You are now avoidin g what you did. Clearly the entry needs to be deleted from the important psychology and applied psychology sidebar.

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged, please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the Psychology and Applied Psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and forcefully added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, between 2009 and until today (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you ISS246 or any other editor, but I am open for discussion and logic and fairness on this important issue. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me iss246, and focus on the issue of possible and deletion of the occupational health psychology entry from the Psychology sidebar and Applied Psychology section within it based on clear consensus within the community.

As a side note, all I can ask, is that you stop undoing my edits and participate here please. That's up to you obviously. This is not a private website but instead is a community project and has no room for personal agendas, Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrm717, good that you came to the right place to discuss the changes you like to make. It is best not to make edits to the article anymore, before you reach a consensus with the other contributors here. Again, I reverted your most recent addition (probably made before you saw this), and gave you a final warning.
All, please, don't forget to use proper indenting of your messages here, as is explained in wp:talk page formatting. Happy discussing and editing and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mrm7171

I have responded to your queries with answers about the programs at Portland State, Colorado State, the U of Houston. I showed that OHP is a subject that emerged out of the confluence of other disciplines the way i/o psychology and health psychology have done previously. But that wasn't enough for you.

You called me on my background. I responded. You have yet to respond to my query about your background.

You said that I treated OHP as a private web site. I admit that I made most of the contributions contributions up until now. Others have contributed. An editor contributed a section on the relation of work to the personality disorders. The contributor had an interesting point because much of the OHP research has concentrated on psychiatric disorders such as depression, and not the personality disorders. Personality disorders could affect job functioning including behavior at work that could affect the health and well-being of coworkers.

Also bear in mind that I made the most contributions to the SIOP entry too. Does that mean I own it? I don't think so. I made the largest number of contributions to the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. Does that mean I own it? I don't think so. Ditto Health Psychology (journal). Ditto the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Does that mean I own it? I don't think so. I don't need to go on.

To paraphrase the words of Wayne Morse when he was attacked by a political rival, I respond that we've talked about me. Now lets' talk about you. You came onto Wikipedia like an ingenue, asking fellow Wikipedians to forgive your artlessness. But you knew exactly what you were doing. You came on strong with a campaign against OHP. You had one goal: to knock down OHP. You haven't done anything else on Wikipedia. You haven't contributed to any other encyclopedia entry except to detract from OHP. You haven't started a new entry. When I asked for help with the SIOP entry, you the big defender of i/o psychology, did nothing. You made some kind of "defensive" comment about SIOP (to bat around a word you like to use). You wrote on the i/o talk page in response to my request for help on the SIOP entry, "However there are other large groups around the world representing I/O psych, not just SIOP. So any future article would need to involve them as well I guess. In my opinion at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)" Why don't you write about those large groups, and give them encyclopedia entries? But doing that would remove you from your campaign against OHP.Iss246 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ISS246

Iss246, again...can we keep focused on articles here please and focused on editing and improving these articles. Also, I'm not an academic or your political rival. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia. Instead of encouraging new editors (albeit those with a different point of view) you attack me. You are classically deflecting here iss246. I just want to focus on edits and making these I/O psychology and occupational health psychology articles accurate, current, free from any political dogma and of real benefit to readers. There is still a lot of work to be done on these articles instead of jumping to other articles 'ad hoc.' That's my point of view at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All editors are equal. We all need to work 'together' as equals, regardless of how much time one editor decides voluntarily to have contributed to articles. And respect each other's opinions and suggestions and additions. And if we disagree not to just delete them.

And we don't need to tell other editors what articles they should be working on? That's not right either. Or judge, or put down other editor's valid contributions. I think editors also should, if, they want to that is, work on articles in which they have a degree of knbowledge and at 'their own pace.' And above all, work within the guideliness of Wikipedia and the community spirit of consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to 'OHP?' What is OHP? Is OHP different to the psychology of occupational health? What exactly is this 'OHP' you keep referring to? I just pasted your above statement iss246, you said..."I showed that OHP is a subject that emerged out of the confluence of other disciplines the way i/o psychology and health psychology have done previously." With all due respect, this does not make much sense? Very confusing? What are you trying to do to the discipline and profession iss246? Please discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do though, recognise the important domains/areas of the psychology of occupational health and occupational stress. Again, these are just domains/areas, not disciplines. Not disciplines within psychology that is. And that is what we are discussing here. And they are valid areas to study and then to also 'apply' research findings in the workplace. Let's discuss this, if you disagree, I am genuinely interested in discussion here, not personal attacks, nor discussing me, or you, iss246, or anyone other individual editor on Wikipedia, for that matter.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Focus on editing please

So, and moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

I only am going to ask this one more time before i attempt to make much needed edits, some deletions and comments. There is no point discuusing anything further because you only 'deflect' away from these editing issues. With all due respect, and I don't mean to sound in any way offensive but I do not want to discuss your background, or you, or me, or any other editors personal world. You have decided to keep mentioning your academic background, what universities you have taught at, your colleagues, your societies, etc. etc... honestly, who cares...I'm sorry this is Wikipedia.

It is not your personal website either iss246. I have made this point before. Readers are not concerned about your's or mine, or anyone else's personal world. Don't ask me again. I never asked you. Just because you have put a lot of your own opinions on various articles, does not mean any other editors have less control, or influence, or opinion, or power to add/delete/edit any articles as you do.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are all equals on the Wiki community, which makes it such a great resource . Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So please for the last time lets focus on my precise, objective, valid clear points of difference made below.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

    • Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of again cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editor's summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar.

I again encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly agreed NOT to include it. But iss246 just went ahead and did it anyway! The following was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DoctorW's comments in 2011.... "Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

Response to Mrm7171

Yes. DoctorW and I had a debate about OHP. But OHP is there in the sidebar. Mrm7171 you are on a mission to take down OHP no matter what.

Objective history of iss246 and many other editors discussions on the psychology talk page since 2008

No iss246, I am not a mission to 'take down' OHP, no matter what, for the last time!

Occupational stress and occupational health (either physical or psychological health), belong to no one profession, or group or society. Occupational health is a very valid, important domain to study. So is the psychology and physiology of occupational health. So is occupational stress, which relates so significantly to occupational health (both physical and psychological health that is). I am NOT trying to destroy that.

So WHAT the heck are you accusing me of? What exactly am I trying to take down? A society or group of people trying to take the global domain of work stress or occupational health, away from everyone else, and call it their own? Is that it? and downplay the obvious relevance of I/O psychogy to these areas/domains?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you are becoming far too personal toward me as a Wikipedia editor iss246. Continuing to focus on me, and about me personally concerns me. Please stop doing that. I am just again, like others have tried since 2008 to do, 'stand up for the consensus' on a few basic issues for the sake of objectivity and not re-inventing the wheel nor creating duplication or confusion for psychology. As many others in the Wikipedia community since 2008, have also discussed strongly with, I do not think that occupational health psychology should be in the applied psychology sidebar. It is just my opinion though. One of many it seems, each editor since 2008 having their own objections.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, all I am saying is that I/O or Work psychology, and I/O or Work Psychologists have always been heavily involved in research and the application of work stress to improve both personal wellbeing and organizational effectiveness. Period. It appears from some postings that the society of OHP? invented work stress? or takes credit for the area?

And the study of occupational stress in my opinion, cannot be properly studied or applied for real benefit, without a holistic understanding and consideration of all domains that fall under the I/O banner, eg..recruitment, performance management, job design, training and development etc etc. These topics/areas/domains are what I/O psychology is all about. By having a holistic, thorough understanding of these domains and their interrelatedness, truly effective organizational and individual interventions in the workplace can then be applied to improve both the organization AND the life, health, safety and wellbeing of the individual worker.

Surely anyone reading this can understand my point, if they look at the facts? Instead of attempting to distort my words.

However you have worn me out at present, Iss246, as it appears you have done with others over the years, through your personal attacks, assumptions, setting me up for early falls, trying to get me barred because I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia properly, through your knowledge of Wikipedia, and accusing me of bad faith. All the while i have attempted at least, to refrain from attacking you and trying to focus on the facts and act in good faith. I am just trying to provide the Wikipedia community with the objective facts in the area of I/O psychology, and its relationship to the areas of occupational stress and occupational health.

Anyway, after this comment you posted above, I have simply copied and pasted a large part of the history of editors disagreeing with iss246 over including Occ health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar. Readers cvan read through the debates iss246 has had with over the years and then make their own minds up. I am just one editor who has entered this ongoing debate/discussion with iss246 that has been ongoing since 2008!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of iss246 and the numerous editors who opposed him, follows:.....

This is not the place to discuss user behaviour. Please use user talk pages for that

Note - content added with this edit was removed, since the talk page had become entirely disrupted. See page history. This is not the place to discuss this. Please use user talk pages to discuss user behaviour. - DVdm (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what i could find. There may be further history in other archives. Readers should consider whether there is enough consensus, based on Wikipedia's guiding principles and policies and come to a resolution on this matter.


Any evidence on why it belongs that I present you ignore.

What are your criteria for being on the sidebar? My criteria are (a) the existence of a growing body of research [there is a ever-growing body of research in specialty journals dedicated to OHP and to nonspecialty journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and the American Journal of Public Health); (b) the presence of journals dedicated to the subject (the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress); (c) the presence of organizations devoted to the subject matter (ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, SOHP); (d) recognition by a major psychology governing body (the APA, particularly the public interest directorate); (e) international conferences devoted to the subject matter (EA-OHP conference series, the Work, Stress, and Health sponsored by APA-NIOSH-SOHP, and the ICOH-WOPS conference).

I have criteria to help me decide what belongs on the sidebar. You by your silence on the matter shows you have no criteria other than old debates. Your silence on the matter of your expertise shows that have little expertise, and that you are doing no more than running a campaign against OHP. To underline that your are running a campaign, you do nothing else on Wikipedia than harp on OHP. You don't create new entries. You don't help build existing entries (e.g., like the recently started SIOP entry). You give a mealy mouthed response as to why you don't build in the SIOP entry. You have nothing else to do but serve that one master who tells you take down OHP.Iss246 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mrm7171

Mrm7171 is the Napoleon of Wikipedia. S/he is on a campaign against OHP. Given the above, the campaign looks Napoleonic in scale. S/he does not do one other thing on Wikipedia except campaign against OHP. S/he won't lift a finger to help with the editing of the recently started SIOP entry although s/he is a purported supporter of i/o psychology. S/he won't start an entry devoted to other i/o organizations. I guess s/he is waiting for others to do the work. How can this eager beaver contribute to another subject on Wikipedia? S/he is too busy working to detract from OHP.

Why do I think OHP is a discipline that has emerged within psychology. Here is a list of criteria for judging whether a discipline has emerged. I know I am repeating myself but I go into slightly more detail on the criteria.

1. There is a growing body of research.

2. There are journals dedicated to the subject.

3. There are organizations dedicated to the subject.

4. The subject is recognized by an important governing body in psychology.

5. There are conferences devoted to the subject.

I review the criteria one at a time in more detail than previously.

1. There is a growing body of research. The research covers such areas as the impact of workplace psychosocial factors on coronary heart disease, blood pressure, ulcers, etc. The research also examines the impact of these factors on mental disorders such as depression and on high levels of psychological distress in the absence of depression and the impact of violence exposure and psychological aggression in the workplace. The OHP examines the relation of workplace psychosocial factors to accidents. Other topics include work-to-home carryover of deleterious effects. Other research topics include the influence of person factors such as depression, personality disorders, etc. on workplace conditions. I will stop here.

2. The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress are dedicated to OHP. However, other journals such as the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Psychosomatic Medicine, and the American Journal of Public Health also publish OHP research to name just a few.

3. Three professional organizations are closely linked to OHP. There are the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP), the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), and the International Commission on Occupational Health's scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS).

4. The American Psychological Association recognizes OHP. The APA together with NIOSH have jointly sponsored an international conference series devoted to OHP research and practice. The APA's Public Interest Directorate plays a major role in OHP. APA publishes the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

5. The APA and NIOSH, and now with SOHP, run one of the major international conference series devoted to OHP. The EA-OHP also runs a major international conference series devoted to OHP. Finally, ICOH-WOPS runs a major international conference series devoted to OHP.

OHP has emerged as a field of research and study.Iss246 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trained in OHP

I believe the content of this article needs to be maintained fully. OHP is not a subdivision of IO Psychology. Having been trained in an OHP program I can assure the community that I received training that was distinctly different than if I had received a masters/PhD in IO Psychology. I took classes in psychology (i.e., social, IO), ergonomics, epidemiology, and industrial hygiene. As a member of the education research center, I got the opportunity to work on a number of applied research projects with individuals in occupational medicine, health physics, ergonomics, industrial hygiene, and environmental and occupational health. I work for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and have collaborated with anthropologists and other psychologists. I lead a OHP newsletter focused on safety and health research projects in my region. My experience is unique from what I would have received attending an IO program.

OHP is a relatively new field in Psychology. It has grown in the last couple of decades, but compared to other areas of psychology, OHP is still in its infancy. As an OHP trainee, much of my research has focused on the health, safety, and well-being of individuals in the workforce and community. OHP is rooted in a multidisciplinary approach to solving real-world problems. I think it is necessary as an OHP psychologist to understand various perspectives to improve the quality of peoples' lives. As an OHP trainee, I believe I would have the knowledge and skills to address a number of issues which may compromise the safety and health of individuals in the work environment. I have no agenda.

Sometimes I think that researchers devote too much of their time in a world of semantics. Occupational Health Psychology exists and I am a product of this area of psychology. There may be more IO psychologists than OHP psychologists - but that may simply be a product of the newness of this field. For example, in the world of work, more employers may recognize "IO psychologist" rather than "OHP psychologist". Perhaps it may be beneficial for you to speak with other self-identified OHP researchers before assuming that something that OHP is merely a subdivision of IO. That being said, I can assure you that I am an OHP psychologist.

Development of the SIOP entry and creating an encyclopedia entry for the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology

Mrm7171, we should stop arguing about OHP and turn the page to other aspects of Wikipedia. I think it is important that the SIOP entry be further developed. I think SIOP is one of the most important professional organizations in i/o. If you think it would be helpful to readers to start an entry for another i/o-related organization, which you already alluded to, that would be a productive way to proceed. The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology is not represented on Wikipedia. For some reason I think you Mrm7171 are from Australia (I'm probably wrong), but there is the APS's College of Organisational Psychologists, which I also don't think is represented because the word "college" may throw some readers off track.Iss246 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Hakel, M. D. (1997). Why incorporation looked (and still looks) attractive. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 34(3), 77-79.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupational_health_psychology&oldid=558732089"