User:Robert McClenon/Psychology Dispute

=Psychology Dispute=

Seventh statement by moderator
Now that there has been extended discussion, will each editor please summarize briefly what they propose and what they agree with and disagree with? Be concise. We would like to get this resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors
User:WhatamIdoing and User:User:Robert McClenon, the above sections of the Noticeboard can be confusing. I want to provide you with clarity. Here is what I propose.

1. In the occupational stress entry, I would replace the current section entitled "Occupations" with the much briefer section I wrote on this page that I entitled "Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice." It now has the vertical green line to its left. Thank you WhatamIdoing for inserting that vertical green line. It is helpful.

2. I would also delete the second paragraph of the lead ("A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, [3] human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology [4][5][6]."). It was in there that Sportstir inserted the word "particularly" in front of industrial and organizational psychology to give it prominence above the other disciplines. The sources that he cited, of which I read all, don't support the view that i/o psychology is the leader among all other fields in occupational stress research and practice. This is not the place to pick a winner. Each of the professions I enumerated in the compact replacement paragraph marked by the green vertical line is concerned with occupational stress.

3. In the industrial and organizational psychology entry, the last sentence of the section entitled "Occupational health and well-being" reads as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Although OHP is descended from i/o psychology, it is not descended from i/o psychology alone. Historical accuracy is important, as is brevity.

Finally, Sportstir cites Prof. Spector for justifying yet another edit of what I wrote. Prof. Spector's recent blog indicates, if anything, that i/o psychology came late to the problem of occupational stress (http://paulspector.com/organizational-behavior/employee-mental-and-physical-health/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/).

I would like to keep the sentence about the descent of OHP the way I wrote it without Sportstir changing my edit. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Eighth Statement by Moderator
Okay. I am trying to capture what is being discussed and requested. Will the editors please state whether they agree. I would at least like to get specific points of disagreement that can be put to RFC. If I can't get the editors to agree even on what the choices are, this will be failed, and will probably wind up at WP:ANI, which will just be sort of random as to who gets topic-banned, so please at least let me know whether we can summarize what the disagreement is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Point 1:

Change Occupations to Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice

Point 2: Delete second paragraph of lede.

Point 3: I don't understand what is being requested.

Sorry User:Robert McClenon. I should have been clearer about Point 3. I request that Sportstir continue to desist from reverting the following sentence I wrote in the i/o psychology entry (found at the conclusion of the section of the section on occupational health and well-being): "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Iss246 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon I have not referred to this other editor above because you said if either of us do we will be interaction banned but this other editor keeps referring to me and ignoring your warning. I totally disagree with the wording proposed by this other editor for the reasons I've mentioned. Sportstir (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement 8.5 by moderator
Will the editors please indicate, below, whether they agree on point 1 or whether they agree to disagree on point 1. Will the editors please indicate whether they agree on point 2 or whether they agree to disagree on point 2. If there is agreement to disagree, we can have a Request for Comments. If there is agreement, that is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Point 3. In the i/o psychology entry, I would like to maintain this sentence because it is historically accurate: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Iss246 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am all for a Request for Comments. The preferred wording that Psyc12 suggested and their reasoning behind it should be compared with any other option. IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology. Sportstir (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice
Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We are going around in circles. Can we have a request for comments on this edit as well? We would need to alert all interested psychology editors who have a good knowledge of the psychology profession. Sportstir (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Anything Else by Iss246
Item 1. In the occupational stress entry, I would change the name of the section currently called "Occupations" to "Professions that address occupational stress in research and practice."

The title "Occupations" is vague and could be misinterpreted to refer to occupations that are stressful.

I would replace the text that is currently under the title "Occupations" with this new, shorter description of the professionals who address occupational stress in research and practice.

"Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health."

In the interest of conserving space here, I would enter the references after this disagreement is settled.

Item 2. Given that the matter is taken up more completely in Point 1, I would delete the second paragraph of lead of the occupational stress entry. That paragraph reads as follows: A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, [3] human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology [4][5][6].

Item 3. In the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry, I would like to maintain, although it has been challenged, the following sentence because it is historically accurate: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

The genealogy of OHP is that it derives from three disciplines. I want to avoid making it seem to readers that OHP completely derives from i/o psychology or overlaps substantially with i/o psychology. In fact, Paul Spector, a world-leading i/o researcher, indicated that i/o psychology came late to the study of work, stress, and health. 

I add the following as a postscript. What I have written above is informed by a substantial knowledge base. I am a research psychologist and a professor of psychology. I have more than 12,000 WP edits. Most, but not all, of my edits pertain to psychology. I have edited the entries on occupational stress, occupational burnout, industrial and organizational psychology, health psychology, occupational health psychology, fluid and crystallized intelligence, psychometrics, the psychologist Isidor Chein, the child psychiatrist David Shaffer, the psychologist David McClelland, the International Personality Item Pool, the Pygmalion effect, school violence, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Work & Stress, and more (see my User Contributions). My edits are informed edits. I have access to almost every psychology journal and many psychology books.