We applaud the efforts of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) in launching much-needed dialogue on gender representation within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that it is imperative to address inequity in our profession, beginning with an informed assessment of accurate information. However, the focal article did not offer any information on the representation of a group that too often goes unnoticed: women of color.Footnote 1
According to the model of intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008), women of color are often overlooked because they possess multiple marginalized identities and hence are perceived as non-prototypical members within their own identity groups (e.g., women). As a result, this model indicates that women of color (and other groups that have multiple stigmatized identities) struggle to be represented and recognized. Indeed, past research suggests that women of color are heavily underrepresented across many different fields and influential positions in the United States (McKinsey & Company, 2017; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010).
The extent to which this applies to our profession is unclear. We extend the focal article by exploring an unanswered question: Where are the women of color in I-O psychology? As a profession that claims to value inclusion and diversity, this is an important issue worthy of investigation. Accordingly, the aim of our commentary is to provide data regarding the representation of women of color in our field and offer a number of recommendations for reducing racial and gender inequity.
Women of Color: Current State of Representation in I-O
Faculty
We sought to get a sense of the representation of women of color among I-O psychology faculty. To do so, both authors independently coded gender (male or female) and race (non-Hispanic White or minority) of full-time professors at the top-40 doctoral programs (as identified by Beiler, Zimmerman, Doerr, & Clark, Reference Beiler, Zimmerman, Doerr and Clark2014) by examining publicly available photos on program websites. Information for one doctoral program could not be obtained, leaving 39 programs available for analysis. A total of 245 faculty members were located. Both authors fully agreed on the coding of gender for all faculty members. However, the authors could not reach agreement on the coding of race for three faculty members. These three faculty (two were female) were excluded from the subsequent analysis. Out of the remaining 242 I-O psychology faculty members, 101 were coded as female (41.74%) and 23 were coded as women of color (9.50%).Footnote 2 In comparison, 20 faculty members were coded as men of color (8.26%).
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Membership
To gain a broader picture of the representation of women of color in our profession, we also examined their presence among the three largest SIOP membership types: Student Affiliates, Members, and Associates. We obtained a deidentified dataset that included information regarding members’ self-reported gender and ethnicity (J. Tegge, personal communication, March 12, 2018). We coded members as non-Hispanic White or minority based on their self-reported ethnicity. Considering only members who reported both gender and ethnicity, women of color made up 22.56% of Student Affiliates, 7.97% of Members, and 12.38% of Associates. In contrast, men of color made up 11.72% of Student Affiliates, 7.01% of Members, and 7.18% of Associates.
In line with the notion of the “leaky pipeline,” these numbers suggest that the representation of people of color declines at more advanced academic ranks. Women of color are especially underrepresented among I-O faculty when considering their sizable representation at the graduate student level. Furthermore, given that Associates tend to be full-time practitioners (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, Reference Silzer, Cober, Erickson and Robinson2008), our findings indicate that people of color may also be underrepresented among I-O practitioners.
Recognition
Consistent with the idea of intersectional invisibility outlined by Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008), individuals with multiple stigmatized group memberships (e.g., women of color) are often overlooked for opportunities to wield social influence. For example, previous social identity research suggests that these individuals are often missing from leadership positions because they do not fit the prototype associated with either of their stigmatized group identities (e.g., African Americans and women; Hogg, Reference Hogg2001). Therefore, an investigation of the recognition given to women of color in I-O psychology is key to understanding the extent to which this group is underrepresented in our field.
Using records and photos obtained from the SIOP website, we coded for race and gender of past presidents. Although 10 women have held the title of SIOP president, our analysis revealed that no woman of color has ever served in this position. However, three men of color have been elected SIOP president out of the 63 men that have held this title. We also examined the degree to which women of color are given recognition as SIOP award winners. We focused on representation of women of color among the most prestigious awards presented by SIOP, which included the Distinguished Professional Contributions Award, Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, Distinguished Service Contributions Award, Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award (Practice and Science), and the Distinguished Teaching Contributions Award. Using pictures from the SIOP website, faculty pages, and other online resources, we coded for race and gender of award winners and identified 35 women and 135 men award winners. We excluded seven of these award winners (two women and five men) from our analysis because we could not find photos of these individuals or were unable to reach consensus about their race. Out of the remaining 163 award winners, only two were classified as women of color (1.23%; one woman of color won the Distinguished Service Contributions Award and one woman of color won the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award in Science). In comparison, we identified 10 men of color award winners (6.14%; men of color have won the Distinguished Professional Contributions Award, the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award in Science, and the Distinguished Teaching Award). Notably, in recent years, men of color (but not women of color) have been recognized at a considerably higher rate. Out of the 57 total prestigious award winners since 2010, seven were men of color (12.28%) but only one was a woman of color (1.75%).
These results indicate that people of color are underrepresented in the most vital leadership position and prestigious awards associated with SIOP. Given that no man or woman of color has ever won the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award in Practice, our results suggest that people of color are also overlooked among practitioners. However, we cannot draw firm conclusions on this point due to limited demographic data on practitioners in I-O psychology. In line with the idea of intersectional invisibility outlined above, our results indicate that minority women have been given fewer opportunities to wield social influence in I-O psychology when compared to White women and minority men. The lack of recognition given to women of color has implications for the extent to which members of this group feel that their voices are heard in our field. Additionally, these results point to a lack of advancement for men and, especially, women of color in I-O psychology given that the position of president is largely held by tenured professors and industry executives. Possible steps to address these points will be discussed in the next section.
Recommendations
We extend the recommendations offered by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018), focusing on ways that we can better understand and address the underrepresentation of women of color in I-O psychology, particularly in influential positions throughout our field.Footnote 3 First, we reiterate the authors’ point that individual participation in SIOP data collection efforts will help our field overcome critical information gaps. We assert that one of these gaps is a lack of information regarding the underrepresentation of minority women in our field. Although we were able to obtain data tabulated by both gender and race by reaching out to the SIOP administrative office, much of the readily available data is not collected or tabulated in this way. For example, the SIOP Income and Employment Survey does not include data on race or ethnicity, and the SIOP 2017 Postconference Survey Report does not tabulate responses by both race and gender (e.g., Asian women), although results are calculated for each demographic group separately. Because this information gap prevents our field from being able to fully understand the factors that may or may not contribute to the underrepresentation of women of color, we recommend collecting and tabulating demographic data by both race and gender, and we encourage participation in such data collection efforts spearheaded by SIOP.
Although investigations conducted over a decade ago on SIOP racial/ethnic diversity indicated that the percent of minority student affiliates was around 3% (Quiñones & Author, Reference Quiñones and Arthur2005), our results paint a more optimistic picture regarding the current representation of women of color at the student level. However, the drop off in representation among professionals in I-O (e.g., faculty members and SIOP Members and Associates) provides evidence of a leaky pipeline between graduate school and academia/industry, particularly for women of color. Avery and Hysong (Reference Avery and Hysong2007) speculated about the possibility of a “chilling effect” within I-O psychology, such that minorities are disproportionately discouraged from furthering their involvement in the profession. Although this may be a plausible explanation for our observation regarding the low proportion of women of color at higher levels of I-O psychology, our findings cannot directly address this possibility. We recommend that a conscious effort be made toward better understanding potential biases and the experiences of women of color in our field at all levels of the pipeline.
In addition, the leaky pipeline may limit the extent to which women of color are given recognition in I-O by being elected as officials and chosen for prestigious awards. Given that few women of color occupy positions of authority and/or receive recognition in I-O, minority women have few potential mentors of similar backgrounds. Accordingly, our next set of recommendations builds on those made by Avery and Hysong (Reference Avery and Hysong2007) regarding the advancement of minority students and professionals in I-O. Because women, and especially women of color, are more likely to be isolated as they progress through their careers (Haslam & Ryan, Reference Haslam and Ryan2008; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010), we recommend mentoring and opportunities to build a network of support specifically for women of color through local and national connections. We encourage the use of programs like the newly formed SIOP Women's Inclusion Network (WIN) and the SIOP Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), which includes a mentoring program aimed at benefiting students from underrepresented minority groups. Additionally, because Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008) point out that advocacy groups often (unintentionally) primarily represent the needs of individuals with single stigmatized identities, we strongly encourage these committees to advocate on behalf of women of color by sharing opportunities and discussing issues relevant to this group.
Limitations
We acknowledge a number of limitations to our findings. First, given that some of our analyses involved coding photos obtained online for gender and race, certain numbers may be imprecise. This limitation underscores the importance of our recommendation concerning the improvement of data collection on both the gender and racial composition of SIOP. Second, our data regarding the representation of women of color among SIOP membership may be biased by the large proportion of members who elected not to provide demographic information (30.35% of Student Affiliates, 17.59% of Members, and 4.36% of Associates did not report gender; 50.63% of Students Affiliates, 29.28% of Members, and 46.60% of Associates did not report ethnicity). Moreover, although we suspect that representation and recognition of women of color are also low in other unexamined subsamples (e.g., faculty at business schools and I-O programs not included here, editors and published authors of I-O journals, SIOP fellows, other SIOP award winners), additional data should be collected to verify these claims. Given that we examined the representation of minority women among the most prestigious SIOP awards and top I-O programs, it is possible that there are more women of color represented in areas that were omitted from our analyses. Finally, as in the focal article, our data do not provide any clear causal explanations for the varying degrees of representation and recognition for women of color in our field.
Conclusion
Consistent with the notion of intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008), our results suggest that there is a sharp drop off in the representation of women of color between graduate school and academia/industry within I-O psychology. It is then unsurprising that members of this group are rarely recognized in our field. In order to acknowledge this often-forgotten group, we have proposed a number of possible strategies for addressing their underrepresentation and lack of recognition in the hopes that women of color will be included in conversations about gender inequity in I-O psychology.
You have
Access
We applaud the efforts of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) in launching much-needed dialogue on gender representation within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that it is imperative to address inequity in our profession, beginning with an informed assessment of accurate information. However, the focal article did not offer any information on the representation of a group that too often goes unnoticed: women of color.Footnote 1
According to the model of intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008), women of color are often overlooked because they possess multiple marginalized identities and hence are perceived as non-prototypical members within their own identity groups (e.g., women). As a result, this model indicates that women of color (and other groups that have multiple stigmatized identities) struggle to be represented and recognized. Indeed, past research suggests that women of color are heavily underrepresented across many different fields and influential positions in the United States (McKinsey & Company, 2017; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010).
The extent to which this applies to our profession is unclear. We extend the focal article by exploring an unanswered question: Where are the women of color in I-O psychology? As a profession that claims to value inclusion and diversity, this is an important issue worthy of investigation. Accordingly, the aim of our commentary is to provide data regarding the representation of women of color in our field and offer a number of recommendations for reducing racial and gender inequity.
Women of Color: Current State of Representation in I-O
Faculty
We sought to get a sense of the representation of women of color among I-O psychology faculty. To do so, both authors independently coded gender (male or female) and race (non-Hispanic White or minority) of full-time professors at the top-40 doctoral programs (as identified by Beiler, Zimmerman, Doerr, & Clark, Reference Beiler, Zimmerman, Doerr and Clark2014) by examining publicly available photos on program websites. Information for one doctoral program could not be obtained, leaving 39 programs available for analysis. A total of 245 faculty members were located. Both authors fully agreed on the coding of gender for all faculty members. However, the authors could not reach agreement on the coding of race for three faculty members. These three faculty (two were female) were excluded from the subsequent analysis. Out of the remaining 242 I-O psychology faculty members, 101 were coded as female (41.74%) and 23 were coded as women of color (9.50%).Footnote 2 In comparison, 20 faculty members were coded as men of color (8.26%).
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Membership
To gain a broader picture of the representation of women of color in our profession, we also examined their presence among the three largest SIOP membership types: Student Affiliates, Members, and Associates. We obtained a deidentified dataset that included information regarding members’ self-reported gender and ethnicity (J. Tegge, personal communication, March 12, 2018). We coded members as non-Hispanic White or minority based on their self-reported ethnicity. Considering only members who reported both gender and ethnicity, women of color made up 22.56% of Student Affiliates, 7.97% of Members, and 12.38% of Associates. In contrast, men of color made up 11.72% of Student Affiliates, 7.01% of Members, and 7.18% of Associates.
In line with the notion of the “leaky pipeline,” these numbers suggest that the representation of people of color declines at more advanced academic ranks. Women of color are especially underrepresented among I-O faculty when considering their sizable representation at the graduate student level. Furthermore, given that Associates tend to be full-time practitioners (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, Reference Silzer, Cober, Erickson and Robinson2008), our findings indicate that people of color may also be underrepresented among I-O practitioners.
Recognition
Consistent with the idea of intersectional invisibility outlined by Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008), individuals with multiple stigmatized group memberships (e.g., women of color) are often overlooked for opportunities to wield social influence. For example, previous social identity research suggests that these individuals are often missing from leadership positions because they do not fit the prototype associated with either of their stigmatized group identities (e.g., African Americans and women; Hogg, Reference Hogg2001). Therefore, an investigation of the recognition given to women of color in I-O psychology is key to understanding the extent to which this group is underrepresented in our field.
Using records and photos obtained from the SIOP website, we coded for race and gender of past presidents. Although 10 women have held the title of SIOP president, our analysis revealed that no woman of color has ever served in this position. However, three men of color have been elected SIOP president out of the 63 men that have held this title. We also examined the degree to which women of color are given recognition as SIOP award winners. We focused on representation of women of color among the most prestigious awards presented by SIOP, which included the Distinguished Professional Contributions Award, Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, Distinguished Service Contributions Award, Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award (Practice and Science), and the Distinguished Teaching Contributions Award. Using pictures from the SIOP website, faculty pages, and other online resources, we coded for race and gender of award winners and identified 35 women and 135 men award winners. We excluded seven of these award winners (two women and five men) from our analysis because we could not find photos of these individuals or were unable to reach consensus about their race. Out of the remaining 163 award winners, only two were classified as women of color (1.23%; one woman of color won the Distinguished Service Contributions Award and one woman of color won the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award in Science). In comparison, we identified 10 men of color award winners (6.14%; men of color have won the Distinguished Professional Contributions Award, the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award in Science, and the Distinguished Teaching Award). Notably, in recent years, men of color (but not women of color) have been recognized at a considerably higher rate. Out of the 57 total prestigious award winners since 2010, seven were men of color (12.28%) but only one was a woman of color (1.75%).
These results indicate that people of color are underrepresented in the most vital leadership position and prestigious awards associated with SIOP. Given that no man or woman of color has ever won the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award in Practice, our results suggest that people of color are also overlooked among practitioners. However, we cannot draw firm conclusions on this point due to limited demographic data on practitioners in I-O psychology. In line with the idea of intersectional invisibility outlined above, our results indicate that minority women have been given fewer opportunities to wield social influence in I-O psychology when compared to White women and minority men. The lack of recognition given to women of color has implications for the extent to which members of this group feel that their voices are heard in our field. Additionally, these results point to a lack of advancement for men and, especially, women of color in I-O psychology given that the position of president is largely held by tenured professors and industry executives. Possible steps to address these points will be discussed in the next section.
Recommendations
We extend the recommendations offered by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018), focusing on ways that we can better understand and address the underrepresentation of women of color in I-O psychology, particularly in influential positions throughout our field.Footnote 3 First, we reiterate the authors’ point that individual participation in SIOP data collection efforts will help our field overcome critical information gaps. We assert that one of these gaps is a lack of information regarding the underrepresentation of minority women in our field. Although we were able to obtain data tabulated by both gender and race by reaching out to the SIOP administrative office, much of the readily available data is not collected or tabulated in this way. For example, the SIOP Income and Employment Survey does not include data on race or ethnicity, and the SIOP 2017 Postconference Survey Report does not tabulate responses by both race and gender (e.g., Asian women), although results are calculated for each demographic group separately. Because this information gap prevents our field from being able to fully understand the factors that may or may not contribute to the underrepresentation of women of color, we recommend collecting and tabulating demographic data by both race and gender, and we encourage participation in such data collection efforts spearheaded by SIOP.
Although investigations conducted over a decade ago on SIOP racial/ethnic diversity indicated that the percent of minority student affiliates was around 3% (Quiñones & Author, Reference Quiñones and Arthur2005), our results paint a more optimistic picture regarding the current representation of women of color at the student level. However, the drop off in representation among professionals in I-O (e.g., faculty members and SIOP Members and Associates) provides evidence of a leaky pipeline between graduate school and academia/industry, particularly for women of color. Avery and Hysong (Reference Avery and Hysong2007) speculated about the possibility of a “chilling effect” within I-O psychology, such that minorities are disproportionately discouraged from furthering their involvement in the profession. Although this may be a plausible explanation for our observation regarding the low proportion of women of color at higher levels of I-O psychology, our findings cannot directly address this possibility. We recommend that a conscious effort be made toward better understanding potential biases and the experiences of women of color in our field at all levels of the pipeline.
In addition, the leaky pipeline may limit the extent to which women of color are given recognition in I-O by being elected as officials and chosen for prestigious awards. Given that few women of color occupy positions of authority and/or receive recognition in I-O, minority women have few potential mentors of similar backgrounds. Accordingly, our next set of recommendations builds on those made by Avery and Hysong (Reference Avery and Hysong2007) regarding the advancement of minority students and professionals in I-O. Because women, and especially women of color, are more likely to be isolated as they progress through their careers (Haslam & Ryan, Reference Haslam and Ryan2008; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010), we recommend mentoring and opportunities to build a network of support specifically for women of color through local and national connections. We encourage the use of programs like the newly formed SIOP Women's Inclusion Network (WIN) and the SIOP Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), which includes a mentoring program aimed at benefiting students from underrepresented minority groups. Additionally, because Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008) point out that advocacy groups often (unintentionally) primarily represent the needs of individuals with single stigmatized identities, we strongly encourage these committees to advocate on behalf of women of color by sharing opportunities and discussing issues relevant to this group.
Limitations
We acknowledge a number of limitations to our findings. First, given that some of our analyses involved coding photos obtained online for gender and race, certain numbers may be imprecise. This limitation underscores the importance of our recommendation concerning the improvement of data collection on both the gender and racial composition of SIOP. Second, our data regarding the representation of women of color among SIOP membership may be biased by the large proportion of members who elected not to provide demographic information (30.35% of Student Affiliates, 17.59% of Members, and 4.36% of Associates did not report gender; 50.63% of Students Affiliates, 29.28% of Members, and 46.60% of Associates did not report ethnicity). Moreover, although we suspect that representation and recognition of women of color are also low in other unexamined subsamples (e.g., faculty at business schools and I-O programs not included here, editors and published authors of I-O journals, SIOP fellows, other SIOP award winners), additional data should be collected to verify these claims. Given that we examined the representation of minority women among the most prestigious SIOP awards and top I-O programs, it is possible that there are more women of color represented in areas that were omitted from our analyses. Finally, as in the focal article, our data do not provide any clear causal explanations for the varying degrees of representation and recognition for women of color in our field.
Conclusion
Consistent with the notion of intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, Reference Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach2008), our results suggest that there is a sharp drop off in the representation of women of color between graduate school and academia/industry within I-O psychology. It is then unsurprising that members of this group are rarely recognized in our field. In order to acknowledge this often-forgotten group, we have proposed a number of possible strategies for addressing their underrepresentation and lack of recognition in the hopes that women of color will be included in conversations about gender inequity in I-O psychology.