| Abstract: | ![]()
Comments on the articles by G. P. Latham and P. A. Heslin (see record 2003-07215-006), G. H. Seijts and B. W. Latham (see record 2003-07215-007), and R. G. Lord et al (2003) which examined the concept of a boundaryless psychology, focusing on industrial/organizational psychology. This article is divided into three parts. In the introduction, I echo the case for breaking down boundaries. In the Article Critiques, I point out some of the good points and some concerns about each of the empirical articles in this section. In the General Comments, I design a two-dimensional matrix to help researchers decide how to best break down barriers in their research. This matrix has Order of Distance Between Fields on one axis and Theory Development on the other. In order of proximal to distal, the former axis is divided into target subdiscipline, other like-paradigm subdisciplines, other subdisciplines, other broad category sciences, and other sciences. In order of moving away from one's own discipline, the later axis is divided into statistical methodologies, philosophy of science, history of science, humanities, vicarious experience, and personal experience. Finally, I give a hypothetical example to illustrate how a researcher could use this matrix to break down barriers in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
