Industrial-organizational psychology, despite its applied mission, remains methodologically narrow and epistemically exclusionary. One of the main reasons is that the field is dominated by positivist, quantitative approaches, largely developed and validated in WEIRD contexts, thereby marginalizing alternative methods and silencing voices from the global majority of workers. This paper argues that methodological orthodoxy functions as a form of epistemic gatekeeping, reinforcing structural inequalities and detaching the field from the lived realities of labor. Drawing on Fraser's framework of justice, we call for methodological pluralism grounded in epistemic justice, one that recognizes diverse ways of knowing and reclaims the field's social relevance. Unless I-O psychology undergoes such a transformation, the field may remain elegant and sophisticated in its methods while becoming increasingly inert and indifferent to the structural injustices and societal challenges that shape the workplace and are simultaneously reproduced, intensified, and contested within it, despite growing concern and urgency, and the field's stated commitment to addressing them.
Psychosocial intervention studies draw on standards for protocol design, intervention description, fidelity, estimands, data governance, and reporting. These requirements are often managed in separate documents, which makes it difficult to verify how a protocol commitment was implemented, represented in the dataset, and carried into analysis and reporting. This article presents a practical protocol-to-analysis playbook that makes those links explicit and auditable. The playbook is defined by four invariant connections: protocol commitments are assigned to operational activities, records, roles, and time points; relevant implementation and measurement events are represented as structured data; those records have prespecified analytical or reporting consequences; and amendments remain traceable across the protocol, operational materials, dataset, code, and analysis plan. A wholly synthetic worked example based on an eight-session psychosocial intervention for competitive and recently competitive female fitness and physique athletes demonstrates the approach through an operational schedule, assessment-window logic, an estimand and analysis-set bridge, a proportionate fidelity framework, and executable materials. The minimum viable configuration assumes two people, while fuller role separation and independent auditing are treated as scalable safeguards. The playbook does not propose a new reporting standard or a new statistical estimator. Its contribution is an operational layer that connects established guidance and makes the path from protocol to analysis easier to inspect, adapt, teach, and reproduce. All numerical records and outputs are synthetic and have no empirical or inferential meaning.
The discipline of psychology has historically privileged Western epistemologies and excluded Indigenous ones. Motivated by the Canadian Psychological Association's call to improve Indigenous cultural literacy across post-secondary institutions, a Decolonizing and Indigenizing Psychology Committee (DIPC) was formed within the Psychology department at Toronto Metropolitan University in Ontario, Canada. The first objective of the DIPC was to conduct interviews with Indigenous and allied scholars to inform the development of a new undergraduate course titled “Indigenous Peoples and Psychology.” This paper details our process for developing this course, grounded in Indigenous research approaches and emphasizing three core principles: centring and honouring Indigenous lived experiences to promote self-determination and respect for Indigenous ways of knowing; reflexivity to acknowledge researcher positionality and mitigate settler-colonial power dynamics; and relationality to foster respectful, reciprocal, and future-looking relationships with Indigenous peoples and knowledge systems. This paper outlines how our process of developing a novel Indigenous course, consisting of ethical qualitative research grounded in principles of Indigenous research approaches, seeks to challenge settler-colonial paradigms in psychology and higher education more broadly. Our process could be adapted by others who pursue similar projects within a similar context.
Longitudinal dyadic studies examine interpersonal processes using repeated observations from members of the same dyad. Different dyadic estimands draw information from different levels of the design, so additional repeated occasions and additional independent dyads do not contribute equivalent information. This study examined how estimand definition, model structure, and design features shape precision and finite-sample performance in longitudinal dyadic models with limited numbers of dyads. Analyses combined a full-sample benchmark demonstration with 100 distinguishable dyads observed across 21 occasions, a 500-iteration subsampling analysis at 10, 20, 30, and 50 dyads, and a targeted Monte Carlo simulation with 56 conditions and 1000 replications per condition. Simulation factors included dyad count, repeated-measure intensity, dyad-level variance, residual dependence, and between-person predictor dispersion. Performance was evaluated through bias, confidence interval coverage, standard error calibration, singularity and variance-component behavior, and fixed-effect precision. Limited dyad replication most clearly affected support for dyad-level random effects. Fixed-effect bias remained small and confidence interval coverage was close to nominal across the examined conditions. Increasing repeated occasions from 7 to 21 reduced confidence interval widths for within-person effects by approximately 42%, compared with approximately 6% for between-person effects. These findings show that dyad count and repeated-measure intensity provide different forms of information. Longitudinal dyadic designs are most informative when the target estimand is aligned with the level of information supplied by the design.
The current study addresses the lived experiences of individuals with multiple marginalized identities with sex education, adopting an intersectional queer theory approach. Queer adults (N=22) residing in Italy who live with chronic illness, disability and/or are neurodivergent, participated in online 2-hour semi-structured focus groups. We analyzed data using reflexive Thematic Analysis and identification of negative cases. The five identified themes were Assumed Heterosexuality, Erasure, Sex-Positive education, Validation, and Long journey to self-discovery. The findings call for a rethinking of sex education as an affirming space for multiple marginalized identities, with the purpose of eventually improving sexual health for all. In this perspective, sex education has the potential to become a space of validation and recognition, where diverse identities, bodies, and lived experiences are acknowledged and affirmed. Beyond these substantive findings, the study illustrates how attending to multiplicity throughout the research process can surface dimensions of experience, which are entangled rather than additive, that might otherwise go unnoticed.
