Abstract in English and summary notes in Swedish.
Abstract. In the late sixties, Ingvar Lundberg and Bo Strangert, with a background in quantitative measurement and cognitive science from the psychological laboratories at Stockholm University, went to the new Department of Psychology at Umeå University. In 1971, we founded the Communication Research Unit for experimental studies of the psychology of communication.
In 1974, Strangert received a commission to plan a new course in Work Science for psychologists. But strong resistance from a leftist student movement and the adaptable local Faculty of Social Science stopped the implementation in 1975. However, during the preparation for the course, the theoretical and methodological challenges implicated in the development of work environments inspired us. Therefore, we formed a new front of applied research with many customers and recipients from corporations, authorities, trade unions, and with grants from research funds.
Complex existing problems and diversity of settings and individuals were the characteristics of the new front. It required treating compounded qualitative data and using control-theoretical models for planning, action, and follow-up. Thus, the approach exploited organizational psychology as a design science rather than as a domain of generalizable principles for application. The large early field-based projects used action-oriented R&D.
The field contacts gradually attracted professionals looking for education about workplace problems, and our first course in organizational psychology started as early as 1976. Our approach was to launch a scientific approach for professionals to analyze and develop their job situations.
We also contributed to a study program of Personnel Science for beginners at the university with a section focusing on field research. Leif Wågman was our pioneer at Umeå University and Lauritz Brännström at Linköping University. During the nineties, we introduced distance learning courses in Work and Organizational Psychology in Umeå. These courses had 2005 the highest number of applicants at Umeå University, yet it was possible to restrict the admittance to a small selected group of motivated applicants. That permitted us to train the students in quite advanced general scientific methodology.
Our field-based R&D strongly influenced educational undertakings from the beginning. However, a forthright examination was necessary of the demands on the education and training of beginners versus professionals. The professionals have advantages by exploiting experiences from their agent roles at work but possibly also difficulties freeing themselves from latent deadlocks of expertise. On the other hand, the beginners in program courses lack agent experience but should be open to exploring new roles and progress in the business. The challenge of educational planning was to devise suitable methodological preparations for the respective categories. The slogan of the approach later became ”Scientific mode of work for practical problem-solving” (in Swedish short for ”VAMPP”).
This broad endeavour toward analysis and action in complex and diverse practical contexts became incongruent with the interests of some traditional researchers and teachers at the Department of Psychology. In the 80-90ties, several new undergraduate courses from different subdisciplines of Psychology started, mostly with restricted subjects and methods, although with claims on the limited common resources for education. This condition created tensions between the parties, which Lauritz Brännström tried to relieve as the study director until 1997. In particular, the mandatory methodology course managed by Strangert that functioned as a standard bridge to higher studies was considered too advanced and general for many students, thereby reducing the number of applicants to the department’s conventional research domains. This fact was one main reason in 1999 for divorcing our unit from the Psychology Department and establishing the independent ArbOrg unit.
Then our work climate, as well as the research and teaching, improved considerably. But the administrative burden worsened. Research funds supported the R&D while resources for courses grew as the number of professional and freshman applicants and exams continued to rise. After Strangert retired in 2005 from Umeå University, the R&D activities continued in the consulting firm ArbOrg Utveckling AB with projects in the military, industrial, and public sectors.
We conclude that the academic discipline of Work and Organizational Psychology would give more promising contributions to managing realistic societal problems if the university context was better qualified in both education and field R&D. The challenges of complexity and diversity in organizations and society need a stronger emphasis on advanced theoretical and methodological issues. In fact, those qualifications were impaired in several lower courses in the Psychology department during the 80-90-ties.
Our former educational activities are summed up in Swedish as five periods of R&D and education.
__________________
Fem återblickar på arborg-utbildning och FoU
Bo Strangert – Förändring under 70-talet
Lauritz Brännström – Utbildningsadministrativ kontext 1976-1997
Lauritz Brännström – Medverkan i programutbildning, Linköping universitet 1998-2016
Leif Wågman – Medverkan i personalvetarutbildning, Umeå universitet 1982-2005
Bo Strangert – Utveckling 2000-talet – Efterspel
Reflektioner kring utbildningsformer
Bo Strangert – Om former för lärande och tillämpning i arbetslivet