The practice of I/O Psychology is just as much an art as it is a science. Although we learn theories, rigorous research methodologies, and numerous legal issues involving personnel practices, people in the real world can often act in novel and/or misleading ways.

How do we, as industrial psychologists, conduct our job analyses in a manner to ensure that the information we get from incumbents is accurate and comprehensive?

While I was working on one particular case, the Department of Justice (DoJ) could legally compel subject matter experts to participate in some of the job analytic and personnel selection test development activities. If individuals failed to engage with or obstructed the psychologists tasked with studying those jobs, then those individuals could be found in contempt.

Does the threat of being found in contempt of court actually result in useful data for the industrial psychologists or is it just garbage data that only introduces error into our interpretation of data collected? What are some possible alternatives to gaining useful subject matter expert participation in the job analysis process when legal recourse may not be an option?