A professional association is ‘an organization of practitioners who judge one another as professionally competent and who have banded together to perform social functions which they cannot perform in their capacity as individuals’ (Merton 1958:50). These are typically voluntary and work to set rigorous standards for the profession and enforce these, promote the competence of professionals by raising the standard of education, support individual practitioners and act as custodians of professional tradition (Merton 1958). As such, professional associations play an integral role in shaping professional norms and culture, and in how these are sustained through processes of socialisation. Examples of professional associations in South Africa include the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) and the SIOPSA.

As indicated, SIOPSA is the professional association dedicated to the promotion of the profession of I/O psychology in South Africa. To create some context for the reader, I/O psychology is defined by Schreuder and Coetzee (2010) as ‘an academic and an applied field concerned with the study of human behaviour related to work, organisations and productivity in a particular type of location, that is, almost any kind of organisation’ (p. 1). In South Africa, the profession is regulated by statute, and registration with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) is mandatory and governed by adherence to strict guidelines (Padmanabhanunni et al. 2022). These include obtaining the required master’s qualifications from universities offering programmes accredited by the HPCSA and completing an approved 12-month internship (Van Niekerk, Oosthuizen & Coetzee 2024). After completing the internship, candidates must pass a mandatory board exam to register as I/O psychologists with the HPCSA. This registration is maintained through ongoing professional development (Van Niekerk et al. 2024). In contrast to the HPCSA, SIOPSA is a voluntary association in support of the profession, with members at various stages of their careers. Appointments to SIOPSA’s leadership structures are regulated by its Constitution, which delineates a transparent and member-driven process. Eligible members may be nominated either by themselves or by their fellow members and subsequently elected through a formal voting process administered by the Society. The presidential succession adheres to a constitutionally mandated 3-year cycle, encompassing the roles of President-Elect, President and Past President. Leadership positions within both the Executive Committee and the Management Committee are appointed similarly through nominations and elections conducted by the membership. This structured approach ensures consistent leadership renewal, stability in governance and the advancement of SIOPSA’s strategic objectives. Over time, this system has facilitated the Society’s endeavours to foster a distinctive and evolving professional identity for industrial and organisational psychology in South Africa.

The history of psychology in South Africa, and its close links with racism and oppression, is well documented (Cooper & Nicholas 2012), with a close connection between history (temporality) and space (spatiality) (Al Ariss et al. 2014). Consequently, one must consider the profession’s history in light of the influence of colonialism and apartheid. Two former heads of state had close ties with psychology as an academic discipline: Jan Smuts and Hendrick Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid (Cooper & Nicholas 2012). Psychology, with its focus on the individual as its object of study, has been particularly vulnerable to the influence of racist ideologies shaping the discipline’s foundational perspectives. The South African Psychological Association (SAPA) was established in 1948, and while not explicitly preventing black membership, rejected Josephine Naidoo’s membership application in 1957 (Naidoo 2018). In 1962, when black members were accepted, a group of conservative psychologists broke away in protest (Foster 1993). When the first black psychologist, N. Chabani Manganyi, tried to obtain an internship, he could find no established programmes for black psychologists (Manganyi 2013). Fortunately, he found a neurosurgery professor willing to accommodate him, and he finally completed his internship at the end of 1969 (Manganyi 2013). During his internship, however, he was subject to the usual apartheid-like segregation practices, meaning separate places of residence, eating facilities and ablutions for whites and blacks, with salary scales based on racial and ethnic criteria (Manganyi 2013). Despite Manganyi’s stature as a psychologist, scholar, and author, his first book, Being-Black-in-the-World (1973), remained largely unknown in South Africa. In 1994, unity among psychology associations was achieved when they merged at the University of the Western Cape to form the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) (Nicholas 2014). From this body, the then-Society for Industrial Psychology (SIP), a division of PsySSA, disengaged in 2006.

Against this historical backdrop, the development of BIOP identity in the I/O psychology profession must be considered in relation to how physical and mental spaces have historically worked together to reinforce the notion of a ‘white’ profession (Elden 2007:111). Given that professional identity construction is closely entwined with various elements of personal and professional life (Lloyd, Roodt & Odendaal 2011), BIOPs are inevitably faced with the realities of white spaces and the challenges they pose. The following list outlines primary ways to develop identity (Alvesson, Ashcraft & Thomas 2008) and demonstrates how professional practices and spaces are implicated:

Given the close association between professional identity construction and the spaces within which these occur, we argue that white bodies have, over an extended period, become implicitly designated as being the ‘natural occupants’ of professional spaces (Puwar 2004:8). Because of this, BIOPs may struggle to achieve certification and recognition in professional spaces, not because of their intrinsic capacity but rather because of how professional spaces are made available to them as a space for action (Ahmed 2007:153).

Transforming professional associations demands thoughtful reflection and a willingness to face institutional challenges. Within this framework, organisational documents created by SIOPSA between 2009 and 2024 were considered the most pragmatic means for identifying systemic obstacles and reflecting the solutions constructed in response. Two types of documents were drawn on. Firstly, we drew on internal reports relevant to the events in 2020, which triggered the intense reflection around transformation. These sources provided a comprehensive perspective on the challenges and opportunities that BIOPs encounter in their internship experiences and professional identity formation. Secondly, we drew on external, publicly available annual reports to create a context for the events under scrutiny. We will describe each of these in more detail.

The internal documents generated after the events of 2020 included the following:

To provide context and develop a timeline for the transformation efforts discussed in the article, we also drew on external reports and, more specifically, annual reports and conference programmes from 2009 to 2024. Company documents and annual reports in particular are a well-justified source of studying identity and are often used to track shifts therein (Chreim 2005). SIOPSA’s annual reports, authored by multiple contributors, serve as a valuable resource for examining collectively held and socially constructed meanings (Corley et al. 2006) Moreover, these accounts are produced by members in positions of influence and are thus likely to represent the dominant views (Brown 2006).

To analyse the data, we used qualitative document analysis (QDA), which is often used in case study research (Wood et al. 2020). Qualitative document analysis provides a means of extracting meaning from organisational and institutional documents (Bowen 2009). Although QDA is usually used alongside interviews and observations, ethical concerns in this study (Morgan 2021) necessitated reliance on documents as the primary source of ‘social facts’ (Atkinson & Coffey 1997:47) to ground the analysis. Following Gorichanaz and Latham (2016), we utilised a framework of ‘document experience’, which implies a relationship of meaning generation by the researcher based on the documents analysed (p. 1118). All authors participated in analysing the data, and the documents were systematically reviewed to identify key trends and themes. The authors spent time discussing the findings, and in the process realised that these could be clustered in alignment with the sources of professional identity development as discussed in the literature review. We validated these themes against the data and reached consensus on them as final themes.

While the findings are grounded in the document analysis, given all the authors’ involvement in SIOPSA, our experiences have inevitably shaped and shed light on these interpretations. We are all committed to transformation and have driven initiatives within the professional setting under study. It is, therefore, imperative to acknowledge that the resulting analysis is attributable to the documentary evidence and our reflexive processes, and the resulting narrative is an attempt to inform and persuade (McAdams 1996). This does not mean we do not take quality seriously, and to enhance the authenticity and credibility of our findings, we have sought to provide, within space constraints, a detailed description of the case and its historical context (Miles & Huberman 1994).

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Pretoria, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences (EMS326/24), subject to permission from the case organisation (SIOPSA), which was secured. These permission letters are available on request.

This section reports on the findings of the document analysis. We begin by sketching the history of transformation in SIOPSA to provide a context for understanding the themes that were constructed. Thereafter, we present the findings of the internal report analysis which produced three themes: embodied practices and professional identity, material and institutional arrangements, and social relationships and capitals that constrain the professional identity development of BIOPs in South Africa.

An analysis of SIOPSA annual reports from 2009 onwards documented transformation efforts under each presidency. While the 2010 annual report¹ mentions the need for SIOPSA to take heed of transformation and align with society, the focus was on social upliftment in disadvantaged areas. In 2013, transformation was once again only mentioned in relation to social responsibility projects. In 2014, there was a more straightforward strategy for transforming SIOPSA by recruiting and including students and interns representing all facets of South African society. Further transformation engagement was documented in the 2015 annual report, in which transformation was positioned as a strategic imperative. A transformation sub-committee was established, and a transformation portfolio was included in the SIOPSA management committee, locating transformation at the highest decision-making level in the association. The aim was to increase the number of BIOPs, support academia to increase black IO psychology graduates, offer bursaries for previously disadvantaged master’s students, and support their internship efforts. In 2017, the annual SIOPSA conference included transformation-related content, such as workshops, keynote addresses, research papers and panel discussions.

The overview indicates some progress towards transformation, particularly in increasing the representation of BIOPs to better reflect South African society. The SIOPSA leadership, in various annual reports, had repeatedly expressed the fear of redundancy of the profession should transformation be ignored. Although the SIOPSA transformation strategy was documented in some annual reports, the reported activities suggest inconsistent implementation and success. It is against this backdrop that the results of the internal document analysis should be understood.

The data indicated that BIOPs often face challenges regarding professional development because of exclusionary practices, which appeared to be rooted in the undervaluation of African-centred knowledge and their embodiment as black South Africans. Many BIOPs experience hypervisibility, scrutiny and alienation in their work environments. The emotional toll includes exhaustion, anxiety and a suppression of identity, illustrating the profound effects of exclusion. When individuals have to hide their authentic selves to be seen as legitimate, their professional identity development tends to be driven more by survival than self-actualisation.

This often results in BIOPs being steered toward HR functions rather than core psychological roles that define the IOP profession, as reflected in one participant’s statement:

While this may appear insignificant to a casual observer, it takes on critical importance when viewed through the lens of SIOPSA’s collective identity. In 2006, having disengaged from PsySSA (as discussed earlier), SIOPSA was primarily concerned with establishing its uniqueness as an independent professional body with a distinct identity. Part of this process was constructing a distinct professional identity for IOPs, which is often conflated with the practice of HR management. Given that professions are defined by what they do (Pratt et al. 2006), directing BIOPs to the practices of HR invalidates their professional identity claims (DeRue & Ashford 2010) as IOPs. Consequently, the professional misalignment hampers their competency development and career satisfaction (SIOPSA 2021a).

Even when BIOPs met all the requirements, they felt they were expected to exert more effort to prove themselves:

Many are assigned lower-value work, are overlooked for promotions, or are perceived as not yet ready for leadership. The professional culture in IOP continues to privilege specific ways of speaking, networking and presenting, making it more challenging for BIOPs to build credibility within established circles. Despite these challenges, BIOPs have shown resilience by advocating for structural reforms within professional associations like SIOPSA (2021a). For instance, the interns believed that the lockdown fostered their internal resilience, compelling them to take ownership of their circumstances and adapt to the challenges of uncertain territory (SIOPSA 2020, 2021:15).

Professional identity development relies on opportunities to engage in activities that define the profession and lead to registration as an IOP; without these, one cannot practise or market oneself as an IOP. An IOP internship is pivotal in developing professional identity by providing space for practical workplace exposure, developing relevant skills, observing leadership examples and opportunities for mentorship. Yet a review of the documentary evidence suggested that this crucial milestone of professional development remains a challenge for BIOPs:

The COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted these educational pathways, depriving interns of in-person experiences and further marginalising BIOPs from vital professional development opportunities (SIOPSA 2020). Without access to real-world experiences, many interns – especially BIOPs – felt detached from their evolving professional identity and struggled to transition from academia to the workforce (SIOPSA 2021).

The HPCSA, the regulatory body overseeing the profession, plays a vital role in managing IOP internships discussed above. Participants suggest that the HPCSA often acts as a gatekeeper, controlling entry into the profession. Many interns encounter unclear registration processes, delayed processing of internship approvals, high registration costs and inconsistent supervision requirements, making it unnecessarily difficult to complete this important milestone of their professional development (SIOPSA 2020):

Thus, the very mechanisms set up to develop and shape professional identity often work to hinder BIOPs in their journey. Simply put, without the HPCSA that holds the regulatory power, an aspirant IOP cannot be professionally registered in South Africa. While SIOPSA cannot take responsibility for the shortcomings of the HPCSA’s internship management, as the custodians of the IOP profession, it is incumbent on its leadership and members to facilitate the professional identity development of its younger members.

An additional institutional barrier is the mismatch between the number of IOP graduates and the limited availability of accredited internship placements. Higher education institutions enrol more IOP students than corporate organisations can accommodate for internships, largely due to financial constraints. This misalignment creates a bottleneck in professional training, leaving graduates to find internships independently, which are required for registration. Consequently, many graduates experience prolonged unemployment, hindering their career progression and the development of a more diverse IOP profession.

This issue is particularly severe for BIOPs, as access to internships often depends on social capital and professional networks. Black graduates struggle to secure structured internship programmes in registered host organisations, especially those whose parents lack connections in large corporations. These graduates must often create tailored internship programmes and source their host organisations and supervisors. The lack of connections exacerbates systemic inequities, hindering BIOPs’ successful transition from education to practice.

The financial burden of accessing the profession remains a key barrier, as highlighted by participants in recent research:

This challenge is further compounded by economic uncertainty, as another participant noticed:

Beyond bureaucratic barriers, the material circumstances of students and graduates added another layer of potential exclusion. The costs of internships, registration fees and poorly paid training opportunities disproportionately impact BIOPs, who often lack financial support. These economic barriers hinder their transition into full-time professional roles (Kock 2024).

In many professions, who you know matters as much as what you know. Social relationships and networks, and the capitals that derive from these, play a key role in professional identity development and career advancement. The IOP profession in South Africa is small, and its networks are relatively tight. Given the slow pace of transformation in the profession (Crafford 2022) and ongoing underrepresentation, BIOPs reported exclusion from informal professional spaces and limited access to networks, sponsors, and role models who offer mentorship:

Black industrial and organisational psychologists enter a profession where the informal ‘rules of engagement’ – how one speaks, dresses and networks – are dictated by historically privileged groups. They suggested that white IOPs benefit from informal referrals, networking experiences and structured mentorship, which often remain unavailable to BIOPs (SIOPSA 2021a). While white counterparts benefit from established professional networks, BIOPs often lack advocates to support their career progression:

Role models are an integral part of professional development, as they provide opportunities to experiment with provisional identities and evaluate these against external feedback from a trusted source (Goldie 2012). As such, they play a crucial role in developing emerging professionals. A mentor with similar life experiences who understands the challenges faced by emerging BIOPs fosters greater trust and openness in the mentorship process. Trusted mentors who can advocate for their mentees in decision-making spaces play a critical role in career advancement:

In addition to their exclusion from social networks and their associated capitals, BIOPs reported experiencing racial microaggressions, unequal treatment and exclusion from significant professional spaces, which were often perceived as white. Many felt scrutinised or undervalued, and their professional contributions were often questioned (Kock 2024):

While SIOPSA acknowledges the existence of multiple marginalised identities within the IOP profession, including those related to gender, disability and socio-economic background, in light of South Africa’s historical and socio-political context, race remains the most significant axis of exclusion (Crafford 2022). Consequently, SIOPSA’s transformation efforts have prioritised race as a focal point, recognising that addressing racial inequities lays the groundwork for broader inclusion initiatives. Based on the data gathered and expertise within the SIOPSA cohort, various initiatives were developed, focussed on three levels:

In the context of BIOPs, embodied practices refer to how professional identity is shaped and expressed. Initiatives such as the Internship Management Programme and Capability Building Workshops directly tackle these dimensions of professional identity. By expanding access to meaningful work, supervised practice and public recognition, these interventions enable BIOPs to build legitimacy through exposure and skill development. They help to counter the constant scrutiny and being overlooked that BIOPs frequently navigate in predominantly white professional spaces.

Moreover, these efforts create space for authentic identity expression, allowing BIOPs to participate in professional settings without shedding core aspects of their cultural and personal identity. Campaigns such as #iBelong provide psychological validation and challenge narrow norms of professionalism that equate competence with conformity. As highlighted in the embodied DEI critique, transformation requires rethinking whose bodies are welcomed, affirmed and legitimised within professional environments, not just who is present.

SIOPSA’s Transformation Strategy 1.0 and 2.0, the creation of dedicated governance portfolios, and programmes such as the Internship Management Programme reflect a clear effort to reshape the institutional landscape. These initiatives have laid the foundation for shifting decision-making, resourcing and accountability in ways that support sustainable inclusion. Paid internships, for example, disrupt historical patterns where only the economically privileged are able to complete professional training.

However, data from recent years still reflect pipeline bottlenecks, with many graduates waiting years to secure internships. The demand for structured internship placements continues to outpace supply, leaving graduates from 2024 still unplaced, alongside those who will complete their internships in 2025 and those expected to finish in 2026. This backlog points to the ongoing misalignment between university enrolments and professional placement capacity. It also exposes broader systemic barriers such as professional registration complexities, racialised gatekeeping in supervisory roles and uneven access to mentorship. The HPCSA Professional Board’s introduction of a degree-linked internship model in 2027 is expected to alleviate some of these pressures; however, immediate solutions are required to address the current gaps in internship accessibility.

The equity critique, a key aspect of our analysis, underlines that transformation efforts will remain largely symbolic unless these material structures are reimagined. Policies must target the redistribution of opportunity, power and resources and establish measurable outcomes tied to equity goals.

The formation of the BIOP Caucus, the rollout of a structured mentorship programme and community campaigns such as #oneSIOPSA are crucial interventions in fostering professional belonging and advancing social capital. These initiatives connect BIOPs with peers, role models and sponsors who can guide them, advocate for them and support their long-term leadership development.

Mentorship has proven especially valuable in mitigating isolation and imposter syndrome while also opening professional networks often inaccessible to BIOPs. These spaces foster collective identity and relational safety, countering the psychological toll of exclusion and microaggressions.

The broader inclusion critique emphasises that inclusion must move beyond performative gestures to embed relational justice. Relational justice, in this context, refers to a system where BIOPs are not merely accommodated but seen as central to the profession’s evolution.

Too often, DEI is reduced to metrics of how diverse a space is. However, the deeper transformation work involves interrogating how norms are enforced, how power circulates and how identity is allowed to flourish. BIOPS must not only be invited to the table but also help redesign it, ensuring that space is inclusive and transformative.

Embodied experiences, structural access and relational legitimacy should interweave in the professional journey. SIOPSA’s progress, while commendable, illustrates the limits of traditional DEI and the promise of a more identity-conscious, justice-driven approach.

While the diversity component of DEI focuses on visible diversity metrics (race, gender and disability), it neglects how bodies are regulated in space. It often ignores the policing BIOP bodies experience in white professional spaces and the expectations placed on them to conform. Research suggests that racialised bodies are subject to implicit biases that dictate professional norms, often reinforcing exclusionary environments (Roberts & Caza 2025). Embodied professional identity – how one dresses, speaks, moves and takes up space – is a critical but often overlooked component of professional legitimacy that must be addressed to transform truly.

To rectify this, policies must explicitly address cultural and embodied norms that dictate who is considered professional and competent. This implies challenging the bases for assimilation, and instead of expecting black professionals to conform, workspaces should allow for multiple cultural expressions of professionalism. To create room for authentic self-expression, we should cultivate a deeper understanding of how identity is performed and restricted in everyday professional spaces (Martinez et al. 2017). Embodied storytelling and reflection can be helpful in this regard. Finally, because black professionals experience either invisibility or hypervisibility, DEI interventions should design conditions for them to be seen in ways that acknowledge but do not accentuate their embodiment within spaces of power.

The equity component of DEI is the most challenging dimension to address, especially in South Africa. Despite substantial investment in diversity and inclusion initiatives, these often appear performative and rarely lead to a meaningful redesign in institutional structures to ensure sustainable equity. As such, they fail to improve economic access, ownership and opportunities. Until decision-making power is genuinely redistributed to the marginalised majority who work in white spaces, DEI efforts will remain symbolic rather than transformative.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts should move beyond recruitment quotas to address financial and material barriers aspiring professionals face through scholarships and paid internships. Given the many hurdles black professionals face, serious reconsideration should be given to redesigning industry accreditation and training models. Moreover, attempts at gatekeeping in licensing, supervision and qualification processes must be identified and dismantled to create equitable pathways for professional advancement. Finally, equity targets should be clear, and leadership in professional associations should take active responsibility for measurable equity outcomes.

Positive and coherent identity development rests on the twin pillars of belonging and distinctiveness (Brewer 2003). As suggested above, professionals should be able to express themselves comfortably in a manner consistent with their embodied identity but, in the same space, experience a feeling of belonging characterised by psychological and relational safety. Many transformation initiatives do not consider how power, hierarchy and relational dynamics impact who feels safe, heard and valued (Brown et al. 2010). For this reason, belonging should also imply structural inclusion.

To ensure that BIOPs experience structural inclusion, systemic changes should be made in how leaders are selected, teams are comprised and cultural expression is permitted. Many black professionals in South Africa carry relational and generational trauma as a consequence of our troubled history (Crafford 2022; Lloyd et al. 2011). This is in addition to the workplace trauma resulting from exclusion, microaggressions and discrimination. DEI frameworks should incorporate healing spaces, dialogue circles and restorative practices to address these harms (Creary 2025). Finally, inclusion implies challenging traditional leadership norms, as these create spaces where professionals work. Traditional leadership models should be re-evaluated in the light of alternative leadership styles, decision-making frameworks and team structures.