From the Editor: Science AND Practice
If it isnt scientific, its not good practice,
and if it isnt practical, its not good science.
Morris Viteles1
Laura L. Koppes
1 Morris Viteles made this statement when he was 93 years old, as cited in Katzell & Austin, 1992, p. 826.
A dichotomy of science and practice has characterized I-O psychology since its inception (see Zickar & Gibby, in press). In fact, the roots of this dichotomy can be traced to the founders of psychology in the late 1800s and early 1900s when tension existed between psychologists wanting psychology to be a pure science (basic) and those wanting to apply psychology (applied) for practical matters (Katzell & Austin, 1992; Koppes, 2003). One contributing factor to this tension was the reward structure of the American scientific community during 19061944 (Sokal, 1995). James McKeen Cattell used a star system, in which asterisks were attached to individuals identified as the preeminent American scientists of the day in his
American Men of Science, first published in 1906, which created a high value for being a scientist rather than a practitioner. Another explanation for this tension was the perception that applied research funded by corporations was for legal and commercial gains, making the scientific integrity of these studies suspect. Thus, results from these studies were often discredited (Benjamin, Rogers, & Rosenbaum, 1991). Tension also resulted from incompatible values between a scientist who pursued the advancement of knowledge, and the practitioner who pursued the application of the knowledge for solving problems (Hergenhahn, 1997).
During the early years of I-O psychology, a tension between science and practice was not prevalent because most industrial psychologists consulted part time while working full time in university positions and conducted research in field settings for the purposes of solving problems. A more distinct dichotomy gradually emerged as the number of individuals employed in universities, research institutions, and applied positions proliferated. Hackman (1985) identified factors that contribute to a gap between I-O scientists and practitioners, such as corporate reward systems that compensate I-O psychologists for performing as professional practitioners than as scientists, differences in the conceptual and research paradigms of scientists and practitioners, and the failure of laboratory and field experiments to guide practice.
On several occasions, Bruce V. Moore, the first president of APA-Division 14 (now SIOP), espoused his belief that industrial psychology as an applied discipline values equally research and implementation (Farr & Tesluk, 1997). Moore stated
[The] pure scientist has no basis for intellectual snobbery or contempt for the applied scientist. What both should avoid is busy work without thinking, or activity without relating it to theory, or the quick answer without adequate facts or basic research....The extreme applied practitioner is in danger of narrow, myopic thinking, but the extremely pure scientist is in danger of being isolated from facts. (cited in Farr & Tesluk, 1997, p. 484)
In 1992, J. P. Campbell noted that the latent needs of the two parties are actually more similar than their surface dissimilarities (Campbell, 1992). More recently, Campbell observed, Our history shows that we have benefited immensely from the scientist/practitioner model, even before it was given a name at the Boulder Conference in 1949 (Campbell, in press).
A scientistpractitioner dichotomy (and in some cases, a tension) prevails today as evident by the attention it continues to receive. As noted in President Houghs
TIP column, SIOP will pursue the following strategic goal: Model of Integrated ScientistPractitioner Effectiveness that values research, practice, and education equally and seeks higher standards in all three areas. I am delighted to introduce a new column in this issue as a means to foster communication between science and practice. The title of the column is
Good ScienceGood Practice. I am pleased that academic researcher Marcus Dickson and active practitioner Jamie Madigan
have agreed to join the TIP Editorial Board to provide leadership for this
column.
Features
SIOP President Leaetta Hough provides a nice overview of SIOPs vision, values, goals, and related accomplishments. Thanks to Leaetta for her outstanding leadership this past year as SIOPs president! Other features include I-O psychology in the crime lab, the reporting of effect sizes, and an expression of concern about the reporting of validity data.
From the Editorial Board
I invited David Pollack to join the TIP Editorial Board. David has been managing the listing of conferences and meetings since 1993 and provides valuable input when requested. Dont forget to send David information about your meetings.
The column editors have provided current information on a number of topics, such as, nontraditional educational programs in I-O psychology, the implications of Alito and Roberts, an oral history project, organization design, leadership, I-O in The Netherlands, off-shoring of work, and recollections from two luminaries,
Herman Aguinis and Kevin Murphy.
News and Reports
This section keeps you up-to-date on the business of SIOP so please be sure to peruse it. You will read about the up-coming SIOP conference and the availability of several funding and award opportunities, as well as how SIOP has responded to Hurricane Katrina. Also, read how the SIOP conference will change in 2008.
See You in Dallas!
Dont hesitate to say HELLO during the conference. As always, I welcome any suggestions and ideas for ways to improve
TIP for you. If you are a student, please join TIP-TOPics column editors at our roundtable entitled Facilitating Collaboration Among Graduate Students. Enjoy the conference!
References
Benjamin, L. T., Rogers, A. M., Rosenbaum, A. (1991). Coca-Cola, caffeine, and mental deficiency: Harry Hollingworth and the Chattanooga trial of 1911.
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 27, 4255.
Campbell, J. P. (1992, May). The latent structure of science and practice: A confirmatory test.
Paper presented at the 7th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc., Montreal, Canada.
Campbell, J. P. (in press). Profiting from history. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.),
Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farr, J. L., Tesluk, P. E. (1997). Bruce V. Moore: First president of Division 14.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 478485.
Hackman, J. R. (1985). Doing research that makes a difference. In E. E. Lawler, III, A. M. Mohrman, Jr., S. A. Mohrman, G. E. Ledford, Jr., T. G. Cummings (Eds.),
Doing research that is useful for theory and practice (pp. 126149). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hergenhahn, B. R. (1997). An introduction to the history of psychology (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Katzell, R. A., Austin, J. T. (1992). From then to now: The development of industrial-organizational psychology in the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 803835.
Koppes, L. L. (2003). Industrial-organizational psychology. In I. B. Weiner (General Ed.), D. K. Freedheim (Vol. Ed.),
Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 1. History of psychology (pp. 367389). New York: Wiley.
Sokal, M. M. (1995). Stargazing: James McKeen Cattell, American men of science, and the reward structure of the American scientific community, 19061944. In F. Kessel (Ed.),
Psychology, science and human affairs: Essays in honor of William Bevan. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E. (in press). Four persistent themes throughout the history of I-O psychology in the United States. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.),
Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
April 2006 Table
of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home