Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Institutional Representation in the SIOP
Conference Program: 19862000

Stephanie C. Payne
Texas A&M University

Carol A. Succa and Tyler D. Maxey
George Mason University

Kelly R. Bolton
Texas A&M University

Authors note. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 16th Annual SIOP Conference, San Diego, CA. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephanie C. Payne at scp@psyc.tamu.edu.

Over the years a number of studies have been conducted to examine institutional as well as individual research productivity. The new millennium marks a convenient year for reflecting on past productivity and setting goals for future contributions. This study examines institutional representation in the annual SIOP Conference program beginning with the first conference in 1986.

Examining institutional research productivity is particularly useful for identifying which universities, colleges, and organizations are partaking in research and making contributions to the field of I-O psychology. Such information is likely to be of interest to undergraduate students pursuing graduate school, graduate students pursuing employment, and institutions, themselves, for comparative purposes. For instance, as an indicator of research productivity, this information could be used as one variable in resource allocation decisions or for demonstrating research productivity relative to peer institutions or institutions with similar graduate programs.

Although a number of studies have been conducted for the purpose of evaluating graduate programs and examining research productivity, none of these efforts have examined institutional representation in the SIOP Conference program. This venue is frequently one of the first places researchers share their research ideas and findings. As a result, the SIOP Conference program represents some of the most current research in I-O psychology. In addition, students are very active at SIOP, so both faculty and student productivity is represented. Finally, individuals from practitioner-oriented organizations also participate in the SIOP Conference. None of the previous studies have examined nonacademic institutional representation. Thus, this study documents the representation of both academic and nonacademic institutions in SIOP Conference programs.

Method

Fifteen years of SIOP Programs (19862000) were collected and assembled for data entry. Individuals and their affiliations were entered into the database, regardless of their role in the session (e.g., chair, presenter, discussant). Given the variety of sessions considered, authorship was not weighted. When two affiliations were listed in the conference program for an individual, only the first one was entered into the database. When no affiliation was listed, efforts were made to locate the individuals affiliation by looking for additional listings of that individual in the index of the Conference program.

Prior to analyses, extensive data cleaning was necessary to correct typographical errors and variations of the same institutional name (e.g., Hum-RRO and Human Resources Research Organization). Special efforts were made to ensure only one institutional name was used within each program (e.g., University of Illinois vs. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign). Efforts were also made to note changes in institutional names over the course of the 15 years examined (e.g., Naval Training Systems Center to Naval Air Warfare Center).

Results

Although not depicted in the tables presented here, there has been tremendous growth in the SIOP Conference program over the last 15 years. In 1986, the Conference consisted of 34 sessions (i.e., poster sessions, symposia, roundtables, etc.), whereas in 2000, the Conference consisted of 198 sessions. The number of institutions represented in the program also depicts the growth of the Conference. In the first Conference, 89 different institutions were represented. Fifty-five of these were academic institutions and 34 were nonacademic institutions. In 2000, 501 different institutions were represented with 263 of them academic and 238 of them nonacademic institutions. On the whole, academic institutions tend to outnumber nonacademic institutions, however, not by much (M = 43% for nonacademic institutions). In fact, in 1995, there were slightly more nonacademic institutions (N = 156) than academic institutions (N = 151). At the same time, it should be noted that academic institutions tended to have much larger frequencies than nonacademic institutions.

Table 1 presents the frequency of contributions for 65 academic institutions in the SIOP conference program from 1986 to 2000. This table was limited to the academic institutions that appeared at least once in the top 25 most represented institutions across the 15 years examined. A sum of frequencies is also provided for the last 5 years (19962000) as well as all 15 years. Institutions are ranked based on a sum of the frequencies for the last 5 years.

Table 1.  Frequencies for Academic Institutions in the SIOP Conference Program.

 

 

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

Last5 Yr Sum

15 Yr Sum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

*Michigan State U

9

22

14

11

28

43

42

27

41

37

57

54

110

101

94

416

690

2

*Bowling Green State U

1

10

19

27

23

13

34

40

17

21

36

27

60

64

77

264

469

3

*U of Akron

5

17

7

20

24

14

21

28

43

31

26

48

50

62

36

222

432

4

*U of Maryland

11

13

7

10

23

17

31

17

28

30

29

19

41

59

58

206

393

5

*U of Illinois

1

1

8

1

7

13

7

6

25

12

28

34

28

35

56

181

262

6

*Pennsylvania State U

6

5

2

10

4

15

14

24

34

29

31

35

56

37

17

176

319

7

George Mason U

2

1

4

3

2

5

0

27

10

9

16

25

33

57

44

175

238

8

*U of Minnesota

6

12

6

12

24

19

11

25

24

22

27

35

49

28

29

168

329

9

*U of Georgia

2

4

1

8

8

11

16

10

17

19

23

18

38

41

37

157

253

10

*VA Tech

4

2

2

7

6

3

7

6

14

21

18

39

28

31

27

143

215

11

*Texas A&M U

2

3

5

16

21

12

15

22

7

25

27

22

22

32

39

142

270

12

U of Tennessee

1

0

4

7

10

10

11

23

21

23

16

29

22

50

21

138

248

13

U of South Florida

3

2

8

0

5

11

13

14

9

18

12

10

29

43

40

134

217

14

*U of Houston

2

3

6

7

13

14

14

8

6

18

20

3

20

35

45

123

214

15

Florida International U

0

0

1

2

3

2

2

25

23

24

19

22

21

26

22

110

192

15

*Purdue U

5

12

21

9

8

10

12

35

18

17

23

22

36

12

17

110

257

17

*SUNY at Albany

2

5

2

10

10

12

25

27

22

12

23

19

24

19

12

97

224

18

*U of Iowa

3

1

2

1

4

9

16

25

10

14

24

16

11

29

15

95

180

19

*Rice U

4

1

7

2

4

6

6

4

6

8

16

25

12

19

19

91

139

20

Northern Illinois U

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

1

12

5

24

14

32

87

93

21

Tulane U

0

0

4

3

4

5

10

4

16

13

22

12

8

30

11

83

142

22

Georgia Institute of Tech

0

10

10

5

8

7

6

10

10

11

26

13

13

18

8

78

155

23

*Colorado State U

4

13

6

5

10

13

10

7

11

1

10

11

11

16

29

77

157

24

Cornell U

0

2

4

7

3

3

7

5

5

11

8

6

15

16

22

67

114

25

Old Dominion U

1

2

0

2

1

10

1

9

13

11

5

17

12

16

16

66

116

26

Illinois Institute of Tech

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

8

6

11

6

6

17

23

13

65

94

27

Wayne State U

0

1

3

3

6

1

3

14

10

3

15

3

7

26

12

63

107

28

*U of CO at Denver

4

4

4

3

5

2

4

6

4

6

10

9

13

14

13

59

101

29

U of Connecticut

1

1

0

0

2

5

2

3

18

7

13

5

13

15

12

58

97

29

Portland State U

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

7

2

5

13

21

17

58

67

31

Rutgers U

0

0

2

2

6

8

17

15

7

2

9

10

7

14

16

56

115

32

U of Tulsa

0

8

2

0

1

3

4

8

6

7

9

15

16

11

3

54

93

33

Baruch College

0

4

1

3

5

8

5

8

14

6

8

7

13

7

18

53

107

34

Illinois State U

0

3

5

3

0

3

2

8

8

6

11

15

7

8

9

50

88

34

Southern Illinois U

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

8

25

10

4

3

50

56

36

Wright State U

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

7

6

7

4

1

13

20

10

48

72

36

Kansas State U

1

6

0

2

7

6

7

8

1

5

9

9

16

9

5

48

91

38

*Ohio State U

7

12

7

23

23

15

13

10

11

13

9

6

8

11

12

46

180

39

U of Central Florida

0

0

0

1

0

2

4

0

2

5

1

4

3

9

25

42

56

40

Central Michigan U

1

2

0

2

5

6

3

8

27

12

3

8

8

9

13

41

107

41

Louisiana State U

0

6

4

0

2

10

8

18

18

15

13

3

6

10

8

40

121

42

*SUNY at Binghamton

1

1

7

10

8

6

7

11

9

15

9

8

9

4

7

37

112

42

Ohio U

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

4

4

3

13

11

6

37

48

44

*Carnegie Mellon U

3

1

2

2

2

2

7

3

3

3

7

4

6

11

4

32

60

44

North Carolina State U

0

5

0

0

0

4

3

0

5

2

6

3

9

5

9

32

51

46

U of Nebraska at Omaha

0

3

5

0

0

4

0

0

1

1

6

3

7

7

8

31

45

47

*New York U

6

9

11

14

8

8

9

1

6

3

6

14

7

1

2

30

105

48

Arizona State University

0

0

0

4

3

5

8

8

8

4

5

3

5

2

12

27

67

49

U of Arkansas

3

0

0

0

1

3

4

1

0

1

8

14

0

1

3

26

39

50

U of MO at St. Louis

0

3

3

7

7

5

3

5

5

3

3

6

0

6

5

20

61

50

U of California

1

5

3

0

4

2

3

3

3

2

4

3

3

5

5

20

46

52

Auburn University

2

4

1

0

0

2

0

2

3

0

0

1

3

2

13

19

33

53

U of Missouri

3

0

0

0

2

2

7

4

0

3

6

2

1

4

5

18

39

53

Columbia U

0

6

1

1

3

0

1

5

5

2

1

1

4

10

2

18

42

55

*U of South Carolina

2

7

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

1

6

1

2

4

2

15

39

56

*U of Southern CA

1

4

5

3

3

2

1

4

7

5

3

2

4

1

3

13

48

57

U of Kansas

1

4

4

1

2

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

7

1

0

12

25

58

Rennselaer Polytechnic U

0

4

1

1

3

5

0

0

0

0

1

4

3

3

0

11

25

59

Marquette U

0

0

2

4

7

2

6

4

1

6

5

0

4

0

1

10

42

60

U of Michigan

4

1

1

0

0

1

5

0

2

2

3

1

4

1

0

9

25

61

Northwestern U

4

1

2

2

6

2

7

2

0

0

4

4

0

0

0

8

34

62

Boston University

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

3

3

0

1

7

16

63

SUNY at Buffalo

0

2

3

2

7

0

4

1

5

1

0

0

2

3

0

5

30

64

U of Oregon

1

4

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

4

11

65

Duke U

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

3

8

Note. *Representation at all 15 conferences, 5 Yr Sum = total frequencies for 1996-2000, institutions ranked according to 5 year sum.

Table 2 depicts the frequency of contributions for 21 nonacademic institutions in the SIOP Conference program from 1986 to 2000. This table was limited to nonacademic institutions that appeared at least once in the top 25 most represented institutions across the 15 years examined. It should be noted that government research laboratories/institutes, corporate organizations, as well as a number of consulting firms are among these institutions. Sums of frequencies are provided for the full 15 years, as well as the last 5 years. Institutions are ranked based on a sum of the frequencies for the last 5 years.

Table 2.  Frequencies for Non-Academic Institutions in the SIOP Conference Program

 

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

Last 5 Yr Sum

15 Yr Sum

1

Center for Creative Leadership

1

1

0

10

6

7

13

11

10

11

24

9

27

26

33

119

189

2

HRStrategies, Inc.**

Aon Consulting, Inc.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

8

0

9

0

10

0

13

0

5

0

 

4

 

3

55

44

111

153

3

Personnel Decisions, International

1

0

0

1

7

2

14

17

15

15

26

26

19

15

20

106

178

4

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes

0

7

3

10

3

6

7

14

4

6

14

16

13

23

36

102

162

5

Naval Air Warfare Center

0

1

3

3

7

11

7

11

20

16

12

15

24

30

20

101

180

6

American Institutes for Research

0

3

1

5

0

3

3

6

3

2

11

11

9

33

32

96

122

7

Landy, Jacobs, & Associates, Inc.***

SHL (Saville & Holdsworth, Ltd.)

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

7

0

3

3

10

6

10

8

6

2

4

20

29

69

92

8

HumRRO

1

2

0

3

0

4

10

2

4

8

1

5

12

14

15

47

81

9

IBM Corporation

1

3

2

3

0

1

23

8

4

5

5

2

5

16

16

44

94

10

U. S. Office of Personnel Management

5

4

3

5

5

6

0

8

1

5

3

5

7

5

23

43

85

11

*U.S. Air Force Laboratory

3

7

11

5

8

12

3

4

2

6

11

5

5

3

6

30

91

12

*AT&T Corporation

2

16

5

9

3

9

10

8

6

6

6

2

4

4

3

19

93

13

Private Practice/Independent Consultant

3

0

0

0

4

0

5

3

4

6

6

2

0

0

8

16

41

14

LIMRA International

2

2

4

5

7

5

7

2

3

9

4

3

0

0

2

9

55

15

American College Testing (ACT)

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

12

3

1

2

1

2

1

7

24

16

Assessment Alternatives, Inc.

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

14

2

2

2

0

1

7

24

17

Kaiser Permanente Medicare Program

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

5

9

1

0

1

3

1

6

38

18

Navy Personnel R&D Center

6

5

1

2

3

3

4

3

2

2

3

0

0

0

2

5

36

19

General Motors

0

2

5

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

9

20

WFS Workforce Solutions

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

19

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

27

Note. *Representation at all 15 conferences, **Merged with Aon Consulting in 1995, ***Merged with SHL in March 1998, 5 Yr Sum = total frequencies for 1996-2000, Institutions ranked based on 5 year sum.

Discussion

This study examined institutional representation in the SIOP Conference program from 19862000. Sixty-five academic and 21 nonacademic institutions appeared at least once in the top 25 most represented institutions across the 15-year time period examined.

What motivates SIOP participation? In an effort to understand what motivates individuals to submit papers to SIOP at some of the most well-represented academic institutions, the directors of 24 I-O programs were e-mailed in late February and early March of 2001 and asked What motivates faculty and students at your institution to submit papers to SIOP (e.g., providing funding contingent upon presenting, rewarding submissions/presentations)? Sixteen (66%) faculty members responded to the e-mail inquiries. Responses were classified into 14 general categories to include (listed in order of most frequently cited to least frequently cited): travel expense reimbursement for students is contingent on presenting; travel expense reimbursement for faculty is contingent on presenting; climate/culture of program promotes presentations; students are required or expected to present; desire to disseminate research; research valued or part of the identity of the university or program; rewards or recognition given; internal motivation drives participation; presentations promote the graduate program; presentations build curriculum vitae; presentations are the first step in the manuscript pipeline; presenting is a part of students professional development; presentations provide the opportunity to network; and presentations are a way of contributing to the field.

What makes a competitive submission? The directors of the I-O programs were also asked, In your opinion, what are the characteristics of submissions that enhance the chances of acceptance? Responses to this question were classified into ten categories to include (listed in order of most frequently cited to least frequently cited): a scientist-practitioner balance in terms of participants for symposia; sound methodology; the same criteria used when evaluating manuscripts for publication; theoretical and practical relevance; an interesting research question; clarity; luck of the draw with reviewers; hot or trendy topics; significant results; and good writing.

Limitations. As with all studies, there are a number of limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. First, representation within the SIOP Conference program is certainly dependent on the number of sessions submitted and the number of submissions is likely to be somewhat related to a third variablelocation of the Conference. For example, individuals may be more inclined to submit contributions to the SIOP Conference when it is hosted in their local area or region or at a more personally appealing location.

Second, rankings do not take into consideration the size of the institution. Certainly, smaller organizations and universities/colleges are at a decided disadvantage. Third, while many of these ratings of academic institutions reflect faculty and student research productivity from I-O psychology graduate programs, it should be noted that departmental affiliation was not considered. As a result, both faculty and students from other departments such as management departments contributed to the rankings. Given this, caution should be taken when making generalizations about I-O psychology graduate programs from these rankings. At the same time, students often have the opportunity to interact with faculty from other departments and benefit from these interactions (e.g., take classes from, collaborate on research projects with, have as committee members).

Finally, the current approach for aggregating data rewards collaboration within ones own institution. While such efforts are convenient, they are not necessarily encouraged and are likely to expand the gap between scientists and practitioners.

Future Research

Future research with this database is currently underway. For example, by classifying session and paper topics into categories based on content (e.g., using codes provided in the SIOP Call for Papers), trends in topics presented can be examined. Such a database could then serve as a tool for identifying unpublished papers to include in meta-analyses, review articles, and handbook chapters, reducing the file drawer problem. This may require authors to be more careful about maintaining copies of their Conference papers for longer periods of time.

Future consideration should be given to setting standards when reporting individuals affiliations. It appeared over the course of the 15 years examined there are no standards for reporting affiliations. Sometimes the same individuals within and across programs listed their affiliations slightly differently even when they remained at the same institution (e.g., Penn State vs. The Pennsylvania State University). This is only likely to lead to confusion and misallocation of credit for institutional representation. As a result, standards for reporting affiliations should be implemented by both academic and nonacademic institutions.

In sum, this study examined both academic and nonacademic institutional representation in the past 15 SIOP Conference programs. Results suggest that the SIOP Conference has experienced much growth and that both scientists and practitioners are contributing to I-O psychology research through this venue.

 

July 2001 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home