TIP-TOPics for Students TIP October 1999

Welcome back! Summer vacation is over and we are plugging along trying to get back into the old routine of graduate school. For those of you who are beginning your first year—congratulations and GOOD LUCK! We welcome you to the "club" and hope that you will benefit from reading this column. For the rest of you who are returning—it's time to stop procrastinating and finish those degrees! And we're here to help you maneuver through the mine field relatively unscathed.

This installment of TIP-TOPics will feature only two segments in order to provide more depth to each one. In "Meeting of the Minds—Scientist and Practitioner," we ask the question of several prominent members of SIOP, how do you balance the roles of scientist and practitioner in your professional life? We will begin the discussion by exploring the meaning of the scientist-practitioner model and then tackle a few issues associated with incorporating each of these roles into academic and practitioner positions. Both practitioners and academics share their insights concerning the S-P model and give students advice concerning how they have successfully integrated the roles of scientist and practitioner. "TIPs for Balancing Life and Graduate School" provides another insightful and practical way to avoid experiencing extreme "work-family conflict." In keeping with the trends, this tip for balancing your school and personal responsibilities will borrow heavily from cognitive psychology.

In the next issue of TIP-TOPics (January, 2000), we will explore strategies and advice for surviving the second year of graduate school and completing a master's in "TrIP Through Time." As part of our series on learning how to build a network in "Making the Right Connections," we will discover and share the secrets of successful internships. The focus will be on transforming your internship from the fulfillment of a program requirement into an opportunity for valuable career connections. If you have specific concerns or questions about either of these topics that you would like us to address, please forward those to us ASAP and we will go to work scouring the I-O world for the answers!

Meeting of the Minds—Scientist and Practitioner: Is it Possible to
Balance the Roles of Scientist and Practitioner in Professional Life?

Our goal in writing this segment is to help graduate students discover and tackle professional issues affecting all of our careers before we enter the real world. In other words, think of this as the "professional development" portion of our column. Specifically, we will explore issues related to the Scientist-Practitioner model. To facilitate the exploration of this model, each segment will present answers given by members of SIOP (practitioners and academics)
to the featured question. As always, if you have questions and/or issues that you would like to address concerning this model, please feel free to contact us.

The topic for this segment focuses on how a few members of SIOP have achieved balance between the responsibilities of scientist and practitioner in their roles as either academic or practicing psychologists. We want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the respondents who took time away from their tight schedules to share the benefit of their experiences. They include Wally Borman, University of South Florida and PDI; Mike Campion, Purdue University; Allan Church, W. Warner Burke Associates, Inc. and Editor of TIP; Ann Howard, DDI; Ed Levine, University of South Florida (Department Chair); and Robert and Joyce Hogan, University of Tulsa and Hogan Assessment Systems. As you can see, perspectives from both the academic and applied world are represented.

My first conception of the S-P model, originated with a discussion (before entering grad school) with a practicing psychologist concerning the difference between academic and applied work. Although I did not know it at the time, the discussion primarily concerned the nature of the S-P model. This particular practicing psychologist conveyed concern over what he perceived to be a deep division between academics and practitioners. Specifically, in his perspective, practitioners seemed to feel as though research conducted by academics was not useful in practice and practitioners did not conduct much research due to time and organizational constraints. He also expressed concern over the fact that the two "sides" did not seem to cooperate and listen to one another's needs. The idea that I-O psychologists should be either researchers or practitioners seemed ludicrous and nonsensical to me.

Unfortunately, hope diminished slightly when I began reading certain publications and even issues of TIP. Evidence, although subtle, of tension and a lack of cooperation between academic and practicing psychologists seemed to be everywhere. For instance, in "Dateline 2020: A Look Back at I-O at the Turn of the Millennium," which appeared in the last TIP issue, Marc Berwald's "hindsight" from the year 2020 suggested a publication whose readership included human resource professionals, academics, practitioners, and managers alike. This suggestion alludes to the problem that practitioners, and academics do not effectively communicate with each other, let alone the business world. He also suggested a distinguishing event in I-O at the turn of the millennium concerned a "reconnection" of practitioners and researchers in an effort to cooperate in the process of solving practical problems through empirical research. Nancy deLay expressed similar sentiments in her article (also in July's TIP), "The State of Telework Research." Specifically, she cited a lack of "collaborative relationships" between academics and organizations as the reason for the lack of literature available to the mainstream public. In addition, she suggests field research results should not be considered illegitimate due to the lack of rigorous empirical standards but rather considered simply more limited.

As illustrated in the previous examples, there are issues inherent within the
S-P model that make balancing the roles of researcher and practitioner difficult. For this reason, we posed several questions related to this dilemma to the previously mentioned SIOP members. Although we would like to, we cannot take credit for the insights and thoughts which are presented below. What appears below are summaries and integrations of the responses to each questions.

What is your conception of the meaning of the Scientist-Practitioner model?

Unanimously, respondents agreed the underlying meaning involves an integration of the roles of scientist and practitioner within the same body. Every
I-O psychologist should be able to view his or her professional pursuits from both a scientific and practice perspective. Because of the importance of this question, our panelists' responses are quoted verbatim.

The "practitioner" recognizes that I-O psychology is an inexact science and tries to verify the soundness of applications through studying and conducting research. The "scientist" recognizes that the purpose of
I-O psychology is to understand and support the human side of work and tries to test applications of theories and research in the real world.

—Ann Howard
DDI

To me, the S-P model reflects the dual emphasis in I-O psychology…on the need for formal models, methods, and approaches to conducting empirical research and building theory around psychological aspects of individuals and organizations; and the need to have practical, useful, actionable, and immediate applications and/or guidelines for working with and helping individuals and organizations to develop and improve. It's really a push-pull dynamic process where the correct level of balance between perspectives (i.e., the correct way of doing things vs. the way things actually get done) is constantly being negotiated and renegotiated. All practitioners, consultants, researchers, and academics face these issues. The only differences are where the lines are drawn (e.g., with a client, during research design, choosing a publication outlet, designing a survey measure, etc.).

—Allan Church
W. Warner Burke Associates, Inc.

To me, it conveys that practice is informed by scientific findings, and in turn is influenced in its choice of problems and methods by the "real" world as experienced in practice.

—Ed Levine

University of South Florida

…using scientific findings and methods in I-O practice and having practice problems and challenges at least in part drive my scientific pursuits, is where I am on this topic.

—Wally Borman

University of South Florida

There are some unique and quite interesting intellectual challenges facing a true scientist practitioner. We think these fall into four broad classes: (a) identifying how to solve the client's problem in an empirical and intellectually defensible manner. (b) gathering and analyzing the data needed to solve the problem, (c) interpreting the solution back to the client in a way that it will actually be used, and (d) writing up the research in a way that it will pass muster with reviewers, many of whom have never dealt with a real world data set.

—Robert and Joyce Hogan

University of Tulsa and

Hogan Assessment Systems

What responsibilities/activities do you associate with the scientist role? Practitioner role? Are these two analogous to the roles of an academic psychologist and a practicing psychologist?

To answer the second question first, our panelist said, no, not necessarily. The roles of scientist and practitioner should not be confused with the settings in which these roles are performed. Psychologists who work in either academia or practice should engage in both scientist and practitioner activities, even if it is to differing extents. Academic psychologists often teach, conduct research, and advise students although they may emphasize one of these functions over the other. Concurrently, academics may also "moonlight" with an extracurricular consulting practice. Practitioners typically advise clients utilizing certain techniques; however, others may also teach (training and development may be considered a form of teaching) or conduct research as part of their jobs. Many internships (and long-term positions as well) that take place in a practice setting may require students to conduct basic research.

Of course, coming from a panel of professionals who have been successful in balancing the roles of scientist and practitioner, they agreed that formal (and separate) definitions of scientist and practitioner activities are not necessarily valid or helpful. Instead, these activities should be considered integral pieces of any job. However, one might consider it useful to have an idea of the activities often associated with each of these roles. Allan Church explained "at the typological level…the scientist perspective is probably more concerned with isolating and identifying specific theoretical contributions to a phenomenon of interest in the field, while the practitioner perspective is focused on adapting what is known to the existing political and economical constraints of an organizational system." To that end, scientist activities involve carefully choosing and defining problems, using theory to explain and understand these, and generating empirical tests of the theory. Scientists conduct empirical tests using differing approaches in order to validate their findings. The scientist is also interested in both basic research questions and applied topics related to the workplace. The practitioner evaluates research results in light of both theory and other concerns of the organization, including values and ethics, in order to develop and implement interventions. He/she advises clients on the most effective and efficient solutions, given a certain set of circumstances and constraints. Due to the fact that not every issue can be researched in every possible set of circumstances, practitioners must employ professional judgment in developing specific applications for an organization. And, practitioners should evaluate the outcomes of their prescriptions in order to provide feedback and guidelines concerning future applications and research. Wally Borman contends that "ideally, the practice role employs science in two ways. We can use scientific results to guide practice.... The second way is to use scientific methods in practice." Thus, the activities of scientist and practitioner are not truly distinguishable, but rather provide complementary tools for resolving workplace issues.

How do you incorporate activities of both scientist and practitioner into your primary responsibilities as either an academic or practitioner?

When performing the activities of either a scientist or a practitioner, the professional is only completing half of his/her responsibilities. And, because the roles are not mutually exclusive, there are many ways in which to incorporate the activities of each into any position. Ed Levine uses tools derived from research in his role as department chair, such as utilizing structured interviews during the hiring process. As a scientist, he chooses to research issues, which impact outcome variables such as performance and satisfaction. Allan Church incorporates activities of both roles by using "traditional I-O and OD related data-based methodologies (i.e. multirater feedback and survey feedback)." He also incorporates science by advocating the creation of instruments, systems and databases that adhere to academic standards of validity and relevancy, and which can be used to investigate patterns of behavior.

In another example of integration of scientist and practitioner activities, Ann Howard described the following:

As a practitioner, I provide assessment technologies to clients; for example, a current project is developing and delivering an assessment center to United Nations Resident Coordinators (their top executive position in a country). As a scientist, I have researched how well our assessment center differentiates among candidates, what subgroup differences have an effect (gender, country of origin, etc.), and convergent and discriminant validity of dimension ratings. Based upon research, I created new approaches to the design and scoring of assessment exercises; then I researched the impact of those improvements. It's an iterative process.

The above examples provide evidence that it is both possible and preferable to consider an approach to your position from both science and practical perspectives; and there are no right or wrong ways to achieve integration of these roles—the method is dependent upon the individual, circumstances, and training.

What poses the most difficulty in maintaining balance between the scientist and practitioner roles? How have you overcome these difficulties?

The field of I-O naturally allows us to engage in the activities of both scientist and practitioner. The nature of the work is applied, in that practical problems exist in the workplace. In the past, solutions to these problems were discovered through scientific research methods and analytical procedures. While this may be true, successfully fulfilling both roles may be challenging at best. As will be discussed later, researchers and practitioners must satisfy different audiences and from this, arise certain difficulties. For example, practitioners often face clients whose deadlines are short and who want to spend as little money as possible. This may preclude practitioners from the ability to do research. However, some suggestions for solving these difficulties include "piggybacking" experiments on top of current projects. Also, those clients with deeper pockets may be convinced to fund projects to develop and pilot products that may useful in other organizations. Many times, though, one must sacrifice personal time to pursue more scientific endeavors.

Other difficulties include the different reward systems and valued contributions, which are not necessarily shared by academics and practitioners. Organizations value timely answers, while academics value scholarly publications, which take time. One way to overcome this problem is to alternate publications between scholarly journals and trade journals. In addition, academic types may consult "on the side" or form partnerships with their practitioner counterparts. Certain members of our faculty have found unique solutions through "mixed" marriages (one partner is an academic and the other is a practitioner). Any approach to overcoming difficulties associated with trying to balance these two roles should be carefully chosen by the individual, as each has its own rewards and consequences.

Since beginning graduate school, we've noticed there seems to be a dichotomy between academics and practitioners. Is this an accurate observation? And if so, why do you think this adversarial relationship exists?

Although a separation, which might be characterized as tense, may exist between academics and practitioners, the relationship is probably far less than adversarial. Unfortunately, as Wally Borman admits, it may be natural for people to contrast their positions with others they perceive as having much in common but still having a few distinct differences. He points to several examples including clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, executives and frontline employees, or professors and deans. Other respondents agree that academics and practitioners focus on their differences.

Joyce and Robert Hogan believe that, "people are primarily motivated by efforts to get along and get ahead." Differences exist only in the methods people employ to achieve their goals. Scientists primarily use the academic method which means research ideas are derived from scholarly publications and results are shared with the academic community in journals. Practitioners derive research ideas from the practical problems which they are hired to solve "and then sell the research products back to the real world." Overall, academics and practitioners differ primarily in the audiences to which they cater. In turn, this is the source of additional tensions. Academics may take issue with the internal validity of field research and complain about insufficient sample size or lack of controls. Unfortunately, field research represents a trade-off between good methodology and realistic and useful results. Practitioners may view purely academic research as too narrow, unrealistic, and shallow to accurately represent an organizational system.

However, separate reward systems exist within the different audiences, according to Ann Howard. Allan Church agrees that some tension is a result of varying perceptions of contributions to the field. The academic community perceives significant contributions to the field as publications, which adhere to formal research standards of methodological principles and lengthy review processes. Unfortunately, practitioners may not be able to satisfy these requirements due to the nature of field research and the lack of time to follow through with the academic research process. In other words, the rewards offered by the academic community are too few and even costly for practitioners (opportunity costs, jeopardizing proprietary information, organizational constraints). At the same time, this same reward system may lead to research, which would please the methodological and statistical gods but which has little relevance or use for real world organizations.

On the other hand, the reward system that exists for practitioners emphasizes "timely" solutions to current problems, research reflecting real world problems, and plain (as opposed to academic) communication with the business world. As a consequence of veering away from these standards, businesses may view practitioners' research as too academic for their purposes. Perhaps organizations might hire less reputable consultants because they promise overnight results and have no interest in evaluating the effectiveness once implemented, while an I-O psychologist knows any solution requires time to elicit changes and evaluation to achieve maximum effectiveness (and for future knowledge).

For these and other reasons, it is much easier to specialize in either the scientist or practitioner role; thus, the field experiences a separation between its members.

How do you think this division can be overcome?

Despite the appearance of a dichotomy, it isn't completely accurate to characterize the relationship as adversarial. Overall, the respondents expressed positive thoughts regarding the development of more collaborative relationships between researchers and practitioners. Although they acknowledged that some tension exists due to the different audiences to which each must play, our field has attempted to resolve the situation. For example, the annual SIOP Conference continues to grow in the number of participants from both research and practice. The sessions and symposia collectively offered no longer focus only on one aspect and participants "crossattend" (researchers participating in practice sessions and vice versa) programs. SIOP has also begun to encourage distinguished practitioners to apply for Fellowship.

Personnel Psychology has introduced a new Scientist-Practitioner Forum section, which attempts to foster acknowledgment of and appreciation for the contributions of both perspectives. Another strategy which would foster a deeper appreciation for each other is a job exchange program in which academics and practitioners assume the other's responsibilities for a fixed but temporary period of time.

The key to bridging any gap between academics and practitioners is to recognize that each performs functions that are essential to the success of the other. Ann Howard stated that "a wise practitioner surveys relevant literature and evaluates applications in terms of what is scientifically respectable. A wise academic studies real-world problems or evaluates theories and research in terms of the usefulness in the workplace." In essence, the answer to this question is to maintain the attitude (beginning as a student) and understanding that the S-P model is the foundation of our field for a reason. Scientists and practitioners have the same ultimate goals but take different routes to get there. However, they cannot reach those goals without each other. Let's celebrate our differences instead of lamenting them!

How might graduate programs address the issue of balancing the scientist and practitioner roles for future psychologists?

Due to the nature of the academic and research settings of graduate programs, students receive a healthy dose of the skills needed to be an effective scientist. And, as discussed in the last segment on this topic, many of the skills acquired during graduate study also apply to practice. Often, however, the role of the practitioner is not explored as deeply. Ed Levine suggests that all programs in I-O should adhere closely to SIOP's Education and Training guidelines, which recommend instruction in both aspects of the S-P model. Unanimously, respondents advocated individual internship experiences in order for students to learn how businesses operate, and that projects for which they are responsible have consequences for the larger organization. Collectively, they also indicated that guest speakers, conferences (particularly SIOP practitioner symposia), and local meetings of practitioners should be part of the education process to help students learn about both aspects of the model. Lastly, faculty and students should participate in (formal and informal) exchanges with each other (and guest speakers, etc.) specifically focusing on how to ease the tensions between researchers and scientists.

Well, now you are an expert on how the professionals balance the roles of scientist and practitioner. Just to recap though…our interviewees illustrated that the underlying meaning of the S-P model is integration of these roles and incorporation of both scientific and practice activities into all positions. Due to the nature of our training, we are all scientists and practitioners irrespective of the settings in which we perform our duties. Unfortunately, due to differing reward systems and audiences, tensions may arise between academics and practitioners. However, collaborative relationships should be a goal of both perspectives in order to strengthen our field and better serve our clients, whoever they may be. Generally, the interviewees expressed positive sentiments for the efforts of SIOP and our ability to appreciate and respect each other's contributions to the field. Exploring as many opportunities as are available in graduate school is one way to achieve a balance between the scientist and practitioner roles in your professional life.

TIPs for Balancing Life and Graduate School

Here we are—it's the middle of October and of the semester; a precarious time for graduate students who are trying to balance a personal life with the unending demands of school. The semester is half over already and you have not yet studied for midterms or written that proposal you have to "defend" next week. And for all you sports fans, football season is in full swing, which means no work is getting done on Saturdays or Sundays. The seasons are changing, for those of you who don't live in Florida, and we all finally get a break from the heat wave. And there are a thousand things you could be doing other than that which is required to keep advancing toward your degree. It's that time of year when we all wish there were at least 30 hours in each day.

If you are anything like us, you probably read this segment, or get advice from friends, and think, "good ideas but who has time to implement them?!!" Well, we can partially solve that problem today (cheers from the audience). No, we have not devised a plan that will extend the number of hours in a day nor have we been able to convince the faculty that it IS necessary that we get 8 hours of sleep every night (despite the findings concerning sleep deprivation and shift work). It is not for a lack of trying, though.

Instead, we have found a way to creatively apply some of the information we learned in Cognitive Psychology last year (we still don't understand the mental model stuff though). After an "incubation" period, it occurred to us how the research on creativity could be useful in maintaining some semblance of a life outside the walls of the psych building. Originally, it was thought (and probably still is to some degree) that those who think creatively or who were innovators were those who had special "creative" minds or talents and those of us who are normal were just plain doomed to be dull. Fortunately, Wallas (1926) rejected that notion and theorized that creativity was simply a by-product of routine thought processes. Specifically, he postulated four stages of creative thought: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Briefly: (a) preparation is the "learning stage." This is the time that we gather and understand knowledge and eventually develop expertise. (b) Incubation is the break from active learning in which we put down the problem for awhile and do something entirely unrelated. (c) The illumination stage is full of insights that seem to happen spontaneously, and (d) the verification stage involves an evaluation of the ideas or solutions produced previously.

OK, so what's the connection to having more time? The answer lies in the incubation stage. In order to have creative thoughts or to deeply understand the material that you are trying to learn, you have to walk away from it for a time. In other words, after you acquire certain knowledge, you have to give it time to mesh, gel, simmer, or whatever metaphor you want to use, in your brain. It isn't until after this period that insights seem to happen "out of the blue." Wallas would argue (according to our understanding of his model anyway) that having insights is not the result of some magical process. They are the result of incubation, which allows your brain time to make certain connections or to see relationships that you were unable to see previously. This is related to another concept concerning problem resolution, namely functional fixedness (and you thought you were going to get practical tips-not another lecture in Cognitive Psych!). Generally speaking, this is the problem where people have trouble finding new and innovative uses for those things, which they perceive as having specific functions. Those who overcome functional fixedness see uses for ordinary objects that are completely beyond the scope of their original purpose. Incubation can sometimes cure functional fixedness because it frees us from the constraints of the situation (or our perceptions), and allows associations to form that provide the basis for insights.

So, now that we have beaten you over the head with the background, we will attempt to explain how to apply this knowledge to make more time for yourself to balance your roles. But first, we are going to take a break from writing to allow our thoughts to incubate. The point of this whole rambling discourse is that you have to take breaks from your work now and again. Study sessions or research jaunts lasting 3_4 hours at a time probably are not going to help you see the problem in a creative way. Allowing your brain free time to play will facilitate your learning, writing, or analytical skills, not to mention (and here's the connection all spelled out) give you time to join your "other" life, if even just for half an hour.

Here's the practical part of the TIP for this segment. If you are trying to read those 450 pages necessary for your next class, or if you are pouring over hundreds of articles for your research or you are trying to finish writing the introduction of your thesis/dissertation, don't forget the four stages. Before you can have earth-shattering insights, you need to give your brain time to step away from the problem. Have you ever found yourself trying to finish all that reading for your course only to realize that you have not comprehended any of the last five sentences? We suggest, when this happens, instead of reading just to say that you did, and then you are hopelessly lost during discussion because your brain didn't process any of it, take a break! Walk away from the reading or writing or whatever the school activity, and do something related to your personal life. For example, read a leisure book (it doesn't work if you start reading for a different course—trust us, we've tried it), e-mail friends (or better yet call them), talk to your significant other, go for a walk, clean the house (groan—but it does help get those chores out of the way, and keeps the place from smelling!) or some other little activity. The key here is to limit yourself. When you feel that your brain is full, do something for your personal life but put a specific time limit on it, perhaps, 15_30 minutes. After that time has expired, go back to your school activity, and you will find that you are once again comprehending sentences and possibly having creative thoughts too.

During those incubation periods, you will get all those little things out of the way that you were waiting to get "around to" when you had more time. Your friends will be grateful to communicate with you a little more often so they can stop worrying if you are dead or not. And your dwelling will be presentable enough to entertain your grandparents. Not to mention that you will feel more balanced and you won't have to completely lie when you tell others that you do have a life outside grad school (even if you have to participate in it for 30 minutes at a time). Be cautious though, without a healthy dose of discipline—it's easy to turn your incubation periods into procrastination!

To avoid that trap, we take this idea one step farther. We set aside certain times and days for "fun" or real life. If you have a favorite TV show that helps you to relax and laugh a little, then set aside that time and watch it (without feeling guilty). If you need to, study, write, or research before that show then when it's time, put away your work and treat yourself. For us, fall is a favorite time of the year because it's FOOTBALL SEASON (Go Gators!) and we could literally spend all weekend, every weekend (between college and professional football and trips to Gainesville) absorbed in the mania. Instead of denying ourselves the pleasure (and spending most of our study time rushing into the other room to see the phenomenal play), we simply designate Sundays (and certain Saturdays) as free time. A big group of people usually gathers at the designated house to enjoy football, friends, and a smorgasbord of food and drink. We simply plan for that and work our school schedule around it (yes, this is a novel concept). It keeps us sane, able to concentrate on school work, in its time, and we get to participate in our hobby and share time with friends. Remember that it's not humanly possible to spend 100 hours a week reading, writing, and researching. You need a life outside grad school to keep your sanity and to keep your friendships/relationships alive.

So, the TIP for this issue is to incubate—when you feel your mind start to wander—that's the sign to stop doing school work for a short period and switch attention to your personal life. And designate certain days or certain hours each week as time that you will engage in fun things that are unrelated to school, NO MATTER how much work you have to do. Believe us, you will keep your sanity and possibly begin to enjoy yourself once in awhile, AND you will probably experience more insight and a deeper understanding of grad school material.

We hope you can make use of this latest tip and, as always, if you have comments or have tips to share that have worked for you, please contact us by e-mail. Also, we have posted a message at the www.mydelphi.com web site in the I-O student forum concerning balancing these roles. Please feel free to visit and post responses so that we can have interactive chats with you in between publications of this column. Until January, keep working on your balance!

To contact the TIP-TOPics columnists:
Kim Hoffman (khoffma2@mindspring.com)
Suzanne Vu (svu@helios.acomp.usf.edu)
Fax: (813) 974_4617 / Attn: Kim Hoffman or Suzanne Vu
Mail: Department of Psychology, BEH 339
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida 33620_8200

October 1999 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home