 |
| L to R; Back row: Scott Cassidy, Patricia Grabarek, Shin-I Shih, Lily Cushenbery, Christian Thoroughgood; Front row: Amie Skattebo, Katina Sawyer, Rachel Hoult, Joshua Fairchild |
TIP-TOPics: An Introduction
Amie Skattebo
The Pennsylvania State University
TIP-Topics, a column for students by students, has been a staple of The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist for over a decade. A group of eager Penn State University (PSU) grad students will be editing this column for the next 2 years. In an effort to contribute to this grand tradition, we considered very carefully not only what we may have to offer but also how our culture and norms are likely to shape our contributions. For that reason, we devote this column to giving you a sense of who we are and what you may expect from us over the next seven issues of TIP.
Penn State’s tradition of I-O leadership includes four past presidents of APA Division 141 as well as the first person to receive a PhD in the field, Bruce Moore (Jacobs & Farr, 1993). Two areas that are hallmarks of our program include (a) the scientist–practitioner model and (b) an appreciation for multidisciplinary perspectives. Although there has been ongoing debate about whether and how we might best enact these principles in the field at large (e.g., Banks & Murphy, 1990), we make efforts to “walk the talk” during our graduate school training at Penn State in both these respects. We have also been making efforts to better communicate the value of our knowledge and skills to people outside our field. As a result, you can expect that our column will address these themes and be flavored with these perspectives. Below, we elaborate on these principles and discuss some topics you may see discussed in upcoming issues.
1 Bruce Moore, Frank Landy, Jim Farr, Kevin Murphy
The Grad Student as Scientist–Practitioner
The scientist–practitioner model reflects an appreciation for the interaction between theory building/testing and real-world problem solving. Although we accept that these endeavors mutually enhance and rely on one another, I-O psychologists tend to work in either applied or academic settings. The different sets of pressures in these environments are not always conducive to maintaining a balance between the roles or communication between members of the field that identify themselves more with one role or the other (Murphy & Saal, 1990). Therefore, it is important that the value of persisting through these challenges as well as the skills needed to do so be instilled early in graduate school.
One way we gain a deep appreciation for the scientist–practitioner model and skills for balancing these roles is through our experience participating in and leading projects in practicum. A 3-year commitment for all Penn State I-O grads, practicum provides exposure to the world of practice through participation in solving applied problems for private and public organizations. With the guidance of faculty, students learn how to apply theory and research under the constraints of demanding project timelines and unique client needs. In addition, practicum allows students an opportunity to gather research evidence from the field and gain additional skills such as communicating with a nonacademic audience. A recent review of this program requirement suggests this process speaks quite comprehensively to a number of SIOP’s guidelines for training at the doctoral level (Lindsay, Tate, & Jacobs, 2008). A recent, unpublished survey of Penn State I-O alumni supports the ongoing value of the practicum experience beyond graduation (Grandey, 2008).
In addition to practicum, Penn State I-O has recently chartered an assessment center through the Schreyer’s Honor’s College. This project focuses on the assessment of undergraduates who are seeking the opportunity to learn more about their strengths and weaknesses before entering the job market. For graduate students at Penn State, it provides a valuable opportunity to apply research and theory while gaining applied skills in the organization and administration of assessments. In addition, this project provides a way for the program to communicate our value to the university. Efforts to make our contributions more visible support not only our program but also the field as a whole (Ryan, 2003).
Finally, gaining applied experience through internships is fast becoming a norm at Penn State, even for students considering academic careers. Previously, students have shared their experience through colloquium presentations with other students in the program. Through this column, we hope to pass on some of the lessons learned from participating in practicum, the assessment center, and applied internships to a broader audience.
Sharing Knowledge and Skills Within and Across Disciplines
All students at Penn State are expected to participate in a variety of research projects during their tenure in graduate school. In addition, there is a strong norm for students to complete a minor outside of I-O. As a result, many cross-discipline relationships between I-O and researchers in other university departments have been formed over the years. Some on-going projects include collaborations between students and faculty in Business, Information Science and Technology, Women’s Studies, Labor Studies and Employment Relations, and Hotel and Restaurant Management. In addition, many I-O faculty and students participate in grant work involving the International Center for the Study of Terrorism and the U.S. Marine Corps. As a result, our grad students have many opportunities to experience the joys and difficulties of multidisciplinary research and collaboration.
Utilizing science from disciplines outside the I-O community is a tradition of the field. The archival description presented on the APA Web site defines I-O psychology as rooted in cognitive and social psychology but also influenced by business, labor and industrial relations, physiology, as well as law (American Psychological Association, 2009). However, multidisciplinary research and collaboration is not easy (Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). We hope to bring you some of the lessons we have learned along the way to aid your potential multidisciplinary interests as well as encourage your collaboration efforts by extolling the benefits we have observed through our experiences.
Understanding and Communicating the Value of I-O
Our experiences working with clients through practicum and departments outside of the I-O community highlight the need to learn how to communicate the nature and value of I-O with a nonacademic audience. A norm that has quickly developed among our students and faculty is to ask someone for the “elevator speech.” That is, we are expected to learn and practice the skill of explaining our research in a short period of time (i.e., the few minutes you may share with someone in an elevator) using language that is easily comprehensible to people outside our field.
Related to the above is the need to understand the value of I-O research and organizational interventions in terms that are meaningful to business leaders. Utility theory provides a way to discuss the value of organizational interventions in dollar terms (Cabrera & Raju, 2001). Although we commonly accept that business leaders want to understand how our research will affect their bottom line, research suggests many in our field do not (Macan & Highhouse, 1994). Furthermore, research on the influence of reporting utility to business leaders presents equivocal results (Carson, Becker & Henderson, 1998; Whyte & Latham, 1997). We hope to discuss how we might explore utility theory and practice communicating with business leaders and others outside our field in upcoming issues.
About Our Team
Over the next 2 years you will be hearing from students spanning a range of program tenure as well as research interests. Here is a quick preview of our TIP-TOPics team:
Scott Cassidy brings both a unique applied and international perspective to our group, having both lived abroad and worked in the field following completion of his master’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. His research interests include leadership, selection, and creativity and innovation.
Joshua Fairchild, alum of the University of Connecticut, is just off the heels of his first year of graduate school and brings a fresh perspective to our column. His research interests include leadership and creativity. Josh is also a seasoned comedian, participating in improvisational comedy for 10 years.
Patricia Grabarek, a UCLA alum, is looking forward to her third year at Penn State, with interests in emotional labor, training, feedback, selection, and assessment centers. Patricia speaks Polish and will be living and breathing the scientist–practitioner model in her role as assessment center coordinator this upcoming year.
Rachel Hoult is a graduate of the University of Maryland and has many research interests, including leadership and teams. She can speak four languages and brings a fresh perspective to our column having just completed her first year of graduate school.
Lily Cushenbery hails from sunny California, a graduate of California State University at Fresno. Her interests are broad, but include leadership, innovation, and training. A recent newlywed and fluent speaker of Russian, Lily is excited to start her third year in grad school this fall.
Katina Sawyer brings an exciting cross-disciplinary perspective to our group. A graduate of Villanova University, Katina is working toward dual degrees in I-O and women’s studies. She studies gender and diversity issues at work and home.
Shin-I Shih brings an international perspective to our team having completed her undergraduate degree at the National Chengchi University in Taipei, Tawain. Her research interests, as she begins her third year in graduate school, include decision making, selection, teams, and cross-cultural issues in the workplace.
Amie Skattebo is finishing up her doctorate this summer. Her research focuses on technological and organizational change. Having completed a minor in information science and technology, Amie adds to our team’s multidisciplinary perspective.
Christian Thoroughgood hails from the University of Maryland and has research interests in leadership, particularly deviant leadership. He’s beginning his fourth year at Penn State this fall.
Conclusions
We hope to provide greater insight to the larger graduate student community about the three topics discussed: the scientist–practitioner model, cross-disciplinary experience, and communicating effectively with people outside our field. We look forward to serving and thank the excellent contributors to TIP-TOPics in the past. Suggestions for future topics that readers would like us to cover or questions/comments can be directed to Amie Skattebo (als383@psu.edu). To learn more about our program, please visit our Web site (http://psych.la.psu.edu/graduate/programAreas/ioArea/index.html).
References
American Psychological Association (2009). Archival description of industrial and organizational psychology. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from http://www.apa.org/crsppp/io.html
Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1990). Toward narrowing the research–practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335–345.
Cabrera, E. F. & Raju, N. S. (2001). Utility analysis: Current trends and future directions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1), 1–11.
Carson, K. P., Becker, J. S., & Henderson, J. A. (1998). Is utility really futile? A failure to replicate and an extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 84–96.
Grandey, A. (2008). PSU I-O alumni survey. Colloquium presentation to I-O psychology program. The Pennsylvania State University.
Jacobs, R. R. & Farr, J. L. (1993). Industrial and organizational psychology at the Pennsylvania State University. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 30(3), 75–79.
Lindsay, D. R., Tate, B. W., Jacobs, R. R. (2008). Practicum: A teaching tool to highlight the scientist–practitioner model. The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 45(3), 39–47.
Macan, T. H. & Highhouse, S. (1994). Communicating the utility of human resource activities: A survey of I-O and HR professionals. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8(4), 425–436.
Murphy, K., & Saal, F. E. (1990). What should we expect from scientist–practitioners? In K. Murphy & F. Saal (Eds), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice. (pp. 49–66), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ryan, A. M. (2003). Defining ourselves: I-O psychology’s identity quest. The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 41(1), 21–33.
Whyte, G. & Latham, G. P. (1997). The futility of utility analysis revisited: When even an expert fails. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 601–610.
Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C. W. & Thurow, A. P. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–440.