Practice Perspectives: Science–Practice Gaps in
Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Part II
Rich Cober, Rob Silzer, Anna Erickson1
1 Author affiliations: Rich Cober–Marriott International, Rob Silzer-HR Assessment and Development & Baruch-CUNY, Anna Erickson–Questar
Executive Summary
The recent SIOP Practitioner Needs Survey explored the possible “gaps” that might exist between the science and practice of industrial-organizational psychology. Survey responses suggest that gaps do exist in a number of areas. Possible reasons for these gaps include:
- practice may underutilize available science
- science may undervalue innovations in practice
- science may not produce research findings that are relevant to practice
- practice might not provide sufficient opportunities to research relevant issues
Part I of this article (July 2009) presented member survey results related to science–practice gaps and explored the details around those perceived gaps. In Part II, perspectives from a group of experienced I-O practitioners and academics who reviewed the findings of this part of the SIOP Practice Survey are summarized with recommendations on the steps that can be taken to address these gaps and ultimately enhance science–practice collaboration.
Introduction
In 2008, the SIOP Professional Practice Committee conducted a membership survey to better understand practitioner views and needs on a variety of professional issues (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson; 2008). The survey was sent to all members, with an overall response rate of 36%. Respondents were divided into four practitioner groups based on self-reported percent of work time devoted to being a practitioner (as opposed to time being an educator or scientist/researcher):
- Full-time practitioners (n = 612; indicating 70% or more time as a practitioner)
- Part-time practitioners (n = 101; indicating 21%–69% of time as a practitioner)
- Occasional practitioners (n = 193; indicating 1%–20% of time as a practitioner)
- Nonpractitioners (n = 99; indicating 0% of time as a practitioner)
Part I of this article (Cober, Silzer, & Erickson, 2009) provided tables and commentary summarizing what survey results told us about the “gaps” of I-O psychology. To further understand the implications of these results, we invited 12 SIOP members, whose professional experience bridges science and practice, to respond to four questions through e-mail and/or personal interview (the final three of which represent the focus of the rest of the article):
1. Based on your experience, do the results in these tables surprise you? Why or why not?
2. What recommendations would you give to the nonpractitioner about bridging the gap between science and practice?
3. What recommendations would you give to the full-time practitioner about bridging the gap between science and practice?
4. What ideas, if any, do you have for how SIOP may be able to facilitate an effective response to these results?
Comments from the group are summarized in the bullet points underneath each question (which in effect represent sections of response). In some cases, the thoughts included in the bullet points represent a synthesis of ideas, where those ideas shared by our group complemented each other.
What recommendations would you give to the nonpractitioner about bridging the gap between science and practice?
- One relevant question for our field is whether there should really be anyone who considers themselves a “nonpractitioner.” This is why there should be some type of licensure or certification that requires all academics to undergo continuing practical education and collect practical experiences as well as so many hours of work per week of applied work. However, there are significant systemic barriers to progress in this area such as criteria for tenure and journal publication.
- Focus on real-life problems that can be studied with scientific rigor. Practitioners can and should articulate questions they would like answered in ways that lend themselves to scientific study. But if this is done, would nonpractitioners pursue the questions?
- Compile summaries of research findings organized by management issue, perhaps blending a summary of research with the format of a case study.
- Ask “what is the practical implication of what I am studying?”; “Who is going to care about that?” Then actively solicit those companies that either do work in the area or where there are local connections to make them aware of the opportunities of doing research that can also have significant business value. This is done a lot today, but reinforcing this practice is key.
- Ask practitioners to review research questions, surveys, and research method designs before conducting research (be it in organizational or laboratory settings). Practitioner-suggested revisions to surveys or interview scripts have produced some very interesting findings in studies.
- From a systemic perspective there needs to be more flexibility in top-tier journals as well as in criteria for what is celebrated in academic and professional communities. Do they count toward both tenure decisions for academics but also for decisions like “Fellow” status for our practitioners? With regard to flexibility in top-tier journals, editorial boards and reviewers may consider flexing the rather rigid expectations with respect to theory and the scientific method, the latter of which tends to fit a laboratory model of research better than it does organizational settings.
- Curriculum in grad schools needs to encourage and teach graduate students how to conduct scientifically sound field research in addition to laboratory studies. Further, bring practitioners into the classroom to learn about what is going on in practice (to the benefit of both students and faculty).
What recommendations would you give to the full-time practitioner about bridging the gap between science and practice?
- Practitioners who are making the call for more insight and accessibility to research do need to reciprocate with a readiness to use that information and help support those academics who are doing their best to conduct research that has significant applied value. Closing the gap is as much or more a practitioner responsibility as it is an academic responsibility.
- Set up mentoring and supervision programs for new practitioners. Develop professional standards in areas other than testing. Do not tolerate the selling of scientifically questionable tools and methodologies (respecting the fact that there is a lot of art to the application of our science). Read the journals.
- Formulate questions that scientists can study with scientific rigor in a way that also articulates certain choices that may have to be made to perform the work (that may affect the research methodology/process that can be used to study the question).
- Attend joint forums with scientists in which common interests are discussed and debated.
- Challenge scientists to study things organizations need to know, and utilize what is known to the extent possible in our work.
- Talk to organizational decision makers. Figure out how to make your scientifically sound recommendations as valuable as “best practice.”
- Look outside of just the I-O discipline for good research and value-adding conferences. There is a lot of research in the clinical and consulting psychology areas that have tremendous applied value, particularly for those practicing in the area of executive assessment, coaching, and leadership development.
- Look to universities to create a win–win for clients/companies. Often with successful university collaborations, the methods used for a project are sound, products created are outstanding, students and faculty get data sets for publication and dissertations, and a true win–win can be created all around. The key is that such ventures need to be structured by the company sponsoring a project in such a way that avoids false starts and work can be performed in a timely manner.
What ideas, if any, do you have for how SIOP may be able to facilitate an effective response to these results?
- In making suggestions, there is the assumption that the gap needs to be bridged. However, the culture of journal criteria and review, the culture of SIOP, and the attitudes of researchers and practitioners toward each other can be significant hurdles to closing the gap. Many do not see sufficient motivation on the part of anyone to change. Of course seeing the need for change is a basic condition for these suggestions.
Dialogues, Conference Forums and Research Forums:
- An idea to test the motivation and generate more dialogue: Have an O.D.-facilitated (action learning) workshop…at SIOP to DIALOGUE…about the survey findings and develop a realistic and workable action plan (the trick to long-term success is to continue to actively engage both sides of our gap issues in conversation and planning). An early part of the workshop could address surfacing and dealing with assumptions and deciding together (a) the extent to which there is value in closing the gap, (b) what currently inhibits gap closing, (c) in what areas do we see bona fide convergence between science and practice, (d) what currently serves to facilitate convergence between science and practice. Identify a team that will work the issue for an extended period of time. Do some team development…. Finally, use that discussion as a spring board for action learning/action planning.
- Joint forums in which management issues…are addressed jointly by scientists and practitioners (who) would begin the process of creating a collective “mind” in making our work relevant to the world. Right now, we have scientist forums and practitioner forums. Is it possible to change the (conference) format somewhat next year and make available intensive discussions on key organizational issues led by both scientists and practitioners? Such forums have worked very well in university settings.
- Encourage a “science” discussant when conference papers come from practitioners and a “practitioner” discussant when conference papers come from academics.
- SIOP could create a new publication series which is like an Annual Review of Psychology, but instead of being organized by research topic and simply reviewing the literature, it would be organized by issue and take an interpreted view of the research literature to inform members on the issue. For example, how should top-level managers be compensated without triggering allegations of greed and unfairness yet still motivating them to perform at high levels and to stay with the organization? What literature informs us on this question?
- Organize an online library of organizational issues so that I-Os who have an interest in an issue could create a group to conduct research or share knowledge gained from extensive experience. By identifying and joining together SIOP members who have a mutual interest in a specific issue, new knowledge and experience might be created through such an association that could contribute to new approaches to the issue, new research studies, and greater visibility of SIOP in the general public through specific publications and broadcasts by the group to the general public.
- Leverage Webcasts to bring forward academic and practitioner perspectives on issues to a broader SIOP audience.
Directly Facilitate Collaboration and Practice Focus:
- As a community, rally around areas, such as evidence-based management, that help to bridge the capability of SIOP as an organization and community with key business partners such as SHRM. This connection can go a long way toward bridging the gaps and generating new applied questions that need to be addressed by research.
- SIOP can facilitate a most useful exercise of practitioners identifying questions they would like to see answered and for academics/ researchers to take a good look at these and ask “why aren’t they being addressed?”…and “What obstacles prevent questions from being addressed (e.g., issues with false starts, contractual limitations, data sensitivity)?” One key boundary condition for successful collaboration between scientists and practitioners is the time it takes to find the right question and relationship. If SIOP can put structure around that process, great value may be had in easing the effort in finding the right relationships and focusing effort on addressing the applied research issues.
- With any science–practice research exchange or forum concept, SIOP should provide support and guidance to deal with the issues that typically relate to false starts. That is, help structure the request for information (RFI) that initiates a dialogue, the contractual issues that typically exist to create a partnership, and how to frame the issues that must be addressed on the academic end with institutional review boards (IRBs).
- Create fellowships sponsored by SIOP to spend 1 year as an internal researcher to a host organization with the expectation of creating “demonstration projects” that show the joint collaboration of scientists and practitioners in a specific organizational setting. Host organizations could be from business, education, or government. The outcome would be to articulate an effective collaboration process (to be copied elsewhere) and ultimately to generate examples of high-value interventions/solutions (which will encourage future collaborations).
- Develop a way to measure science–practice convergence and success. We are a profession heavy in measurement but have struggled to get tangible around measuring progress in the way science and practice convergence, or lack thereof, contribute to and advance the field.
Support Standards That Promote Effective Practice by
All Types of I-O Psychologists:
- Promote those practitioners and practitioner projects that take a more scientific approach, particularly any projects that are initiated through a SIOP-facilitated channel.
- Require internships and have a supervised practice requirement for all PhDs.
- Enforce the existing standards for training and education in I-O.
- Move to create some type of formal licensure or certification.
- Create guidelines for internships that emphasize both science and practice.
Facilitate Dialogue on Specific, Systemic Issues With the Right Stakeholders:
- Work with journal editorial boards to publish research on practitioner- focused areas.
- The reward system for academics, and perhaps for SIOP as a whole, needs to be reconsidered as the emphasis for advancement on the academic side is on publishing in top-tier journals, and those journals tend to not reward the research efforts that are taking on novel applied questions. The issue then begins to reinforce itself as more publishing begets higher standards for tenure and rewards, which begets more research effort being done in silos, thus creating the gaps that we are so fond of talking about today.
- Do something about teaching management and decision makers that it is more effective to follow practice that utilizes science than practice that doesn’t (if this is indeed the case, yet another good research question, albeit a difficult one to study). Two ways to do this: (a) Publish in business journals how to integrate science into common management problems, and (b) hold forums with CEOs to change their opinions about the worth of evidence-based management/scientifically based interventions.
Closing Thoughts
What Is SIOP Doing Now?
SIOP has taken some important steps in recent years on this front. Much has happened because of existing initiatives and because of recommendations resulting from the Practitioner Needs Survey. We encourage members to take advantage of some of the new forums for dialogue and exchanges. Some of the recent or recently announced initiatives include:
- The SIOP Leading Edge Consortium, held each October
- Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice journal
- The SIOP Science for SHRM series
- New Science You Can Use, annual volume
- The SIOP Exchange, for online information sharing and dialogue
Moving Forward
The data from our survey as well as perspectives and recommendations shared for this column provide some clear guidance for opportunities available for creating better science–practice convergence. Both practitioners and researchers need to see the benefits of such convergence. Practitioners need to seek out relevant research and identify means of adapting lessons from the findings that can be applied in organizations and perhaps more actively correspond with those researchers whose work provides advances in practice. Alternatively, researchers and journal editors need to advance theory and research programs with clear implications to organizational practice.
Both the scientific contributions of researchers and the seasoned and innovative insight of practitioners need to be valued. Instead of complaining about the irrelevance of research or the lack of rigor in practice there needs to be greater appreciation for what each side brings to the field and those areas where convergence exists. This should not be a one-way communication from either perspective. Researchers just telling practitioners what to do based on their research and practitioners just telling researchers why the research is irrelevant are not productive ways forward. What is important is the feedback loop and communications between practice ideas and research studies.
One SIOP member summed it up this way:
…When practice is ahead, we need more science to guide it. When science is ahead, we need to integrate more science into our practice. The bottom line to both directives is changing how the public views our work. Namely, management needs to view the scientific soundness of our work as more valuable than “best practice,” and universities and editors of leading journals need to view field research as just as valuable as tightly controlled experiments. Perhaps more important, our Society (SIOP) needs to value the partnership between scientists and practitioners, and not value each separately. We are two halves to the same whole.
We thank the Executive Board for taking the findings of the SIOP Practice Survey as seriously as it has. Recommendations from the original survey report are already in implementation stages as seen by such recent additions to the SIOP Web site like the SIOP Exchange. In addition, the Professional Practice Committee and its various work groups have a number of efforts underway to turn recommendations into action and in some cases consumable product for the SIOP membership.
References
Cober, R.T., Silzer, R. F., Erickson, A. (2009). Practitioner perspectives column: Science–practice gaps in industrial-organizational psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41 (1), 97–105.
Silzer, R. F., Cober, R.T., Erickson, A., & Robinson, G. (2008, October). Practitioner Needs Survey: Final survey report. Society for Industrial and Organizational Society. Bowling Green, OH. (See full report at: http://www.siop.org/Practitioner%20Needs%20Survey.pdf).
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the SIOP members who provided their reactions and insights, including (listed alphabetically): Cristina Banks (Lamorinda Consulting LLC); Dennis Doverspike (The University of Akron); David Dye (Booz Allen Hamilton); Scott Erker (Developmental Dimensions International); Kurt Kraiger (Colorado State University, current SIOP President); Cindy McCauley (Center for Creative Leadership); Matt O’Connell (Select International); Sara Rynes-Weller (University of Iowa); Paul Sackett (University of Minnesota); Nancy Tippins (Valtera); William Shepherd (Huntington Bank); Vicki Vandaveer (Vandaveer Group).