From Research to Reality: Key Takeaways for Academia–Industry Collaborations

The scientist–practitioner model forms the foundation of industrial and organizational psychology (I-O psychology), and our field has long taken pride in having this powerful identity fueled by these two forces (see Zickar & Gibby, 2020). Bridging the gap between science and practice though continues to be a concern. To help facilitate bridging the divide and to brainstorm potential ways of doing so, we organized an alternate session at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) annual conference in Denver earlier this year titled “Stepping up the Scientist–Practitioner Model: Academia and Industry Collaborations.” This article summarizes and reflects on the key themes and insights discussed, with the goal of making them accessible and actionable for a broader audience. This session featured several academics and practitioners—Bisi Atoba (Texas A&M University), Nikki Blacksmith (Symeta Behavior Science), Tanya Castiglione Andrews (Connect Coaching and Consulting), Michael Hein (Middle Tennessee State University), Matt O’Connor (Owens Corning), Stephanie Payne (Texas A&M University), Joshua Prasad (Colorado State University), Dane Wagner (Symeta Behavior Science), and Michael Zickar (Bowling Green State University)—who have all participated in and promoted academia–industry collaborations. By engaging in such research and consulting projects, either through formal structures or more informal teams, we hoped to unpack the challenges they faced and lessons they learned that would help us develop our own takeaways for increasing such collaborations in the future.

SIOP’s mission statement promotes the scientist–practitioner model as well, and yet, the full potential of such integration remains untapped. A persistent gap between research and practice is, however, not a new challenge. For example, various articles in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology (IOP) and The Industrial-Organizational Psychology (TIP) journals have drawn attention to this concern as well (see Islam et al., 2018; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rupp & Beal, 2007; Voss et al., 2025). According to the recent SIOP Income and Employment Report (2022), there is still a significant split between practitioners and academics in I-O psychology, with around 72% being practitioners and 28% working in academia. Given this representation in both these areas, fostering collaboration between the two groups makes sense and can significantly support the success of the field. Communication and collaboration between practitioners and scientists can lead to greater innovation and foster deeper insight as well (Vosburgh et al., 2022). Hence, encouraging collaborations, both formally and informally, between academia and industry can be an important way to help bridge this gap.

Our session was divided into two segments, with the first one focusing on understanding previous projects that our panelists participated in that helped bridge the gap and the second segment focused on interacting with the audience and brainstorming ways by which we can overcome barriers for bridging the gap. Finally, toward the end of the session, the insights from these discussions were compiled, and these are shared below to provide actionable recommendations for synergizing efforts to bridge the gap.

Clarifying Challenges to Collaborations

During the session, several key obstacles were identified that usually prevent successful collaborations. These were usually in the form of misalignments between the academic and applied world, which were identified as follows:

Reward structures: A main reason the gap between science and practice exists is because of the differences in the reward structures in these areas. Academics are usually incentivized for theoretical contributions and encouraged to get more peer-reviewed publications as those are linked with tenure, pay, and promotion. This could take away the focus from providing actionable or translational work that could benefit the practitioners. There are little to no formal rewards in place to encourage them to make these accessible or actionable, creating a gap. Such insights could be beneficial for industry leaders but have no direct benefits for academics currently. Olenick and colleagues (2018) have, thus, in the past also highlighted this need to incentivize for creating meaningful change and bridging the science–practice gap. This concern repeatedly reemerged in the discussions by our panelists as well.

Language and communication gap: Aligning with the reward structures, another fundamental disconnect that widens the gap is the differences in the communication style and terminologies used. Popular thought leaders or management rarely cite or use academic references in their articles or books, and these are usually read by typical business leaders in the industry. This means that valuable academic insights often do not reach the corresponding practitioner audience that could derive significant benefit. Additionally, most academic outlets use specific scientific jargon or terminology that might alienate practitioners who are not well versed in the same. To bridge this gap, panelists identified that it is important to change the way we communicate. Academics must improve their ability to translate scientific findings into actionable items while also developing better mechanisms for engaging with and learning from practitioners.

Timeframes and urgency: Academia and industry operate at different speeds and prioritize different elements of their jobs, which also creates a divide between the two. Academics often function with a longer timeline, and research can take prolonged periods of time to get to publication. Their focus is on ensuring comprehensive coverage of the concept at hand. Practitioners, however, work with quicker deadlines and are constantly under pressure for quick turnarounds. Their focus is more on how to get things done effectively in a speedy fashion. Differences in timelines between the two, therefore, widen the gap and creates friction for collaborations. Such misalignment and the challenge presented by the differences in timeline expectations was also highlighted as an obstacle in collaborative projects between academia and industry in a previous SIOP panel last year as well (see Ravid et al., 2024). This concern was repeatedly brought up in our session as well, emphasizing the prevalence of this issue.

Relationship building efforts: The session highlighted how there is a noticeable difference in how academia–industry collaborations are viewed compared to other collaborations either exclusively within academia or exclusively within the industry. More commonly, such collaborations between academia and industry are considered as a one-off transactional relationship that usually ends with one project or one publication and so on. Focusing more on these collaborations as a long-term investment where the focus is on developing strong ties instead of focusing on a quick return on effort would be beneficial. Aligning on such committed partnerships will be crucial for impactful connections to bridge the gap.

Key Takeaways for Enhancing Collaborations:

The session generated several takeaways that helped form actionable strategies for bridging the gap and encouraging collaborations. Such strategies require intentional effort from both academics and practitioners to help overcome the above identified barriers.

Reforming reward structures: Professional organizations like SIOP and universities in general can recognize and reward activities that translate research into practice (for instance, the efforts made by the SIOP Wayne Cascio Scientist–Practitioner Award introduced in 2023). Recognizing such efforts can encourage one to engage in producing practitioner-focused reports of research and consulting on applied research projects to truly emulate the scientist–practitioner model. Additionally, the metrics for academic success should expand beyond the traditional journal citations to include measures of practical impact to recognize when their work has helped in changing policies, addressing practices, and influencing best practices.

Creating a common language and disseminating information: Both academics and practitioners must strive for creating a common language for clearer communication. Academics should teach and learn how to translate complex research into accessible information focusing on practical implications. Practitioners, on the other hand, should be more appreciative of the rigor academics bring and strive to ensure such rigor is maintained within practical constraints for evidence-based approaches in I-O psychology as well. Finding a common ground with adjustments and compromises on both ends is important for bringing these two worlds closer. It is also important to find ways to disseminate information through popular media channels that are more accessible by practitioners that might not necessarily read or have access to academic journals. Outreach through different forums like industry conferences and media outlets can aid the same as well.

Meeting halfway on timelines and resource allocation: For meeting tighter deadlines on projects with quick turnarounds, practitioners can engage with student consulting groups under faculty supervision at different universities. The session highlighted such projects and how it is helpful for providing the students with valuable real-world experience in addition to providing the practitioners effective results. Academics in such situations can adapt their approach to provide solutions or actionable insights even if the traditional research study process is not followed. Sometimes such collaborations can help in highlighting existing research that is beneficial to be considered for current tasks at hand. Both academics and practitioners though, in such situations, need to be upfront about expectations and timelines and find common ground before engaging in such collaborations.

Long-term relationship building and shared responsibility: The session highlighted the need for realizing and developing long-term relationships between both partners as a crucial element too. Successful collaborations are built on trust and mutual understanding, which can take time to build, but being consistent in such efforts and being willing to invest beyond just one project or initiative is necessary for impacting the field. And so, all such collaborations should be treated as an opportunity to build a long-term relationship that builds over the years and mutually benefits both the groups. The session also highlighted time and again how the responsibility for bridging the gap lies with both academics and practitioners. Regardless of one’s role, it is important for both groups to reach out and explore opportunities for collaborations.

Conclusion

The key misalignments or challenges our panelists faced in their own collaborations along with their suggestions or actionable takeaways that could help addressing the same are summarized below in Table 1. Bridging the scientist–practitioner gap is necessary for our field’s growth and synergizing such efforts through academia–industry collaborations is a strong way to make an impact on the same. The insights from the session help us in understanding the barriers better and also help us uncover a way forward. Rethinking our reward structures, fostering clearer communication, engaging in active outreach, and adapting to different operational realities, all while investing in a long-term relationship between academia and industry, can altogether help in bridging the gap. This session provided a vital starting point for pursuing such partnerships in the future and hopefully engaging in such collaborations will help us in furthering our field. The challenge is real but so is the opportunity, and so, we encourage our readers to start exploring partnerships with an academic or an industry colleague. Together we can build a more collaborative future for our field, one partnership at a time.

Table 1

Summary of Session Takeaways

Misalignment	Description of misalignment	Actionable takeaways
Reward structure	Academic incentives favor theoretical work and publications over practical application and translational efforts, creating a formal reward gap.	Reform reward structures: Recognize and reward practical applications (through best practice reports and consulting projects) that have broader impact beyond traditional academic metrics.
Language and communication gap	Different communication styles and academic terminology prevent insights from reaching practitioners; popular media often overlooks academic research.	Create common language and disseminate information: Translate complex research into accessible language. Utilize popular media, industry conferences, and diverse outlets for wider reach.
Timeframes and urgency	Academic research operates on longer timelines, clashing with industry’s need for quick turnarounds and immediate solutions.	Meet halfway on timelines and resource allocations: Engage student consulting groups for projects. Academics can offer actionable insights without full research studies. Both parties must align on expectations and timelines upfront.
Relationship building efforts	Collaborations between academics and practitioners are often viewed as one-off transactions rather than long-term investments in building trust and mutual understanding.	Build long-term relationships and share responsibility: Cultivate trust and consistency beyond single projects. Both academics and practitioners must proactively reach out and explore opportunities.

 

References

Islam, S., Chetta, M. H., Martins, A., van Govan, D., Kozikowski, A., & Needhammer, J. (2018). The scientist–practitioner gap among master’s level I-O psychology practitioners: A text-analytic exploration. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 55(3). https://touroscholar.touro.edu/dbs_pubs/47

Kurtessis, J. N., Waters, S. D., Alonso, A., Jones, J. A., & Oppler, S. H. (2017). Traditional science–practice research in I-O: Are we missing the trees for the forest? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 570-576. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2017.57

Olenick, J., Walker, R., Bradburn, J., & DeShon, R. P. (2018). A systems view of the scientist–practitioner gap. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.8

Ravid, D. M., Wu, I.-H. (Ray), Campion, E. D., Yankov, G. P., Landers, R. N., & Winterberg, C. A. (2024). A panel discussion on addressing the science–practice gap with academic–industry collaborations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17(4), 402–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2024.49

Rupp, D. E., & Beal, D. (2007). Checking in with the scientist-practitioner model: How are we doing? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(1), 35–40.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2022, November 29).  Income and employment report 2022. https://www.siop.org/resource/2022-siop-income-and-employment-report/

Vosburgh, R. M. (2022). Closing the academic-practitioner gap: Research must answer the “so what” question. Human Resource Management Review, 32(1), 100633, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.11.006

Voss, N. M., Stoffregen, S. A., Couture, K. L., DiGirolamo, J. A., Furman, M., Haidar, S., Hammer, L. B., Lee, J., Maneotis, S. M., McCloy, R. A., Olson, R., & Spector, P. E. (2025). Shaping the future of industrial-organizational psychology: The transformative potential of research collaborations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2024.61

Zickar, M. J., & Gibby, R. E. (2020). Four persistent themes throughout the history of IO psychology in the United States. In L. Koppes Bryan (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed, pp. 42