Changes over time in research involvement by academic and nonacademic psychologists

Sackett, Paul R.; Callahan, Christine; DeMeuse, Kenneth; Ford, J. Kevin; Kozlowski, Steve W. J.

doi:10.1037/e573122011-008

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it is only one indicator of a general structural problem, the decline of such involvement is an important concern (Dunnette, 1990). When we consider three refereed journals, the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), and Personnel Psychology (PP), a clear trend emerges over ve decades (see Table 1, which is developed from Sackett, Callahan, DeMeuse, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1986, cited in Dunnette, 1990. First, there has been a sizeable increase in the proportion of papers where all authors are academics, especially in JAP and PP.…”

Section: The Drift From Pragmatic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sackett and Larson (1990) carried out a careful content analysis of all papers published in JAP, PP, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP) over three years-1977, 1982, and 1987. The 577 published papers were coded on a number of dimensions, including the origin of the research question, under three sources: (i) questions derived from theory; (ii) questions derived from real-world problems; and (iii) questions derived from existing studies, so-called 'coupling' research or 'replication-extension' studies (Anderson, 1998a Figures from Sackett et al (1986) reproduced in Dunnette (1990). ndings are somewhat unsettling: 13% of studies were theory-driven, and a paltry 3% addressed real-world problems, whereas an overwhelming 84% were replication-extension studies.…”

Section: The Drift From Pragmatic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here?

Anderson

Herriot²,

Hodgkinson

2001

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

350

346

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is current concern that the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of our discipline are moving further apart. This divergence is likely to result in irrelevant theory and in untheorized and invalid practice. Such outcomes will damage our reputation and ultimately result in our fragmentation. We present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively. We argue that there has been a drift away from Pragmatic Science, high in both relevance and rigour, towards Pedantic and Popularist Science, and through them to Puerile Science. We support this argument by longitudinal analyses of the authorship of academic journal articles and then explain this drift in terms of our stakeholders. Powerful academics are the most immediate stakeholders for researchers, and they exercise their power in such a way as to increase the drift towards Pedantic Science. Organizational clients are the most powerful stakeholders for practitioners, and in their effort to address their urgent issues, they push practitioners towards Popularist Science. In the light of this analysis, we argue that we need to engage in political activity in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders. This can be done either directly, through our relationship with them, or indirectly, through others who influence them. Only by political action can the centrifugal forces away from Pragmatic Science be countered and a centripetal direction be established. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for the future development of members of our own profession.

show abstract

Section: The Drift From Pragmatic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Drift From Pragmatic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here?

Anderson

Herriot²,

Hodgkinson

2001

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

350

346

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anderson, 1998a;Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001;Dunnette, 1990;Hodgkinson & Herriot, in press;Rice, 1997;Sackett, 1994;Weinreich et al, 1997). Analyses of the publication trends associated with a number of the field's leading peer reviewed international journals, spanning a period of some fifty years, have identified a considerable decline in terms of the degree of involvement in the publication process of practitioners (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001;Sackett et al, 1986). While collaborative papers between academics and practitioners have remained at a low but relatively constant level, there has been a sizeable increase in the proportion of papers where all authors are academics and an equally strong decline in papers where all authors are practitioners, to the point of virtual extinction.…”

Section: How Significant Is the Academic-practitioner Divide?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Re‐aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research: Lessons from Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology

Hodgkinson

Herriot

Anderson

2001

British J of Management

197

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of the Starkey and Madan (2001) report represents a timely and valuable contribution to an ongoing debate across a range of applied disciplines, concerning the nature and purpose of social research. The call for stakeholder alignment, culminating in the production of new knowledge that is both theoretically and methodologically rigorous on the one hand, and socially relevant on the other, is, in our view, to be greatly welcomed. However, the Mode 2 approach advocated by Starkey and Madan will not satisfy these fundamental requirements. Drawing on recent analyses of the nature, causes and consequences of the academic‐practitioner divide in the subfield of industrial, work and organizational psychology, we offer an alternative, four‐fold taxonomy of the varieties of managerial knowledge. Within our alternative framework, research that is low on rigour but high on relevance (a likely consequence of the wholesale adoption of a Mode 2 approach) is characterized as ‘Popularist Science’. ‘Pedantic Science’, by contrast, is high on rigour but low on relevance, while ‘Puerile Science’ meets neither requirement. Only ‘Pragmatic Science’ will meet the twin imperatives of rigour and relevance. Whilst it is highly desirable that Pragmatic Science should dominate the management field, there are considerable barriers that impede its widespread adoption at the present time, not least the limited availability of researchers who possess the requisite sociopolitical and methodological competencies. The immediate imperative that has to be addressed, therefore, is the question of how best to close this competency gap, a fundamental precondition of stakeholder realignment.

show abstract

“…Sackett, Callahan, DeMeuse, Ford, and Kozlowski (1986) examined a perceived decline in contributions by authors with nonacademic affiliations in Journal of Applied Psychology and in Personnel Psychology in 1985. They found that "virtually all the 1985 authorships by researchers listing industry or consulting affiliations" (p. 41) were either for studies actually conducted in an academic setting (i.e., a graduate student or faculty member conducted the research, left academia, and published the article under their nonacademic affiliation) or were studies by junior members of a research team employed at the field site of the sponsoring organization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigator characteristics as moderators of personnel selection research: A meta-analysis.

Russell

Settoon²,

McGrath³

et al. 1994

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surrogate measures of original authors' reward context, primary motivation for doing the research, and knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) were examined for their affect on criterion-related validities reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology between 1964 and 1992. Number of years of experience (a surrogate KSA measure) displayed no moderating relationship. Type of organizational need (equal employment opportunity compliance, augmenting existing selection system, etc.) and investigator interests (e.g., theory testing) were related to criterion-related validities. Place of authors' employment (i.e., reward context) also displayed a moderating relationship (authors in private industry reported higher average validities in comparison with academics). Interaction effects on criterion-related validities were found between authors' experience and (a) place of employment and (b) primary motivation for conducting the research. Results are interpreted in view of possible differences in ability, motivation, and opportunity to do research across employment settings.We thank James Combs and Michelle

show abstract

Changes over time in research involvement by academic and nonacademic psychologists

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here?

The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here?

Re‐aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research: Lessons from Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology

Investigator characteristics as moderators of personnel selection research: A meta-analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About