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

Abstract

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.

Bridging the divide in work and organizational psychology: evidence from practice

“…The gap between science and practice has been much lamented within the social sciences generally and the field of W&O psychology in particular (e.g., Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001). Despite the long history of debate over the issue, there remains disagreement over the nature, extent, and possible causes of the gap (e.g., Anderson, 2007;Guest, 2006).…”

Bridging the gap between theory and practice in management accounting

“…In the third stage reviewers formulate recommendations in a form that can be easily applied in practice, for example in protocols or checklists. Protocols or checklists are ways in which pragmatic science (as explained in Section 1 and defined by Anderson et al, 2001) can be communicated, for example to practitioners.…”

“…Equivalently, producing management accounting theory that is more useful for practitioners implies that there should be a well-functioning nexus between the contributing disciplines (the social sciences) used by academic researchers and the management accounting tools and techniques that practitioners need to deal with practical issues. Anderson et al (2001) proposed a classification of applied social sciences, consisting of four types and this classification is based on the following two dimensions: theoretical and methodological rigor (which is either "high" or "low") and practical relevance (also "high" or "low"). "Popularist science," the first type, is low on theoretical and methodological rigor and high on practical relevance.…”

Value differences between scientists and practitioners: A survey of SIOP members

“…Instead, it is likely that most I-O psychologists would primarily be concerned with either research or practice, with only a secondary concern for the other piece of the model. Anderson, Herriot, and Hodgkinson (2001) observed that those on both sides of the science-practice gap in I-O psychology hold stereotypes of one another. Researchers are seen as interested only in methodology at the expense of anything relevant to the real world, whereas practitioners are seen as proponents of fads, ignoring all theoretical evidence.…”

“…As for autonomy, academic freedom is a crucial part of research within a university. The academic setting is characterized by little monitoring and academic independence (Anderson et al, 2001). One might expect that people drawn to academic careers would place a higher value on autonomy than those drawn to applied careers.…”