Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | J | Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

The role of JOOP (and other scientific journals) in bridging the practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology.

Article Excerpt
Reflecting upon recent debates concerning the practitioner-researcher divide in the field of industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology (e.g. Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Arnold, 2004), Garry Gelade (2006) proposes a series of steps to increase the relevance of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) to HR practitioners. Principally, he recommends a reframing of research questions in a form that will have greater appeal to the practitioner community, increased consideration of the practical implications in the discussion section of published articles, and the publication of a larger number of target articles with accompanying peer commentaries, rather than special issues and/or sections. Moreover, Gelade advocates that articles primarily concerned with research methods and instrumentation should be reduced in length and number, or preferably be directed to other journals and that greater use should be made of the worldwide web in order to further discussion and ultimately ensure the wider application of work published in JOOP. In this response, I maintain that several of these recommendations are misplaced, reflecting a number of misconceptions concerning the nature and role of science and scientific journals in the science and practice of IWO psychology. Specifically, I think Gelade does not fully appreciate: (1) the central importance of the scientist-practitioner model; (2) the primacy of theory and method in the processes of knowledge generation, dissemination and practice; and (3) the composition of the constituent groups for whom JOOP (and other scientific applied psychology journals) is published. In consequence, taken as a whole, the package of policy changes advocated by Gelade is likely to prove counterproductive. Accordingly, modifications to his recommendations are offered, with a view to ensuring that JOOP continues to meet the needs of its prime constituents.

The central importance of the scientist-practitioner model

As my colleagues and I have argued elsewhere (Anderson et al., 2001; Hodgkinson & Herriot, 2002; Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001), the rigorous evidence base underpinning our practices is what fundamentally sets us apart as a unified group of applied psychologists from other professionals seeking to enhance productivity and well-being in the workplace, many of whom have begun to encroach on our territory, but have done so without the attendant background knowledge or training to critically evaluate the impact of their interventions and adjust their actions accordingly. In other words, the scientist-practitioner model is the unique selling point (USP) of the IWO psychology profession. Unfortunately, however, there is clear evidence (reviewed in Anderson et al., 2001; Hodgkinson & Herriot, 2002; and Hodgkinson et al., 2001) of a growing and dangerous divergence between those primarily concerned with developing...