|
Article Excerpt
'In the final analysis the progress of psychology, as of every other science, will be determined by the value and amount of its contributions to the advancement of the human race' (Witmer, 1907: pp. 3, cited in Viteles, 1933).
Debates over relationships between science and practice have been around for a long time in applied psychology. Such constructive debate is, however, a sine qua non of a climate for fundamental advances in both research and practice in any science-based professional discipline. Debate forms a key bridge between academic scholars and practitioners. It stimulates mutual reflexivity; the sedimentary issues carried along on its flow are causes for professional introspection. In short, it is debate itself that is indicative of a narrowing of any gap between the scientific and practitioner wings in all knowledge-based disciplines.
The recent multiple author contributions in the June 2006 issue of JOOP by Gelade Wall, Symon, and Hodgkinson (all 2006) over the role of the journal in bridging any divide between researchers and practitioners in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology is therefore to be particularly welcomed. All authors make valid, constructive and noteworthy contributions to this debate, in this context with particular regard to the role of JOOP as a medium for information exchange and dissemination between researchers and practitioners in our field. This set of papers followed on from earlier debates in JOOP and other journals (e.g. Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Arnold, 2004; Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001). Since this time, however, the debate has moved on substantially. It has received far wider attention, not just in the UK but internationally (e.g. Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001), and an even wider diversity of views has been expressed over the existence of such a divide (Rousseau, 2006; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006), whether it is widening or narrowing over time (Hodgkinson, 2001; Tranfield & Starkey, 1998), whether any divide is purely negative or might hold positive facets also (Anderson, 2005), and how best IWO psychologists can build bridges between research and practice (e.g. Hyatt, Cropanzano, Finder, Levy, Ruddy, Vandeveer, & Walker, 1997). These issues clearly extend well beyond the bounds of the remit that JOOP can fulfil. Indeed, identical issues have emerged in other journals, whether the journal is primarily scientific in orientation or more of a practitioner newsletter.
In this short rejoinder and response to Gelade, Wall, Symon and Hodgkinson, I argue four points. First, that JOOP (and other scientific journals) can only serve its role satisfactorily if papers report sufficient methodological and analytical detail to allow for the scientific replication of reported findings, but that this should not in any way preclude consideration of practical implications. On this point, I therefore find myself paradoxically in some disagreement with Anderson (1998), a rather curious position both intellectually and psychologically. Second, I identify six prominent 'types' of research in IWO psychology--pure, fundamental, applied, action research, consultancy-generated research and critical theory musings. That a gap exists between research and practice is to be expected in any complex, diversified and specialized field. This is not the problem, but rather the lack of integrating processes, bridges for information exchange and bidirectional policy formulation in both research and practice, is a notable problem. Third, on the point of bridging mechanisms, I note the six such bridges identified by Hyatt et al. (1996), but identify seven other, more strategic-level bridges that we should be actively pursuing. These are government commissions and working parties, boards of directors and industry commissions, research council involvement, conferences and other fora, research consortia, editorial board memberships for practitioners and a consultancy sponsored strategic fund. Fourth and finally, I return to the role of JOOP within this wider context. I argue that the journal is more than meeting its remit, that while it is beholden upon researchers to highlight ramifications for organizational practice, it is also the professional responsibility of practitioners to interpret...
|
