The Causes and Consequences of a Scientific Literature We Cannot Trust: An Evidence-Based Practice Perspective (original) (raw)
Related papers
I–O Psychology: We Have the Evidence; We Just Don't Use It (or Care To)
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2011
Briner and Rousseau (2011) raise an important point in questioning the degree to which the industrial-organizational (I-O) profession is truly evidence based. In response, what we suggest is twofold: first, there are areas of I-O psychology in which we have made strides in the use of evidence in science and practice despite the odds, and second, that to truly increase the evidence-based nature of I-O psychology as a whole, we must focus on the root of the problem: the lack of an educational and professional foundation that promotes a synergy between science and practice. We Are There, to Some Extent Briner and Rousseau make the argument that the I-O psychology profession is lacking in problem-focused systematic reviews that address specific questions with practical application in mind. We answer that the literature consists of a number of metaanalyses that do just that. For example, one such practice-relevant topic that has been addressed in the meta-analytic literature is organizational productivity. Guzzo, Jette, and Katzell (1985) conducted a meta-analysis specifically examining the
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2011
This special issue of the Journal of Business and Psychology focuses on the linkage between the science and practice of psychology in applied organizational settings. The purpose of this special edition is to (a) cover current hot topics and cutting edge practice areas in HR and/or the psychology of organizations, and (b) raise compelling research issues and ideas for researchers to pursue, with an overall goal of helping bridge the science to practice gap. Each of the 14 articles included in this special issue were selected because they focus on some critical aspect of an important topic in applied organizational settings for which there is either limited, contradictory, or very little formal research in the literature. Key themes include: employee engagement, ensuring sustained behavior change through feedback and coaching, the impact of emerging technologies such as social networking sites on HR practices, and talent management and retention among others. Keywords Scientist practitioner Á HR practices Á Engagement Á New technologies Á Current issues Á Industrial and organizational psychology Á Work psychology Á Science/practice Besides publishing refereed peer-reviewed articles, the Journal of Business and Psychology is trying to advance science and practice through unique elements such as the ''Methods Corner'' (e.g., Conway and Lance 2010; Tonidandel and LeBreton 2011) and on the ''edge'' special
Most future industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology practitioners and researchers initially enroll in an introductory I-O psychology course during their junior or senior year of undergraduate studies, making introductory textbooks their first in-depth exposure to the field and an important knowledge base. We reviewed and analyzed the 6,654 unique items (e.g., journal articles, book chapters) published in 1,682 unique sources (e.g., scholarly journals, edited books, popular press publications) and authored by 8,603 unique individuals cited in six popular I-O psychology textbooks. Results showed that 39% of the top-cited sources are not traditional academic peer-reviewed journals, 77% of the top-cited articles were published in crossdisciplinary journals, and 57% of the top-cited authors are affiliated with business schools and not psychology departments. These results suggest that the science-practice divide in I-O psychology may develop later—perhaps after graduates obtain employment as either practitioners or researchers. Also, results suggest I-O psychology is closer to business and management than social psychology and psychology in general. We discuss additional implications for the science-practice divide, how to define and measure scholarly impact, and the future of I-O psychology as a field, including the movement of I-O psychologists to business schools and the sustainability of I-O programs in psychology departments.
Research Settings in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Facts, Fallacies, and the FUTURE2,3
Personnel Psychology, 1981
Data were collected about research issues involving laboratory and field settings through a content analysis of the 1966, 1970, and 1974 volumes of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, and Personnel Psychology. Four general categories of data were collected: (a) affiliation of investigators, (b) topic areas investigated, (c) settings of the research, and (d) research strategies employed. Four common beliefs of either laboratory or field advocates were contradicted by the data. First, laboratory research was found fairly frequently in the industrial-organizational literature. Second, theory and hypothesis testing were not overemphasized. Third, laboratory research was as applied as field research. Lastly, studies published by researchers with nonacademic affiliations were as likely to have been conducted in laboratory settings as field settings. Recommendations were made to use the laboratory more frequently for theory and hypothesis based research and to use a variety of research strategies in both laboratory and field settings. THE type of setting in which research is conducted has become an issue within several areas of psychology. Comparative psychologists (Miller, 1977), environmental psychologists (Proshansky, 1976), and social psychologists (Ellsworth, 1977; McGuire, 1967; Ring, 1967) have debated the merits of the laboratory and the field as settings for ' The authors would like to thank John Dzamba, Claude Mattox, Brian Robinson, and William Wratten for their assistance with the data analysis and David Ralston for contributing important writing suggestions. Portions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1977.
Bridging the divide in work and organizational psychology: evidence from practice
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2016
This study explores the extent to which work and organizational (W&O) psychology practitioners use evidence, how they apply it to the everyday contexts in which they work and the types of barriers they encounter in so doing. It adopts a mixed methods approach involving the administration of a survey to a UK sample (N=163) of W&O psychologists and a series of semi-structured interviews (N=25) exploring in greater depth how evidence is applied in practice. Findings reveal that practitioners consult a wide range of different types of evidence which they employ at various stages of engagement with client organisations and that this evidence is pressed into service in the pursuit of solutions which are both acceptable from the client perspective and consistent with the scientific standards underpinning professional knowledge and expertise in W&O psychology. Barriers to evidence-use were mainly practical in nature, concerning issues around managing the client-consultant relationship and the particularities of implementation context, both of which were shown to influence evidence utilisation. The study contributes to current debate on the extent to which W&O psychologists adopt an evidence-based approach and provides a valuable and much called-for empirical insight into the enactment of the scientist-practitioner model in W&O psychology.
Industrial/Organizational Psychology as a so called Science: Epistemological Considerations
Industrial and organizational psychology is an increasingly salient discipline in the world of work; however, there are various issues related to it as a discipline and more specifically, as a so called scientific discipline. This essay will attempt to examine these issues in terms of the epistemological issues it faces, along with how the discipline goes about generating knowledge and making truth claims, and the validity of these truth claims. Additionally, I/O psychology as a science is explored in terms of its credibility in relation to that of the natural sciences and whether it is indeed value and bias free, as it claims.
Organizational Psychology and Evidence-Based Management
2017
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2012
There has been a growing interest in evidence-based management. A core component is a body of high-quality research evidence to inform practice. Initial research with human resource managers in the United States and the Netherlands reveals only modest knowledge about a number of 'widely documented' research findings. However, it is unclear whether research experts would display any greater agreement about the research evidence. The present study addresses this issue by exploring levels of agreement about the quality of the research evidence base in work and organizational (W/O) psychology using a pan-European sample of 75 senior academic W/O psychologists who completed two rounds of a study, first identifying core findings in the field of W/O psychology and then reporting levels of agreement about them. The results show that there were only seven of 24 core findings on which over 75% agreed that there was good-quality evidence. The challenges of developing and utilizing an evidence-based approach are discussed and it is concluded, in agreement with Briner and Rousseau (2011a), that there is some way to go before W/O psychologists can begin to feel confident about the quality of much of their research evidence.
American Psychologist, 1979
The authors analyzed for content all the empirical articles from the 1966, 1970, and 1974 volumes of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, and Personnel Psychology to determine the types of organizations, subjects, and dependent measures studied. Contrary to the common belief that field settings provide for more generalisation of research findings than laboratory settings do, field research appeared as narrow as laboratory research in the actors, settings, and behaviors sampled.