The practitioner‐researcher divide revisited: Strategic‐level bridges and the roles of IWO psychologists

This paper responds to, and extends, the debate between Gelade, Wall, Symon and Hodgkinson in JOOP. In concluding that JOOP is fulfilling its remit for robust information exchange between research and practice, four lines of argument are proposed that (i) the Principle of Scientific Replication warrants full details of study methods being routinely published, (ii) any divide is reflective of a perfectly natural distance between the two wings of the discipline and is not necessarily harmful as long as sufficient bridging mechanisms exist, (iii) several strategic-level bridging mechanisms do exist but need to be better utilized and (iv) as JOOP will be unable to be all things to all readers, its most suitable niche remains as a scientific outlet for pragmatic research in IWO psychology internationally.

[1]  G. Symon.  Academics, practitioners and the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology: Reflecting on the issues , 2006 .

[2]  R. Daft,et al.  Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics , 2001 .

[3]  G. Gelade.  But what does it mean in practice? The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology from a practitioner perspective , 2006 .

[4]  P. Warr,et al.  Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level , 2004 .

[5]  N. Allen,et al.  The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications , 2004 .

[6]  Neil Anderson,et al.  Re‐aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research: Lessons from Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology , 2001 .

[7]  Neil Anderson,et al.  The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? , 2001 .

[8]  C. Fletcher.  Candidates' reactions to assessment centres and their outcomes: A longitudinal study , 1991 .

[9]  N. Anderson.  The people make the paradigm , 1998 .

[10]  D. Tranfield,et al.  The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy , 1998 .

[11]  J. Pfeffer.  Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable , 1993 .

[12]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. , 1990 .

[13]  N. Anderson.  Relationships between practice and research in personnel selection: Does the left hand know what the right is doing? , 2005 .

[14]  T. Wall.  Is JOOP of only academic interest , 2006 .

[15]  S. Nadin,et al.  Reproducing gender inequalities? A critique of realist assumptions underpinning personnel selection research and practice , 2006 .

[16]  Denise M. Rousseau,et al.  Is there Such a thing as “Evidence-Based Management”? , 2006 .

[17]  Fiona Anderson-Gough,et al.  Locus of control, attributions and impression management in the selection interview , 2002 .

[18]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Knowledge for Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[19]  Wider still and wider. Broadening the readership of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 2006 .

[20]  Catherine Cassell,et al.  Neglected perspectives in work and organizational psychology , 2006 .

[21]  G. Hodgkinson.  The role of JOOP (and other scientific journals) in bridging the practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology , 2006 .

[22]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[23]  Neil Anderson,et al.  The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis , 2005 .