Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T21:44:16.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shaping the future of industrial-organizational psychology: The transformative potential of research collaborations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2025

Nathaniel M. Voss Open the ORCID record for Nathaniel M. Voss [Opens in a new window] ,
Stacy A. Stoffregen ,
Kelsey L. Couture ,
Joel A. DiGirolamo ,
Melissa Furman ,
Sarah Haidar ,
Leslie B. Hammer ,
Jin Lee Open the ORCID record for Jin Lee [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarina M. Maneotis  and
Rodney A. McCloy
...Show all authors
Nathaniel M. Voss*
Affiliation:
Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), Alexandria, USA
Stacy A. Stoffregen
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA
Kelsey L. Couture
Affiliation:
The Workplace Futurist, LLC, Frisco, USA
Joel A. DiGirolamo
Affiliation:
International Coaching Federation (ICF), Lexington, USA
Melissa Furman
Affiliation:
Career Potential, LLC, Augusta, USA
Sarah Haidar
Affiliation:
Roblox, San Francisco, USA
Leslie B. Hammer
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA
Jin Lee
Affiliation:
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
Sarina M. Maneotis
Affiliation:
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
Rodney A. McCloy
Affiliation:
Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), Alexandria, USA
Ryan Olson
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA
Paul E. Spector
Affiliation:
University of South Florida Muma College of Business and Florida Health Science Center- Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, USA
*
Corresponding author:Nathaniel M. Voss; Email: nvoss@humrro.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is important for the research produced by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to be rigorous, relevant, and useful to organizations. However, I-O psychology research is often not used in practice. In this paper, we (both practitioners and academics) argue that engaged scholarship—a particular method of inclusive, collaborative research that incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives throughout the research process—can help reduce this academic–practice gap and advance the impact of I-O psychology. To examine the current state of the field, we reviewed empirical evidence of the current prevalence of collaborative research by examining the number of articles that contain nonacademic authors across 14 key I-O psychology journals from 2018 to 2023. We then build on these findings by describing how engaged scholarship can be integrated throughout the research process and conclude with a call to action for I-O psychologists to conduct more collaborative research. Overall, our goal is to facilitate a fruitful conversation about the value of collaborative research that incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives throughout the research process in hopes of reducing the academic–practice gap. We also aim to inspire action in the field to maintain and enhance the impact of I-O psychology on the future world of work.

Keywords

engaged scholarshipacademic–practice gappartnered researchresearch collaborationsfuture of work
Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , First View , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. (2020). “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldridge, D. C., Floyd, S. W., & Markóczy, L. (2004). Are managers from Mars and academicians from Venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship between academic quality and practical relevance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1063–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, G. C., Knapp, D. J., Lin, L., Sanders, C. S., & Grand, J. A. (2022). Ethical decision making in the 21st century: A useful framework for industrial-organizational psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 220–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2016). Management’s science-practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2205–2231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertuol-Garcia, D., Morsello, C., El-Hani, N., & C (2018). A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science-practice gap in ecology and conservation. Biological Reviews, 93(2), 1032–1055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleijenbergh, I., van Mierlo, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2021). Closing the gap between scholarly knowledge and practice: Guidelines for HRM action research. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), 100764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blochm, R., Kleinman, G., & Peterson, A. (2017). Can gown help town? Exploring the “gap” between accounting practice and academia and providing a theory for why it exists. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 20, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carton, G., & Mouricou, P. (2017). Is management research relevant? A systematic analysis of the rigor-relevance debate in top-tier journals (1994–2013. M@n@gement, 20, 166–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, D., Sherman, R. A., & Hogan, R. (2016). New talent signals: Shiny new objects or a brave new world? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2015). Grounded theory. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 3, 53–84.Google Scholar
Davis, A. L., Allen, J., Shepler, L., Resick, C., Lee, J., Marinucci, R., & Taylor, J. A. (2020). Moving FOCUS-the fire service organizational culture of safety survey-from research to practice. Journal of Safety Research, 74, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S. L., Bonaccio, S., Jetha, A., Winkler, M., Birch, G. E., & Gignac, M. A. (2023). Guidelines for conducting partnered research in applied psychology: An illustration from disability research in employment contexts. Applied Psychology, 72(4), 1367–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geimer, J. L., Landers, R. N., & Solberg, E. G. (2020). Enabling practical research for the benefit of organizations and society. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 334–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., & Shani, A. B. (2019). Conducting Mode 2 research in HRM: A phase-based framework. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1991). Groups that work (and those that don’t). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. (2022). Helping at NASA: Guidelines for using process consultation to develop impactful research. Information and Organization, 32, 100388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., & Melick, S. R. (2020). Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, B. E. (2022). The academic-practitioner gap: Past time to bring in the practitioner perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 32(2), 100895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, K. M. (2016). The rise of the “gig economy” and implications for understanding work and workers. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapierre, L. M., Matthews, R. A., Eby, L. T., Truxillo, D. M., Johnson, R. E., & Major, D. A. (2018). Recommended practices for academics to initiate and manage research partnerships with organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(4), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, E. E. III, & Benson, G. S. (2022). The practitioner-academic gap: A view from the middle. Human Resource Management Review, 32(1), 100748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Resick, C. J., Allen, J. A., Davis, A. L., & Taylor, J. A. (2024). Interplay between safety climate and emotional exhaustion: Effects on first responders’ safety behavior and wellbeing over time. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(1), 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemoine, G. J. (2023). Getting access to field data: How to build long-term research relationships with organizations. Southern Management Association.Google Scholar
Martin, S. (2010). Co-production of social research: Strategies for engaged scholarship. Public Money & Management, 30(4), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, M., & Olson-Buchanan, J. (2023). Moving boundaries on what I-O has been, and what I-O can be: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as an organizing framework. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2021). In praise of Table 1: The importance of making better use of descriptive statistics. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(4), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, C. G. (2016). Where in the world are the workers? Cultural underrepresentation in I-O research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2010). That’s relevant! Different forms of practical relevance in management science. Organization Studies, 31(9-10), 1257–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, E. H., Götz, M., & Zivic, D. C. (2024). Increasing the practical relevance of management research: In honor of Timothy T. Baldwin. Business Horizons, 67(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, S., & Westerfelhaus, R. (2005). Charting managerial reading preferences in relation to popular management theory books. Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 420–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, S. J., Rubino, C., & Hunter, E. M. (2018). Stress in remote work: Two studies testing the demand-control-person model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, B. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C., & Reed, M. (2008). Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21, 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposa, M. E., Mullin, G., Murray, R. M., Castro, K. C., Fisher, A. B., Gallogly, V. H., Davis, A. L., Resick, C. J., Lee, J., Allen, J. A., & Taylor, J. A. (2023). Assessing the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US fire-based EMS responders: A tale of two samples (The RAPID Study I). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 65(4), e184–e194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogelberg, S. G., King, E. B., & Alonso, A. (2022). How we can bring I-O psychology science and evidence-based practices to the public. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotolo, C. T., & Allen, J. B. (2022). Better together: It’s time to unify, centralize, and market our competitive advantage. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rycroft-Smith, L. (2022). Knowledge brokering to bridge the research-practice gap in education: Where are we now? Review of Education, 10(1), e3341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S. (2012). The research-practice gap in industrial-organizational psychology and related fields: Challenges and potential solutions. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology. vol. 1 (pp. 409–452). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S. L., McNatt, D. B., & Bretz, R. D. (1999). Academic research inside organizations: Inputs, processes, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 869–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simón, C., & Ferreiro, E. (2018). Workforce analytics: A case study of scholar-practitioner collaboration. Human Resource Management, 57(3), 781–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z., Li, N., & Huang, J. L. (2022). Turbocharging practical implications in management studies. Journal of Management, 48(5), 1083–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steens, R., Van Regenmortel, T., & Hermans, K. (2018). Beyond the research-practice gap: The development of an academic collaborative centre for child and family social work. British Journal of Social Work, 48(6), 1611–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tkachenko, O., Hahn, H. J., & Peterson, S. L. (2017). Research-practice gap in applied fields: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 16(3), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (2018a). Academic-practitioner engaged scholarship. Information and Organization, 28(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (2018b). Developing capabilities of engaged scholarship. In Bartunek, J. M., & McKenzie, J. (Eds), Academic-practitioner partnerships: Developments, complexities, opportunities (pp. 107–125). Routledge.Google Scholar
Vosburgh, R. M. (2022). Closing the academic-practitioner gap: Research must answer the “SO WHAT” question. Human Resource Management Review, 32(1), 100633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, N. M., & Lake, C. J. (2020). Communicating validity information to differentially experienced audiences: The effects of numeracy and nontraditional metrics. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 6(2), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, D. C., Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Communicating the validity of structured job interviews with graphical visual aids. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Levenson, A., & Crossley, C. (2015). Move your research from the ivy tower to the board room: A primer on action research for academics, consultants, and business executives. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar