The focal article (LaPierre et al., Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) proposes several steps in developing a research partnership with organizations. We commend LaPierre and colleagues for bringing to light these recommendations. We agree that research partnerships may prove valuable for the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. For I-O psychology to grow as a science, more appropriate sampling and more relevant data sources are necessary (Landers & Behrend, Reference Landers and Behrend2015). Although I-O psychology master's and PhD programs continue to grow and produce more I-O psychology graduates that enter the applied marketplace, there remains a paucity of applied research partnerships between academics and organizations. Research partnerships are often established in other disciplines (i.e., computer science, public health, biochemistry) and have resulted in fruitful relationships for both parties (D'Este & Iammarino, Reference D'Este and Iammarino2010; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, Reference Israel, Schulz, Parker and Becker1998; Santoro & Betts, Reference Santoro and Betts2002), but similar partnerships have not become the norm in I-O psychology. Despite a growing number of I-O psychology graduates and programs (Shellenbarger, Reference Shellenbarger2010), I-O psychology academics have not leveraged those relationships to create research partnerships between universities and business. We would argue that this lack of research partnerships is due to the difficulty of navigating and negotiating with the multiple stakeholders involved in the process of developing a research partnership.
Table 1.Stakeholder Analysis
As delineated by LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018), there are many approaches that the authors have used to successfully build research partnerships. Although these recommendations are generally laudable, partnership efforts may be derailed by the multiple stakeholders present in the process and their distinct—and sometimes competing—goals and perspectives. Figure 1 illustrates the complex area of stakeholders in organizational research partnerships. To better understand the role of this variety of stakeholders, the authors of this paper conducted a stakeholder analysis. A stakeholder analysis aims to evaluate and understand stakeholders to determine their impact on a project or partnership (Brugha & Varvasovszky, Reference Brugha and Varvasovszky2000). Stakeholder analyses have been used in higher education (Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, Reference Jongbloed, Enders and Salerno2008), consulting (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997; Schmeer, Reference Schmeer1999), and research (Elias, Cavana, & Jackson, Reference Elias, Cavana and Jackson2002) to better understand motivations and challenges presented by those involved in a partnership process.
Figure 1.Stakeholders in the organizational research partnership.
Stakeholder Analysis
Early Career Academics
LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) suggest that early career academics may benefit from research partnerships with organizations. Although research partnerships may yield intriguing data, early career academics may need to be cautious in their approach to utilizing research partnerships. Early career academics are under pressure to “publish or perish.” The approach that LaPierre et al. propose may be too time consuming to help untenured faculty achieve enough publications to ensure tenure. One of the major causes for the time-consuming nature of the research partnership is that early career academics are often not trained in account management and sales skills in graduate school—skills essential in negotiating and persuading businesses to participate in research activities that may be (initially) perceived as inconsequential to or even detracting from their business objectives. Attempting to learn such skills as an early career academic may be detrimental to one's ability to publish effectively. We agree with the focal article authors that I-O psychology programs should include some educational experiences for master's and PhD students around the issues of communication of I-O psychology concepts as well as some training around managing partnerships as a practitioner and an academic. Early career practitioners may need more time to develop research partnerships and should carefully consider whether they have developed the necessary skills to build those relationships and whether they have the amount of time necessary to nurture and leverage those relationships for research.
In addition to these challenges, the careers of early career academics are often fraught with difficulties, including adjustment (Olsen, Reference Olsen1993), stress (Sorcinelli, Reference Sorcinelli1992; Wang, Hall & Rahimi, Reference Wang, Hall and Rahimi2015), and the search for funding (Bazeley et al, Reference Bazeley, Kemp, Stevens, Asmar, Grbich, Marsh and Bhathal1996). These early career challenges can lead to early turnover among academics (Olsen, Reference Olsen1993). Suggesting that, in addition to their regular responsibilities of teaching, service, and research, early career academics should attempt to develop business-savvy and build research partnerships may exacerbate these early career challenges.
Tenured Faculty
If early career academics must be mindful of their approach to developing research partnerships, two other types of faculty may provide the key by which these relationships may thrive. Tenured faculty should consider research partnerships because one of the major benefits of tenure is the ability to expand one's research opportunities beyond the demands of “publish or perish.” Tenured faculty have the leisure of time to develop relationships with organizations either through alumni networks, personal connections, or their own networks (i.e., SHRM, ATD, local I-O groups). Like the early career academic, tenured academics may not have the requisite account management and sales skills to develop and leverage these relationships; however, they may have more time to invest in developing these skills. Both tenured faculty and early career faculty should consider the research question fit between what the organization is requesting and what the academics are looking to research. Although LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) illustrated some ways to bridge the difference between organizational demands and academic interest, these challenges would remain for tenured and untenured faculty.
Clinical and Adjunct Faculty
Tenured and untenured faculty may not have the requisite skills to develop the relationships with organizations, but clinical or “pracademic” faculty are sometimes able to do so. Clinical or pracademic faculty are those who hold positions in both academic and practice areas (Posner, Reference Posner2009; Susskind, Reference Susskind2013). Many clinical faculty are primarily lecturers who also consult. These faculty are often hired based on their practical experience in the field. Oftentimes, these faculty maintain regular consulting relationships with organizations. They may be ideal partners for tenured and untenured faculty in the process of developing research partnerships. Clinical faculty are often motivated to participate in academic research to provide additional legitimacy to their professional practice. These motivations may also be true of adjunct faculty who often work for consulting firms or in internal practice. Partnerships with these types of faculty allow traditional academics to remain focused on research while allowing those who have account management and sales skills to manage the relationship with the organization.
Consulting Firms
Similar partnerships may be forged between academics and consulting firms. Generally, there are two types of consulting firms: (a) small boutique consulting firms and (b) larger global firms with broad practice areas. The advantage of working with a smaller boutique firm is that the relationship between the academic and the practitioner may allow for more flexibility in the consulting engagement than a larger firm, which may offer more standardized products. A smaller firm may also wish to outsource some work to the academic and find that it is easier to work with an academic partner with unique expertise. A larger firm may provide more structure to an academic and may wish to work with an academic to test out a unique or innovative concept. Larger firms may also have organizational data available for an academic to use for a research publication. Both large and small firms may wish to work with academics because academic publications provide legitimacy to their firms’ work. An academic may also provide innovative ideas and approaches that a traditional consulting firm may not have considered.
Universities and Colleges
Universities also have a stake in academic research partnerships. Higher education is committed to the goal of relevant and impactful research. As the number of individuals attending college continues to drop, the demands on colleges to improve student outcomes related to jobs has increased considerably (Thompson, Reference Thompson2017). In recent years, institutions of higher education have grown more focused on applied learning initiatives (Ash & Clayton, Reference Ash and Clayton2009). Applied learning can provide greater opportunities for students to learn in a realistic setting and allow students to build connections for future employment. An academic may find that he or she can offer a consultation with an organization that is clearly supported by his or her institution if it is offered as a service learning opportunity for students (Bingle & Hatcher, Reference Bringle and Hatcher1996, Reference Bringle and Hatcher2000). Academics may wish to reach out to organizations that have contacted their respective institutions regarding applied or service learning projects. Applied learning and service learning would provide the client organization with inexpensive services while still satisfying the university's core mission and providing organizational data for academics. Although universities can provide leverage and support for academics, they must still be convinced that it is valuable for the institution to be involved with these types of arrangements. This requires political skill on the part of the academic. Tenured faculty may have an advantage in getting university buy-in over early career faculty.
Organizations
Client organizations may see numerous benefits in working with university faculty, but this attitude may vary depending on the nature of the organization. If academics hope to build these relationships, we would encourage them to follow the model of the Global Organization for Humanitarian Work Psychology (GOHWP) and offer services to nonprofits. In our experience, nonprofits are open to academic research partnerships due to a need for I-O psychology services at a low cost. Nonprofit organizations are often familiar with data-oriented practices because many fund their services through grants. For-profit organizations may remain skeptical, especially given the lack of awareness around I-O psychology interventions (Nolan, Islam, & Quartarone, Reference Nolan, Islam and Quartarone2014), whereas nonprofit organizations may be open to the I-O interventions due to financial and mission-specific needs. GOHWP has several successful research partnerships that resulted in publications listed on their site (GOHWP, 2018), and this may provide a model for research partnership success. Organizations ultimately need to derive value from any research partnership. Depending on the size and demands of an organization, those stakes may change. By reviewing the stakeholders’ demands, an academic can best understand how to communicate with a potential client organization.
Academic Journals
One final stakeholder are academic journals. Academic journals are facing an uncertain future as open science becomes a greater focus of many researchers and has allowed greater reproducibility in psychology (Evans & Reimer, Reference Evans and Reimer2009; Open Science Collaboration, Reference Collaboration2012). Academic researchers are ultimately trying to achieve publication in top-tier academic research journals. Academics that do engage in research partnerships should consider the demands of these stakeholders. Some journals are responding to the changes in academic publishing by using registered reports (Chambers, Dienes, McIntosh, Rothstein, & Wilmes, Reference Chambers, Dienes, McIntosh, Rothstein and Willmes2015; Nosek & Larkens, Reference Nosek and Lakens2014) and are increasingly under pressure to publish null results (Nosek et al., Reference Nosek, Alter, Banks, Borsboom, Bowman, Breckler and Contestabile2015). This confluence of events may make this time an ideal one for publishing through research partnerships. One of the caveats of conducting organizational research is the fear of null results, particularly with quasi-experimental or observational designs, shortened measures, and imperfect real-world criteria. Fortunately, journal editors’ attitudes and ideas around null results are changing. If academics can identify journals that are willing to publish null results or that accept registered reports, this may provide a greater guarantee of a top-tier journal publication. Academics may also need to acknowledge the role of their own institution in this process. Academics should communicate the changes around open science and journal quality to their tenure committees and institutions to recalibrate the committees’ demands regarding journal selection. In our experience, an institution that allows for greater flexibility for what they consider a top journal will allow academics to deliver research through a research partnership more effectively.
Recommendations
Based on the stakeholder analysis, the authors would like to make the following broad recommendations for academics, universities, and consulting firms.
1. Academics must self-reflect on the pressures they face. If any of the stakeholders are aligned against a potential partnership, then it may not be a good idea to pursue. However, if institutional and client organizational support are there, then it may prove to be a fruitful source of research data.
2. Client organizations and consultants should look to academics as a source of potential innovation. Academic researchers may provide additional support for innovative pilot projects or new analytic approaches for which organizations and consulting firms may not have the resources. Academic partners have their own motivations for participating in a partnership and can provide needed support in innovation.
3. Universities and tenure committees should recognize the changes brought about by the open science movement. Tenure committees should look beyond impact factors of research publications and consider attempts by I-O psychology faculty to conduct more applied research. Universities should support these research partnerships as a way of getting ahead of the open science movement by allowing their faculty to work with unique samples that provide new insights.
4. Academic journals should continue to move towards reevaluating the way science is presented and be more open to unique applied samples that may yield null results but may offer important real-world tests of theories, examine boundary conditions, or highlight challenges of adapting research and theory to practice. Journals should also utilize and promote registered reports as a way to allow methodologically rigorous studies to appear in their pages while allowing for the potential of null results. As Kepes, List, and McDaniel (Reference Kepes, List and McDaniel2018) have noted, only through the leadership of journal editors can a more robust science be achieved. If journals become more receptive to organizational samples, this can only benefit the field of I-O psychology.
5. Academics and universities should look to build partnerships across consulting firms and non-tenure-track faculty. These partnerships if leveraged appropriately can yield intriguing studies and opportunities for the university to build its reputation, faculty to conduct innovate research, and students to learn through research partnership projects. Institutions with master's programs should try to maintain strong relationships with master's students to build an avenue for potential research partnerships with their institutions.
We laud LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) for their suggestions on building research partnerships. While research partnerships present unique challenges, they may also present unique benefits. Academics should partner strategically and leverage their skills to design innovative research that addresses scientific and organizational questions. By understanding the role of the various stakeholders in the research partnership process, academics can approach research partnerships sagely. With the support of university tenure committees and academic journals, research partnerships may provide new insights into topics of relevance to both scientists and practitioners.
You have
Access
The focal article (LaPierre et al., Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) proposes several steps in developing a research partnership with organizations. We commend LaPierre and colleagues for bringing to light these recommendations. We agree that research partnerships may prove valuable for the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. For I-O psychology to grow as a science, more appropriate sampling and more relevant data sources are necessary (Landers & Behrend, Reference Landers and Behrend2015). Although I-O psychology master's and PhD programs continue to grow and produce more I-O psychology graduates that enter the applied marketplace, there remains a paucity of applied research partnerships between academics and organizations. Research partnerships are often established in other disciplines (i.e., computer science, public health, biochemistry) and have resulted in fruitful relationships for both parties (D'Este & Iammarino, Reference D'Este and Iammarino2010; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, Reference Israel, Schulz, Parker and Becker1998; Santoro & Betts, Reference Santoro and Betts2002), but similar partnerships have not become the norm in I-O psychology. Despite a growing number of I-O psychology graduates and programs (Shellenbarger, Reference Shellenbarger2010), I-O psychology academics have not leveraged those relationships to create research partnerships between universities and business. We would argue that this lack of research partnerships is due to the difficulty of navigating and negotiating with the multiple stakeholders involved in the process of developing a research partnership.
Stakeholder Analysis
As delineated by LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018), there are many approaches that the authors have used to successfully build research partnerships. Although these recommendations are generally laudable, partnership efforts may be derailed by the multiple stakeholders present in the process and their distinct—and sometimes competing—goals and perspectives. Figure 1 illustrates the complex area of stakeholders in organizational research partnerships. To better understand the role of this variety of stakeholders, the authors of this paper conducted a stakeholder analysis. A stakeholder analysis aims to evaluate and understand stakeholders to determine their impact on a project or partnership (Brugha & Varvasovszky, Reference Brugha and Varvasovszky2000). Stakeholder analyses have been used in higher education (Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, Reference Jongbloed, Enders and Salerno2008), consulting (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997; Schmeer, Reference Schmeer1999), and research (Elias, Cavana, & Jackson, Reference Elias, Cavana and Jackson2002) to better understand motivations and challenges presented by those involved in a partnership process.
Stakeholders in the organizational research partnership.
Stakeholder Analysis
Early Career Academics
LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) suggest that early career academics may benefit from research partnerships with organizations. Although research partnerships may yield intriguing data, early career academics may need to be cautious in their approach to utilizing research partnerships. Early career academics are under pressure to “publish or perish.” The approach that LaPierre et al. propose may be too time consuming to help untenured faculty achieve enough publications to ensure tenure. One of the major causes for the time-consuming nature of the research partnership is that early career academics are often not trained in account management and sales skills in graduate school—skills essential in negotiating and persuading businesses to participate in research activities that may be (initially) perceived as inconsequential to or even detracting from their business objectives. Attempting to learn such skills as an early career academic may be detrimental to one's ability to publish effectively. We agree with the focal article authors that I-O psychology programs should include some educational experiences for master's and PhD students around the issues of communication of I-O psychology concepts as well as some training around managing partnerships as a practitioner and an academic. Early career practitioners may need more time to develop research partnerships and should carefully consider whether they have developed the necessary skills to build those relationships and whether they have the amount of time necessary to nurture and leverage those relationships for research.
In addition to these challenges, the careers of early career academics are often fraught with difficulties, including adjustment (Olsen, Reference Olsen1993), stress (Sorcinelli, Reference Sorcinelli1992; Wang, Hall & Rahimi, Reference Wang, Hall and Rahimi2015), and the search for funding (Bazeley et al, Reference Bazeley, Kemp, Stevens, Asmar, Grbich, Marsh and Bhathal1996). These early career challenges can lead to early turnover among academics (Olsen, Reference Olsen1993). Suggesting that, in addition to their regular responsibilities of teaching, service, and research, early career academics should attempt to develop business-savvy and build research partnerships may exacerbate these early career challenges.
Tenured Faculty
If early career academics must be mindful of their approach to developing research partnerships, two other types of faculty may provide the key by which these relationships may thrive. Tenured faculty should consider research partnerships because one of the major benefits of tenure is the ability to expand one's research opportunities beyond the demands of “publish or perish.” Tenured faculty have the leisure of time to develop relationships with organizations either through alumni networks, personal connections, or their own networks (i.e., SHRM, ATD, local I-O groups). Like the early career academic, tenured academics may not have the requisite account management and sales skills to develop and leverage these relationships; however, they may have more time to invest in developing these skills. Both tenured faculty and early career faculty should consider the research question fit between what the organization is requesting and what the academics are looking to research. Although LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) illustrated some ways to bridge the difference between organizational demands and academic interest, these challenges would remain for tenured and untenured faculty.
Clinical and Adjunct Faculty
Tenured and untenured faculty may not have the requisite skills to develop the relationships with organizations, but clinical or “pracademic” faculty are sometimes able to do so. Clinical or pracademic faculty are those who hold positions in both academic and practice areas (Posner, Reference Posner2009; Susskind, Reference Susskind2013). Many clinical faculty are primarily lecturers who also consult. These faculty are often hired based on their practical experience in the field. Oftentimes, these faculty maintain regular consulting relationships with organizations. They may be ideal partners for tenured and untenured faculty in the process of developing research partnerships. Clinical faculty are often motivated to participate in academic research to provide additional legitimacy to their professional practice. These motivations may also be true of adjunct faculty who often work for consulting firms or in internal practice. Partnerships with these types of faculty allow traditional academics to remain focused on research while allowing those who have account management and sales skills to manage the relationship with the organization.
Consulting Firms
Similar partnerships may be forged between academics and consulting firms. Generally, there are two types of consulting firms: (a) small boutique consulting firms and (b) larger global firms with broad practice areas. The advantage of working with a smaller boutique firm is that the relationship between the academic and the practitioner may allow for more flexibility in the consulting engagement than a larger firm, which may offer more standardized products. A smaller firm may also wish to outsource some work to the academic and find that it is easier to work with an academic partner with unique expertise. A larger firm may provide more structure to an academic and may wish to work with an academic to test out a unique or innovative concept. Larger firms may also have organizational data available for an academic to use for a research publication. Both large and small firms may wish to work with academics because academic publications provide legitimacy to their firms’ work. An academic may also provide innovative ideas and approaches that a traditional consulting firm may not have considered.
Universities and Colleges
Universities also have a stake in academic research partnerships. Higher education is committed to the goal of relevant and impactful research. As the number of individuals attending college continues to drop, the demands on colleges to improve student outcomes related to jobs has increased considerably (Thompson, Reference Thompson2017). In recent years, institutions of higher education have grown more focused on applied learning initiatives (Ash & Clayton, Reference Ash and Clayton2009). Applied learning can provide greater opportunities for students to learn in a realistic setting and allow students to build connections for future employment. An academic may find that he or she can offer a consultation with an organization that is clearly supported by his or her institution if it is offered as a service learning opportunity for students (Bingle & Hatcher, Reference Bringle and Hatcher1996, Reference Bringle and Hatcher2000). Academics may wish to reach out to organizations that have contacted their respective institutions regarding applied or service learning projects. Applied learning and service learning would provide the client organization with inexpensive services while still satisfying the university's core mission and providing organizational data for academics. Although universities can provide leverage and support for academics, they must still be convinced that it is valuable for the institution to be involved with these types of arrangements. This requires political skill on the part of the academic. Tenured faculty may have an advantage in getting university buy-in over early career faculty.
Organizations
Client organizations may see numerous benefits in working with university faculty, but this attitude may vary depending on the nature of the organization. If academics hope to build these relationships, we would encourage them to follow the model of the Global Organization for Humanitarian Work Psychology (GOHWP) and offer services to nonprofits. In our experience, nonprofits are open to academic research partnerships due to a need for I-O psychology services at a low cost. Nonprofit organizations are often familiar with data-oriented practices because many fund their services through grants. For-profit organizations may remain skeptical, especially given the lack of awareness around I-O psychology interventions (Nolan, Islam, & Quartarone, Reference Nolan, Islam and Quartarone2014), whereas nonprofit organizations may be open to the I-O interventions due to financial and mission-specific needs. GOHWP has several successful research partnerships that resulted in publications listed on their site (GOHWP, 2018), and this may provide a model for research partnership success. Organizations ultimately need to derive value from any research partnership. Depending on the size and demands of an organization, those stakes may change. By reviewing the stakeholders’ demands, an academic can best understand how to communicate with a potential client organization.
Academic Journals
One final stakeholder are academic journals. Academic journals are facing an uncertain future as open science becomes a greater focus of many researchers and has allowed greater reproducibility in psychology (Evans & Reimer, Reference Evans and Reimer2009; Open Science Collaboration, Reference Collaboration2012). Academic researchers are ultimately trying to achieve publication in top-tier academic research journals. Academics that do engage in research partnerships should consider the demands of these stakeholders. Some journals are responding to the changes in academic publishing by using registered reports (Chambers, Dienes, McIntosh, Rothstein, & Wilmes, Reference Chambers, Dienes, McIntosh, Rothstein and Willmes2015; Nosek & Larkens, Reference Nosek and Lakens2014) and are increasingly under pressure to publish null results (Nosek et al., Reference Nosek, Alter, Banks, Borsboom, Bowman, Breckler and Contestabile2015). This confluence of events may make this time an ideal one for publishing through research partnerships. One of the caveats of conducting organizational research is the fear of null results, particularly with quasi-experimental or observational designs, shortened measures, and imperfect real-world criteria. Fortunately, journal editors’ attitudes and ideas around null results are changing. If academics can identify journals that are willing to publish null results or that accept registered reports, this may provide a greater guarantee of a top-tier journal publication. Academics may also need to acknowledge the role of their own institution in this process. Academics should communicate the changes around open science and journal quality to their tenure committees and institutions to recalibrate the committees’ demands regarding journal selection. In our experience, an institution that allows for greater flexibility for what they consider a top journal will allow academics to deliver research through a research partnership more effectively.
Recommendations
Based on the stakeholder analysis, the authors would like to make the following broad recommendations for academics, universities, and consulting firms.
1. Academics must self-reflect on the pressures they face. If any of the stakeholders are aligned against a potential partnership, then it may not be a good idea to pursue. However, if institutional and client organizational support are there, then it may prove to be a fruitful source of research data.
2. Client organizations and consultants should look to academics as a source of potential innovation. Academic researchers may provide additional support for innovative pilot projects or new analytic approaches for which organizations and consulting firms may not have the resources. Academic partners have their own motivations for participating in a partnership and can provide needed support in innovation.
3. Universities and tenure committees should recognize the changes brought about by the open science movement. Tenure committees should look beyond impact factors of research publications and consider attempts by I-O psychology faculty to conduct more applied research. Universities should support these research partnerships as a way of getting ahead of the open science movement by allowing their faculty to work with unique samples that provide new insights.
4. Academic journals should continue to move towards reevaluating the way science is presented and be more open to unique applied samples that may yield null results but may offer important real-world tests of theories, examine boundary conditions, or highlight challenges of adapting research and theory to practice. Journals should also utilize and promote registered reports as a way to allow methodologically rigorous studies to appear in their pages while allowing for the potential of null results. As Kepes, List, and McDaniel (Reference Kepes, List and McDaniel2018) have noted, only through the leadership of journal editors can a more robust science be achieved. If journals become more receptive to organizational samples, this can only benefit the field of I-O psychology.
5. Academics and universities should look to build partnerships across consulting firms and non-tenure-track faculty. These partnerships if leveraged appropriately can yield intriguing studies and opportunities for the university to build its reputation, faculty to conduct innovate research, and students to learn through research partnership projects. Institutions with master's programs should try to maintain strong relationships with master's students to build an avenue for potential research partnerships with their institutions.
We laud LaPierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) for their suggestions on building research partnerships. While research partnerships present unique challenges, they may also present unique benefits. Academics should partner strategically and leverage their skills to design innovative research that addresses scientific and organizational questions. By understanding the role of the various stakeholders in the research partnership process, academics can approach research partnerships sagely. With the support of university tenure committees and academic journals, research partnerships may provide new insights into topics of relevance to both scientists and practitioners.