In their focal article, Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017) conducted an empirical analysis of the most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology textbooks. The authors conclude that their “results are encouraging regarding the scientist–practitioner model” (p. 545). We disagree. Although we applaud the effort that went into this research, we are concerned that the method used in the article, focusing on textbook citations, creates yet another “researcher-centric” index that will do nothing to address the research–practice gap. The problematic “researcher-centric” perspective manifests itself in several ways in the focal article, which we elaborate below.
Our biggest concern regarding the focal article is that researchers are the ones who write textbooks. In that vein, examining textbooks citations is very “researcher-centric,” in that we are essentially asking ourselves whether we cite our own research.Footnote
1
Not surprisingly, we do. More problematically, by focusing on what we as researchers cite, we are losing sight of whether we are making any direct connections with practitioners. Rynes, Giluk, and Brown (Reference Rynes, Giluk and Brown2007) found that results deemed clear and robust by the research community received little coverage by practitioner and bridge journals. Importantly, the presence of non-academic publications in I-O psychology textbooks does not mean academic publications are being frequently referenced in non-academic publications. These are two separate things. The focal article is mainly concerned with the former, citations in textbooks, over the latter, citations to academic work in mainstream practitioner outlets. Although we agree it is useful to know to what extent a researcher's work is being cited in textbooks, we do not see it doing much to address whether our work is useful in day-to-day work environments. What we need to understand is what research practitioners read and what practitioners actually find useful in practice. In fact, Colbert, Rynes, and Brown (Reference Colbert, Rynes and Brown2005) found that only 2% of their study participants (members of the Society for Human Resource Management with significant management responsibility in HR) reported reading academic journals. Therefore, it is more important for the research community to find different ways to disseminate research findings to practitioners (Colbert et al., Reference Colbert, Rynes and Brown2005) than to count how frequently our own work is cited in academic textbooks.
It is encouraging to see the authors of the I-O textbooks cite nonacademic publications, thus giving future I-O professionals some exposure to nonacademic sources. Yet still, we are reluctant to jump to the conclusion that “the divide may develop later, perhaps after graduates obtain employment as either practitioners or researchers” (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017, p. 545). First, exposure via textbooks does not mean acceptance. For example, Caprar, Do, Rynes, and Bartunek (Reference Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek2016) showed that college students might not accept well-documented findings if the research findings threatened their positive self-regard. In fact, the essay that student subjects in that study found threatening was from one of the most robust findings in I-O psychology, which states that intelligence is a robust predictor of performance (Schmidt, Reference Schmidt and Locke2009). Second, the content of I-O textbooks does not provide any information about the actual training methods that instructors use in the classroom, which are important for training effectiveness (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, Reference Arthur, Bennett, Edens and Bell2003). Worded perhaps too dramatically, how do we know that students are actually learning and retaining anything from the textbooks? Caprar et al. (Reference Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek2016) also stressed the importance of teaching methods in their discussion of students’ acceptance of management research. For example, the same research finding may be better received if the instructor uses a more active and exploratory training method in class (Bell & Kozlowski, Reference Bell and Kozlowski2008). If we as instructors pay no attention to how we structure our class and instead just present our cumulative body of knowledge in a passive way, we may be responsible for sustaining students’ preexisting beliefs about how the world works. The divide may have already been extant, if not grown larger, in our very own classrooms because instructors may not have as big of an impact on students’ knowledge and beliefs as they would like.
Our last concern with the researcher-centric view has to do with how the authors compared I-O psychology programs against business programs. Although we acknowledge the ongoing discussion regarding the migration of some I-O psychologists to business schools (Aguinis, Bradley, & Brodersen, Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014), we are wondering whether emphasizing the distinct identities of the two parties is doing much to help us better understand the research–practice gap. As researchers, we claim an identity early on in our career, both from our training background (i.e., I-O psychologist or a management scholar) and from our research interests (e.g., leadership scholar or a team researcher). In other words, the discussion regarding the tension between I-O programs and business schools is understandable because it is closely related to researchers’ identities. However, we are concerned that we may trip into our researcher-centric mindset if we are fixated on the tension between our narrowly defined identities. This may blind us to the fact that many practitioners do not care who did the research. In fact, a common practice in mainstream media is to cite the institution (a study from the University of Iowa) rather than the college and department of the scholar. Does a vice president of human resources spend time debating whether to use a finding based on whether the scholar is in psychology or management, or published in Academy of Management Journal or Journal of Applied Psychology? As it relates to research–practice issues, we need to adopt a broader lens. If both I-O psychology and business graduates (e.g., human resource management track) end up working in similar jobs, why do we limit our research to only I-O psychology textbooks and our discussion to the training of future I-O psychology professionals? Although it is important to understand the tension between different academic programs, we wish to highlight the fact that, from a practitioner's standpoint, they see us as a relatively undifferentiated research community.
Having detailed our concerns with the researcher-centric assumption underlying the focal article, we now turn to a brief discussion of what we contend is important for understanding the research–practice gap. First, we highlight the role of researchers’ own mindsets in the ongoing discussion regarding the research–practice gap. We are not the first to point this out (Augier & March, Reference Augier and March2007; Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014; Bennis & O'Toole, Reference Bennis and O'Toole2005). Yet still, we have shown through our commentary how a researcher-centric worldview can push us even further from starting the real conversation and end up creating more researcher-centric indices that satisfy our needs for recognition but little else. Second, we need to move beyond citations to look at how we engage students and practitioners. Our focus here has been on student-centered teaching, emphasizing how we should as a field make sure students have hands-on opportunities to explore the connection between I-O psychology research and practice (Caprar et al., Reference Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek2016). With current practitioners, we need to take on a relational mindset instead of a researcher-centered one and explore the different ways that we can forge meaningful connections with practitioners (Bartunek, Reference Bartunek2007).
We should point out that the brevity of these suggestions by no means implies easy implementation. In fact, scholars have made the call for the research community to take on the research–practice gap as an important phenomenon in itself (Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014). In other words, we should devote significant resources to researching this phenomenon in the hope to better understand it. In order to do that, we need to attend to the broader picture and reflect on our own role in the research–practice gap. In fact, Bartunek and Rynes (Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014) astutely pointed out that “while some of the discussion is about academics in relation to practitioners, most of the discussion is actually about—and aimed at—other academics, and whether or not the other academics hold what the author considers the proper viewpoint” (p. 1188). Therefore, it is time that the research community be aware of our very own part in the research–practice gap. Instead of acting on our researcher-centric impulse to rely on some summary statistics, we need to remind ourselves that we are part of the reason for the tensions, dialectics, and paradox underlying the research–practice gap (Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014). Another “researcher-centric” index that counts citations in I-O psychology textbooks is not going to do much. Instead, it may even push us further from practitioners.
You have
Access
In their focal article, Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017) conducted an empirical analysis of the most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology textbooks. The authors conclude that their “results are encouraging regarding the scientist–practitioner model” (p. 545). We disagree. Although we applaud the effort that went into this research, we are concerned that the method used in the article, focusing on textbook citations, creates yet another “researcher-centric” index that will do nothing to address the research–practice gap. The problematic “researcher-centric” perspective manifests itself in several ways in the focal article, which we elaborate below.
Our biggest concern regarding the focal article is that researchers are the ones who write textbooks. In that vein, examining textbooks citations is very “researcher-centric,” in that we are essentially asking ourselves whether we cite our own research.Footnote 1 Not surprisingly, we do. More problematically, by focusing on what we as researchers cite, we are losing sight of whether we are making any direct connections with practitioners. Rynes, Giluk, and Brown (Reference Rynes, Giluk and Brown2007) found that results deemed clear and robust by the research community received little coverage by practitioner and bridge journals. Importantly, the presence of non-academic publications in I-O psychology textbooks does not mean academic publications are being frequently referenced in non-academic publications. These are two separate things. The focal article is mainly concerned with the former, citations in textbooks, over the latter, citations to academic work in mainstream practitioner outlets. Although we agree it is useful to know to what extent a researcher's work is being cited in textbooks, we do not see it doing much to address whether our work is useful in day-to-day work environments. What we need to understand is what research practitioners read and what practitioners actually find useful in practice. In fact, Colbert, Rynes, and Brown (Reference Colbert, Rynes and Brown2005) found that only 2% of their study participants (members of the Society for Human Resource Management with significant management responsibility in HR) reported reading academic journals. Therefore, it is more important for the research community to find different ways to disseminate research findings to practitioners (Colbert et al., Reference Colbert, Rynes and Brown2005) than to count how frequently our own work is cited in academic textbooks.
It is encouraging to see the authors of the I-O textbooks cite nonacademic publications, thus giving future I-O professionals some exposure to nonacademic sources. Yet still, we are reluctant to jump to the conclusion that “the divide may develop later, perhaps after graduates obtain employment as either practitioners or researchers” (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017, p. 545). First, exposure via textbooks does not mean acceptance. For example, Caprar, Do, Rynes, and Bartunek (Reference Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek2016) showed that college students might not accept well-documented findings if the research findings threatened their positive self-regard. In fact, the essay that student subjects in that study found threatening was from one of the most robust findings in I-O psychology, which states that intelligence is a robust predictor of performance (Schmidt, Reference Schmidt and Locke2009). Second, the content of I-O textbooks does not provide any information about the actual training methods that instructors use in the classroom, which are important for training effectiveness (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, Reference Arthur, Bennett, Edens and Bell2003). Worded perhaps too dramatically, how do we know that students are actually learning and retaining anything from the textbooks? Caprar et al. (Reference Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek2016) also stressed the importance of teaching methods in their discussion of students’ acceptance of management research. For example, the same research finding may be better received if the instructor uses a more active and exploratory training method in class (Bell & Kozlowski, Reference Bell and Kozlowski2008). If we as instructors pay no attention to how we structure our class and instead just present our cumulative body of knowledge in a passive way, we may be responsible for sustaining students’ preexisting beliefs about how the world works. The divide may have already been extant, if not grown larger, in our very own classrooms because instructors may not have as big of an impact on students’ knowledge and beliefs as they would like.
Our last concern with the researcher-centric view has to do with how the authors compared I-O psychology programs against business programs. Although we acknowledge the ongoing discussion regarding the migration of some I-O psychologists to business schools (Aguinis, Bradley, & Brodersen, Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014), we are wondering whether emphasizing the distinct identities of the two parties is doing much to help us better understand the research–practice gap. As researchers, we claim an identity early on in our career, both from our training background (i.e., I-O psychologist or a management scholar) and from our research interests (e.g., leadership scholar or a team researcher). In other words, the discussion regarding the tension between I-O programs and business schools is understandable because it is closely related to researchers’ identities. However, we are concerned that we may trip into our researcher-centric mindset if we are fixated on the tension between our narrowly defined identities. This may blind us to the fact that many practitioners do not care who did the research. In fact, a common practice in mainstream media is to cite the institution (a study from the University of Iowa) rather than the college and department of the scholar. Does a vice president of human resources spend time debating whether to use a finding based on whether the scholar is in psychology or management, or published in Academy of Management Journal or Journal of Applied Psychology? As it relates to research–practice issues, we need to adopt a broader lens. If both I-O psychology and business graduates (e.g., human resource management track) end up working in similar jobs, why do we limit our research to only I-O psychology textbooks and our discussion to the training of future I-O psychology professionals? Although it is important to understand the tension between different academic programs, we wish to highlight the fact that, from a practitioner's standpoint, they see us as a relatively undifferentiated research community.
Having detailed our concerns with the researcher-centric assumption underlying the focal article, we now turn to a brief discussion of what we contend is important for understanding the research–practice gap. First, we highlight the role of researchers’ own mindsets in the ongoing discussion regarding the research–practice gap. We are not the first to point this out (Augier & March, Reference Augier and March2007; Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014; Bennis & O'Toole, Reference Bennis and O'Toole2005). Yet still, we have shown through our commentary how a researcher-centric worldview can push us even further from starting the real conversation and end up creating more researcher-centric indices that satisfy our needs for recognition but little else. Second, we need to move beyond citations to look at how we engage students and practitioners. Our focus here has been on student-centered teaching, emphasizing how we should as a field make sure students have hands-on opportunities to explore the connection between I-O psychology research and practice (Caprar et al., Reference Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek2016). With current practitioners, we need to take on a relational mindset instead of a researcher-centered one and explore the different ways that we can forge meaningful connections with practitioners (Bartunek, Reference Bartunek2007).
We should point out that the brevity of these suggestions by no means implies easy implementation. In fact, scholars have made the call for the research community to take on the research–practice gap as an important phenomenon in itself (Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014). In other words, we should devote significant resources to researching this phenomenon in the hope to better understand it. In order to do that, we need to attend to the broader picture and reflect on our own role in the research–practice gap. In fact, Bartunek and Rynes (Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014) astutely pointed out that “while some of the discussion is about academics in relation to practitioners, most of the discussion is actually about—and aimed at—other academics, and whether or not the other academics hold what the author considers the proper viewpoint” (p. 1188). Therefore, it is time that the research community be aware of our very own part in the research–practice gap. Instead of acting on our researcher-centric impulse to rely on some summary statistics, we need to remind ourselves that we are part of the reason for the tensions, dialectics, and paradox underlying the research–practice gap (Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014). Another “researcher-centric” index that counts citations in I-O psychology textbooks is not going to do much. Instead, it may even push us further from practitioners.