Conversations concerning the side effects of organizational interventions are warranted and crucial, particularly because the year 2020 brought about significant changes to the nature of work, the great resignation, and pledges by organizations to improve working environments for minority employees through better-quality diversity, equity, inclusion, and access (DEIA) initiatives. Watts et al. (Reference Watts, Gray and Medeiros2021) briefly mentioned an important point that interventions could have side effects for minority employees. However, they did not incorporate a targeted strategy that would alleviate these side effects. We want to acknowledge that the strategies put forth in the focal article do not serve as an elixir but a mere means of stimulating conversation. However, considering that most, if not all, of our research and interventions are tested in western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic populations (Roberts et al., Reference Roberts, Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie and Mortenson2020), a “mental shift” will be hard if we do not first reexamine the ways in which we have traditionally carried out research and tested interventions and then develop tailored interventions.
We argue that a science–practitioner gap exists because of an inability to have the right people seated at the table making valuable contributions, as transforming research into practice and policy has been traditionally based and thrived on unequal relationships between the researchers and those being researched (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018). Similarly, developing and testing interventions takes time and requires substantial collaboration among organizations, researchers, and other key stakeholders (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). Therefore, for side effects of interventions to be recognized and reduced, there must be a comprehensive understanding of both the various factors that contribute to and create these side effects or adverse events, as well as the various factors that can contribute to an operative, multilevel response.
It is to this end that we use the remainder of this commentary to add to the conversation by introducing organization-based participatory research (OBPR), which encompasses any form of collaborative research between academic and nonacademic partners (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). It should be noted that OBPR is similar to the more popular community-based participatory research (CBPR), and because the research on OBPR is limited, we will be borrowing from the CBPR literature to make our case first by giving a brief history/overview of OBPR, presenting OBPR as a holistic approach, and then ending with the advantages of OBPR.
Brief history and overview of OBPR
Most heavily used in medical research and health care organizations, OBPR is a framework that provides researchers, practitioners, and other key stakeholders equitable involvement and say in the research process (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). OBPR was coined to investigate employee behaviors in a real-world environment, that is, the organization, as opposed to a controlled setting—that is, the laboratory (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018). The premise was that research should be a collaborative and comparative process that brings about social change (Lewin, Reference Lewin1939). Previous research has shown that OBPR is effective in translating important research findings into transformative and sustainable organizational and policy change (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). Therefore, OBPR can be effective in elevating our understanding of side effects and effectiveness of interventions.
OBPR a holistic approach
The most attractive aspect of OBPR is that it allows for equitable partnerships and involvement among researchers, stakeholders, employees, community partners, and other key stakeholders across all aspects of the research process. From this vantage point, researchers and other stakeholders who share mutual interests foster relationships of trust and mutual respect that is sustained and developed over years (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). One benefit of OBPR is that employees and other stakeholders from the organization can serve on research community advisory boards allowing them access to give important “real-world” insights as well as address potential side effects that may have been previously overlooked.
Perhaps even more appealing is that OBPR addresses inequities in research and interventions that give rise to side effects. The side effects of interventions are harmful to individuals from marginalized groups who are often left out of the research conversation. Unlike traditional research processes, OBPR offers marginalized individuals a seat at the table, which is imperative especially in light of the recent social justice movements.
Because the organization now has an invested and equitable role in the development of the intervention as well as the research process, funding will be sourced collaboratively from both the organization and researcher. This allows for more long-term relationship building, engagement, and funding. Thus, interventions can be tested and retested beyond a single project time frame, allowing for more flexibility to examine side effects and address them, making the research process cyclical and iterative (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018).
Advantages of conducting OBPR in I-O psychology
Answers the call for more employee-centered research and practice
With the rise in social justice movements and the COVID-19 pandemic changing the way we work and live, organizations are now challenged to move beyond performative alliance on inequities in the workplace. This creates an opportunity for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to better address the complex societal, environmental, and organizational factors involved in social injustices and inequities to create more equitable and just working environment for all employees particularly those who have been traditionally marginalized.
Improves the validity of research methods
OBPR is an iterative process that helps improve the internal and external validity of research methods to test interventions. Researchers move away from old methods of conducting research to more appropriate measures and research methods that align with the needs of the organization. Marginalized individuals serving on advisory boards during the research process can help with recruitment and retention of other marginalized employees, consequently increasing internal validity. Furthermore, OBPR introduces more pragmatic research designs such as randomized controlled trials and mixed methods studies (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018).
Improves effectiveness of interventions and identify side effects
Although OBPR is not heavily used in I-O-based research, there is emerging research in general psychology that shows promising initial findings in mental health interventions using OBPR (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018). Given its success in health services research and health care settings, we believe that this framework is well positioned to address the side effects of interventions.
Bridge/close the science–practitioner gap
For years we have heard about the gap between practitioners and researchers (Highhouse et al., Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020). To move the field forward, we should be engaging in more community and organizational partnerships. Thus, OBPR is the key to bridging the science and practitioner gap.
Conclusion
We believe that one way we can move forward as a field is by engaging in OBPR, which is focused on building and sustaining long-term collaborative relationships and lending an equal voice in the research process between academic and nonacademic entities. This provides an opportunity to close the science–practitioner gap and address the inequities in research interventions and organizations. It is only when we revamp the way that we do research that we are able to identify and address the side effects of interventions; until then the present evidence and existing interventions are insufficient for shifting the field.
You have
Access
Conversations concerning the side effects of organizational interventions are warranted and crucial, particularly because the year 2020 brought about significant changes to the nature of work, the great resignation, and pledges by organizations to improve working environments for minority employees through better-quality diversity, equity, inclusion, and access (DEIA) initiatives. Watts et al. (Reference Watts, Gray and Medeiros2021) briefly mentioned an important point that interventions could have side effects for minority employees. However, they did not incorporate a targeted strategy that would alleviate these side effects. We want to acknowledge that the strategies put forth in the focal article do not serve as an elixir but a mere means of stimulating conversation. However, considering that most, if not all, of our research and interventions are tested in western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic populations (Roberts et al., Reference Roberts, Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie and Mortenson2020), a “mental shift” will be hard if we do not first reexamine the ways in which we have traditionally carried out research and tested interventions and then develop tailored interventions.
We argue that a science–practitioner gap exists because of an inability to have the right people seated at the table making valuable contributions, as transforming research into practice and policy has been traditionally based and thrived on unequal relationships between the researchers and those being researched (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018). Similarly, developing and testing interventions takes time and requires substantial collaboration among organizations, researchers, and other key stakeholders (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). Therefore, for side effects of interventions to be recognized and reduced, there must be a comprehensive understanding of both the various factors that contribute to and create these side effects or adverse events, as well as the various factors that can contribute to an operative, multilevel response.
It is to this end that we use the remainder of this commentary to add to the conversation by introducing organization-based participatory research (OBPR), which encompasses any form of collaborative research between academic and nonacademic partners (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). It should be noted that OBPR is similar to the more popular community-based participatory research (CBPR), and because the research on OBPR is limited, we will be borrowing from the CBPR literature to make our case first by giving a brief history/overview of OBPR, presenting OBPR as a holistic approach, and then ending with the advantages of OBPR.
Brief history and overview of OBPR
Most heavily used in medical research and health care organizations, OBPR is a framework that provides researchers, practitioners, and other key stakeholders equitable involvement and say in the research process (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). OBPR was coined to investigate employee behaviors in a real-world environment, that is, the organization, as opposed to a controlled setting—that is, the laboratory (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018). The premise was that research should be a collaborative and comparative process that brings about social change (Lewin, Reference Lewin1939). Previous research has shown that OBPR is effective in translating important research findings into transformative and sustainable organizational and policy change (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). Therefore, OBPR can be effective in elevating our understanding of side effects and effectiveness of interventions.
OBPR a holistic approach
The most attractive aspect of OBPR is that it allows for equitable partnerships and involvement among researchers, stakeholders, employees, community partners, and other key stakeholders across all aspects of the research process. From this vantage point, researchers and other stakeholders who share mutual interests foster relationships of trust and mutual respect that is sustained and developed over years (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Pluye, Loignon, Granikov, Wright, Pelletier, Bartlett-Esquilant, Macaulay, Haggerty, Parry and Repchinsky2017). One benefit of OBPR is that employees and other stakeholders from the organization can serve on research community advisory boards allowing them access to give important “real-world” insights as well as address potential side effects that may have been previously overlooked.
Perhaps even more appealing is that OBPR addresses inequities in research and interventions that give rise to side effects. The side effects of interventions are harmful to individuals from marginalized groups who are often left out of the research conversation. Unlike traditional research processes, OBPR offers marginalized individuals a seat at the table, which is imperative especially in light of the recent social justice movements.
Because the organization now has an invested and equitable role in the development of the intervention as well as the research process, funding will be sourced collaboratively from both the organization and researcher. This allows for more long-term relationship building, engagement, and funding. Thus, interventions can be tested and retested beyond a single project time frame, allowing for more flexibility to examine side effects and address them, making the research process cyclical and iterative (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018).
Advantages of conducting OBPR in I-O psychology
Answers the call for more employee-centered research and practice
With the rise in social justice movements and the COVID-19 pandemic changing the way we work and live, organizations are now challenged to move beyond performative alliance on inequities in the workplace. This creates an opportunity for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to better address the complex societal, environmental, and organizational factors involved in social injustices and inequities to create more equitable and just working environment for all employees particularly those who have been traditionally marginalized.
Improves the validity of research methods
OBPR is an iterative process that helps improve the internal and external validity of research methods to test interventions. Researchers move away from old methods of conducting research to more appropriate measures and research methods that align with the needs of the organization. Marginalized individuals serving on advisory boards during the research process can help with recruitment and retention of other marginalized employees, consequently increasing internal validity. Furthermore, OBPR introduces more pragmatic research designs such as randomized controlled trials and mixed methods studies (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018).
Improves effectiveness of interventions and identify side effects
Although OBPR is not heavily used in I-O-based research, there is emerging research in general psychology that shows promising initial findings in mental health interventions using OBPR (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Clifasefi, Stanton, Straits, Espinosa, Andrasik, Miller, Orfaly, Board, Gil-Kashiwabara, Nicasio, Hawes, Nelson, Duran and Wallerstein2018). Given its success in health services research and health care settings, we believe that this framework is well positioned to address the side effects of interventions.
Bridge/close the science–practitioner gap
For years we have heard about the gap between practitioners and researchers (Highhouse et al., Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020). To move the field forward, we should be engaging in more community and organizational partnerships. Thus, OBPR is the key to bridging the science and practitioner gap.
Conclusion
We believe that one way we can move forward as a field is by engaging in OBPR, which is focused on building and sustaining long-term collaborative relationships and lending an equal voice in the research process between academic and nonacademic entities. This provides an opportunity to close the science–practitioner gap and address the inequities in research interventions and organizations. It is only when we revamp the way that we do research that we are able to identify and address the side effects of interventions; until then the present evidence and existing interventions are insufficient for shifting the field.