As faculty in master's industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology graduate programs, we read with great interest the focal article on initiating and maintaining partnerships with organizations (Lapierre et al., Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018). We applaud the efforts of the authors to present guidelines and recommendations for successful applied research in organizations. Although Lapierre et al. directed their recommendations primarily to doctoral faculty and their students, there currently are 159 I-O psychology master's programs listed on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) webpage (http://my.siop.org/GTP). Because of the applied nature of most master's programs, by necessity we work continuously to gain entry into and partner with organizations for internship placements, applied course projects, and applied service opportunities. We, along with other master's faculty colleagues, have published and presented on the topic of partnering with organizations (e.g., Shoenfelt, Reference Shoenfelt2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Shoenfelt et al., Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke, Stone, Dolen, Hill-Fotouhi, Seibert and Walker2015; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, Reference Shoenfelt, Stone and Kottke2013; Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith, & Whelan, Reference Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith and Whelan2012; Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson, & Frame, Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018; Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett, & Van Hein, Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett and Van Hein2017). In this response, we offer an analogous perspective from the master's level based on tacit knowledge garnered from more than a century of combined experience. We note that many of the recommendations in this focal article likewise surfaced in our work. Here we highlight the challenges unique to master's-level and teaching-intensive faculty in implementing these recommendations. In our response, we embrace Lewin's (Reference Lewin1946) definition of action research that there is no action without research and no research without action. Thus, we broadly define applied research as asking an important applied question and systematically collecting data to answer that question in a manner in which the results inform organizational action (whether or not it results in a peer-reviewed publication).
Differences in Faculty Roles in Doctoral Programs and Master's Programs
Even though guidelines and principles for effective organizational experiences have substantial overlap for master's and doctoral faculty and students, the objectives for organizational entry and data collection (and use) may differ. Recently, SIOP (2016) revised guidelines for graduate training into a single set of guidelines for doctoral and master's programs; nonetheless, these guidelines note differences between doctoral and master's students. Importantly, the responsibilities for faculty in doctoral and master's programs tend to differ. Generally, doctoral faculty have lighter teaching loads and greater research responsibility with a corresponding expectation for frequent publication in top tier journals. Master's faculty, on the other hand, have significantly heavier teaching loads of up to four courses a semester and a different research expectation in terms of quantity, journal tier, or both. Accordingly, even though most I-O psychologists endorse the action research model and applied research as a foundation for data-based organizational decision making, “quality research” may be defined differently for doctoral faculty and master's faculty; the latter may be more likely to focus on the utility of the applied research for the organization rather than a top-tier publication. An overarching goal of publication is likely for doctoral faculty; thus, the faculty member's research agenda may be the driving force in forming a relationship with an organization. Much of the time for master's faculty, the overarching goal is to obtain applied experience for graduate students. Thus, applied data-based projects often are driven by organizational priorities, and graduate students, under faculty supervision, complete much of the research. A key to organizational entry is to ensure that the applied research is meeting an important organizational need.
Because of the very applied focus of master's programs, applied experiences in organizational settings are recognized as the hallmark of the highest rated master's programs (Vodanovich, Morganson, & Kass, Reference Vodanovich, Morganson and Kass2018). Applied experiences may include course projects, internships, practica, and service projects. Each of these experiences typically involves the systematic collection of data to address an organizational issue. Applied research of this type is more likely to result in a technical report than a publication. Data-based applied projects also may fulfill the thesis research requirement in many master's programs. In addition, master's students typically complete their graduate program in 2 years. An internship may be completed during the summer and/or concomitantly with the second year of coursework, before developing the level of skill of typical of doctoral interns (Cupps & Olmosk, Reference Cupps and Olmosk2008; Munson, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, Reference Munson, Phillips, Clark and Mueller-Hanson2004; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, Reference Shoenfelt, Stone and Kottke2013). For applied experiences to benefit master's students and the host organization, significant structure, supervision, and monitoring are necessary (Cupps & Olmosk, Reference Cupps and Olmosk2008; Kottke, Olson, & Schultz, Reference Kottke, Olson, Shultz, Wankel and Wankel2016; Munson et al., Reference Munson, Phillips, Clark and Mueller-Hanson2004; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012).
Guidelines for Effective Experiences With Modifications for Master's Faculty and Students
Below we integrate recommendations from our experience (e.g., Kottke, Shoenfelt, & Stone, Reference Kottke, Shoenfelt and Stone2014; Shoenfelt, Reference Shoenfelt2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018) with those from Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018), with an emphasis on the first objective of initiating a relationship with the organization. Again, we note that there is much commonality between the recommendations; our focus is on implementation with master's faculty and students.
Applied experiences for students are central to the mission of master's programs because these experiences have greater payoff for students in obtaining jobs than does coauthorship on a publication (Shoenfelt et al., Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke, Stone, Dolen, Hill-Fotouhi, Seibert and Walker2015). Thus, master's-level faculty are more likely to seek out smaller organizations that can provide applied project experience but lack the capacity to provide sufficient numbers of participants necessary for a complex research design that can be obtained in larger organizations.
Certainly, gaining entry into an organization can be a challenging task. Shoenfelt (Reference Shoenfelt2003) identified characteristics of organizations that make them more amenable to applied research projects. These characteristics include an understanding of I-O psychology and the knowledge, skills, and abilities we bring to the workplace, as well as the type and utility of projects we can perform. We frequently find ourselves educating smaller organizations about I-O psychology and what we can do—that is, collect data to solve a variety of organizational problems. An understanding of the scope of a project is essential. At the master's level, if the project is a thesis or course project, the scope of the project likely is limited and more circumscribed, and the timeframe for completion is relatively short (e.g., 1 year or even 1 academic term). These conditions, by necessity, preclude some projects for master's-level folks. We readily agree with Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) that the willingness of the organization to provide resources (such as employee time, office space, etc.) is essential for a successful experience. Smaller organizations may have fewer in-house resources and may not be able to afford consultants, thus providing an opportunity for faculty who are willing to work pro bono in exchange for opportunities for applied student experiences and the opportunity to address some of their own research questions.
Accordingly, master's faculty, perhaps more often than at the doctoral level, complete organizational projects pro bono. In this situation, organizations tend to be cooperative when asked to make modest modifications to a project to provide an opportunity to collect data of interest to the I-O faculty member, data that may generalize beyond the host organization and be viable for publication (Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018).
At the master's level, finding organizational sites for applied course projects, internships, and service projects is an ongoing challenge. Organizations who employ I-O psychologists more readily recognize the value of the skill set of I-O faculty and graduate students. We agree wholeheartedly with Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) that program alumni are important contacts for organizational entry. We also have found alumni contacts to be a primary source of organizational sites (Shoenfelt, Reference Shoenfelt2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012). Further, we have found that organizations who have had successful interactions with our program (e.g., consulting, hosting interns, course projects) typically are amenable to additional experiences. When a project is completed, it is important to maintain a good relationship so that door is open for reentry (Schein, Reference Schein1988), noted as well by Lapierre et al. Word of mouth and informal referrals also have proven successful for organizational entry. Reputation matters. When it is known that we have successfully completed an applied project for one organization, it facilitates entry into other organizations (Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018). Shoenfelt (Reference Shoenfelt2003) indicated that the search for host organizations can be “carried out at a party, on the golf course, vacationing, and so on” (p. 115), concurring with Lapierre et al. that you can make organizational contacts in unexpected places.
Once organizational entry is gained, master's faculty may fulfill some of their university service obligation by conducting applied projects to address organizational problems. To the extent these projects can be used as a graduate class project, a thesis, or internship, this applied research becomes a twofer, and, if the project can be written up for publication, it becomes a trifecta hitting service, teaching, and research.
We find thesis research is more often a byproduct of an applied organizational project than the raison d’être of the project. We are more likely to use archival data. The use of archival data or completing a project that is already an organizational priority provides some assurance that the organization will support the project through its completion (Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018). With a shorter time frame for completion, thesis projects are more likely to be derailed by a change in organizational priorities or the loss of a project champion in the organization.
Teaching Organizational Entry and Partnerships
Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) noted a dearth of publications and graduate education on partnering with organizations for research purposes. We agree that there is little scholarship in this area (cf. Stroh & Johnson, Reference Stroh and Johnson2006). Yet, in keeping with the scientist–practitioner model, we recommend borrowing from the organization development literature on developing consulting skills. In one author's graduate course on organizational assessment, Schein's (Reference Schein1988) and Nadler's (Reference Nadler1977) classic texts are mandatory reading. Both books address many of the issues identified in the Lapierre et al. focal article including scouting, organizational entry, developing relationships, both psychological and formal contracting, providing feedback to organizational members, and terminating the relationship. Although the foci of the text books are process consultation and organizational assessment, respectively, the books’ authors provide insight and recommendations for partnering with organizations. The current focal article will be added as required reading in this course in the future. In addition to required reading on the science and theory of intervention, in this same graduate course, we use a comprehensive case study, Comp Graf, Inc. (Hakel, Sorcher, Beer, & Moses, Reference Hakel, Sorcher, Beer and Moses1982), which details a failed research partnership between an I-O psychologist and a tech company. Although we update the dates and monetary values in the case study to reflect the current year, the content and issues in the case remain relevant today. The readings along with the case study provide a hypothetical but realistic opportunity for I-O psychology graduate students to learn about the key issues in partnering with organizations, whether for research or consulting.
To be clear, it is possible to engage in action research at the master's level. In another author's practicum class, first-year graduate students, with faculty supervision, have approached organizational clients, worked with employees and decision makers to collect data to answer important organizational questions, presented recommendations (including negative feedback), and followed up with clients to collaborate on implementation of recommendations (Kottke et al., Reference Kottke, Olson, Shultz, Wankel and Wankel2016). Thus, even within the short time frame of one academic term, master's-level students can gain valuable experience in learning how to approach and partner with organizational decision makers. This experience, regardless of an intent to create publishable research, can be leveraged into future success in working with both practitioners and academics to bridge the gap between science and practice.
Conclusions
Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018)
noted the growing argument that much of the academic I-O psychology research is inconsequential to organizations. Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Svensson (Reference Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic and Svensson2017) presented compelling arguments that, among other concerns with our discipline, there is an overemphasis on theory with little regard for utility, a focus on methodological minutiae, and an obsession with publication rather than the practical. Despite the new journal, Personnel Assessment and Decisions, launched in 2015 specifically to counter the trend away from practical research (Highhouse & Doverspike, Reference Highhouse and Doverspike2017), and the new Industrial Organizational Psychology Practice Forum (SIOP, 2018), it remains difficult to publish applied research. Lapierre et al. present very useful guidelines and recommendations for conducting research in organizations that is both publishable and useful to the organization. It was our intention to extend these recommendations to I-O faculty in master's programs and other teaching intensive institutions by identifying and providing potential solutions to the additional challenges faced by these faculty members.
You have
Access
As faculty in master's industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology graduate programs, we read with great interest the focal article on initiating and maintaining partnerships with organizations (Lapierre et al., Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018). We applaud the efforts of the authors to present guidelines and recommendations for successful applied research in organizations. Although Lapierre et al. directed their recommendations primarily to doctoral faculty and their students, there currently are 159 I-O psychology master's programs listed on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) webpage (http://my.siop.org/GTP). Because of the applied nature of most master's programs, by necessity we work continuously to gain entry into and partner with organizations for internship placements, applied course projects, and applied service opportunities. We, along with other master's faculty colleagues, have published and presented on the topic of partnering with organizations (e.g., Shoenfelt, Reference Shoenfelt2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Shoenfelt et al., Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke, Stone, Dolen, Hill-Fotouhi, Seibert and Walker2015; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, Reference Shoenfelt, Stone and Kottke2013; Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith, & Whelan, Reference Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith and Whelan2012; Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson, & Frame, Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018; Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett, & Van Hein, Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett and Van Hein2017). In this response, we offer an analogous perspective from the master's level based on tacit knowledge garnered from more than a century of combined experience. We note that many of the recommendations in this focal article likewise surfaced in our work. Here we highlight the challenges unique to master's-level and teaching-intensive faculty in implementing these recommendations. In our response, we embrace Lewin's (Reference Lewin1946) definition of action research that there is no action without research and no research without action. Thus, we broadly define applied research as asking an important applied question and systematically collecting data to answer that question in a manner in which the results inform organizational action (whether or not it results in a peer-reviewed publication).
Differences in Faculty Roles in Doctoral Programs and Master's Programs
Even though guidelines and principles for effective organizational experiences have substantial overlap for master's and doctoral faculty and students, the objectives for organizational entry and data collection (and use) may differ. Recently, SIOP (2016) revised guidelines for graduate training into a single set of guidelines for doctoral and master's programs; nonetheless, these guidelines note differences between doctoral and master's students. Importantly, the responsibilities for faculty in doctoral and master's programs tend to differ. Generally, doctoral faculty have lighter teaching loads and greater research responsibility with a corresponding expectation for frequent publication in top tier journals. Master's faculty, on the other hand, have significantly heavier teaching loads of up to four courses a semester and a different research expectation in terms of quantity, journal tier, or both. Accordingly, even though most I-O psychologists endorse the action research model and applied research as a foundation for data-based organizational decision making, “quality research” may be defined differently for doctoral faculty and master's faculty; the latter may be more likely to focus on the utility of the applied research for the organization rather than a top-tier publication. An overarching goal of publication is likely for doctoral faculty; thus, the faculty member's research agenda may be the driving force in forming a relationship with an organization. Much of the time for master's faculty, the overarching goal is to obtain applied experience for graduate students. Thus, applied data-based projects often are driven by organizational priorities, and graduate students, under faculty supervision, complete much of the research. A key to organizational entry is to ensure that the applied research is meeting an important organizational need.
Because of the very applied focus of master's programs, applied experiences in organizational settings are recognized as the hallmark of the highest rated master's programs (Vodanovich, Morganson, & Kass, Reference Vodanovich, Morganson and Kass2018). Applied experiences may include course projects, internships, practica, and service projects. Each of these experiences typically involves the systematic collection of data to address an organizational issue. Applied research of this type is more likely to result in a technical report than a publication. Data-based applied projects also may fulfill the thesis research requirement in many master's programs. In addition, master's students typically complete their graduate program in 2 years. An internship may be completed during the summer and/or concomitantly with the second year of coursework, before developing the level of skill of typical of doctoral interns (Cupps & Olmosk, Reference Cupps and Olmosk2008; Munson, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, Reference Munson, Phillips, Clark and Mueller-Hanson2004; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, Reference Shoenfelt, Stone and Kottke2013). For applied experiences to benefit master's students and the host organization, significant structure, supervision, and monitoring are necessary (Cupps & Olmosk, Reference Cupps and Olmosk2008; Kottke, Olson, & Schultz, Reference Kottke, Olson, Shultz, Wankel and Wankel2016; Munson et al., Reference Munson, Phillips, Clark and Mueller-Hanson2004; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012).
Guidelines for Effective Experiences With Modifications for Master's Faculty and Students
Below we integrate recommendations from our experience (e.g., Kottke, Shoenfelt, & Stone, Reference Kottke, Shoenfelt and Stone2014; Shoenfelt, Reference Shoenfelt2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018) with those from Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018), with an emphasis on the first objective of initiating a relationship with the organization. Again, we note that there is much commonality between the recommendations; our focus is on implementation with master's faculty and students.
Applied experiences for students are central to the mission of master's programs because these experiences have greater payoff for students in obtaining jobs than does coauthorship on a publication (Shoenfelt et al., Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke, Stone, Dolen, Hill-Fotouhi, Seibert and Walker2015). Thus, master's-level faculty are more likely to seek out smaller organizations that can provide applied project experience but lack the capacity to provide sufficient numbers of participants necessary for a complex research design that can be obtained in larger organizations.
Certainly, gaining entry into an organization can be a challenging task. Shoenfelt (Reference Shoenfelt2003) identified characteristics of organizations that make them more amenable to applied research projects. These characteristics include an understanding of I-O psychology and the knowledge, skills, and abilities we bring to the workplace, as well as the type and utility of projects we can perform. We frequently find ourselves educating smaller organizations about I-O psychology and what we can do—that is, collect data to solve a variety of organizational problems. An understanding of the scope of a project is essential. At the master's level, if the project is a thesis or course project, the scope of the project likely is limited and more circumscribed, and the timeframe for completion is relatively short (e.g., 1 year or even 1 academic term). These conditions, by necessity, preclude some projects for master's-level folks. We readily agree with Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) that the willingness of the organization to provide resources (such as employee time, office space, etc.) is essential for a successful experience. Smaller organizations may have fewer in-house resources and may not be able to afford consultants, thus providing an opportunity for faculty who are willing to work pro bono in exchange for opportunities for applied student experiences and the opportunity to address some of their own research questions.
Accordingly, master's faculty, perhaps more often than at the doctoral level, complete organizational projects pro bono. In this situation, organizations tend to be cooperative when asked to make modest modifications to a project to provide an opportunity to collect data of interest to the I-O faculty member, data that may generalize beyond the host organization and be viable for publication (Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018).
At the master's level, finding organizational sites for applied course projects, internships, and service projects is an ongoing challenge. Organizations who employ I-O psychologists more readily recognize the value of the skill set of I-O faculty and graduate students. We agree wholeheartedly with Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) that program alumni are important contacts for organizational entry. We also have found alumni contacts to be a primary source of organizational sites (Shoenfelt, Reference Shoenfelt2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012). Further, we have found that organizations who have had successful interactions with our program (e.g., consulting, hosting interns, course projects) typically are amenable to additional experiences. When a project is completed, it is important to maintain a good relationship so that door is open for reentry (Schein, Reference Schein1988), noted as well by Lapierre et al. Word of mouth and informal referrals also have proven successful for organizational entry. Reputation matters. When it is known that we have successfully completed an applied project for one organization, it facilitates entry into other organizations (Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, Reference Shoenfelt, Kottke and Stone2012; Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018). Shoenfelt (Reference Shoenfelt2003) indicated that the search for host organizations can be “carried out at a party, on the golf course, vacationing, and so on” (p. 115), concurring with Lapierre et al. that you can make organizational contacts in unexpected places.
Once organizational entry is gained, master's faculty may fulfill some of their university service obligation by conducting applied projects to address organizational problems. To the extent these projects can be used as a graduate class project, a thesis, or internship, this applied research becomes a twofer, and, if the project can be written up for publication, it becomes a trifecta hitting service, teaching, and research.
We find thesis research is more often a byproduct of an applied organizational project than the raison d’être of the project. We are more likely to use archival data. The use of archival data or completing a project that is already an organizational priority provides some assurance that the organization will support the project through its completion (Stone et al., Reference Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson and Frame2018). With a shorter time frame for completion, thesis projects are more likely to be derailed by a change in organizational priorities or the loss of a project champion in the organization.
Teaching Organizational Entry and Partnerships
Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) noted a dearth of publications and graduate education on partnering with organizations for research purposes. We agree that there is little scholarship in this area (cf. Stroh & Johnson, Reference Stroh and Johnson2006). Yet, in keeping with the scientist–practitioner model, we recommend borrowing from the organization development literature on developing consulting skills. In one author's graduate course on organizational assessment, Schein's (Reference Schein1988) and Nadler's (Reference Nadler1977) classic texts are mandatory reading. Both books address many of the issues identified in the Lapierre et al. focal article including scouting, organizational entry, developing relationships, both psychological and formal contracting, providing feedback to organizational members, and terminating the relationship. Although the foci of the text books are process consultation and organizational assessment, respectively, the books’ authors provide insight and recommendations for partnering with organizations. The current focal article will be added as required reading in this course in the future. In addition to required reading on the science and theory of intervention, in this same graduate course, we use a comprehensive case study, Comp Graf, Inc. (Hakel, Sorcher, Beer, & Moses, Reference Hakel, Sorcher, Beer and Moses1982), which details a failed research partnership between an I-O psychologist and a tech company. Although we update the dates and monetary values in the case study to reflect the current year, the content and issues in the case remain relevant today. The readings along with the case study provide a hypothetical but realistic opportunity for I-O psychology graduate students to learn about the key issues in partnering with organizations, whether for research or consulting.
To be clear, it is possible to engage in action research at the master's level. In another author's practicum class, first-year graduate students, with faculty supervision, have approached organizational clients, worked with employees and decision makers to collect data to answer important organizational questions, presented recommendations (including negative feedback), and followed up with clients to collaborate on implementation of recommendations (Kottke et al., Reference Kottke, Olson, Shultz, Wankel and Wankel2016). Thus, even within the short time frame of one academic term, master's-level students can gain valuable experience in learning how to approach and partner with organizational decision makers. This experience, regardless of an intent to create publishable research, can be leveraged into future success in working with both practitioners and academics to bridge the gap between science and practice.
Conclusions
Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Mathews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) noted the growing argument that much of the academic I-O psychology research is inconsequential to organizations. Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Svensson (Reference Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic and Svensson2017) presented compelling arguments that, among other concerns with our discipline, there is an overemphasis on theory with little regard for utility, a focus on methodological minutiae, and an obsession with publication rather than the practical. Despite the new journal, Personnel Assessment and Decisions, launched in 2015 specifically to counter the trend away from practical research (Highhouse & Doverspike, Reference Highhouse and Doverspike2017), and the new Industrial Organizational Psychology Practice Forum (SIOP, 2018), it remains difficult to publish applied research. Lapierre et al. present very useful guidelines and recommendations for conducting research in organizations that is both publishable and useful to the organization. It was our intention to extend these recommendations to I-O faculty in master's programs and other teaching intensive institutions by identifying and providing potential solutions to the additional challenges faced by these faculty members.