The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychologyCitation formats

Standard

The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology : Where are we now, and where do we go from here? / Anderson, Neil; Herriot, Peter; Hodgkinson, Gerard P.

In: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 4, 11.2001, p. 391-411.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Anderson, Neil ; Herriot, Peter ; Hodgkinson, Gerard P. / The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology : Where are we now, and where do we go from here?. In: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2001 ; Vol. 74, No. 4. pp. 391-411.

Bibtex

@article{106a44958436446eb3e3225d3adae19b,
title = "The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here?",
abstract = "There is current concern that the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of our discipline are moving further apart. This divergence is likely to result in irrelevant theory and in untheorized and invalid practice. Such outcomes will damage our reputation and ultimately result in our fragmentation. We present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively. We argue that there has been a drift away from Pragmatic Science, high in both relevance and rigour, towards Pedantic and Popularist Science, and through them to Puerile Science. We support this argument by longitudinal analyses of the authorship of academic journal articles and then explain this drift in terms of our stakeholders. Powerful academics are the most immediate stakeholders for researchers, and they exercise their power in such a way as to increase the drift towards Pedantic Science. Organizational clients are the most powerful stakeholders for practitioners, and in their effort to address their urgent issues, they push practitioners towards Popularist Science. In the light of this analysis, we argue that we need to engage in political activity in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders. This can be done either directly, through our relationship with them, or indirectly, through others who influence them. Only by political action can the centrifugal forces away from Pragmatic Science be countered and a centripetal direction be established. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for the future development of members of our own profession.",
author = "Neil Anderson and Peter Herriot and Hodgkinson, {Gerard P.}",
year = "2001",
month = nov
doi = "10.1348/096317901167451",
language = "English",
volume = "74",
pages = "391--411",
journal = "Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology",
issn = "0963-1798",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology

T2 - Where are we now, and where do we go from here?

AU - Anderson, Neil

AU - Herriot, Peter

AU - Hodgkinson, Gerard P.

PY - 2001/11

Y1 - 2001/11

N2 - There is current concern that the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of our discipline are moving further apart. This divergence is likely to result in irrelevant theory and in untheorized and invalid practice. Such outcomes will damage our reputation and ultimately result in our fragmentation. We present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively. We argue that there has been a drift away from Pragmatic Science, high in both relevance and rigour, towards Pedantic and Popularist Science, and through them to Puerile Science. We support this argument by longitudinal analyses of the authorship of academic journal articles and then explain this drift in terms of our stakeholders. Powerful academics are the most immediate stakeholders for researchers, and they exercise their power in such a way as to increase the drift towards Pedantic Science. Organizational clients are the most powerful stakeholders for practitioners, and in their effort to address their urgent issues, they push practitioners towards Popularist Science. In the light of this analysis, we argue that we need to engage in political activity in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders. This can be done either directly, through our relationship with them, or indirectly, through others who influence them. Only by political action can the centrifugal forces away from Pragmatic Science be countered and a centripetal direction be established. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for the future development of members of our own profession.

AB - There is current concern that the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of our discipline are moving further apart. This divergence is likely to result in irrelevant theory and in untheorized and invalid practice. Such outcomes will damage our reputation and ultimately result in our fragmentation. We present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively. We argue that there has been a drift away from Pragmatic Science, high in both relevance and rigour, towards Pedantic and Popularist Science, and through them to Puerile Science. We support this argument by longitudinal analyses of the authorship of academic journal articles and then explain this drift in terms of our stakeholders. Powerful academics are the most immediate stakeholders for researchers, and they exercise their power in such a way as to increase the drift towards Pedantic Science. Organizational clients are the most powerful stakeholders for practitioners, and in their effort to address their urgent issues, they push practitioners towards Popularist Science. In the light of this analysis, we argue that we need to engage in political activity in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders. This can be done either directly, through our relationship with them, or indirectly, through others who influence them. Only by political action can the centrifugal forces away from Pragmatic Science be countered and a centripetal direction be established. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for the future development of members of our own profession.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035540587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1348/096317901167451

DO - 10.1348/096317901167451

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0035540587

VL - 74

SP - 391

EP - 411

JO - Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

JF - Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

SN - 0963-1798

IS - 4

ER -