Read on Twitter
Really enjoyed the perspective @rnlanders and his colleagues @SHLglobal shared on closing the academic-practitioner gap.
My take is that the incentive structures are misaligned to close the gap, but we can fix it.
An #IOPsych thread: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/ECC37AD972D87223E341F997C143E19C/S1754942620000553a.pdf/enabling_practical_research_for_the_benefit_of_organizations_and_society.pdf
My take is that the incentive structures are misaligned to close the gap, but we can fix it.
An #IOPsych thread: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/ECC37AD972D87223E341F997C143E19C/S1754942620000553a.pdf/enabling_practical_research_for_the_benefit_of_organizations_and_society.pdf
Issue 1: Journal Requirements
Journals requiring theory expansion or that only publish positive results preclude the emergence of relevant and practical information that has value in organizations. New processes or ways of applying a theory have a great deal of utility.
Journals requiring theory expansion or that only publish positive results preclude the emergence of relevant and practical information that has value in organizations. New processes or ways of applying a theory have a great deal of utility.
I’d love a journal focused on publishing results of interventions. A journal that published evaluations of interventions that were, were not, and were partially successful could help practitioners distinguish science from snake oil and spend $ on the former and avoid the latter.
If such a journal could also bring a little positive press to organizations for their work, I think it would erode one of the key challenges to practical research, which is lack of ROI for organizations and practitioners.
Issue 2: Lack of ROI for organizations and practitioners.
Outside of consulting firms who can use it for marketing, there is very little ROI for a practitioner or their employers to publish. It could be seen as giving away a competitive advantage or exposing sensitive data.
Outside of consulting firms who can use it for marketing, there is very little ROI for a practitioner or their employers to publish. It could be seen as giving away a competitive advantage or exposing sensitive data.
The process required for collaboration with academics can also increase time to deploying interventions. These partnerships often require many layers of approval, lots of lead time and non-existent capacity of teams across a company.
Given the effort required, we need to look at the incentive structure for all three parties to set up research collaborations across the academic/practitioner chasm to be a win/win/win.
In these collaborations, organizations want science backed interventions that work and can be empirically verified. This can be best accomplished if the solutions designed by practitioners are informed by research from an academic’s area of expertise.
Academics are incentivized to publish, but often lack access to relevant field data.
Practitioners have access to data and want to make real contributions to their company, but have little incentive to write up or publish results of their work given the time/effort required.
Practitioners have access to data and want to make real contributions to their company, but have little incentive to write up or publish results of their work given the time/effort required.
Let’s marry the three and collaboratively create robust interventions deployed by practitioners to solve an organizational problem that is then written up and published by academics. Win/win/win!
As a practitioner, I’d be thrilled with deploying a successful, evidence based intervention. If it also resulted in being a fourth author on a publication that tells the story of the work, that’s even better.
Issue 3: Lack of access to research
@SIOPtweets research access is helpful, but has a limited reach.
I’m not going to pay $20 for an article and neither is my employer.
Until there is a better way to share results openly, research won’t find its way into practice.
@SIOPtweets research access is helpful, but has a limited reach.
I’m not going to pay $20 for an article and neither is my employer.
Until there is a better way to share results openly, research won’t find its way into practice.
Most articles aren’t written for practitioners anyways, so they may not be relevant. I think the good people at @IOATWORK and @ScienceForWork have done a spectacular job of making articles digestible and accessible.
One other way to get the word out about research is through these $99 webinars @SIOPtweets has been doing. Doing a couple a year focused on new and emerging research would make a massive impact.
Final thought:
We talk about closing the academic/practitioner gap a lot and genuinely have good ideas, but we need to apply them.
I’d love to see @SIOPtweets act on the ideas @rnlanders and others have shared, but I think it requires all of us to think/act differently.
We talk about closing the academic/practitioner gap a lot and genuinely have good ideas, but we need to apply them.
I’d love to see @SIOPtweets act on the ideas @rnlanders and others have shared, but I think it requires all of us to think/act differently.
I truly believe in this.
We did a big research collaboration with @pel5631 and @zipspsych last year that looks like it will be a big success for all parties.
I’d be open to another in 2021.
We did a big research collaboration with @pel5631 and @zipspsych last year that looks like it will be a big success for all parties.
I’d be open to another in 2021.
What other actions can we take now?
How else can we move all our great ideas for closing the gap from theory to practice?
END
How else can we move all our great ideas for closing the gap from theory to practice?
END
