ated the management field), Mode 2 research is driven by a quest for problem solutions that. British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, Special Issue, S41âS48 ...
British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, Special Issue, S41–S48 (2001)
Re-aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research: Lessons from Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology Gerard P. Hodgkinson, Peter Herriot* and Neil Anderson† Leeds University Business School, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, *The Empower Group, 23 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6LB, †Psychology Department, Goldsmiths College, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK The publication of the Starkey and Madan (2001) report represents a timely and valuable contribution to an ongoing debate across a range of applied disciplines, concerning the nature and purpose of social research. The call for stakeholder alignment, culminating in the production of new knowledge that is both theoretically and methodologically rigorous on the one hand, and socially relevant on the other, is, in our view, to be greatly welcomed. However, the Mode 2 approach advocated by Starkey and Madan will not satisfy these fundamental requirements. Drawing on recent analyses of the nature, causes and consequences of the academic-practitioner divide in the subfield of industrial, work and organizational psychology, we offer an alternative, four-fold taxonomy of the varieties of managerial knowledge. Within our alternative framework, research that is low on rigour but high on relevance (a likely consequence of the wholesale adoption of a Mode 2 approach) is characterized as ‘Popularist Science’. ‘Pedantic Science’, by contrast, is high on rigour but low on relevance, while ‘Puerile Science’ meets neither requirement. Only ‘Pragmatic Science’ will meet the twin imperatives of rigour and relevance. Whilst it is highly desirable that Pragmatic Science should dominate the management field, there are considerable barriers that impede its widespread adoption at the present time, not least the limited availability of researchers who possess the requisite sociopolitical and methodological competencies. The immediate imperative that has to be addressed, therefore, is the question of how best to close this competency gap, a fundamental precondition of stakeholder realignment.
A number of commentators have recently expressed concerns that the research-base of the business and management studies field is failing to meet the needs of various parties who are (or ought to be) valid stakeholders in the knowledge production process (e.g. Abrahamson and Eisenman, 2001; Huff, 2001; Pettigrew, 1997; Tranfield and Starkey, 1998). The Starkey and Madan (2001) report provides a useful overview of the background that has led to these concerns, maps out a number of the principal challenges that lie ahead, and proposes a way forward. Central to © 2001 British Academy of Management
the report’s authors’ proposed strategy for the future development of the field is the adoption of a Mode 2 approach (Gibbons et al., 1994), in which research proceeds on a collaborative basis, a variety of disparate stakeholders being involved in all aspects of the research process from problem formulation, through data collection and analysis, to dissemination. In marked contrast to the Mode 1 approach to knowledge creation (the approach that they claim has historically dominated the management field), Mode 2 research is driven by a quest for problem solutions that
S42 transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries and which results in the rapid dissemination of findings through a variety of channels. Debates on the nature and purpose of management research and the question of how far academic research in management should relate to issues of practice are, of course, not new. As noted by Starkey and Madan (2001), however, recent developments in the world of work accompanied by a period of renewed financial stringency in respect of the public purse, have led to a deeper questioning amongst the various consumers of academic research, regarding research policy. Inevitably, this has led some commentators, ourselves included (Anderson, 1998a, 1998b; Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001; Herriot, 1993; Hodgkinson and Herriot, in press), to search for alternative paradigms, paradigms that will meet the twin imperatives of theoretical and methodological rigour on the one hand, and applied relevance on the other. In this paper we consider further these developments, in the context of one particular area of research, the subfield of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology, lying at the interface between management and the basic discipline of psychology. Our analysis of recent developments in this particular specialist subfield reveals a worrying trend, confirming that there is indeed a considerable divide between academics and other stakeholding parties, that the gap has widened considerably over recent years, and that, left unabated, present trends point towards the demise of university academics as key stakeholders in the knowledge production process. However, rather than ‘bridging the relevance gap’, our analysis suggests that the wholesale adoption of a Mode 2 approach to the production of knowledge, as advocated by Starkey and Madan (2001), would exacerbate the situation, giving rise to work that would ultimately fail to satisfy any of the principal stakeholder groups. In agreement with Huff (2000), we argue for the adoption of middle-range approaches, approaches that retain the essential strengths of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production processes, while dispensing with their associated weaknesses.
How significant is the academic-practitioner divide? As with the wider field of management as a whole, much of the research conducted in IWO
G. P. Hodgkinson, P. Herriot and N. Anderson Low
Theoretical and methodological rigour
High
High
Quadrant 1: ‘Popularist Science’
Quadrant 2: ‘Pragmatic Science’
Quadrant 4: ‘Puerile Science’
Quadrant 3: ‘Pedantic Science’
Practical relevance
Low Figure 1. A Four-fold typology of research in industrial, work and organizational psychology. Source: adapted by kind permission of the publisher from N. Anderson, P. Herriot and G. P. Hodgkinson (2001). The practitionerresearcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391–411. © 2001 The British Psychological Society.
psychology has been founded on the basic premise that rigorous, scholarly research should inform the design of interventions for fostering employee well being and the efficiency and effectiveness of individuals, groups and organizations. Indeed, throughout much of its history, robust research has informed best professional practice, whilst simultaneously, informed practice in the field has stimulated new directions for research and theorising in IWO Psychology (see, for example, Anderson, Ones, Sinangil and Viswesvaran, 2001; Cooper and Locke, 2000; Shimmin and Wallis, 1994; Viteles 1959). Elsewhere (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001), we have employed the term ‘Pragmatic Science’ to characterize such research, i.e. research that is simultaneously academically rigorous and engaged with the concerns of wider stakeholder groups. Figure 1 characterizes our simple 2 × 2 factorial model built upon the central dimensions of methodological rigour and practical relevance, thus generating four possible quadrants of management research (Pragmatic Science, Pedantic Science, Popularist Science, and Puerile Science: see also, Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001). Over recent years, concerns have been expressed across a number of European countries (e.g. Britain, Germany, The Netherlands) and in the United States that there is an increasing divide
Re-aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research between researchers/academics and practitioners opening up within the discipline of IWO psychology (e.g. Anderson, 1998a; Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001; Dunnette, 1990; Hodgkinson & Herriot, in press; Rice, 1997; Sackett, 1994; Weinreich et al., 1997). Analyses of the publication trends associated with a number of the field’s leading peer reviewed international journals, spanning a period of some fifty years, have identified a considerable decline in terms of the degree of involvement in the publication process of practitioners (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001; Sackett et al., 1986). While collaborative papers between academics and practitioners have remained at a low but relatively constant level, there has been a sizeable increase in the proportion of papers where all authors are academics and an equally strong decline in papers where all authors are practitioners, to the point of virtual extinction. Although only one indicator of a general structural problem, the decline of such involvement is an important concern (Dunnette, 1990), symptomatic of a breakdown of the scientistpractitioner ethos that underpinned research in the early days of this discipline (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001). Close examination of the origins of the questions that published research addresses reveals a similar picture. The vast majority of studies follow on from other published studies, with relatively few aimed at testing theory, and even fewer at addressing a relevant problem issue; the overwhelming majority of studies published in the recent literature comprise replication-extension studies (Anderson, 1998b; Sackett and Larson, 1990). This trend towards increasing methodological rigour at the expense of relevance has been characterized by us as ‘Pedantic Science’ (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001). In the area of personnel selection and assessment, historically the jewel in the crown of IWO psychology, in which rigorous research has informed evidencebased practice over many years, Pedantic Science has come to dominate the leading academic journals. In the case of validity generalization theory, meta-analysis and utility analysis, for example, the majority of articles now being published in the leading-edge journals are so technical as to be incomprehensible to all but the most dedicated of specialist researchers (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001; Herriot, 1993; Herriot and Anderson, 1997; Hodgkinson and Herriot, in
S43
press). Yet little over a decade ago, research on these issues was heralded as the new lifeblood that would rejuvenate the theory and practice of personnel selection and assessment (Herriot, 1988). This state of affairs bears a close resemblance to the observations of Starkey and Madan (2001) in respect of the growing technical sophistication of articles in Strategic Management Journal, mirroring earlier trends in the area of finance theory and research. Ironically, in the area of personnel selection and assessment a number of recent studies conducted by IWO psychologists on the topic of utility analyses (e.g. Carson, Becker and Henderson, 1998; Macan and Highhouse, 1994; Whyte and Latham, 1997) have demonstrated that, despite overwhelming evidence that modest incremental gains in the reliability and validity of assessment procedures yield handsome financial payoffs, managers are not receptive to such arguments. They actually prefer conventional arguments in respect of the relative merits of particular assessment procedures (in terms of basic reliability and validity) rather than complex financial arguments, couched in the language of utility analysis. (Utility theory, in its original conceptualization, was intended as a comparatively simple, rational, cost-benefit driven method to persuade organizations to use more reliable and predictively valid techniques of employee selection, the formulaic calculations of utility value being only a part of this process.) Over recent years, a number of studies have sought to illuminate the factors that might increase the receptivity of managers to arguments based on utility analysis (for a recent review see Jayne and Rauschenberger, 2000). From our perspective, such efforts are clearly misguided. The one factor that researchers on this topic have conveniently overlooked is the fact that much of the literature on utility analysis has focused on increasingly pedantic debates over the minutiae of formulaic expressions and the calculation of job performance standard deviation estimates, with successive papers becoming ever more myopic and technical in nature (see for instance, Cabrera and Raju, 2001). At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are equally worrying signs of a significant move from Pragmatic Science towards what we have termed ‘Popularist Science’. Arguably, much of the recent research in the areas of emotional intelligence and managerial competencies exemplifies this trend. A large number of constructs have emerged
S44 under the competency and emotional intelligence umbrellas that have little theoretical underpinning. Consequently, it has been very difficult to establish any degree of construct validity for these notions and associated instruments for use in practical settings. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been a proliferation of books targeted at practising managers espousing the virtues of emotional intelligence. Of related concern, urgent needs have been expressed to evaluate Human Resource Management (HRM) processes in terms of their organizational impact (Huselid, 1995; Schuler, 1998). Clearly, the perception by HR professionals of the need to evaluate is very welcome, given the sequence of unevaluated management fads practised in organizations over the last two decades. However, such is the pressure for rapid results that the establishment of causality by means of longitudinal research designs has been the exception rather than the rule. Journal editors have been forced to make explicit policy statements pointing to the undesirability of relying upon cross-sectional designs (Sparrow, 1999; Zjilstra, 2000). A third category of dysfunctional research occurs when misguided authors pursue issues of low practical relevance, and do so using research designs and methods lacking in rigour. Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson (2001) employ the term ‘Puerile Science’ to characterize such research. In our view, a primary function of the peer review process underpinning the funding mechanisms and publication process of academic journals is (or should be) to stamp out this type of research. Generalizing from our observations in the context of IWO psychology, research falling into this category incurs huge opportunity costs, ruins the reputation of management as a viable field of serious academic study, and will have damaging effects if actions are taken as a result. Finding clear examples of Puerile Science in the fields of IWO Psychology and management studies to denigrate at this point is, thankfully, quite problematic. However, like us, many journal editors and reviewers will have had the unfortunate experience of receiving papers addressing irrelevant problems through studies that lack even the basic foundations of scientific robustness. Ordinarily, such studies are summarily rejected for publication by all of the reputable journals, but we should be conscious of the fact that there are plenty of outlets for such studies, and that
G. P. Hodgkinson, P. Herriot and N. Anderson Puerile Science does exist across the entire management field. The question is how to decrease its production and its impact upon organizational practices. Unfortunately, it also has to be acknowledged that Puerile Science can gain exposure through professional and other media, and can therefore regrettably influence directly or indirectly management practices and approaches.
The causes and longer-term consequences of the academicpractitioner divide When we examine the disparate pressures confronting the various stakeholder groups with a vested interest in IWO psychology research, the reasons for the drift away from pragmatic science become all too apparent. Our observations bear out those of Starkey and Madan (2001) in respect of the wider field of management as a whole: • In the case of academics, a nexus of government, universities, and the academic discipline community exercise power, represented by powerful academic decision-makers. These decision-makers are driven by a set of demands that pull the scholarly community writ large in the direction of Pedantic Science. • Practitioners’ stakeholders, by contrast, exercise their considerable reward power in pushing research activity towards Popularist Science, driven by demands for urgent solutions to pressing problems. The net consequence of this growing divide is that a host of suppliers has developed over recent years to compete for a rich market once occupied by scientist-practitioners. Others have annexed areas of professional practice that have historically been considered the territory of IWO Psychologists. Assessment services, for example, are offered by Human Resource consultants, recruitment agencies, outplacement agencies, IT consultants, and accountancy firms, among others. Other Human Resource interventions, such as organizational change management and employee development, are offered in a bewildering variety of forms by a host of different suppliers (Cascio, 1995). Given this degree of competition in the provision of services, clients are able to demand that their criteria be met stringently by suppliers,
Re-aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research criteria that frequently militate against Pragmatic Science. Left unchecked, it is clear that present trends will lead not only to the further fragmentation of the management field (cf. Whitley, 2000), but also to the displacement of academics as key stakeholders in the research process. As the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of IWO psychology and the field of management more generally continue to move further apart, this divergence is likely to further proliferate irrelevant theory and untheorized and invalid practice. That our analysis can be generalized beyond the confines of the IWO psychology field to other areas of management can be evidenced by an examination of the operational research area. As Callinan, Bartram and Robertson (in press) have observed, drawing on the work of Fildes and Raynard (2000), between 1990 and 1997 almost a quarter of 99 operational research (OR) groups in organizations surveyed by the profession’s main society closed. The overall conclusion of this study, which bears a strikingly close resemblance to our own conclusions in respect of IWO psychology (Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson, 2001; Hodgkinson and Herriot, in press), was that the OR discipline had over-emphasized its underlying scientific base (i.e. mathematically oriented research) at the expense of relevance.
Implications What, then, might be done to arrest present trends and restore the balance in favour of pragmatic science, thereby combining the best elements of Mode 1 and Mode 2 research, while minimizing their associated weaknesses? We agree with Starkey and Madan (2001) that a greater involvement of a wider range of stakeholders in all aspects of the research process, from the initial stages of problem definition to final dissemination, is undoubtedly required at this juncture. However, it is the nature and extent of this involvement with which we disagree. Generalizing from our observations of the IWO psychology arena, the fact that we have not involved a sufficiently wide range of stakeholders in our research has been very much to our own detriment. Many of the complexities and uncertainties facing modern organizations are simply too great for management researchers alone to
S45
provide all the answers. The involvement of a wider range of stakeholders in the research process must surely maximize the likelihood that, in future, we will pursue research that addresses problems of pressing concern to those who ultimately fund our scientific endeavours, through taxation and other mechanisms. The skills of identifying the appropriate stakeholders, of assessing their relative importance and of facilitating dialogue in an effort to address their different interests have now to be considered as part of the necessary armoury of researchers. However, it does not follow from this analysis that the wholesale abandonment of Mode 1 in favour of a Mode 2 approach to the production of knowledge is either necessary or desirable. As Huff (2000) has observed, there are considerable benefits to be gained from seeking to combine the virtues of both approaches, while minimizing the associated weaknesses of each, a strategy which she has aptly termed Mode 1.5. Like Pragmatic Science, Mode 1.5 approaches incorporate a role for faultfinders as well as facilitators. For us, critical reflection is an essential prerequisite of ‘good’ social science, the essence of sound scientific method (Popper, 1962). Allowing for the possibility of outcomes other than those intended is vital to the accumulation of truly ‘actionable knowledge’, i.e. knowledge that is both valid and of practical relevance (Argyris, 1999). We are not, however, arguing for a definition of rigour that derives entirely from academics. We ourselves used the phrase ‘academic rigour’ earlier, demonstrating the universal assumption that it is academics who are rigour’s guardians. This assumption makes the academic research community the main, if not the only, stakeholders in rigorous research. We have already described the consequences of this imbalance: the development of ever more refined methodologies, and the requirement to use them in research if publication in the most reputable journals is to be achieved. Rather, we argue for a broadening of the idea of rigour in the context of an applied social science. The degree of methodological sophistication of a research project should be determined far more than it is at present by the needs of the users of research. Users need enough, and only enough, methodological rigour and sophistication to ensure that the evidence on which their practical decisions will be taken is soundly based.
S46 The pursuit of research that genuinely bears the hallmarks of scientific rigour (irrespective of whether it be quantitative and/or qualitative in nature), but which also engages a wider body of stakeholders in the knowledge production process, presents a set of formidable challenges for the management research community at this juncture. Not least among these is the need to ensure that researchers not only possess the requisite methodological skills to pursue work of adequate scientific merit, but also the sociopolitical skills to engage successfully with the wider community of stakeholders. Unfortunately, the development of finely honed, processual skills has not, hitherto, featured highly in our research training programmes. Moreover, it is equally clear that there is much yet to be done in terms of developing a critical awareness of the limitations of the extant knowledge-base in the main substantive topic areas of the wider management field (purely at a conceptual level). Such awareness, and a thorough grounding in research design and statistical analysis, are vital pre-requisites for pursuing a successful career in research. In this respect there is much to be gained from a closer integration of the management field with the wider base disciplines of the social sciences. As a case in point, we can consider the emerging work on the analysis of cognitive processes in strategic management. In this area there is clearly much that can be learned from the wider body of IWO psychology in respect of research design and data analysis that would enhance the overall quality of theory testing and the evaluation of intervention procedures (Hodgkinson and Herriot, in press). Researchers seeking to understand the nature and significance of actors’ mental models of competition, for example, have typically utilized cross-sectional research designs, involving the use of single informants from a limited number of organizations (Hodgkinson, 1997). Rarely have multiple informant, longitudinal designs been employed, a fundamental pre-requisite for the analysis of what is essentially a multi-level, dynamic process. Moreover, the reliability and validity of the cognitive mapping procedures employed in such studies have received, and continue to receive, scant attention, and virtually no work has sought to establish the efficacy of such procedures for use as tools of intervention, despite their widespread popularity in this context
G. P. Hodgkinson, P. Herriot and N. Anderson (Hodgkinson, 2001a, 2001b; Hodgkinson and Sparrow, in press). Whilst such content-based skills are undoubtedly essential, it is equally clear that the development of key social and political skills (especially negotiation, leadership and influencing skills) is also required, if the management research community is to respond effectively to the challenges laid down by Starkey and Madan (2001). However, given the increasing numbers of students being accepted onto business and management programmes at all levels (undergraduate, postgraduate and post-experience) to meet targets imposed by universities’ senior managers seeking to maximise fee income, it is difficult to see how the teaching of these much needed processual skills might presently be accommodated.
Conclusions While the Starkey and Madan (2001) report represents a timely contribution to a crucial debate, setting out the antecedents that have led to the present unhealthy state of management research, their analysis is incomplete. As suggested above, the level of rigour in management research is highly variable, as is the extent to which research is connected to the world of practice. In the final analysis, the wholesale adoption of a Mode 2 research agenda is unlikely to bridge the relevance gap. On the contrary, it will more likely yield work that is high on relevance but lower on rigour, work that we have characterized as Popularist Science. Such work will ultimately fail to satisfy the requirements of all key stakeholders from within and without the world of academia. Only work that is rigorous both theoretically and methodologically and centred on issues of focal concern to a wide community of stakeholders (e.g. managers, government policy makers, trades unionists, and consumer groups) will truly bridge the relevance gap, thereby meeting the ‘double hurdles for management research’ (Pettigrew, 1997). However, the development of such high quality Pragmatic Science demands that we must first confront an entirely different gap, a competency gap, stemming from a major shortage of suitably qualified and sufficiently experienced personnel. Bridging the latter gap will require a major influx of carefully targeted financial
Re-aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research and human resources and the fundamental realignment of business school activities.
References Abrahamson, E. and M. Eisenman (2001). ‘Why Management Scholars must Intervene Strategically in the Management Knowledge Market’, Human Relations, 54, pp. 67–76. Anderson, N. (1998a). ‘The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in Work and Organizational Psychology’, The Occupational Psychologist, 34, pp. 7–16. Anderson, N. (1998b). ‘The People Make the Paradigm’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 323–328. Anderson, N., P. Herriot and G. P. Hodgkinson (2001). ‘The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go From Here?’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, pp. 391–411. Anderson, N., D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds) (2001). Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, volumes I and II. Sage, London/New York. Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning (Second Edition). Blackwell, Oxford. Cabrera, E. F. and N. S. Raju (2001). ‘Utility Analysis: Current Trends and Future Directions’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(2), pp. 92–102. Callinan, M., D. Bartram and I. Robertson (in press). ‘Organizational Effectiveness: The Contribution of Work and Organizational Psychology’. In: I. Robertson, M. Callinan and D. Bartram (eds), Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Psychology. Wiley, Chichester. Carson, K. P., J. S. Becker and J. A. Henderson (1998). ‘Is Utility Really Futile? A Failure to Replicate and an Extension’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 84–96. Cascio, W. F. (1995). ‘Whither Industrial and Organizational Psychology in a Changing World of Work?’, American Psychologist, 50(11), pp. 928–939. Cooper, C. L. and E. A. Locke (eds) (2000). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory with Practice. Blackwell, Oxford. Dunnette, M. D. (1990). ‘Blending the Science and Practice of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?’. In: M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Second Edition. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Fildes, R. and J. Raynard (2000). ‘Internal OR Consulting: Effective Practice in a Changing Environment’, Interfaces, 30, pp. 34–50. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. Sage, London. Herriot, P. (1993). ‘A Paradigm Bursting at the Seams’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, pp. 371–375. Herriot, P. (1988). ‘Selection at a Crossroads’, The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 10, pp. 388–392. Herriot, P. and N. Anderson (1997). ‘Selecting for Change: How Will Personnel and Selection Psychology Survive?’. In: N. Anderson and P. Herriot (eds). International Handbook of Selection and Assessment. Wiley, Chichester.
S47
Hodgkinson, G. P. (1997). ‘The Cognitive Analysis of Competitive Structures: A Review and Critique’, Human Relations, 50, pp. 625–654. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001a). ‘The Psychology of Strategic Management: Diversity and Cognition Revisited’. In: C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 65–119). Wiley, Chichester. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001b). ‘Cognitive Processes in Strategic Management: Some Emerging Trends and Future Directions’. In: N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Volume 2 – Organizational Psychology, pp. 416–440. Sage, London/New York. Hodgkinson, G. P. and P. Herriot (in press). ‘The Role of Psychologists in Enhancing Organizational Effectiveness’. In: I. Robertson, M. Callinan and D. Bartram (eds), Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Psychology. Wiley, Chichester. Hodgkinson, G. P. and P. R. Sparrow (in press). The Competent Organization: A Psychological Analysis of the Strategic Management Process. Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Huff, A. S. (2000). ‘Presidential Address: Changes in Organizational Knowledge Production’, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 288–293. Huselid, M. A. (1995) ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 635–672. Jayne, M. E. A. and J. M. Rauschenberger (2000). ‘Demonstrating the Value of Selection in Organizations’. In: J. F. Kehoe (ed.), Managing Selection in Changing Organizations: Human Resource Strategies. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Macan, T. H. and S. Highhouse (1994). ‘Communicating the Utility of Human Resource Activities: A Survey of I/O and HR Professionals’, Journal of Business Psychology, 8, pp. 425–436. Pettigrew, A. (1997). ‘The Double Hurdles for Management Research’. In: T. Clarke (ed.), Advancement in Organizational Behaviour: Essays in Honour of Derek S. Pugh, pp. 277–296. Dartmouth Press, London. Popper, K. (1962) Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Rice, E. E. (1997). ‘Scenarios: The Scientist-Practitioner Split and the Future of Psychology’, American Psychologist, 52(11), pp. 1173–1181. Sackett, P. R. (1994). ‘The Content and Process of the Research Enterprise Within Industrial and Organizational Psychology’, Presidential Address to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Nashville TN, April 1994. Sackett, P. R., C. Callahan, K. DeMeuse, J. K. Ford and S. Kozlowski (1986). ‘Changes Over Time in Research Involvement by Academic and Nonacademic Psychologists’, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 24(1), pp. 40–43. Sackett, P. R. and J. R. Larsen (1990). ‘Research Strategies and Tactics in Industrial and Organizational Psychology’. In: M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Second Edition, Vol. 1. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA. Schuler, R. S. (1998) ‘Human resource management’. In: M. Poole and M. Warner (eds), The Handbook of Human
S48 Resource Management. International Thomson Business Press, London. Shimmin, S. and D. Wallis (1994). Fifty years of Occupational Psychology in Britain. British Psychological Society, Leicester. Sparrow, P. (1999). Editorial, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, pp. 261–264. Starkey, K. and P. Madan (2001). ‘Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research’, British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue), pp. S3–S26. Tranfield, D. and K. Starkey (1998). ‘The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy’, British Journal of Management, 9, pp. 341–353.
G. P. Hodgkinson, P. Herriot and N. Anderson Viteles, M. S. (1959). ‘Fundamentalism in Industrial Psychology’, Occupational Psychology, 33, pp. 1–13. Weinreich, U., R. Barandon, Z. Franko, G. Lubahn and H. Nutzhorn (1997). ‘Are Occupational Psychologists Missing the Boat to Europe?’, EAWOP Newsletter, 7(4), pp. 5–6. Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford. Whyte, G. and Latham, G. (1997). ‘The Futility of Utility Analysis Revisited: When Even an Expert Fails’, Personnel Psychology, 50, pp. 601–610. Zjilstra, F. (2000). Editorial, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), pp. 305–306.
