Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:00:04.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Partnerships Between Academics and Consulting Firms: A Stakeholder Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Sayeedul Islam ,
Ken Lahti  and
Michael H. Chetta
Sayeedul Islam*
Affiliation:
Farmingdale State College, Talent Metrics
Ken Lahti
Affiliation:
Psychobabble, Inc.
Michael H. Chetta
Affiliation:
Talent Metrics
*
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Sayeedul Islam, Farmingdale State College, Department of Psychology, Knapp Hall, 2350 Broad Hollow Road, Farmingdale, NY 11735. E-mail: islams@farmingdale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focal article (LaPierre et al., 2018) proposes several steps in developing a research partnership with organizations. We commend LaPierre and colleagues for bringing to light these recommendations. We agree that research partnerships may prove valuable for the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. For I-O psychology to grow as a science, more appropriate sampling and more relevant data sources are necessary (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Although I-O psychology master's and PhD programs continue to grow and produce more I-O psychology graduates that enter the applied marketplace, there remains a paucity of applied research partnerships between academics and organizations. Research partnerships are often established in other disciplines (i.e., computer science, public health, biochemistry) and have resulted in fruitful relationships for both parties (D'Este & Iammarino, 2010; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Santoro & Betts, 2002), but similar partnerships have not become the norm in I-O psychology. Despite a growing number of I-O psychology graduates and programs (Shellenbarger, 2010), I-O psychology academics have not leveraged those relationships to create research partnerships between universities and business. We would argue that this lack of research partnerships is due to the difficulty of navigating and negotiating with the multiple stakeholders involved in the process of developing a research partnership.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 596 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1 (1), 25–48.Google Scholar
Bazeley, P., Kemp, L., Stevens, K., Asmar, C., Grbich, C., Marsh, H., & Bhathal, R. (1996). Waiting in the wings: A study of early career academic researchers in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian Research Council.Google Scholar
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67 (2), 221–239.Google Scholar
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (3), 273–290.Google Scholar
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15 (3), 239–246.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D., Dienes, Z., McIntosh, R. D., Rothstein, P., & Willmes, K. (2015). Registered reports: realigning incentives in scientific publishing. Cortex, 66, A1–A2.Google Scholar
D'Este, P., & Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89 (2), 335–350.Google Scholar
Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R&D project management. R&D Management, 32 (4), 301–310.Google Scholar
Evans, J. A., & Reimer, J. (2009). Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323 (5917), 1025–1025.Google Scholar
Global Organisation for Humanitarian Work Psychology. (2108). Publications. Retrieved from http://gohwp.org/publications/Google Scholar
Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19 (1), 173–202.Google Scholar
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56 (3), 303–324.Google Scholar
Kepes, S., List, S. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2018). Enough talk, it's time to transform: A call for editorial leadership for a robust science. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11 (1), 43–48.Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8 (2), 142–164.Google Scholar
Lapierre, L., Matthews, R. A., Eby, L. T., Truxillo, D. M., Johnson, R. E., & Major, D. (2018). Recommended practices for academics to initiate and manage research partnerships. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (4), 543–581.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–886.Google Scholar
Nolan, K. P., Islam, S., & Quartarone, M. (2014). The influence of vocational training on the brand images of organizational consultants. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17 (4), 245–278.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., . . .Contestabile, M. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348 (6242), 1422–1425.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45 (3), 137–141.Google Scholar
Olsen, D. (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third year of academic appointment. Journal of Higher Education, 64 (4), 453–471.Google Scholar
Collaboration, Open Science. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 657–660.Google Scholar
Posner, P. L. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for reengaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting & Finance, 29 (1), 12–26.Google Scholar
Santoro, M. D., & Betts, S. C. (2002). Making industry–university partnerships work. Research-Technology Management, 45 (3), 42–46.Google Scholar
Schmeer, K. (1999). Guidelines for conducting a stakeholder analysis. PHR, Abt Associates. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/toolkit/33.pdfGoogle Scholar
Shellenbarger, S. (2010, May 26). What will be the hot jobs of 2018? Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704026204575266342935418962Google Scholar
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). New and junior faculty stress: Research and responses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1992 (50), 27–37.Google Scholar
Susskind, L. (2013). Confessions of a pracademic: Searching for a virtuous cycle of theory building, teaching, and action research. Negotiation Journal, 29 (2), 225–237.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. (2017, July 26). This is the way the college “bubble” ends. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/college-bubble-ends/534915/Google Scholar
Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 120–130.Google Scholar