So, where is unproctored Internet testing (UIT) now? What has happened since 2006? Is the train stalled right outside the station, waiting on answers? Is it lurching forward, making slow but sure progress? Or, is it simply chugging in circles? The original focal article (Tippins, 2009) and the 13 subsequent commentaries are not comprehensive summaries of all the research and thought about UIT and can hardly be considered definitive as a collective body of work. In total, these articles probably do not convince many of the doubters. However, the articles collectively highlight the critical issues faced in UIT, suggest new ideas, and give guidance for the future, indicating the UIT train is at least moving. In this concluding article of the UIT series, I try to summarize where I believe we are in 2009 in terms of the important points that must be taken into consideration when contemplating UIT and emerging questions that industrial and organizational (I–O) psychologists must answer.

The study of work motivation progresses through the inspiration that comes from creating new alignments between scientific understanding and considerations of practical use (cf. D. E. Stokes, 1997). Using the 3 C’s framework for work motivation (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008a, b), I coordinate 5 practical concerns related to work motivation with recent scientific trends in order to encourage the development of new research agendas in the field.

Kanfer (2009) argues that “context” is an important consideration in the study of motivated behavior, but our knowledge of contextual constructs is immature and in need of considerable development. We agree and build on her position by proposing that situational strength (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Mischel, 1977) has the potential to help conceptualize what Johns (2006) calls “discrete context” (i.e., the particular task, social, and physical variables that influence motivation, attitudes, and behavior). The present article briefly describes situational strength, discusses its operationalization and measurement, explores its implications for practice, and describes two research questions that fall within Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 1997).

We have proposed that a dialectic perspective on innovation may serve well as a first step of an integrative framework for research on innovation and for effective practice. We would like to thank all commentators for their stimulating and challenging ideas and SIOP for enabling this dialog. In keeping with the process view inherent to dialectic thinking, we would like to use this reply to refine and extend the core ideas presented in the focal article by means of integrating explanatory concepts, by critically examining the add-on value of a dialectic perspective, and by pointing out future research needs and ideas for management.