The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
- Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
- Part III Data Collection
- Part IV Statistical Approaches
- Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career
- 29 Designing a Line of Research
- 30 Successfully Publishing Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- 31 Presenting Your Research
- 32 Building Fruitful Collaborations
- 33 Performing a Good Peer Review
- 34 Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
- 35 Grant Writing Basics
- 36 Teaching Research Methods and Statistics
- 37 Working Outside Academia
- Index
- References
37 - Working Outside Academia
from Part V - Tips for a Successful Research Career
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 May 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
- Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
- Part III Data Collection
- Part IV Statistical Approaches
- Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career
- 29 Designing a Line of Research
- 30 Successfully Publishing Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- 31 Presenting Your Research
- 32 Building Fruitful Collaborations
- 33 Performing a Good Peer Review
- 34 Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
- 35 Grant Writing Basics
- 36 Teaching Research Methods and Statistics
- 37 Working Outside Academia
- Index
- References
Summary
Working in applied settings presents unique challenges and complexities with respect to research. Researchers have often commented on the scientist–practitioner divide, but there is a lack of information about the specific challenges and constraints of doing applied work that may contribute to this divide. As a group of applied social and behavioral scientists, we discuss what individuals should know, understand, and expect regarding the work practitioners conduct in applied settings. We describe the challenges of applied work as they relate to some topics covered earlier in this volume and identify other unique aspects of applied work. We conclude by discussing how an individual can approach deciding whether applied work is a fit with one’s interests.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral SciencesVolume 1: Building a Program of Research, pp. 793 - 816Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Aguinis, H. & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by embracing performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.493Google Scholar
Anderson, N. (2007). The practitioner–researcher divide revisited: Strategic-level bridges and the roles of IWO psychologists. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X187237Google Scholar
Berger, J. L., Cucina, J. M., Walmsley, P. T., & Martin, N. R. (2015). General factor in employee surveys: A large-sample investigation. Poster presented at the 30th meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA, 23–25 April.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should … bridge application and scholarship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analytical Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M. & Byle, K. A. (2014). Technical Note: The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Measures a Large General Factor (and a Few Smaller Ones). US Customs and Border Protection.Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M., Credé, M., Curtin, P. J., Walmsley, P. T., & Martin, N. R. (2014a). Large sample evidence of a general factor in employee surveys. Poster presented at the 29th meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI, May 15–17.Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M., Hayes, T. L., Walmsley, P. T., & Martin, N. R. (2014b). It is time to get medieval on the overproduction of pseudotheory: How Bacon (1267) and Alhazen (1021) can save I/O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(3), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2014). What equality law means for you as an employer: When you recruit someone to work for you. Equality Act 2010 Guidance for Employers. (Vol. 1). Available at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what_equality_law_means_for_you_as_an_employer_-_recruitment.pdf.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149Google Scholar
Feintzeig, R. (2020). The vanishing executive assistant. Wall Street Journal, January 18. Available at: www.wsj.com/articles/the-vanishing-executive-assistant-11579323605.Google Scholar
Gelade, G. A. (2006). But what does it mean in practice? The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology from a practitioner perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X85638Google Scholar
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory: Applications and Technical Guide. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2006). The role of JOOP (and other scientific journals) in bridging the practitioner–researcher divide in industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906X104013Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G. (1976). Albermarle Paper Company v. Moody: The aftermath of Griggs and the death of employee testing. Hastings Law Journal, 27(6), 1239–1262.Google Scholar
Mintern, T. & Rayner, S. (2018). 8 Aspects of GDPR compliance: A brief guide for HR functions. Available at: www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fac839cf-e292-4452-b1d6-f87c81e81424.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L. (2007). Let’s create a tipping point: What academics and practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1046–1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.27156169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S. L. (2012). The research–practice gap in I/O psychology and related fields: Challenges and potential solutions. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. (ed.), Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 409–452). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069460Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (2003). History, development, evolution, and impact of validity generalization and meta-analysis methods, 1975–2002. In Murphy, K. R. (ed.), Validity Generalization: A Critical Review (pp. 31–66). Erlbaum,.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Ury, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tippins, N. T., Oswald, F. L., & McPhail, S. M. (2021). Scientific, legal, and ethical concerns about AI-based personnel selection tools: A call to action. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 7(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2021.02.001Google Scholar
Training Industry (2020). Income & Employment Report. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
US Department of Labor (2000). Testing and Assessment: An Employer’s Guide to Good Practices. Employment and Training Administration, US Department of Labor. Available at: www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf.Google Scholar