British Journal of Management, Vol.

12, Special Issue, S41S48 (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 reports 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, 391411. 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 fields
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 professions 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 rigours 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. 6776.
Anderson, N. (1998a). The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in
Work and Organizational Psychology, The Occupational
Psychologist, 34, pp. 716.
Anderson, N. (1998b). The People Make the Paradigm,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 323328.
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. 391411.
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. 92102.
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. 8496.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither Industrial and Organizational
Psychology in a Changing World of Work?, American
Psychologist, 50(11), pp. 928939.
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. 3450.
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. 371375.
Herriot, P. (1988). Selection at a Crossroads, The Psychologist:
Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 10, pp. 388392.
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. 625654.
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. 65119). 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. 416440. 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. 288293.
Huselid, M. A. (1995) The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate
Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal,
38, pp. 635672.
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. 425436.
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. 277296.
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. 11731181.
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. 4043.
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. 261264.
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. S3S26.
Tranfield, D. and K. Starkey (1998). The Nature, Social
Organization and Promotion of Management Research:
Towards Policy, British Journal of Management, 9,
pp. 341353.

G. P. Hodgkinson, P. Herriot and N. Anderson

Viteles, M. S. (1959). Fundamentalism in Industrial
Psychology, Occupational Psychology, 33, pp. 113.
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. 56.
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. 601610.
Zjilstra, F. (2000). Editorial, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 9(3), pp. 305306.