Digital Session Chair: Jeremy D. Meuser, U. of Mississippi Panelist: Kevin B. Lowe, U. Of Sydney Panelist: Leanne Atwater, U. of Houston Panelist: Lucy L. Gilson, U. of Connecticut Panelist: Arthur P. Brief, U. of Utah Panelist: Natalia Lorinkova, Georgetown U. Panelist: C. Chet Miller, U. of Houston Panelist: Jennifer Nahrgang, U. of Iowa Panelist: Ronald E. Riggio, Claremont McKenna College Panelist: Helena Cooper-Thomas, Auckland U. of Technology Panelist: Erich Dierdorff, DePaul U. Panelist: Michelle Bligh, Claremont Graduate U.
|
This panel discussion addresses a core ideological dichotomy and barrier to the dissemination of actionable, relevant, influential, and helpful managerial advice arising from our research. On one hand, we lament the research-practice divide and provide practical implications sections in many of our articles, presumably because we hold that our work does have practical implications. Yet this practice is not universal. Many practical implications are poorly written, pro forma, and/or not actionable. On the other hand, organizational scientists do not universally endorse the importance of practical implications in academic articles. Bartunek and Rynes (2010) stated that there is another divide among scholars themselves in the extent to which they view practical implications from our research as necessary or indicated. The goal of this panel symposium is to gather senior scholars to discuss and debate the purpose of the practical implications sections of journal articles. Why do we write them at all if practitioners are not reading them? We will debate 5 potential viewpoints. |