Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), pp 220–266 June 2018. Copyright © 2018 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1017/iop.2018.8 Commentaries A Systems View of the Scientist–Practitioner Gap Jeffrey Olenick, Ross Walker, Jacob Bradburn, and Richard P. DeShon Michigan State University We commend Rotolo et al. (2018) for introducing a new lens for viewing the well-known gap between industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research and human resource (HR) practices in organizations. However, Ro- tolo et al.’s characterization of practitioner behavior as “anti I-O” suggests a particularly negative view of scientifc research among some HR practition- ers. The label implies that some HR practitioners are intentionally ignoring or actively resisting academic research. More likely, the behavior stems from a passive indiference to academia, which may be the appropriate attitude for some practitioners to adopt when a great deal of academic research is too slow, too theoretical, and too cryptically communicated to be useful in ap- plied settings. We agree with Rotolo et al. when they say, “we are a discipline that is not geared for being cutting edge” (p. 182), and we appreciate their recommendations for addressing this lack of relevance. However, most rec- ommendations in this broader discussion do not address the foundational problem within our feld: a systemic mismatch between the incentives of practitioners and academics. To support this point, we briefy describe a ty- pology of I-O psychologists as well as the varying contexts and incentives that drive their behavior. We then close with our own recommendations for how academia can improve its relevance to practitioners and close the gap. These changes are not easy, but we agree with Rotolo and colleagues that if any feld can address such foundational problems, it is ours. A Typology of Organizational Psychologists Rotolo et al. (2018) characterize organizational psychologists as “scientist– practitioners.” This popular term represents a specifc location on a research–practice continuum at which attention to research and application are carefully balanced. This may represent a macro property of our feld, but, Jefrey Olenick, Michigan State University; Ross Walker, Michigan State University; Jacob Bradburn, Michigan State University; Richard P. DeShon, Michigan State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jefrey Olenick, Depart- ment of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: olenickj@msu.edu 220 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.8 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 138.128.16.147, on 19 Dec 2019 at 09:36:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at