Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-lm65w Total loading time: 0.006 Render date: 2025-07-24T02:34:34.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The paradox of research novelty: Balancing innovation with practical impact in industrial and organizational psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2025

Patrick Rolwes ,
Michelle P. Martín-Raugh ,
Katrisha Smith  and
Emily Gallegos Open the ORCID record for Emily Gallegos [Opens in a new window]
Patrick Rolwes*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
Michelle P. Martín-Raugh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
Katrisha Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
Emily Gallegos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
*
Corresponding author: Patrick Rolwes; Email: pxr9674@mavs.uta.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2025 , pp. 206 - 210
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asfahani, A. M. (2022). The impact of artificial intelligence on industrial-organizational psychology: a systematic review. Journal of Behavioral Science, 17(3), 125–139.Google Scholar
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: a review and agenda for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 236–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1998). Structuring employment interviews to improve reliability, validity, and users' reactions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, M. C., Campion, M. A., & Campion, E. D. (2018). Big data techniques and talent management: recommendations for organizations and a research agenda for I-O psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditzen, J., & Elhorst, J. P. (2022). Introducing the Replication Studies section. Spatial Economic Analysis, 17(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2022.2018169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geimer, J. L., Landers, R. N., & Solberg, E. G. (2020). Enabling practical research for the benefit of organizations and society. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13, 334–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grote, G., & Cortina, J. M. (2018). Necessity (not just novelty) is the mother of invention: using creativity research to improve research in work and organizational psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(3), 335–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keener, S. K., Kepes, S., & Torka, A. K. (2023). The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: the current state of affairs and a path forward. Acta Psychologica, 239, 104005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chen, G., & Salas, E. (2017). One hundred years of the journal of applied psychology: background, evolution, and scientific trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000192 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landers, R. (2019). The existential threats to I-O psychology highlighted by rapid technological change. In Landers, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 3–21), Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, G. P., Fay, C. H., & Saari, L. M. (1979). The development of behavioral observation scales for appraising the performance of foremen. Personnel Psychology, 32(2), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: an empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, S., Charles-Orszag, A., Skruber, K., Mullins, R. D., & Rehfeld, A. (2023). November 6. Peer Replication[Preprint]. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/py4mz CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E. (2016). The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1132–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: the low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillutla, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Organizational sciences’ obsession with “that’s interesting!”: consequences and an alternative. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(2), 187–194. DOI: 10.1177/2041386613479963 CrossRefGoogle 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(2), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teplitskiy, M., Peng, H., Blasco, A., & Lakhani, K. R. (2022). Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 119(47), e2118046119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Many Co-Authors Project. (2024). December 17. https://manycoauthors.org/ Google Scholar
Voss, N. M., Stoffregen, S. A., Couture, K. L., DiGirolamo, J. A., Furman, M., Haidar, S., Hammer, L. B., Lee, J., Maneotis, S. M., McCloy, R. A., Olson, R., & Spector, P. (2025). Shaping the future of industrial-organizational psychology: the transformative potential of research collaborations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 167–187.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. C., Ravid, D. M., Siderits, I. O., & Behrend, T. S. (2022). An urgent call for I-O psychologists to produce timelier technology research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15, 441–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar