Including Science Advocacy in Industrial–Organizational Curriculum

poignant observation is that, ‘‘I–O psychol-ogists are usually not taught how to selltheir value added, market their knowledgeand skills, and in general, convey thevalue of what they bring to the table inbusiness terms’’ (p. 8). This resonates withthe efforts of SIOP Presidents AdrienneColella, Doug Reynolds, and TammyAllen to clarify and extend the impactand inﬂuence of our discipline. Buildingon these ideas, we—the Scientiﬁc AffairsCommittee of SIOP—assert that trainingin science advocacy will substantiallyenhance the value and ultimate impact ofan I–O degree.What Is Science Advocacy?Science advocacy is broadly deﬁned asactivities designed to increase a given dis-cipline’s recognition and reputation amongthose external stakeholders who are mostlikely to support it, use it, and beneﬁtfrom it. Science advocacy requires activeengagement with the public, decision mak-ers, and policymakers; explaining whatwe do, what we know, and why it hasvalue. Science advocacy includes (but isnot limited to) (a) inﬂuencing public policythrough lobbying and outreach, (b) servingas an expert witness, (c) testifying in frontof Congress, (d) inﬂuencing organizationalpracticebyadvocatingwithinorganizationsfor evidence-based solutions, (e) translatingscientiﬁc ﬁndings into trade publicationsor similar outlets, (f) interacting with themedia, (g) obtaining or reviewing grants,(h) educating lay audiences about whatI–O is and how it can be used to informpotential solutions to contemporary issues,and (i) educating students, many of whomwill work in nonacademic positions andcan inﬂuence organizations about scienceadvocacy issues.Why Does I–O Psychology NeedScience Advocacy?Those who have training in I–O psychol-ogy understand the value of the scientiﬁcmethod. However, many key decisionmakers in organizations have motivationsthat conﬂict with sound scientiﬁc practices.For example, despite trends toward the useof ‘‘big data,’’ many organizations fail tomanage human resources data in a waythat can be used to readily conduct rigor-ous research. Some organizations gatherextremely limited data on employees,such as current salary and EEOC-requiredinformation. Others collect an abundanceof data but cannot link data from differentsourcestospeciﬁcemployeesorworkunits,preventing anyattemptatrigorousscientiﬁcresearch. This latter phenomenon may bea catch-22: Organizations may not havereaped the value of a scientiﬁc approach todata that would motivate them to manageorganizational data more appropriately,and yet managing such data appropriatelyis exactly what allows for scientiﬁc study.Certainly, creating and managing thetypes of datasets that lend to scientiﬁcresearch can require large amounts of timeand resources. In addition, organizationaldecision makers might be concerned thatlinking employees’ survey responses toother data sources may make employ-ees uncomfortable, if not unresponsive tosurveys.Giventhesebarriers,scienceadvo-cacy is needed to convince organizationsthat the beneﬁts of rigorous scientiﬁc meth-ods outweigh the potential costs associatedwith intensive data management.In addition to barriers that may preventorganizations from gathering and managingtheir data, there are also a number ofbarriers that may prevent organizationsfrom using the scientiﬁc literature to informtheir practices. The business world operatesat a faster pace than the academic world,and organizations may thus feel pressureto implement new practices quickly.Moreover, there can be pressure to jumpon the bandwagon by implementing trendypractices to keep up with competitors,without doing due diligence regarding theireffectiveness. Thus, advocacy is neededto educate organizational decision makersregarding the value of taking the time tounderstand the scientiﬁc literature beforeimplementing new policies and practices.