Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-2cm9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T01:07:10.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Openness maximizes advocacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2023

Cort W. Rudolph Open the ORCID record for Cort W. Rudolph [Opens in a new window]  and
Hannes Zacher Open the ORCID record for Hannes Zacher [Opens in a new window]
Cort W. Rudolph*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, USA
Hannes Zacher
Affiliation:
Wilhelm Wundt Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
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.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 551 - 553
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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

Aguinis, H., Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., & Cascio, W. F. (2020). Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlke, J. A., Katz, I. M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2022). Using open-source tools to bridge science and practice. Presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Fassinger, R. E., & O’Brien, K. M. (2000). Career counseling with college women: A scientist-practitioner-advocate model of intervention. In Luzzo, D. (Ed.), Career counseling of college students: An empirical guide to strategies that work (pp. 253–266). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10362-014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzo, R. A., Schneider, B., & Nalbantia, H. R. (2022). Open science, closed doors: the perils and potential of open science for research in practice. Industrial & Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science & Practice, 15(4), 495–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020927 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kepes, S., Keener, S. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Hartman, N. S. (2022). Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research-productive management programs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(7), 1190–1208. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1948/1997). Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10269-000 Google Scholar
Mallinckrodt, B., Miles, J. R., & Levy, J. J. (2014). The scientist-practitioner-advocate model: Addressing contemporary training needs for social justice advocacy. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(4), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, J. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2021). Creating a public psychology through a scientist practitioner-advocate training model. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1232–1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000855 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527133 Google Scholar
Rudolph, C. W. (2021). Improving careers science: Ten recommendations to enhance the credibility of vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar