Why Evidence-Based Practice in I–O Psychology Is Not There Yet: Going Beyond Systematic Reviews

Abstract

In acknowledging at the outset the importance of the four major defining characteristics of evidence-based practice in equal measure, Briner and Rousseau(2011) offer a balanced portrayal of the requirements for its successful uptake in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. Unfortunately, however, the remainder of their article is devoted almost exclusively to an analysis of just one of these characteristic features, namely, how best to critically evaluate the best available research evidence. The critical evaluation and synthesis of scientific developments as an input to organizational decision processes is undoubtedly a worthy cause. However, it is unlikely that the application of systematic reviews as advocated by Rousseau and Briner will generate the sorts of creative insights that the I–O psychology field needs so badly to continuously innovate high-quality evidence-based solutions to the problems besetting the modern enterprise. Although in evidence-based medicine, medical decision makers seeking to avoid error (allegedly) privilege evidence and standardization in their practices, decision makers in contemporary organizations more typically value innovation and differentiation. Accordingly, the push to evidence-based practice will only have the impact on the wider I–O psychology profession envisaged by its growing body of advocates—myself included—if we first engage in a more considered reflection on the fundamental nature of the complete package of information sources enumerated by Briner and Rousseau. Unlike conceptual knowledge acquired through advanced academic study, the expertise underpinning the professional judgments of skilled practitioners takes many years to acquire through judicious supervision by suitably experienced mentors. How to accelerate the development of such expertise, much of which is tacit in nature, and incorporate it more explicitly into our education and continuing professional development programs is a far more urgent and pressing priority than the introduction of systematic review techniques.