psychology_Sons_(2003)

Confluence of Dynamic Forces 373

traced to the founders of psychology in the late 1800s and
early 1900s, when tension existed between individuals want-
ing psychology to be a pure science (basic) separate from prac-
tical concerns and individuals wanting to apply psychology to
practical matters (Hergenhahn, 1997). Applied psychologists
did not advocate for an applied psychology instead of a pure
psychology. These psychologists, along with their scientific
contemporaries, viewed science as being first and applications
as being second (Hergenhahn, 1997). The pure psychologists
disapproved of applying psychology, however. Benjamin
(1997) noted, “The purists railed against such premature ven-
tures and warned these purveyors of suspect psychological
knowledge to stay home and perfect their science” (p. 102).
One explanation for the tension between scientists and
practitioners was the reward structure of the American scien-
tific community during 1906–1944 (Sokal, 1995). James
McKeen Cattell used a star system, in which asterisks were at-
tached to the names of individuals he identified as the preemi-
nent American scientists of the day in hisAmerican Men of
Science,first published in 1906. Ten leading representatives,
who were members of the National Academy of Science and
contributors toScience,selected these individuals. This re-
ward structure placed a high value on being a scientist. A sec-
ond explanation was the questionable scientific integrity
of applied research funded by corporations for legal and
commercial gains. Results from these studies were often dis-
credited (Benjamin, Rogers, & Rosenbaum, 1991). A third ex-
planation for the tension was the incompatible values between
scientists (pure psychologists), who pursue the advancement
of knowledge, and practitioners (applied psychologists), who
apply knowledge to solve problems (Hergenhahn, 1997).
During the early years, a prevalent distinction between
science and practice within industrial psychology did not
exist, as most industrial psychologists consulted part-time
while working full-time in university positions and con-
ducted research in field settings for the purposes of solving
problems. The dichotomy gradually emerged as the number
of individuals employed in universities, research institutions,
and applied positions grew. In the published version of her
APA Division 14 (now SIOP) presidential address entitled
“Our Expanding Responsibilities,” Marion Bills (1953) fore-
saw the developing gap between scientists and practitioners.
She argued that psychologists working in industry were not
given sufficient credit for their contributions to science. Bills
stated,

Perhaps our [psychologists in private industry] real function is

that of a liaison officer between our experimental workers and

management under which function our chief duty would be

to keep them very well informed on both sides, and display the

ingenuity to connect them, even when in many cases the connec-

tion is far from obvious. (Bills, 1953, p. 145)

On several occasions, Bruce V. Moore, the first president

of APA Division 14 (now SIOP), espoused his belief that in-

dustrial psychology as an applied discipline values equally

research and implementation (Farr & Tesluk, 1997). Moore

stated,

[The] pure scientist has no basis for intellectual snobbery or con-

tempt for the applied scientist. What both should avoid is busy

work without thinking, or activity without relating it to theory, or

the quick answer without adequate facts or basic research....

The extreme applied practitioner is in danger of narrow, myopic

thinking, but the extremely pure scientist is in danger of being

isolated from facts. (Cited in Farr & Tesluk, 1997, p. 484)

The scientist-practitioner tension prevails today, as evident

by the attention it continues to receive (e.g., Dunnette &

Hough, 1990; Holland, Hogan, & Sheton, 1999; Klimoski,

1992). Hackman (1985) identified factors that contribute to the

current gap between I-O scientists and practitioners. These in-

clude corporate reward systems that compensate I-O psychol-

ogists for performing as professional practitioners rather than

as scientists, differences in the conceptual and research para-

digms of scientists and practitioners, and the failure of labora-

tory and field experiments to guide practice. J. P. Campbell

(1992) noted, however, that the latent needs of the two par-

ties are actually more similar than their surface dissimilarities

would suggest. When he was 93 years old, Morris Viteles

stated, “If it isn’t scientific, it’s not good practice, and if it isn’t

practical, it’s not good science” (cited in Katzell & Austin,

1992, p. 826). The two poles must blend in order to address the

complex work issues of organizations today.

CONFLUENCE OF DYNAMIC FORCES

Many historians contend that the rise of I-O psychology was

the result of external forces. Psychologists were pulled by the

demands and expectations of industry and of an ever-changing

society and economy (e.g., Baritz, 1960). As early as 1913,

Hugo Münsterberg, who is often referred to as the father of

I-O psychology, stated, “Our aim is to sketch the outlines of a

new psychology which is to intermediate between the modern

laboratory psychology and the problems of economics: the

psychological experiment is systematically placed at the ser-

vice of commerce and industry” (Münsterberg, 1913, p. 3).

More recently, Katzell and Austin (1992) observed, “The

field’s history reveals a proclivity for science and practice in

I-O psychology to be shaped more by external forces than by