Fiske Susan T, Borgida Eugene
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540,
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, N387 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455,
Res Organ Behav. 2011;31:253-275. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.003.
We discuss how organizations can evaluate psychological science for its potential usefulness to their own purposes. Common sense is often the default but inadequate alternative, and bench-marking supplies only collective hunches instead of validated principles. External validity is an empirical process of identifying moderator variables, not a simple yes-no judgment about whether lab results replicate in the field. Hence, convincing criteria must specify what constitutes high-quality empirical evidence for organizational use. First, we illustrate some theories and science that have potential use. Then we describe generally accepted criteria for scientific quality and consensus, starting with peer review for quality, and scientific agreement in forms ranging from surveys of experts to meta-analyses to National Research Council consensus reports. Linkages of basic science to organizations entail communicating expert scientific consensus, motivating managerial interest, and translating broad principles to specific contexts. We close with parting advice to both sides of the researcher-practitioner divide.
我们探讨了组织如何评估心理学对其自身目的潜在有用性。常识往往是默认但不充分的选择，而基准测试仅提供集体直觉而非经过验证的原则。外部效度是识别调节变量的实证过程，而不是关于实验室结果是否能在实际场景中复现的简单是非判断。因此，令人信服的标准必须明确什么构成了用于组织的高质量实证证据。首先，我们举例说明一些具有潜在用途的理论和科学。然后，我们描述科学质量和共识的普遍接受标准，从质量同行评审开始，以及从专家调查到元分析再到国家研究委员会共识报告等形式的科学共识。基础科学与组织的联系需要传达专家科学共识、激发管理兴趣，并将广泛原则转化为具体情境。最后，我们给研究人员和从业者这两个群体分别提供了临别建议。
