(Call for submissions.) Science you can use: Evidence-based principles & practices.

I've written about the Evidence-Based Management Collaborative before. They're developing ways to structure research findings and other validated evidence for consumption by decision-makers, business managers, and other practitioners. Now they're requesting proposals for an interesting project called Science You Can Use. I've reproduced their call for submissions below. Submittals can go to Denise Rousseau at Carnegie Mellon (denise AT cmu.edu).

 

Call for Submissions

Science You Can Use: Evidence-Based Principles and Practices

 

This is a Call for Submissions to a new SIOP/APA series Science You Can Use.

 

Science You Can Use is an annual series of SIOP to be published by APA Press. Each chapter provides an answer to a practical question relevant to practitioners, including managers, HR professionals, consultants and policy makers. Science You Can Use is a key part of SIOP’s initiative on Evidence-Based Management, making important and useful scientific evidence accessible to practitioners.

All chapters in this series will be based on quality evidence and written in a practitioner-friendly fashion. 

 

The basis of each chapter is a question (or set of questions) of concern to contemporary practitioners.  For example, How to train people quickly? How to manage long-standing conflict between two workgroups? How to build commitment in a distributed team? How to select team members for high performance?  How to effectively use pay as a motivator? When is pay not an effective motivator? Each chapter reflects the state of our science regarding evidence-based organizational and psychological practices and principles. 

 

As an annual series, Science You Can Use chapters will be revised over time as the body of evidence shifts and as knowledge on effective application grows.  Once the first volumes are published, updates for previous chapters based on new knowledge and applications will be very welcome. 

What is Quality of Evidence?

Each chapter is supported by systematic scientific evidence of high quality. Systematic evidence takes one of three forms:

1.      Meta-analysis, statistical summaries of quantitative results and effect sizes;

2.      Systematic review, comprehensive reviews of quantitative and qualitative research relevant to a specific question--usually practice-related; or

3.      Good empirical evidence is sufficient basis for a chapter where evidence #1 or #2 don’t yet exist. Good empirical evidence exists when an important relationship is found in a minimum of three studies from at least two different research groups/teams where no other existing evidence contradicts this finding (cf., Chambless & Hollon, 1998).

           

High quality evidence means that the findings of 1, 2 or 3 above reflect reliable and valid data with appropriate controls for bias and alternative explanations. Specifically, high quality is attained where causal analysis exists based on longitudinal studies excluding plausible alternative hypotheses or on randomized experiments. Outcome measures are from sources different from independent variables. Last, all measures are reliable and valid.

 

          How are Chapters Structured?

All Evidence Summaries Follow the Same Format. Use of common format makes them easier to read and use. Our goal is to encourage thoughtful practitioners to access and use the entire set of chapters.¹

 

Chapter Outline

1.   Use: How do I …?  A key question(s) motivates each chapter. Recall, the examples mentioned above: How to train people quickly? How to manage long-standing conflict between two workgroups? How to build commitment in a distributed team? How to select team members for high performance? Etc.

The uses or circumstances related to the question should be described in ways that enable me, a practitioner, to imagine how I might use the information the chapter provides. 

2.    Basic psychological and management principle(s)

A basic principle states an important, general causal relationship. X increases Y under Z conditions: e.g., “Clear Task Goals enhance Learning especially for Inexperienced Learners.”  A statement of the basic psychological or management principle should be accompanied by a brief plain English summary or short explanation of the core idea on which the chapter is based.

3.    Mechanisms

 What mechanisms underlie the core principle? Explain why I can get this result?

            Conditions in which connections are stronger/weaker

(How important is experience? Prior training? What if I only hire one person a year? Have limited authority?)

4.   Detailed Explanation

Summarize the scientific evidence on which this principle is based. If a meta-analysis or systematic review is the basis, a brief statement of its findings or conclusions is sufficient. A more descriptive summary is needed in the case of evidence #3 above, so that I as a practitioner have a good reason to be confident of your conclusions and recommendations.

Additional details here might help me the user tailor my own applications. Help me link the principle and its related practices other scientific principles and interventions I might already be using.

5.   Validation/Testimony

            Validation: quality of evidence from Sources 1, 2, or 3 above is summarized in clear English.

Testimony (expert responses, see epicurious.com) Practitioners like me place an enormous weight on examples. Any evidence of the principles being used well (“Exemplary Uses”) would help me envision what to do.

  6.   Implementation:

A.    What Problems Can Acting on this Principle Solve?

        Specify the General Class of Problem to which This Principle Applies.

Review each general circumstance where the principle can be applied. In discussing specific uses, the reader should be able to realize the following: “I am acting against the evidence when my practices don’t follow this principle.”

    B.    How to Apply the Principle? Issues in Application

Evidence-based Procedure(s) for Solving Problem --Keep in mind that practitioner judgment and experience play important roles at each step. General action guides and features of implementation are the focus here.

a.       Diagnosis: problems to solve?

b.      What actions? By whom?

c.       Scope: level/people/system

d.      Time frame: how long do I need to wait for the mechanisms to take effect?

e.       Decision Supports: checklists, action guides

f.        Context and Limiting Condition: 

Moderators--Enabling Conditions, Disabling Conditions

            Practical limits: Time, dollars, level of effort and attention.

            Potential ethical dilemmas

g.       Effects/consequences (effect size/statistical confidence)

i.             Possible side effects (reactions to the action)—counter-indicators (how will I know if it might not be working)

ii.            Practitioner Guidelines: What are indicators that principle is working? Lead? Lagged? 

      Repeat for each distinct problem where principle can be applied.

    7.     References

 

What is a Reasonable Chapter Length?

Approximately 20-25 manuscript pages total would be reasonable and ‘aspirational’.  If you can produce a well-written chapter in fewer than 20 manuscript pages, wonderful!

Why Should I Contribute a Chapter(s) to Science You Can Use?  

First and foremost, your chapter would put a validated principle regarding organization and management practices into the hands of thoughtful practitioners. You’re helping disseminate knowledge practitioners can use and trust. Doing so places a plank on the bridge that helps to span the research-practice gap.  And, we hope, this effort encourages bridge building from the practitioner direction too. Second, per the experience in evidence-based movements, authors of evidence summaries become well-recognized experts in their subject domain.  It is a two-fer.  

What’s the Submission Process?

 Send a 2-3 pg proposal to Denise M. Rousseau (Carnegie Mellon U), Editor (denise AT cmu.edu) outlining the principle(s) you’ll cover and the quality of the validating evidence (#1-3 above). Include a supporting bibliography--a single reference is sufficient in the case of meta-analysis or systematic review, a minimum of 3 empirical studies for #3 “good quality evidence.” The editorial team will evaluate proposals. The Editor will inform authors of target dates for upcoming Annual publication.  Target dates are scheduled to allow time for editorial review of each chapter prior to publication.

Accepted proposals will be publicized on the Science You Can Use website to avoid redundant efforts.  General summaries of completed chapters will be available on-line with author contact information to promote public awareness and use of these evidence summaries. 

Can I Write a Chapter for the First Volume of Science You Can Use?

Proposals received by April 15, 2009 are in line for publication in the 2010 issue.

Completed chapter drafts are due August 15, 2009 for editorial review prior to publication in Volume 1. Please contact Denise M. Rousseau (denise AT cmu.edu) with any questions.

Consulting Editors

John Boudreau, USC Rob Briner, Birkbeck College Wayne Cascio, U of Denver Debra Cohen, SHRM David Denyer, Cranfield Don Ferrin, Singapore Management U Mark Fichman, Carnegie Mellon Michael Frese, U Giessen, London Business School Andy Garman, Rush Presbyterian Medical Jody Goodman, U Connecticut Jerald Greenberg, U Texas-Arlington Robert Greene, RewardSystems Inc. Leaetta Hough, Dunnette Group Timothy Judge, U of Florida Steve Kerr, Goldman Sachs

Anthony Kovner, New York University Carrie Leana, U of Pittsburgh Ed Locke, U Maryland Anne O’Leary-Kelly, U Arkansas Jone L. Pearce, UC Irvine Craig J. Russell, U of Oklahoma Sara Rynes, U of Iowa Lise Saari, IBM Eduardo Salas, U Central Florida Ben Schneider, Valtera Sim Sitkin, Duke Univ Jayne Speicher, Pradco Inc. Vicki Vandaveer, Vandaveer Associates Rolf van Dick, U of Frankfurt John Zanardelli, Asbury Heights

 

¹ Chapter format is based on the evidence-summary format developed by the Evidence-Based Management Collaborative.

Reference

Chambless, D.L. & Hollon, S.D. 1998 Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 66, 7-18.