Openness maximizes advocacy

In their focal article, Guzzo et al. (2022) raise several critical points about how moves toward “opening” psychological science have the potential to both advance and hinder the progress of the field of I-O psychology. Of these points, the focal article raises several concerns about how the duality between science and practice may be hindered by demands for openness. Although excellent points are raised, the focal article draws out a long-standing false division between science and practice to frame its arguments. We also take issue with the broader contention that the zeitgeist of openness will hinder the progress of our field, both for science and practice. Indeed, we see this notion, and the furthering of the scientist–practitioner divide in service of supporting arguments, as vast oversimplifications of a complex challenge that our field faces—that is, how we can maximize the impact of I-O psychology for our constituents. To counter these points, we argue that openness is a key condition for maximizing the impact of I-O psychology research and practice. Importantly, we do not view “science” versus “practice” as a meaningful distinction. Rather, we see a continuum existing between the science and practice of I-O psychology, with one benefiting the other. Similarly, openness is not a monolithic “one size fits all” approach to either science or practice. Rather openness, which likewise exists along a continuum, may variously dictate the conduct of science and practice. The continuum of openness is a context in which science and practice operate to the benefit or detriment of advocacy. We see “advocacy” as actions taken by I-O psychologists to benefit society and improve the lives of people at work (see Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). The focal articles seems to lose sight of the common goal of both the science and practice of I-O psychology, which is to serve as the basis for advocating for the betterment of work for all employees. The idea of a scientist–practitioner–advocate perspective is not new (see Fassinger & O’Brien, 2000; Lewin, 1948/1997) but has been gaining traction as a model for thinking about the impacts that psychological science and practice can have on society (see Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Miles & Fassinger, 2021). However, the idea of advocacy as a goal of the science and practice of I-O psychology is often ignored in the science–practice debates that characterize our field (e.g., Aguinis et al., 2020). To our minds, both science and practice serve the same goal, which is to facilitate the improvement of work by means of advocacy. Rather than positioning openness as a barrier, we offer that it serves as a condition for maximizing the impact of both science and practice, because it strengthens the potential for advocacy. There are numerous examples of how this could be realized. For example, movements toward the open sharing of data, materials, and code allow others to reproduce and replicate findings, and the preregistration of hypotheses prevents post hoc theorizing and thus leads to more trustworthy research. Additionally, open access to published work puts the results of research into the hands of those who stand to benefit most from its dissemination, such as practitioners and policy makers. These ideas benefit not only science but also practice through bolstering our credibility to external stakeholders (Rudolph, 2021).