Recruitment, Ostracism, and Brain Scans: Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Browse all the articles in the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 4.

Recently, a lot of media attention has focused on how technology businesses recruit, and retain, members of disadvantaged groups.  In the turbulent wake of the immigration ban, there has been renewed discussion about hiring immigrants and those from other cultures.  I  was glad to see authors David Allen & James Vardaman addressing some of these issues in “Recruitment and Retention Across Cultures.”  The article looks at how companies recruit workers and how that process is affected by different cultures. They also discuss how these different cultures face the challenge of assembling a diverse workforce:

Firms tend to (sometimes unintentionally) create barriers in the recruitment process by emphasizing job requirements that disadvantage immigrants (e.g., local experience), making negative assumptions (e.g., assuming immigrants have greater family responsibilities), or failing to appreciate immigrant credentials and skills. Additional research is needed to assess how recruitment policies affect immigrant recruitment, evidence that recruitment firms are more open to recruiting immigrants, the efficacy of developing immigrant networks, and the possibility that perceived skills shortages are a function of undervaluing immigrant credentials and skills.

Other research focuses on how differences in national culture affect the implementation of diversity recruitment initiatives. For example, Moore (2015) suggests that managers and employees hold culturally based native categories as to appropriate work roles related to gender. Thus, in a case study, a diversity initiative driven by a German parent company to increase the recruitment of women factory workers did not export as intended to a British context. The author concluded that effective diversity recruitment across cultures requires not only a recognition that cultural differences exist, but also an understanding of how practices and their meanings are recontextualized from one cultural context to another.

I learned a lot of new things from “Comparing and Contrasting Workplace Ostracism and Incivility” by D. Lance Ferris, Meng Chen & Sandy Lim.  While I have read a lot about workplace harassment, I hadn’t seen research about incivility and ostracism before.

Workplace incivility has been defined as a subtype of workplace mistreatment that is characterized by low-intensity social interactions that violate workplace norms of respect and yet are ambiguous as to whether they are meant to harm the target of the incivility. As this definition implies, there are three important characteristics associated with uncivil behaviors: their violation of norms, their ambiguity with respect to the hostile intent, and their general low intensity. Typical examples of uncivil behaviors at work that meet these three criteria include making demeaning comments to another individual, interrupting someone, and not speaking to—or ostracizing—someone. Such behaviors are typically viewed as rude and falling short of people’s commonly held expectations for mutual respect at work.

The article also deals with ostracism, “which includes behaviors such as being avoided at work, being shut out of conversations, or having one’s greetings go unanswered at work.” That seems horrible and makes me even more appreciative of my work colleagues who make a point of saying hello even when I’m walking the hallways with my headphones on.

orgpsych-waldmanAnother article that sparked my imagination is “Neuroscience in Organizational Behavior” by David Waldman, MK Ward & William Becker, which made me wonder if team-building exercises would be more enjoyable if followed by a brain scan instead of a questionnaire.  It turns out that the interviews and questions aren’t giving the level of data that other options might:

following a team process, a common practice of researchers is to get team members’ impressions of what the team process was about. Aside from recollection challenges on the part of team members, such assessment assumes an overall quality regarding a team process, rather than allowing for fluid or momentary shifts. As Waldman et al. (2015b) have argued and shown, qEEG neurosensing methods allow for more precise, momentary assessment of team processes and emergent states. In contrast, survey methods are not highly practical for assessing shifts in team processes or emergent states because of the interruption that would be caused. Moreover, although observation could be feasible, it is questionable whether observers can accurately assess phenomena such as team arousal or engagement, whereas neurosensing methods may be able to overcome such challenges”

I’d love to hear what you found interesting in this volume—the comments are open!

Suzanne K. Moses is Annual Reviews’ Senior Electronic Content Coordinator. For 15+ years, she has played a central role in the publication of Annual Reviews’ online articles. Not a single page is posted online without first being proofed and quality checked by Suzanne.

The Annual Review of Public Health is now freely available to read, reuse, and share.

We are pleased to announce that the 2017 volume of the Annual Review of Public Health, online today, is published open access under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license. This influential content is now freely available to read, reuse, and share. Additionally, all 37 back volumes (1980-2016) are now free to read. Support for this initiative to increase openness and transparency in research is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Thanks to the generous support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the public health community will now be able to freely access expert reviews which critically summarize what is known about the most important health problems affecting our populations and gain insight into what can be done to improve collective outcomes,” said the journal’s Editor, Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the Fielding School of Public Health and the Geffen School of Medicine.

He added, “All Annual Review of Public Health articles summarize research findings, draw together and integrate strands of knowledge, assess practical applications, and point to unanswered questions. Expanding the availability of these articles and increasing the dissemination of the actionable information they contain has the potential to accelerate research and the speed at which new findings are assessed and implemented.

The Foundation’s support for the Annual Review of Public Health covers the costs of open access for one year, plus the exploration of sustainable funding mechanisms for future years.

“The opportunity to work with Annual Reviews is an exciting one for the Foundation. Reviews are important contributions to the evidence base for a Culture of Health and it’s important that they reach the widest audience possible,” said Dr. Brian Quinn, Associate Vice President for Research-Evaluation-Learning at the Foundation.

The focus of the open access movement to date has been on primary research papers and data sets; the public benefit of converting high-quality review journals to sustainable open access has yet to be assessed.

“I am confident that converting to open access will significantly benefit readers and researchers in the field of public health and beyond,” said President and Editor-in-Chief of Annual Reviews, Richard Gallagher. “We track downloads, citations, and altmetrics article by article, so we will be able to compare data before and after the switch to open access.”

Annual Reviews is establishing a collective fund to support the publication costs for the journal to sustain long-term open access. Customers who have paid a 2017 subscription for this journal will be asked permission to assign this payment to the collective fund. Our team will be in touch with current online subscribers to discuss this and other options available for those who do not wish to participate which include receiving a credit towards their 2018 subscriptions, selecting another 2017 Annual Review volume or receiving a full refund.

About the Annual Review of Public Health: The Annual Review of Public Health, in publication since 1980, covers significant developments in the field of public health, including key developments in epidemiology and biostatistics, environmental and occupational health, issues related to social environment and behavior, health services, and public health practice and policy. For further information about this post please email us.

Annual Reviews appoints two Associate Editors-in-Chief

Nonprofit publisher Annual Reviews is pleased to announce that Natalie DeWitt has been appointed Associate Editor-In-Chief and Corporate Secretary dividing her time between these roles. She will work alongside Richard Gallagher, President and Editor-In-Chief, and Jennifer Jongsma, who has also been promoted to Associate Editor-In-Chief and will continue in her current role as Director of Production.

Natalie’s extensive academic credentials include a Postdoctoral Fellowship in Cell Biology from Yale University, and a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Wisconsin. Her professional experience ranges from Senior Editor at Nature & Nature Biotechnology to Director of Scientific Affairs at Institute Pasteur Korea,  and most recently, the founder and sole proprietor of a strategic scientific communications consultancy.

Richard Gallagher, President and Editor-In-Chief said:

“The bonds between Annual Reviews and the over 500 world-class scientists that serve on our committees are unique in the publishing world and are at the heart of Annual Reviews success and relevance. Jennifer, Natalie and I will work together to support our Production Editors in maintaining strong relations between our organization and these key individuals. “

Natalie’s responsibilities are broad and include maintaining our existing high standards of governance, representing Annual Reviews at professional meetings, speaking at conferences, and prioritizing relationships with our Board and Editorial Committee members to ensure the continued smooth running of Annual Review’s collection of 47 journals in the life, biomedical, physical and social sciences.

Annual Reviews is a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and benefit of society.  Journalists who require further information, access to our content or press contacts can visit the Press Center.

 

 

 

Evaluating digital information – new librarians group launches

Image credit: “Information” by Takashi .M, Flickr. CC BY.

Five librarians have united behind one goal: to articulate and showcase the vital role of librarians in evaluating digital information. Why?

“Because Google can bring you 100,000 answers but a librarian can bring you the right one” Source: New York Times

Information literacy is relevant at all stages of a person’s life, from the earliest education to the most advanced phases. Our online world affords access to more information than ever before in history, requiring new focus on how to manage, evaluate and create credible content. Far from making librarians obsolete, the digital age solidifies their role forever.

Image credit: “Twitter” by Esther Vargas, Flickr, CC BY-SA

The group came together because they were all interested in the same stories on social media. It comprises the following people:

  1. Marcus Banks (@marcusabanks) – advocate for transformation of scholarly publishing. Most recently, Head, Blaisdell Medical Library, UC Davis, CA, USA, now freelance journalist and consultant (to Annual Reviews and others).
  2. Shona Kirtley (@EQUATORNetwork) – Knowledge and Information Manager, Senior Research Information Specialist for Equator Network which works to enhance the quality and transparency of health research.
  3. Yvonne Nobis (@yvonnenobis) – Head of Science Information Services at Cambridge University, overseeing the Central Science Library and the Betty and Gordon Moore Library.
  4. Ana Patricia Ayala (@uoftlibraries) – Instruction and Faculty Liaison Librarian at Gerstein Science Information Centre at the University of Toronto Libraries.
  5. Lindsey Sikora (@uOttawaBiblio) – Acting Head Geographic, Statistical, and Government Info Centre/Faculty of Social Sciences at University of Ottawa,@uOttawaBiblio.

Like all savvy teams, they have a tagline which is “Better Information. Better Decisions” and their first three deliverables are in support of it:

  • An article on trust and authority in academic literature which discusses the different types of research information, how they are created and the part this plays in establishing their importance. Summer 2017.
  • An Early Career Researcher survey on Systematic literature review open to those from all disciplines (not just biomedical fields). Full results will be shared. Fall 2017.
  • A field guide to Systematic literature review with a Webinar to walk researchers through the key steps. Fall 2017.

While they are working on the first item on this list, they’ve also curated a list of existing (mainly open) resources in one spot because they noticed that many excellent information sources on this topic are scattered about the internet.

And, like any group that’s ever tried to make a difference, they need some support which is supplied by nonprofit publisher Annual Reviews (@AnnualReviews).

Finally, since there’s strength in numbers, if any other librarians wish to join the gang and get involved then please contact the project lead, Marcus Banks. You can find the project website here and are welcome to leave your feedback as a comment or simply tweet @marcusabanks.

Welcoming the Annual Review of Cancer Biology

I’ve been looking forward to this series for a long time, and I’m glad to see the first volume fully published. Browse the table of contents for the Annual Review of Cancer Biology, Volume 1.

The autobiography by Harold Varmus, “How Tumor Virology Evolved into Cancer Biology and Transformed Oncology,” is a wonderful starting place for this series.  As Dr. Varmus tells his story, he introduces us to a field that constantly changing:

The story I will tell here is about the path that led to this new state of affairs. In that sense, this article differs from the kind of intellectual autobiography that commonly opens a volume of an Annual Reviews journal. Those articles, which I have read with pleasure over several decades, instructively track the development of new methods and the discovery of new facts within a single laboratory in the course of a senior scientist’s long career. I intend to provide my perspective on how a field of biological research—represented by this first volume of the Annual Review of Cancer Biology—began, grew, evolved, and prospered: not an impersonal account, but one that discusses my views of changing tides in cancer research more than the ebb and flow of people, ideas, and findings in my own laboratory.

ca1-varmusIt is a thoughtful and interesting history of not only Dr. Varmus’s career but how the field of cancer biology has developed.

Brandon Faubert & Ralph J. DeBerardinis introduced me to new methodologies in their article “Analyzing Tumor Metabolism In Vivo.” Working with live tumors is a new idea for me, and I was amazed at the wealth of information researchers are obtaining.

A comprehensive description of the pathways altered in cancer, the mechanisms by which they are perturbed, and the resulting metabolic vulnerabilities could drastically alter how we understand cancer and how we treat it. A key challenge is to apply systems that reliably report the metabolic features of intact tumors, particularly in patients. Although many current concepts in cancer metabolism derive from observations made in cultured cancer cell lines, research on the metabolic features of living tumors in mice and humans has begun to accelerate. We review some classical concepts in metabolic reprogramming, asking why metabolism is altered in cancer cells (i.e., the benefits of metabolic reprogramming to the cell) and how it is altered (i.e., the mechanisms of metabolic reprogramming). From there, we discuss approaches to investigating the metabolism of intact tumors and new principles in cancer biology arising from these studies.

Last on my reading list is “Resisting Resistance” by Ivana Bozic & Martin A. Nowak because I wanted to know more about the difficulties with targeted therapies and what the latest research looks like.  What I discovered was that I’m going to need to dust off my biology textbooks to refresh my background, and that these therapies can evolve resistance.

Targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and improved chemotherapies are being developed to reduce the suffering and mortality that come from human cancer. Although these approaches, and in particular combinations of them, are expected to succeed eventually to a large degree, they all suffer one obstacle: Populations of replicating cells move away—typically in a high-dimensional space—from any opposing selection pressure they encounter. They evolve resistance. It is possible, however, to develop a precise mathematical understanding of the problem and to design treatment strategies that prevent resistance if possible or manage resistance otherwise.

Suzanne K. Moses is Annual Reviews’ Senior Electronic Content Coordinator. For 15+ years, she has played a central role in the publication of Annual Reviews’ online articles. Not a single page is posted online without first being proofed and quality checked by Suzanne.

Annual Reviews appoints Eva Emerson to lead new digital magazine

Image credit: Sandy Schaffer, Science News.

Nonprofit publisher Annual Reviews is pleased to announce that Eva Emerson has been appointed editor to lead a soon-to-be launched digital magazine. Eva has an outstanding track record in the communication of science, having most recently served as Editor of Science News.

Richard Gallagher, President and Editor-In-Chief said:

“Eva’s journalistic talent, digital publishing expertise and significant leadership ability make her a natural fit for this position. We’re delighted she has joined this innovative project in Annual Reviews’ 85th year of service to the research community.”

The magazine is set to launch in 2017 with generous support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Comprising feature articles, interviews, videos and podcasts, infographics, slideshows, and animations, the magazine will explore the real-world significance of the research covered in Annual Reviews journals in an appealing and accessible way. The content will be freely available to anyone to read and reuse, and will attract those who wish to stay abreast of progress in research in the natural and social sciences.

“Annual Reviews was founded to help scientists keep abreast of what was even then considered an overwhelming amount of relevant literature,” Eva says. “Its role is to synthesize understandings revealed in individual research articles into something larger – emerging trends, insights, analyses — and to articulate where scientific progress stands now, from the point of view of scientists working in their fields. Taking advantage of the digital space, the new magazine aims to reveal such milestones to a broad audience in compelling ways.”

A native of Los Angeles, Eva brings over 20 years of experience in science communication to the Annual Reviews team. As Managing Editor and then Editor in Chief of Science News, she helped to oversee a shift to daily digital journalism, the creation of a robust website and huge growth in social media followers. She is delighted to join nonprofit Annual Reviews. “We want to elevate intelligent, informed discourse. This feels especially urgent right now, given the erosion of public trust in facts that the Internet enables and thrives on.”

About the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation fosters path-breaking scientific discovery, environmental conservation, patient care improvements and preservation of the special character of the Bay Area. Visit Moore.org and follow @MooreFound.

About the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is a philanthropic, not-for-profit grant making institution based in New York City. Founded in 1934 by industrialist Alfred P. Sloan Jr, the Foundation supports original research and education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and economics.

About Annual Reviews: Annual Reviews is a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and benefit of society.  Journalists who require further information, access to our content or press contacts can visit the Press Center.

 

 

 

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, Volume 4

Investigate the full table of contents for Volume 4 of the Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

st4-fingerprintOne topic I’ve been tracking for a while is addressed by Stern’s article “Statistical Issues in Forensic Science.”  In the past decade, there have been many challenges to accepted forensic science—such as fingerprint analysis. Fingerprints are used by the author to demonstrate how statistical methods could be used to address current problems:

Another concern expressed in the 2009 NRC report is whether the forensic practitioner community has a full appreciation of the role of uncertainty in forensic examinations. For many years (through the early 2000s), it was common for latent print examiners to support a claimed identification by noting that the process they followed had zero error rate. Another popular claim was that the source of a print was identified to the exclusion of all other people that had ever lived or ever would live. Those who work in scientific disciplines and appreciate the role of uncertainty know that such claims are not credible. Recent studies have demonstrated a low but nonzero misidentification error rate for latent fingerprint examiners. In other forensic disciplines, it is common to have examiners testify to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” This language was recently criticized by the NCFS because it does not have a standard definition and might confuse or mislead jurors (NCFS 2016).

Jeffrey T. Leek & Leah R. Jager tackle another much discussed topic in their article “Is Most Published Research Really False?” This has been a concern in many fields for the past several years, and because a lot of the discussion has involved some high-level statistics, I was very glad to find more information from this perspective. The introduction is especially good at laying out some of the possible concerns:

But this system was invented before modern computing, data generation, scientific software, email, the Internet, and social media. Each of these inventions has placed strain on the scientific publication infrastructure. These modern developments have happened during the careers of practicing scientists. Many laboratory leaders received their training before the explosion of cheap data generation, before the widespread use of statistics and computing, and before there was modern data analytic infrastructure. At the same time, there has been increasing pressure from review panels, hiring committees, and funding agencies to publish positive and surprising results in the scientific literature. These trends have left scientists with a nagging suspicion that some fraction of published results are at minimum exaggerated and at worst outright false.

Statistics articles ripped from the headlines? We have one! For example, Dwork et al.’s article “Exposed! A Survey of Attacks on Private Data” offers an introduction to an interesting facet of the privacy discussion: How do we use information publicly while protecting a sensitive dataset:

We focus on the simple scenario in which there is a dataset x containing sensitive information, and the goal is to release statistics about the dataset to the public. These statistics may be fixed in advance or may be chosen by the analyst, who queries the dataset. Speaking intuitively (because we have not yet defined privacy), the goal in privacy-preserving data analysis is to protect the privacy of the individual records in the dataset, even if the analyst maliciously chooses queries according to an attack strategy designed to compromise privacy.

Suzanne K. Moses is Annual Reviews’ Senior Electronic Content Coordinator. For 15+ years, she has played a central role in the publication of Annual Reviews’ online articles. Not a single page is posted online without first being proofed and quality checked by Suzanne.