Institutional Representation in the SIOP
Conference Program: 19862000
Stephanie C. Payne
Texas A&M University
Carol A. Succa and Tyler D. Maxey
George Mason University
Kelly R. Bolton
Texas A&M University
Authors note. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 16th Annual SIOP Conference, San Diego, CA. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephanie C. Payne at
scp@psyc.tamu.edu.
Over the years a number of studies have been conducted to examine institutional as well as individual research productivity. The new millennium marks a convenient year for reflecting on past productivity and setting goals for future contributions. This study examines institutional representation in the annual SIOP Conference program beginning with the first conference in 1986.
Examining institutional research productivity is particularly useful for identifying which universities, colleges, and organizations are partaking in research and making contributions to the field of I-O psychology. Such information is likely to be of interest to undergraduate students pursuing graduate school, graduate students pursuing employment, and institutions, themselves, for comparative purposes. For instance, as an indicator of research productivity, this information could be used as one variable in resource allocation decisions or for demonstrating research productivity relative to peer institutions or institutions with similar graduate programs.
Although a number of studies have been conducted for the purpose of evaluating graduate programs and examining research productivity, none of these efforts have examined institutional representation in the SIOP Conference program. This venue is frequently one of the first places researchers share their research ideas and findings. As a result, the SIOP Conference program represents some of the most current research in I-O psychology. In addition, students are very active at
SIOP, so both faculty and student productivity is represented. Finally, individuals from practitioner-oriented organizations also participate in the SIOP Conference. None of the previous studies have examined nonacademic institutional representation. Thus, this study documents the representation of both academic and nonacademic institutions in SIOP Conference programs.
Method
Fifteen years of SIOP Programs (19862000) were collected and assembled for data entry. Individuals and their affiliations were entered into the database, regardless of their role in the session (e.g., chair, presenter, discussant). Given the variety of sessions considered, authorship was not weighted. When two affiliations were listed in the conference program for an individual, only the first one was entered into the database. When no affiliation was listed, efforts were made to locate the individuals affiliation by looking for additional listings of that individual in the index of the Conference program.
Prior to analyses, extensive data cleaning was necessary to correct typographical errors and variations of the same institutional name (e.g.,
Hum-RRO and Human Resources Research Organization). Special efforts were made to ensure only one institutional name was used within each program (e.g., University of Illinois vs. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign). Efforts were also made to note changes in institutional names over the course of the 15 years examined (e.g., Naval Training Systems Center to Naval Air Warfare Center).
Results
Although not depicted in the tables presented here, there has been tremendous growth in the SIOP Conference program over the last 15 years. In 1986, the Conference consisted of 34 sessions (i.e., poster sessions, symposia, roundtables, etc.), whereas in 2000, the Conference consisted of 198 sessions. The number of institutions represented in the program also depicts the growth of the Conference. In the first Conference, 89 different institutions were represented. Fifty-five of these were academic institutions and 34 were nonacademic institutions. In 2000, 501 different institutions were represented with 263 of them academic and 238 of them nonacademic institutions. On the whole, academic institutions tend to outnumber nonacademic institutions, however, not by much (M = 43% for nonacademic institutions). In fact, in 1995, there were slightly more nonacademic institutions (N = 156) than academic institutions (N = 151). At the same time, it should be noted that academic institutions tended to have much larger frequencies than nonacademic institutions.
Table 1 presents the frequency of contributions for 65 academic institutions in the SIOP conference program from 1986 to 2000. This table was limited to the academic institutions that appeared at least once in the top 25 most represented institutions across the 15 years examined. A sum of frequencies is also provided for the last 5 years (19962000) as well as all 15 years. Institutions are ranked based on a sum of the frequencies for the last 5 years.
Table 1. Frequencies for Academic Institutions in the SIOP
Conference Program.
|
|
|
86
|
87
|
88
|
89
|
90
|
91
|
92
|
93
|
94
|
95
|
96
|
97
|
98
|
99
|
00
|
Last5 Yr Sum
|
15
Yr Sum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
*Michigan
State U
|
9
|
22
|
14
|
11
|
28
|
43
|
42
|
27
|
41
|
37
|
57
|
54
|
110
|
101
|
94
|
416
|
690
|
|
2
|
*Bowling
Green State U
|
1
|
10
|
19
|
27
|
23
|
13
|
34
|
40
|
17
|
21
|
36
|
27
|
60
|
64
|
77
|
264
|
469
|
|
3
|
*U
of Akron
|
5
|
17
|
7
|
20
|
24
|
14
|
21
|
28
|
43
|
31
|
26
|
48
|
50
|
62
|
36
|
222
|
432
|
|
4
|
*U
of Maryland
|
11
|
13
|
7
|
10
|
23
|
17
|
31
|
17
|
28
|
30
|
29
|
19
|
41
|
59
|
58
|
206
|
393
|
|
5
|
*U
of Illinois
|
1
|
1
|
8
|
1
|
7
|
13
|
7
|
6
|
25
|
12
|
28
|
34
|
28
|
35
|
56
|
181
|
262
|
|
6
|
*Pennsylvania
State U
|
6
|
5
|
2
|
10
|
4
|
15
|
14
|
24
|
34
|
29
|
31
|
35
|
56
|
37
|
17
|
176
|
319
|
|
7
|
George
Mason U
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
0
|
27
|
10
|
9
|
16
|
25
|
33
|
57
|
44
|
175
|
238
|
|
8
|
*U
of Minnesota
|
6
|
12
|
6
|
12
|
24
|
19
|
11
|
25
|
24
|
22
|
27
|
35
|
49
|
28
|
29
|
168
|
329
|
|
9
|
*U
of Georgia
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
8
|
8
|
11
|
16
|
10
|
17
|
19
|
23
|
18
|
38
|
41
|
37
|
157
|
253
|
|
10
|
*VA
Tech
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
6
|
14
|
21
|
18
|
39
|
28
|
31
|
27
|
143
|
215
|
|
11
|
*Texas
A&M U
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
16
|
21
|
12
|
15
|
22
|
7
|
25
|
27
|
22
|
22
|
32
|
39
|
142
|
270
|
|
12
|
U
of Tennessee
|
1
|
0
|
4
|
7
|
10
|
10
|
11
|
23
|
21
|
23
|
16
|
29
|
22
|
50
|
21
|
138
|
248
|
|
13
|
U
of South Florida
|
3
|
2
|
8
|
0
|
5
|
11
|
13
|
14
|
9
|
18
|
12
|
10
|
29
|
43
|
40
|
134
|
217
|
|
14
|
*U
of Houston
|
2
|
3
|
6
|
7
|
13
|
14
|
14
|
8
|
6
|
18
|
20
|
3
|
20
|
35
|
45
|
123
|
214
|
|
15
|
Florida
International U
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
25
|
23
|
24
|
19
|
22
|
21
|
26
|
22
|
110
|
192
|
|
15
|
*Purdue
U
|
5
|
12
|
21
|
9
|
8
|
10
|
12
|
35
|
18
|
17
|
23
|
22
|
36
|
12
|
17
|
110
|
257
|
|
17
|
*SUNY
at Albany
|
2
|
5
|
2
|
10
|
10
|
12
|
25
|
27
|
22
|
12
|
23
|
19
|
24
|
19
|
12
|
97
|
224
|
|
18
|
*U
of Iowa
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
9
|
16
|
25
|
10
|
14
|
24
|
16
|
11
|
29
|
15
|
95
|
180
|
|
19
|
*Rice
U
|
4
|
1
|
7
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
8
|
16
|
25
|
12
|
19
|
19
|
91
|
139
|
|
20
|
Northern
Illinois U
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
12
|
5
|
24
|
14
|
32
|
87
|
93
|
|
21
|
Tulane
U
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
10
|
4
|
16
|
13
|
22
|
12
|
8
|
30
|
11
|
83
|
142
|
|
22
|
Georgia
Institute of Tech
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
6
|
10
|
10
|
11
|
26
|
13
|
13
|
18
|
8
|
78
|
155
|
|
23
|
*Colorado
State U
|
4
|
13
|
6
|
5
|
10
|
13
|
10
|
7
|
11
|
1
|
10
|
11
|
11
|
16
|
29
|
77
|
157
|
|
24
|
Cornell
U
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
5
|
11
|
8
|
6
|
15
|
16
|
22
|
67
|
114
|
|
25
|
Old
Dominion U
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
10
|
1
|
9
|
13
|
11
|
5
|
17
|
12
|
16
|
16
|
66
|
116
|
|
26
|
Illinois
Institute of Tech
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
8
|
6
|
11
|
6
|
6
|
17
|
23
|
13
|
65
|
94
|
|
27
|
Wayne
State U
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
1
|
3
|
14
|
10
|
3
|
15
|
3
|
7
|
26
|
12
|
63
|
107
|
|
28
|
*U
of CO at Denver
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
10
|
9
|
13
|
14
|
13
|
59
|
101
|
|
29
|
U
of Connecticut
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
5
|
2
|
3
|
18
|
7
|
13
|
5
|
13
|
15
|
12
|
58
|
97
|
|
29
|
Portland
State U
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
7
|
2
|
5
|
13
|
21
|
17
|
58
|
67
|
|
31
|
Rutgers
U
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
17
|
15
|
7
|
2
|
9
|
10
|
7
|
14
|
16
|
56
|
115
|
|
32
|
U
of Tulsa
|
0
|
8
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
6
|
7
|
9
|
15
|
16
|
11
|
3
|
54
|
93
|
|
33
|
Baruch
College
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
5
|
8
|
14
|
6
|
8
|
7
|
13
|
7
|
18
|
53
|
107
|
|
34
|
Illinois
State U
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
3
|
0
|
3
|
2
|
8
|
8
|
6
|
11
|
15
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
50
|
88
|
|
34
|
Southern
Illinois U
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
8
|
25
|
10
|
4
|
3
|
50
|
56
|
|
36
|
Wright
State U
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
7
|
6
|
7
|
4
|
1
|
13
|
20
|
10
|
48
|
72
|
|
36
|
Kansas
State U
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
2
|
7
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
1
|
5
|
9
|
9
|
16
|
9
|
5
|
48
|
91
|
|
38
|
*Ohio
State U
|
7
|
12
|
7
|
23
|
23
|
15
|
13
|
10
|
11
|
13
|
9
|
6
|
8
|
11
|
12
|
46
|
180
|
|
39
|
U
of Central Florida
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
9
|
25
|
42
|
56
|
|
40
|
Central
Michigan U
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
8
|
27
|
12
|
3
|
8
|
8
|
9
|
13
|
41
|
107
|
|
41
|
Louisiana
State U
|
0
|
6
|
4
|
0
|
2
|
10
|
8
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
13
|
3
|
6
|
10
|
8
|
40
|
121
|
|
42
|
*SUNY
at Binghamton
|
1
|
1
|
7
|
10
|
8
|
6
|
7
|
11
|
9
|
15
|
9
|
8
|
9
|
4
|
7
|
37
|
112
|
|
42
|
Ohio
U
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
13
|
11
|
6
|
37
|
48
|
|
44
|
*Carnegie
Mellon U
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
7
|
4
|
6
|
11
|
4
|
32
|
60
|
|
44
|
North
Carolina State U
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
9
|
5
|
9
|
32
|
51
|
|
46
|
U
of Nebraska at Omaha
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
7
|
8
|
31
|
45
|
|
47
|
*New
York U
|
6
|
9
|
11
|
14
|
8
|
8
|
9
|
1
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
14
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
30
|
105
|
|
48
|
Arizona
State University
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
4
|
5
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
12
|
27
|
67
|
|
49
|
U
of Arkansas
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
8
|
14
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
26
|
39
|
|
50
|
U
of MO at St. Louis
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
7
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
5
|
5
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
0
|
6
|
5
|
20
|
61
|
|
50
|
U
of California
|
1
|
5
|
3
|
0
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
5
|
20
|
46
|
|
52
|
Auburn
University
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
13
|
19
|
33
|
|
53
|
U
of Missouri
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
7
|
4
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
18
|
39
|
|
53
|
Columbia
U
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
10
|
2
|
18
|
42
|
|
55
|
*U
of South Carolina
|
2
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
6
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
15
|
39
|
|
56
|
*U
of Southern CA
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
13
|
48
|
|
57
|
U
of Kansas
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
7
|
1
|
0
|
12
|
25
|
|
58
|
Rennselaer
Polytechnic U
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
11
|
25
|
|
59
|
Marquette
U
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
7
|
2
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
6
|
5
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
10
|
42
|
|
60
|
U
of Michigan
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
9
|
25
|
|
61
|
Northwestern
U
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
2
|
7
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
34
|
|
62
|
Boston
University
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
16
|
|
63
|
SUNY
at Buffalo
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
7
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
30
|
|
64
|
U
of Oregon
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
4
|
11
|
|
65
|
Duke
U
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
8
|
Note.
*Representation at all 15 conferences, 5 Yr Sum = total frequencies for
1996-2000, institutions ranked according to 5 year sum.
Table 2 depicts the frequency of contributions for 21 nonacademic institutions in the SIOP Conference program from 1986 to 2000. This table was limited to nonacademic institutions that appeared at least once in the top 25 most represented institutions across the 15 years examined. It should be noted that government research laboratories/institutes, corporate organizations, as well as a number of consulting firms are among these institutions. Sums of frequencies are provided for the full 15 years, as well as the last 5 years. Institutions are ranked based on a sum of the frequencies for the last 5 years.
Table 2. Frequencies for Non-Academic Institutions in the
SIOP Conference Program
|
|
|
86
|
87
|
88
|
89
|
90
|
91
|
92
|
93
|
94
|
95
|
96
|
97
|
98
|
99
|
00
|
Last
5 Yr Sum
|
15
Yr Sum
|
|
1
|
Center
for Creative Leadership
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
10
|
6
|
7
|
13
|
11
|
10
|
11
|
24
|
9
|
27
|
26
|
33
|
119
|
189
|
|
2
|
HRStrategies,
Inc.**
Aon
Consulting, Inc.
|
0
0
|
0
0
|
0
0
|
0
0
|
0
0
|
2
0
|
8
0
|
9
0
|
10
0
|
13
0
|
5
0
|
4
|
3
|
55
|
44
|
111
|
153
|
|
3
|
Personnel
Decisions, International
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
2 |