Theorising in HRD: building bridges to practice

Citation

Stewart, J. and Gold, J. (2011), "Theorising in HRD: building bridges to practice", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeit.2011.00335caa.001

Theorising in HRD: building bridges to practice

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of European Industrial Training, Volume 35, Issue 3

About the Guest Editors

Jim StewartRunning Stream Professor in Human Resource Development. Jim designed and developed the Doctorate in Business Administration at Leeds Business School. He is an internationally renowned researcher and writer who has authored and co-edited 13 books and conducted research projects on HRD and talent management funded by the UK government, the European Union, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Chartered Institute of Personal Development and many employers in the private and public sectors. Jim is Chair of the University Forum for HRD, an international network of universities, and holds three appointed national roles with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Jim Stewart is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: j.d.stewart@leedsmet.ac.uk

Jeff GoldProfessor of Organisational Learning at Leeds Business School. He works closely with a number of large employers on leadership development, talent management and coaching interventions. He is the co-author with Alan Mumford and Richard Thorpe of Management Development: Strategies for Action and co-editor with Alan Mumford and Richard Thorpe of Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development. The fifth edition of his co-edited book with John Bratton on Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice will be published in 2011. Jeff was a founding member and is currently a Fellow of the Northern Leadership Academy.

Any examination and analysis of recent and current research and writing on HRD will be clear on one point; the concept has no settled meaning or definition. There are differing views on the value of this situation varying from those who celebrate both the diversity and ambiguity of competing conceptions to those who argue a need for clarity and boundaries if the profession and professional practice is to be firmly established and make progress in influencing organisation practice. A necessary starting point in engaging in debates about the meaning of HRD is to explore processes of theorising the concept. It is perhaps worthy of note and probably telling that debates on theory, meaning and definitions are primarily conducted by academics and almost exclusively in the pages of academic journals. This special edition of JEIT aims to engage practitioners as well as academics in exploring the bases of theorising HRD in order to make progress on connecting theory and practice as a contribution to advancing both. As a necessary starting point in that task this introduction will put the edition itself and the contributions it contains in the context of current lines of argument, debate and dispute. Our starting point is to consider the current areas of interest in theorising HRD and the areas of practice that both inform and provide the foci for that theorising.

In their edited collection of research monographs, McGoldrick et al. (2002) made the claim that HRD had matured since it was established while also becoming a rich and diverse subject. There is in our view a connection between those two descriptions. When HRD emerged as a term to encompass a separate and distinct field of enquiry and practice it adopted a very narrow focus on performance of and in work organisations. It is arguable that such a narrow view represented immaturity in that it enabled difficult and complex questions and problems to be avoided, if not ignored. Since those early days a much wider range of topics have become of interest to both academic researchers and practitioners. These topics include a major shift away from an exclusive concern with performance to an increasing interest in learning processes, both individual and collective. This shift also illustrates a growing questioning of the purpose of HRD practice. Traditional formulations focused on performance see HRD as serving straightforward economic and related financial purposes, e.g. to contribute to improved efficiency as demonstrated by increasing returns on investment. The focus on learning suggests benefits to individuals and groups in society as being of equal value and the support for and promotion of social and cultural outcomes as important as economic returns; for example contributing to human emancipation. This latter view is also associated with arguments that HRD has accountability to wider constituencies than organisation decision makers. A part of this development has been increasing writing on power and politics and associated ethics of HRD.

HRD has also in recent years widened its focus from interest in improving individual performance to examining the organisation of work and the role of that in facilitating learning and development. Examples of this include research and writing on work-based learning and how work itself can be a facilitator and inhibitor of learning. Partly related to this is a concern with teams as both organising units and sites of learning, and with concepts such as communities of practice. While not directly connected, these interests have also found application in a move away from a preoccupation with “corporations”; that is medium to large organisations in the private sector; to more interest in small enterprises and other sectors including charities, social enterprises and public organisations. Some of the latter work, although not exclusively, has also brought attention to newer concepts such as emotional labour and the role HRD plays in supporting both the exploitation and amelioration of such labour. Related to this is interest in the role of HRD in constructing and maintaining individual identity and how learning social roles associated with professions, occupations and jobs plays a part in that construction. Growing interest in careers and how they emerge, are managed and developed has some connection here. This latter area of interest is also connected with the rise of HRD research and writing on what is referred to as talent management and development, as is a continuing interest in leadership and leadership development.

So far we have outlined concepts and topics of HRD research that inform and provide a focus for HRD theorising. However, these are only half the story; what McGoldrick et al. (2002) refer to as content. As those authors highlight, the process of research is also influential on theorising HRD. The subject was established and originally grew in an exclusively positivist paradigm which had implications for both researching and theorising HRD. That remained the case for much of the early and recent years and it is still true today. What has changed is less unquestioning application of the paradigm. This is related to the recent and current rise in adoption of alternative paradigms; what some refer to as post positivist and others name interpretivist methodologies. This more eclectic mix of approaches to researching HRD may perhaps be an additional indicator of a maturing subject, not least through the growing willingness and ability to question the legitimacy and hegemony of a single paradigm. What is of more potential interest, significance and value is the willingness of HRD researchers to adopt mixed methodologies in their work. The commensurability or otherwise of paradigms is a well established debate in business and management research and so HRD as an academic field of enquiry could lead on settling that debate. Whatever the case in relation to that question, it is clear to us that research paradigms and associated methodologies are influential in developing theory. At a minimum they provide limits to possibilities and potential for both theory and processes of theorising.

To summarise so far, understanding the meaning of HRD has changed since the term was first coined and became established in academic usage. These changes are linked to increasing diversity of interest in foci and methodologies of researching the subject. The changes have also had implications for theorising HRD in terms of both the processes of theorising and the outcomes in the form of theories of HRD. There has been little resolution of debates produced by these changes and so there is still scope for contributions to theorising HRD. That is one starting point for this special edition.

Our second starting point takes its lead from recent concerns in the management literature and more broadly in social sciences of the apparent need to theorise by aping the natural sciences, nicely summarised by Bennis and O’Toole (2005) as “physics envy” (p. 98). There have been critiques of the overly scientistic approach to theorising, and the promotion of the results in business schools which, according to Ghoshal (2005), lead to the propagation of “ideologically inspired amoral theories” (p.76) where bad theories drive out good practices.

Part of our own reasoning for the need to enter this debate in HRD is that we are aware how important aspects of the agency of practitioners are lost in scientistic theorising alone. Here we want to restore the balance somewhat towards what Toulmin (2001) saw as a dimension of reasonableness, which extends from a process that produces theories and models, fit for publication in high ranking journals to more localised versions of theories, carried in the sense of stories, arguments, rhetoric, humour and other forms of local knowledge, all of which would be recognised by HRD managers as essential to their practice.

This special issue has emerged from recent symposia to consider theorising at the annual conference of European HRD and at a workshop held by the HRD and Leadership Research Unit at Leeds Metropolitan University. Our theme, reflected in the papers in this edition, has been to reconsider how we can find approaches to theorising that build better connections and relationships with those who practise HRD in all its diverse forms. It remains to be seen whether this can be achieved and whether the field of HRD can advance on the basis of both relevance and rigour. We hope we have made a start.

Jim Stewart, Jeff GoldGuest Editors