Part 1
Based on the follow section of: ‘What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD domain’ by Hamlin and Stewart (2011):
- The authors think it is important to answer the question ‘what is HRD?’ because:
- It introduces greater clarity, or at least a greater awareness as to what appears to be commonly understood by the term HRD, by reviewing a selected range of definitions offered by various writers.
- Moreover, it identifies the similarities and differences existing between a synthesis of the varied “intended purposes” and “processes” of HRD, and those of other professional domains concerned with the development of people and organisations.
- In addition, it highlights what we perceive to be dilemmas and challenges for HRD scholars and practitioners, arising from where the boundaries of “HRD” appear to lie relative to the boundaries of these other closely related domains of study and practice.
- Moreover, the article identified the following difficulties in answering the question:
- Uncertainty as to whether HRD will continue to exist as a separate and unique field of study and practice, particularly bearing in mind the current comparative lack of external recognition by people from other “professional” fields.
- McGoldrick et al. (2001) observe, the process of defining HRD by academics, researchers and practitioners is proving to be frustrating due to the lack of clear boundaries and parameters, elusive due to a lack of depth of empirical evidence for some conceptual aspects, and confusing due to confusion over the philosophy, purpose, location and language of HRD.
- As an academic field, HRD remains segmented, incomplete, lacking comprehensiveness and coherence, with diverse theories and models offering competing explanations” (Garavan et al., 2007, p. 3).
- It appears to be open to differing and ambiguous interpretations.
- Lee (2001) argues there is a strong case on philosophical, grounds for not defining HRD, because the proffering of definitions tends to represent HRD as a thing of being, rather than a process of becoming. She contends this necessarily misrepresents the continuing changing reality of what HRD actually is.
- The defining of HRD is problematic - on theoretical grounds - because of the different understandings, meanings and usages of the word “development” and of “human resource”. For example, from her research Lee (1997, 2001) found the concept of “development” being used by HRD professionals in four different ways:
- (1) Development as maturation: whereby individuals, groups and organisations are perceived as capable of being completely understood and developed through a pre-determined, stage-like and inevitable progression of learning based on the findings of sufficient expert “social deterministic” analysis;
- (2) Development as shaping: wherein people are seen as tools that can be shaped to fit the organisation.
- (3) Development as a voyage: wherein people perceive development as a lifelong personal journey upon uncharted internal paths in which the individual constructs their own version of reality (within and beyond their organisational context), and each person is the sole owner and clear driving force behind the identification and implementation of the development process.
- (4) Development as emergent: whereby the development of group-as-organisation is seen as no different from that of any social system in which development tends to emerge in a messy and discontinuous way, with no single sub-system or actor consistently triggering and driving the process.
- Lee suggests that when individuals talk about their own development, they normally think of it as a voyage of learning and discovery, whereas when senior managers talk of organisational development, they normally think of it as a shaping process. In contrast, social theorists and many HRD academic researchers normally adopt a maturational or emergent perspective, depending on their preferred methodological paradigm. In light of these very different interpretations of the meaning of “development” and “human resource”, Lee suggests neither of these two terms can be talked about as “unitary” concepts.
- Lee’s practical reason for refusing to define HRD is based on the perceived degree of variation in practice across the globe, which in her view makes the notion of producing a generally acceptable (generic/universalistic) definition of HRD an unrealistic idea and an unrealisable goal.
- Bing et al. (2003, p. 348) observe from a US perspective, HRD faces a major challenge because “as yet few outside of HRD may consider HRD to be a profession”. Typically, professional status is defined by several key criteria such as:
- significant barriers to entry;
- a shared common body of knowledge rather than proprietary systems; formal qualifications at university level;
- regulatory bodies with the power to admit, discipline and meaningfully sanction members;
- an enforceable code of ethics; and
- some form of state-sanctioned licensing or regulation for certain professions, or parts of professions (see Bullock and Trombley, 1999; Perks, 1993; Roberts and Dietrich, 1999).
- Lee (2001) observes, in general the HRD-related definitions and occupational standards produced by such bodies have been based predominately on what is seen as “best practice” rather than having been theoretically derived (from “best evidence”).
- In the UK, the respective “definitions” and “occupational standards” produced by the CIPD and ITOL are UK ethnocentric, and do not fully embrace or encapsulate the complete field of knowledge and professional activity that is HRD in the UK, or as taught on a wide range of HRD-related postgraduate degree programmes at various universities. Nor do they embrace much of what is understood to be HRD in other countries. Those engaged in practice can have no valid claim to full professional status or regard themselves as part of a genuine profession.
- Ruona and Lynham (2004) provide a useful “philosophical framework” into which HRD knowledge generation, conceptualising, and theory building, can be placed for a better understanding of the various “contradictions” and “confusions” about the identity of HRD, and their “connectedness”. Additionally, Swanson (2007a) provides an equally useful “holistic theory framework” to help scholars and practitioners create and critique emergent theory in the field of HRD
