Human Resource Development (HRD) is fundamentally a practice and process of becoming (Lee, 2016), that is, an activity that is all ‘about’ identity. While the importance of identity is typically acknowledged in contemporary HRD scholarship, the field has yet to systematically engage with identity theorising. Moreover, the results from identity research in related disciplines have thus far had limited influence on HRD policy or practice. This book responds to these omissions through addressing two related aims.
Firstly, this book aims to enhance the underlying theorisation of HRD and thereby to expand and redefine the academic space for HRD. By introducing theorisations of identity that have thus far been developed largely outside of HRD it is hoped to enable new, deeper and more nuanced understandings of the underpinnings of HRD and of key HRD themes. The most important of all HRD themes is learning, with Wang, Werner, Sun, Gilley and Gilley (2017, p. 7) finding that learning was “one of the most frequently used key words in all [definitions] of HRD”. Quite simply, HRD is predicated on learning (Callahan & De Dávila, 2004). With the gradual shift in emphasis in HRD away from delivering training off the job towards enabling learning on the job, in and through work itself (Cureton & Stewart, 2016) so the quest to understand learning more fully has become both important and urgent. The chapters in this volume show that identity provides a particularly strong understanding of learning of relevance to HRD. Furthermore, identity offers a resource for disturbing hegemonic orthodoxies and therefore contributes to the critical turn in HRD (Gedro, Collins & Rocco, 2014), enabling the emergence of new and powerful forms of professional practice.
Secondly, the book aims to respond to observations such as that of Ruona (2016, p. 552) that “HRD has long been characterised as a field in search of itself” and to Callahan and DeDávila’s (2004, p. 79) still not fully answered call for “reflection on who we are” as professional HRD scholars or practitioners. It will be seen that as a relatively new profession the sense of ‘who we are’ has been marred by insecurity with challenges both to the legitimacy of HRD as a professional practice and to the credibility of HRD as an academic discipline. Professions are characterised by possession of an exclusive, typically theoretical, knowledge base and through the ways of knowing associated with the knowledge base, professionals can construct a distinctive and secure sense-of-self. Advances in theoretical knowledge are, therefore, important in building and maintaining professional identity (Valentin, 2006). As will be seen, the theoretical bases of HRD have historically been weak, and this might account for a sense of vulnerability that has been discernible among HRD professionals. Therefore, advances in knowledge and theorisation, as developed in this volume, have the potential to strengthen the identity of HRD. A deeper theoretical understanding of HRD phenomena builds professional autonomy, offering a “refuge” from the pervasive forces of managerialism and “supplication” to the “ubiquitous power of the corporation” (Hatcher, 2006, pp. 72–73). Moreover, identity theorising provides those involved in HRD with understandings to engage in a reflexive examination of their own professional identities and to question who they are aiming to become and to be, why they wish to become that sort of professional, and how they might become more than they imagined.
This introductory chapter provides a conceptual overview of how HRD is enhanced when viewed through identity lenses. Thereby a context is provided for the chapters that follow which collectively demonstrate the range and depth of the contribution of identity to our endeavours as HRD scholars and practitioners. To provide such context, this chapter addresses the following questions: what is the nature of contemporary HRD?; what are the theoretical foundations of HRD?; in what ways can identity theorising contribute to HRD research and practice? The chapter then draws to a close with an explanation of how the volume’s chapters have been organised so as to develop the reader’s appreciation of the foundational significance of identity to HRD.
The Nature of HRD
To best understand the potential of identity theorising to HRD and thereby the context of the chapters that follow requires an initial examination of the nature of contemporary HRD. The nature of HRD has been debated since its inception and has been the subject of journal special editions and numerous review articles. However, despite the maturity of HRD, which is reflected in the term featuring in the titles of well established specialist journals, of hundreds of textbooks (Cureton & Stewart, 2016) and of specialist degree programmes, the question of the nature of HRD remains unresolved. It has been noted that HRD is ambiguous and ill-determined (Garavan, O’Donnell, McGuire & Watson, 2007; Gold, Rodgers & Smith, 2003), being in a state of “definitional disorder” (Ruona, 2016, p. 552) and lacking a clear and unique identity (McLean, 2007). Hamlin and Stewart (2011) thus noted that HRD was beset by “contradictions, confusions and controversies” (p. 199) with “well over twenty definitions of HRD” being offered (p. 202).
Lee (2001) argued for a ‘refusal’ to define HRD to avoid constraining the field. More recently Lee (2016, p. 27) has reiterated her position, noting that HRD is constantly evolving, dynamic and developing such that it is an “emergent co-creation… [with] its being constituted by its becoming”. A becoming view accepts inclusivity, multiple perspectives and porous, expanding boundaries enabling HRD to avoid stagnation and to flourish. While clearly defining HRD could, as Lee suggests, constrain it, providing some delineation avoids a “state of rudderless, random activity” (Swanson, 2001, p. 307) and much research has been done to determine boundaries and ascertain a universal definition of HRD (Wang & Sun, 2009).
In calling for papers for a special issue of the International Journal of Training and Development, McGoldrick, Stewart and Watson (2002, p. 396) succinctly determined boundaries, noting that HRD was concerned with “supporting and facilitating the learning of individuals, groups and organisations”. Through the thematic analysis of 24 such HRD definitions in the literature, Hamlin and Stewart (2011, p. 204) found “distinct categories” that reflected “four core purposes” of HRD. This analysis led Hamlin and Stewart to an overarching definition of HRD as “planned activities” (p. 210) to: improve individual or group learning and, in turn, job or work effectiveness, productivity and performance; improve organisational effectiveness; develop knowledge; enhance human potential. Definitions of HRD are typically synthesised from the categorisation of observable practices, activities or interventions explicitly labelled as HRD. However, Wang et al. (2017) highlighted several limitations of this ‘component based’ definitional approach, adopting instead a systematic lexicological, ‘theorising’ approach. Wang et al. recognised the need to define HRD flexibly to encompass diverse levels of HRD activity, different units of analysis, emergent and unforeseeable practices and, crucially, the contrasting cultural systems within which HRD is located. Eschewing constructs or variables, working instead from more substantial “hard core… properties or attributes” and adopting an open systems approach, HRD is defined as “a mechanism in shaping individual and group values and beliefs and skilling through learning related activities to support the desired performance of the host system” (Wang et al., 2017, p. 21).
That the themes of productivity, performance, skilling and organisational effectiveness feature strongly in definitions of HRD can be understood in terms of HRD having evolved as an organisational function before emerging as an academic field (Callahan & De Dávila, 2004). However, while certain well established academic definitions of HRD emphasise how HRD has broad value, with the potential to “benefit the whole of humanity” (McLean & McLean, 2001, p. 322), academic HRD scholars generally sustain a “disturbing interest” in the neo-liberal narratives of resource maximisation, productivity and performance (Ghosh, Kim, Kim & Callahan, 2014, p. 312). Ghosh et al. (2014, p. 312) observed a “surge” of articles in this performative vein. Mainstream HRD research has thus been criticised for being narrowly instrumental and aimed at providing practitioners with normative prescriptions for development designed solely to enhance productivity (O’Donnell, McGuire & Cross, 2006). A metaphor of ‘controlling’ dominates that of ‘construction’. Thus the emphasis is more on enabling individuals and teams to fit “host system” requirements than on unleashing innovative capacity (Wang et al., 2017, p. 20). This dominance is reinforced within academia as HRD is increasingly located in schools of business and management rather than schools of education.
HRD is often, though, characterised by contradiction. Russ-Eft (2000) noted a conflict at the heart of HRD between developing the human resources of an organisation and developing the resources of the human, and Callahan and De Dávila (2004, p. 77) reported on a “decade of divisive dichotomisation”. More recently, Callahan, Stewart, Rigg, Sambrook and Trehan (2015, p. 3) asserted that HRD remained conflicted in “serving two masters”, the organisation and the employees, and McInnes, Corlett, Coup-land, Hallier and Summers (this volume) show how this tension continues. In essence, whereas on the one hand the ultimate purpose of HRD is seen as a process of “shaping”, on the other hand it is seen as a “voyage” (Lee, 2001, p. 331). The research field and professional function have been dogged by this tension between the values and ultimate purposes of development with managerialist and performative organisational values tending to inhibit the emergence of educative, enabling and emancipatory professional values (Fenwick, 2014). The traditional weakness of the latter set of values seem to have resulted in an unwitting, or even willing, collusion with organisational and managerial values, and the scope of HRD has thereby been limited. However, the recent literature of HRD indicates that the calls of Callahan and De Dávila (2004, p. 78) more than a decade ago to “reduce dichotomy” and to “increase dialogue” are in part being heeded.
Such dialogue has contributed to the increasing diversity of topics of interest to HRD, and there is clearly value in Wang et al.’s (2017) encompassing definition of the field that was detailed earlier. There are benefits, though, in a volume of this nature, to delineate HRD to some degree by discerning typical, emerging and likely themes of interest. Such scoping avoids the danger that when importing identity theorising, a non-indigenous form of theorising, HRD becomes ‘all and nothing’ and loses its distinctiveness and integrity. Analysing HRD themes in articles published over the deca...
