Understanding Human Resource Development

A Research-based Approach

Jim McGoldrick, Jim Stewart, Sandra Watson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9780415226103
• eBook ISBN: 9781134589432
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This edited volume contains original chapters by some of the leading researchers and writers in HRD. It provides a definitive work on the design and conduct of research in HRD and identifies and examines the possibilities and limitations of particular methods and techniques. Emerging debates on the purpose, nature and practice and theoretical base of HRD are examined. Each chapter is structured with:

* Statement of aims
* Description of theoretical and empirical context^
* Identification and examination of methodological issues
* Description and evaluation of research design
* Critical analysis and evaluation
* Key learning points

1

Researching HRD

Philosophy, Process and Practice

Jim McGoldrick, Jim Stewart and Sandra Watson

Aims and Contribution

This chapter has three aims. The first is to provide the foundation for locating the research presented throughout the text within the theoretical context of HRD. The second is to examine underpinning research perspectives and paradigms represented in the book. Third, to provide an overview of the key issues raised in the contributed chapters to enable readers to apply these theoretical arguments in their reading of the individual chapters. In order to achieve these aims we provide an overview of many of the conceptual and theoretical concerns surrounding the meaning and understanding of HRD. These issues and concerns are affiliated to both the ontological and epistemological perspectives of HRD, which in turn influence our vision of researching and understanding HRD. The commentary is derived from a meta-analysis of recent European and American literature. This is supplemented with selected examples of the theoretical, empirical and methodological contexts of the research projects reported in the contributed chapters of this volume. Finally, a critical analysis of paradigms, theories and concepts associated with understanding the meaning of HRD is provided.

Achieving these aims will contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding the theoretical foundations of HRD (Walton 1999; Lynham 2000) and the purpose and value of HRD professional practice (Holton 2000). The chapter presents an analysis of the key tenets of the various positions in these debates. In doing so, the authors provide a rare comparison of American and European conceptions of HRD. This informs the overview, also provided through this chapter, of the diverse range of research philosophies, processes and practices currently being applied in the UK. The chapter also draws on the work of Keenoy (1999), a sharp critic of the literature of human resource management and tries to take his insights and critique into a better conceptual understanding of HRD.

Theoretical Context

Recent attempts to define the concept of human resource development (HRD) by academics, researchers and practitioners are proving frustrating, elusive and confusing. This suggests that HRD has not established a distinctive conceptual or theoretical identity (Garavan, Gunnigle and Morley 2000; Hatcher 2000). The process of defining HRD is frustrated by the apparent lack of boundaries and parameters, elusiveness is created through the lack of depth of empirical evidence of some conceptual aspects of HRD e.g. strategic HRD, learning organization and knowledge management (Keenoy, op. cit.). Confusion also arises over the ‘philosophy’, ‘purpose’, ‘location’ and ‘language’ of HRD. This is further complicated by the epistemological and ontological perspectives of individual stakeholders and commentators in the HRD arena (Swanson et al. 2000). All research, to varying degrees, is tied to a particular theoretical framework and to a general body of knowledge. These, in turn, are themselves the product of a complex interplay of philosophical arguments thus, the ‘complication’ noted by Swanson (op. cit.) is perfectly natural but renders the task of analysing the ‘meaning’ of HRD more difficult. Inevitably this draws us into the realm of philosophy.

In reviewing the literature surrounding the meaning and understanding of HRD, a number of dimensions can be seen to be influencing an almost chameleon-like characteristic to emerge. The following discussion is organized around what are seen to be the most significant of these dimensions.

Philosophical and Conceptual Dimensions

As Swanson et al. (op. cit.: 1126) argue, ‘philosophy is a systematic examination of the assumptions that underlie action’. Therefore, in order to understand action, in this case HRD activities, it is necessary to engage with philosophies of HRD to make explicit the rationales underpinning competing perspectives. They put forward three interactive elements of the philosophical framework of HRD. These are as follows: first, ontology (how we see our world); second, epistemology (how we think about our world); and, third, axiology (the values that determine how we should and actually act in research and practice). The dynamic relationship of these three elements will influence an individual’s understanding and expression of HRD. Therefore it is useful and appropriate to address philosophical issues in attempting to understand HRD as this supports the view expressed by Swanson et al. (op. cit.: 1126): ‘interpretation of texts and the criticism of common wisdoms that are often taken for granted’.

The philosopher Thomas Kuhn first introduced the idea of scientific paradigms in his path-breaking book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. This book has proven to be seminal in the development of theory and research in the social sciences and is likely to have an equally profound and enduring influence on the conceptual and theoretical development in HRD. The concept of paradigms, introduced by Kuhn (1962), is often used to describe philosophical frameworks informing and guiding scientific research. McAndrew (2000) usefully applies this notion in analysing significant influences on HRD theory and practice. She particularly highlights the Newtonian and quantum paradigms, as well as a number from biology and chemistry to illustrate these influences. For example Newtonian physics is shown to be related to mechanistic conceptions of humans and organizations, while more recent ideas such as autopoiesis are argued to both question established paradigms and to support the development of alternatives. Earlier work in social theory adopted similar approaches to explain varying accounts of and prescriptions for organizing and managing.

One of the best known of these is the paradigmatic framework developed by Burrell and Morgan (1979). They forward four broad paradigms, which affect the development of social theory. These are the functionalist paradigm, which assumes an objective, social reality, and which can be empirically analysed and understood through application of scientific methods. Social systems are seen as inherently concerned with stability and continuity to serve regulatory purposes. The interpretive paradigm assumes that individuals and their interactions create social reality, subjectively. Multiple social realities are created, maintained and changed and there is no single, objective entity to be analysed and understood. However, in common with the functional perspective, the interpretive paradigm assumes an underlying pattern and order in the social world, i.e. regulatory focus, rather than a change orientation. Much of Burrell and Morgan’s (op. cit.) insight still informs contemporary debates in organizational analysis.

Variants of these arguments are evident in the emergence of new perspectives on HRD framed as post-positivist (Trochim 1999) and critical realist (Sayer 2000) positions. The former of these develops elements of the Burrell and Morgan functionalist and interpretive paradigms whilst the critical realist perspective takes forward a concern with meaning and interpretation that echoes the radical humanist and radical structuralist paradigms. However, these have not crystallized into a simple bipolarization. Rather the whole area is characterized by what Martin (2000: 13) refers to as paradigm incommensurability, which in turn reflects an impact on methodological development to which we will return later.

The radical humanist paradigm assumes that reality is socially and subjectively created and therefore not capable of objective analysis seeing social institutions as negative in the sense of constraining and controlling human thought, action and potential. These negative aspects tend to alienate rather than focus on positive outcomes. The concern is with radical change rather than regulation. The radical structuralist paradigm assumes that social systems have independent, concrete and objective existence and are capable of scientific analysis. This perspective also encompasses social systems as oppressive and alienating and assumes an inherent drive for radical change in society. A more detailed analysis of the complex strands of these arguments is contained in the contribution to this volume by Hamblett, Holden and Thursfield (Chapter 4).

To date, there appears to be little sustained and detailed attention given to philosophical influences on HRD, but as Kuchinke (2000: 32) argues ‘paradigm debates can deepen theory and provide the foundation for new research’. This view is supported by Swanson et al. (op. cit.), amongst others who identify implications of philosophy for research, theory building, practice and the evolution of HRD. The role of the varying paradigms discussed here, representing as they do different philosophical frameworks, in shaping HRD theory and practice is well illustrated by the work of Lynham (2000). It is evident that a significant outcome of adopting different paradigms will be varying emphasis on the possible alternative purposes of HRD.

The chapters in this volume display a broad range of epistemological perspectives embracing the whole range of paradigms discussed earlier in relation to Burrell and Morgan (1979). Some contributions to the text can be readily seen to derive from, or have been influenced by distinct and different knowledge paradigms. For example, Short and Kuchinke’s contribution (Chapter 10) focuses on a quantitative analysis and can be seen to approximate to the positivist or post-positivist paradigm. Similarly, Winterton and Winterton (Chapter 7) and Hamlin (Chapter 5), with their strong emphasis on evidential clarity, may also be seen to resonate with post-positivism. The large majority of contributed chapters cluster around various aspects of an interpretive paradigm with a very strong emphasis on process as much as content in their research. These include up-front adherents to qualitative research and particularly ‘action research’, for example, Rigg, Trehan and Ram (Chapter 17). The interpretive approach with a clear emphasis on subjectivity includes Wilson and Davies (Chapter 14), Beattie (Chapter 15), Gold et al. (Chapter 8) and Sambrook (Chapters 11 and 18). McGoldrick, Martin and Pate (Chapter 3) more consciously associate their approach closer to a critical realist epistemology whilst the radical humanist paradigm is echoed to varying degrees by Lee (Chapter 2) and Edwards (Chapter 13). The closest to a radical structuralist epistemology is displayed by Hamblett, Holden and Thursfield (Chapter 4).

This variety of perspectives demonstrates vividly that there is no dominant paradigm of HRD research. It also illustrates what may be meant by ‘paradigm incommensurablity’ in organizational research. However, such a position is healthy. There is no single lens for viewing HRD research and there are many voices expressing individual opinions. It may be that, as HRD academics become more sophisticated in theorizing, then greater clarity and paradigm commensurablity will occur. It may also be the case that the increasingly influential discourse of postmodernism, which is strongly established in the field of organization studies (Alvesson and Deetz 1999; Burrell 1999) and is now evident in the literature of strategic change, will come to have an impact on HRD researchers (Ford and Ford 1995). A further, but more mundane, point is that the paradigmatic pluralism evident within this text also results in a very broad ranging discussion of research methods being conducted throughout all of the chapters below.

Purpose of HRD

Lying behind the main philosophical debates concerning the nature of HRD, there is a concurrent set of debates concerning the purpose of HRD. According to Holton (2000) the debates on purpose centre on the ‘learning’ versus ‘performance’ perspectives. Should HRD practice focus on the well being of the individual or should interests of the shareholders predominate? This section presents a rudimentary map of what the various claims of the purpose of HRD might be. Hatcher (2000) proposes that HRD research should focus on the economic benefits, systems theory, social benefits and ethics of HRD and thus indirectly attempts a reconciliation of these two perspectives. Kuchinke (op. cit.) presents a classification of schools of thought according to the central focus of the developmental activity: person-centred, production-centred and principled problem solving, each deriving from different philosophical traditions. Gourlay (2000: 99) in attempting to clarify the nature of HRD states that ‘it focuses on theory and practice relating to training, development and learning within organisations, both for individuals and in the context of business strategy and organisational competence formation’.

Whilst the authors contributing to this volume were not specifically concerned to explore ‘the purpose of HRD’ as such, there are nonetheless echoes of the more conceptual debates evident in some of the chapters. Kuchinke’s (op. cit.) classification of person-centred, production-centred and principled problem-solving perspectives can be seen in the contribution of Lee with respect to the ‘person-centred’ category. Whereas the contributions of Hill (Chapter 6) and West (Chapter 9) can be seen to have elements of the ‘production-centred’ category, the contributions of Sambrook (Chapter 18) and Gold, Watson and Rix (Chapter 8) resonate with the ‘principled problem solving’ category.

Garavan, Gunnigle and Morley (2000) articulate three perspectives of HRD as being concerned with capabilities, psychological contracts and learning organization/organizational learning. Each of these is associated with different root disciplines. They also imply different purposes in their prescriptions for HRD practice. The issues identified by Garavan et al. are addressed to varying degrees by many of the chapters in this volume. The contribution by McGoldrick, Martin and Pate (Chapter 3) whose research focus is on lifelong learning and the psychological contract is perhaps the closest match.

There is also variability in relation to the purpose of HRD arising from the root disciplines seen to be underpinning HRD. These include ‘adult education, instructional design and performance technology, psychology, business and economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, organization theory and communications, philosophy, axiology (the study of values), and human relations theories’ (Willis 1997; cited by Walton 1999). There is also a running subterranean debate within the field of HRD on the ‘discipline’ status of some of these root disciplines. As well as variability of purpose, conceptual propositions derived from and built on these root disciplines also influence individual perspectives of HRD. For example, in the typology devised by Garavan, Gunnigle and Morley (2000) the capabilities perspective is primarily associated with human capital theory and the application of economics in the resource based view of the firm. In a similar vein, Weinberger (1998) identifies systems theory as being distinct from learning theory in relation to their influence on HRD, leading to different formulations on the nature and purpose of HRD practice.

What is apparent from the above commentary is that there is no consensus over the conceptual-theoretical identity of HRD and related purpose. The purpose is contingent upon both philosophical and theoretical perspectives. Arguments on the theoretical foundations of HRD also constitute the core of debates on its scope and boundaries.

Boundaries and Parameters of HRD

As has been amply demonstrated earlier in this discussion, the multi-disciplinar...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Researching HRD: philosophy, process and practice
• 2. Defining the research question: on seizing the moment as the research question emerges
• 3. Problems of method in HRD research: company-based lifelong learning and ‘longitudinality’
• 4. The tools of freedom and the sources of indignity
• 5. Towards evidence-based HRD practice
• 6. Researching HRD in small organizations
• 7. Evaluating the impact of management development on performance
• 8. Learning for change by telling stories
• 9. Learning to change, changing to learn: case studies in the automotive sector
• 10. Analysing quantitative research
• 11. Writing the research story
• 12. Ethical issues in HRD research
• 13. Implementing networked learning with HRD professionals internationally
• 14. Implications for reflective HRD practitioners of the influence of life experience on managers’ career decisions
• 15. Going native!: ethnographic research in HRD
• 16. Convergence and divergence in HRD: research and practice across Europe
• 17. Using action research to explore the development needs of second generation Asian small businesses
• 18. A new approach to the literature review
• 19. Postscript: the future for HRD research
• Index