Critical HRD: a concept analysis

Sally Sambrook
Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide clarication of critical human resource
development (CHRD), an emerging concept that is complex, ambiguous and lacks clarity.
Design/methodology/approach To address this problem, the technique of concept analysis is
employed to help clarify the understanding of CHRD. Concept analysis presents theoretical denitions
and dening characteristics of CHRD, drawing upon an extensive review of research literature.
Benets and limitations of the technique are also explored.
Findings The concept analysis identies antecedents, attributes and consequences of critical HRD.
These include: personal and organizational factors; challenging contemporary practices, exposing
assumptions, and emancipation; and more democratic work production, improved (working/learning)
relationships; and improved creativity and productivity.
Research implications/limitations This paper presents an initial concept analysis of the
emerging concept of critical HRD. This is not without difculty given the complexity and ambiguity
associated with the concept. It has been beyond the scope of this paper to present model and contrary
cases of CHRD. Providing clearer operational denitions can assist researchers to investigate and
evaluate critical approaches to HRD.
Practical implications Dening characteristics of CHRD can help provide clearer operational
denitions to assist practitioners enact and evaluate critical approaches to HRD.
Originality/value The paper provides the rst ever concept analysis of critical human resource
development. The use of this method itself makes a new contribution to the study of HRD. This
concept analysis provides other researchers, teachers and practitioners insight into what CHRD might
be, through the identication of its attributes, what antecedents and actions it requires, and the
possible positive consequences it might realise, thus contributing to new knowledge.
Keywords Human resource development, Critical thinking
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Human resource development is an established concept in the wider eld of human
resourcing. The concept of critical HRD (CHRD) has emerged to challenge current
notions of HRD. Yet, we are not entirely sure what CHRD (nor HRD) might mean. The
concept is evolving, ambiguous and appears to lack clarity or consistency. This creates
major problems for HRD research and practice in epistemological, methodological and
pragmatic ways (Bierema and Cseh, 2003; Elliott and Turnbull, 2002; Fenwick, 2005;
Sambrook, 2004). To help address these problems, critical HRD is explored
employing the technique of concept analysis (Walker and Avant, 1988; Rodgers, 1989).
A concept analysis is usually conducted from a review of relevant literature, focusing
on the concept itself and associated concepts, but also attempts to relate the
characteristics and attributes to empirical evidence. Concept analysis presents
theoretical denitions and dening characteristics of a concept to enhance our
understanding of the phenomenon, and perhaps help construct shared meaning. This
addresses the epistemological problem by drawing on diverse processes of knowledge
creation, rather than relying on traditional, positivist approaches. Concept analysis can
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
61
Received 12 May 2006
Revised February 2007
Accepted 12 June 2007
Personnel Review
Vol. 38 No. 1, 2009
pp. 61-73
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480910920714
also help provide clearer operational denitions, to assist practitioners and researchers
enact and evaluate the concept of critical HRD. This addresses the methodological
problem by clearly identifying critical issues for researchers enquiry and for opening
up possibilities for innovative research methods focusing on otherwise neglected areas
of practice. New knowledge generated through new research can address and inform
pragmatic problems associated with practitioners attempts to reform workplace
organizations and development practices (Fenwick, 2005, p. 228). The aim of this paper
is to consider how such a concept analysis might enlighten the practizing, teaching and
researching of CHRD. This is achieved by briey explaining the process of concept
analysis, and applying concept analysis to critical human resource development.
Research question and methodology: how can we develop a concept
analysis of critical HRD?
The use of concepts is important in theory development. Chinn and Kramer (1995)
suggest concepts can be located on a continuum from the more directly experienced
(empirical) to the more mentally constructed (abstract). The more directly experienced
are easier to measure than the more abstract. How might CHRD be conceptualized? Is
it an abstract concept, or could we attempt to capture its effects in practice? Kitson
(1993, p. 29) argues, concept analysis is essentially an imaginative process, seen as
more of an art than a science. Yet, there are various approaches to this, and some more
scientic. Walker and Avant (1988, p. 36) argue that concept analysis is useful to
clarify overused, vague terms and to produce precise operational denition. Walker
and Avants linear method may be associated with a more scientic and positivist
approach, and can be criticized for being reductionist and static. In light of the
theoretical stance associated with a critical approach, with its epistemological and
revelatory challenges, is it either possible or useful to seek precise operational
denitions? Rather than use direct empirical indicators to measure CHRD, perhaps a
more holistic and interpretive approach may be more appropriate. Rodgers (1989) has
developed a cyclical approach to concept analysis. She argues that concepts are
abstractions that may be expressed in a discursive or non-discursive way, and that
through socialization and repeated public interaction, a concept becomes associated
with a particular set of attributes that constitute the denition of a concept, (Rodgers,
1989, p. 332). This suggests a more social constructionist and discursive approach,
more tting with a pluralist and becoming ontology of CHRD. Rodgers approach is
used here.
The aim of this analysis is to attempt to clarify critical HRD to assist our
understanding of the concept and to raise awareness of what HRD professionals are
undertaking when they become involved in CHRD. Justication for this is provided by
Short et al. (2003) who urge the multiple stakeholders in HRD to engage in its analysis,
synthesis and discussion to ensure HRDs survival, a call also relevant to the emerging
concept of CHRD.
Concept analysis involves identifying attributes, antecedents, related concepts,
consequences, model cases, contrary cases and borderline cases, in differing orders,
depending on the method. Attributes are those factors without which the concept
would not exist. Antecedents include personal and organizational factors that inuence
how the concept is enacted. For CHRD, related concepts include training and
development, employee development, organizational learning, and critical
PR
38,1
62
management studies (CMS). This analysis identies key aspects of each and highlights
what constitutes CHRD and what does not. Consequences are the outcomes of
enacting the concept. Finally, model and contrary cases serve to illustrate whether
empirically or theoretically what CHRD might look like in practice. However, it is
beyond the scope of this paper to provide such cases. Interestingly, concept analysis
might also include an examination of the discursive practices associated with the
concept.
Theoretical framework: the concept of critical human resource
development
This theoretical framework draws upon research focusing on three interrelated areas.
These include the issue of dening concepts such as HRD and CHRD, the role of
discourse analysis in thinking and talking about (dening) these concepts, and the
historical background to critical approaches in organization studies, including HRD.
Given the difculty in dening HRD (see, for example Blake, 1995; Lee, 2001; McLean,
1998; amongst others), it becomes even more problematic to attempt to dene critical
HRD. Although it has existed in the American vocabulary for more than 30 years, HRD
is still an emerging concept with a history of around only 10 to 15 years in the UK. The
concept of HRD involves three individual words, alone all with varying meanings and
interpretations (Elliott, 1998). When combined into two or three, this creates further
ambiguity and multiple interpretations (e.g. human development, resource
development, human resourcing). When critical is added, this compounds the
issue. It is possible to suggest that HRD has been created (by academics) to
differentiate strategic and business-oriented learning and development activities from
old-style training and development (T&D) a contrary case. However, HRD itself is
becoming a contested concept (Walton, 2002; Ruona, 2000, 2002). With the emergence
of critical HRD, this further clouds the issue of what it is we do in the name of
HRD/CHRD and how shall we call this thing (Walton, 2003). This draws our attention
to the importance of discourse how we frame and talk about our activities. HRD has
been conceptualized HRD as a social and discursive construction, to connect ways of
thinking, talking about and practising HRD (Sambrook, 2000, 2001). By
conceptualizing HRD in this way, the focus is on developing methods of researching
and understanding how HRD can be talked about and accomplished through selecting
particular discursive resources to construct personal realities of this occupational
activity. Early discourses focused on performance (Swanson, 1995) and learning, with
tensions between the two. As the concept of HRD matures, researchers now detect
other discourses, including the public relations (PR) role of HRD in promoting
corporate social responsibility and its more humanistic and emancipatory role (Rigg,
2005; Turnbull and Elliott, 2005) in both helping individuals achieve their own
aspirations and transform socio-political structures in which they exist. The critical
discourse has entered the HRD arena, suggesting new and different ways of talking
about and accomplishing our professional practices.
The concept of critical HRD has emerged for several reasons. First, research into the
concept of HRD has been characterized by both ontological uncertainty and
methodological hegemony. We cannot agree on what HRD is, or should be (Lee, 2001;
McLean, 1998; Swanson, 1999; Walton, 2002). Thus, we must accept the partial and
situated nature (Elliott, 1998) of how we conceive and construct our knowledge of HRD.
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
63
Also, much credible research aims to treat this complex occupational practice as any
other natural phenomenon by conducting positivist research to measure, count,
explain, propose causal relations and predict future outcomes. This approach can be
useful in answering some of our questions, but not all. Instead, there are now calls for
other ways of seeing and researching HRD, drawing upon more interpretive
philosophies and innovative methods (Valentin, 2005). The concept of critical HRD
makes a contribution to developing such new approaches.
So, what is critical HRD? Billig notes, The term critical is itself an interesting one.
As language analysts, we should not shy away from examining (critically examining)
the terms that we use to describe our own work and, indeed, our own identity, (Billing,
2000, p. 291). As HRD professionals, we need to examine both the terms HRD and
critical that we use to describe our own work and identity. In terms of our identity as
HRD workers, there is debate whether this label is appropriate to capture the diverse
and dynamic features of work-related learning and development. But, would critical
HRD be any better? Billig (2000) argues that, Basically, when academics apply
critical to their own paradigm, discipline or theory, the label tends to signal two
related messages:
(1) the new paradigm/discipline/theory includes social analyses, particularly the
analysis of social inequality; and
(2) the critical paradigm/discipline/theory is opposing existing
paradigms/disciplines/theories, which among other failings, fail to address
social inequalities.
As such, the critical paradigm signals its other the mainstream, apparently
uncritical paradigm. We can apply his argument to HRD and its emerging criticality.
With the increasing interest in critical HRD, are we becoming critical to address
inequalities, for example, in access to learning and development opportunities? Do we
wish to distinguish ourselves from those others who do not, or who perhaps focus
exclusively on a performance orientation? However, adopting a critical orientation does
not necessarily mean replacing existing conceptions of HRD, rather offering another
one, among multiple paradigms or discourses co-existing in a pluralistic eld (Fenwick,
2005).
We can turn to organization and management studies to nd an established history
of thinking critically (Thompson and McHugh, 1995; Alvesson and Deetz, 1999;
Alvesson and Willmott, 1996). Burrell (2001) reviews this work and notes that critical
theory is associated with challenging rational organization practices and replacing
them with more democratic and emancipatory practices. It is also concerned with:
identifying weaknesses and limitations of orthodoxy, the need for self-reexivity, the
empowerment of a wider range of participants to effect change and explanations of
social phenomena that are multi-dimensional, recognising the tensions in and
contradictions of managing and organising. Looking closer to home, we nd evidence
of critical thinking in human resource management (Legge, 1995). However, Elliott and
Turnbull (2005, p. 1) note:
[. . .] despite the inuence of the critical turn in management studies on HRD in the UK, HRD
has nevertheless neither been subject to the same degree of critical scrutiny as management
and organization studies, nor has it gathered together a signicant mass of followers that
might constitute it as a movement in its own right.
PR
38,1
64
Yet, we can observe the critical perspective now beginning to emerge in human
resource development (McGoldrick et al., 2002; Elliott and Turnbull, 2002, 2005; Trehan
et al., 2002; Rigg et al., 2007). The 2002 AHRD conference hosted its rst critical
session. The session convenors explained the rationale behind their innovative session:
We are concerned that the methodological traditions that guide the majority of HRD
research do not allow researchers to engage in studies that challenge the
predominantly performative and learning-outcome focus of the HRD eld. . .We seek
to unpick the assumptions behind the performative orientation that dominates much
HRD research . . . We therefore perceived the need to open up HRD theory to a broader
range of methodological and theoretical perspectives (Elliott and Turnbull, 2002, p.
971). Similarly, in the UK, a discreet critical HRD stream was convened at the 2003
CMS conference (Trehan et al., 2002). Having briey outlined the context and
background, we now turn to the concept analysis.
Methodology and ndings: a concept analysis of CHRD
Although approaches differ, concept analysis involves identifying the following
elements: attributes, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents. Figure 1
summarizes these as they relate to the concept of CHRD.
Figure 1.
A concept analysis of
CHRD
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
65
Attributes and antecedents
The attributes are those factors without which the concept would not exist. The key
dening attributes of critical HRD include: challenging contemporary practices,
exposing assumptions, revealing illusions, questioning tradition and facilitating
emancipation. Being critical means recognising the messiness, complexities and
irrationality rather than the sanitized reason and rationality of organizational
practices. Burrell (2001, p. 16) identies six interrelated strands to a critical approach,
which are: political, iconoclastic, epistemological, investigative, revelatory and
emancipatory (Burrell, 2001, pp. 14-17), which provide a further classication of the
potential attributes of CHRD.
For the concept to be transferred effectively into practice, a clear understanding of
the concept is needed and a recognition of the inuencing factors or antecedents.
Antecedents include personal and organizational factors such as:
.
individual awareness of the attributes of CHRD;
.
understanding and acceptance of ones role;
.
recognition of the boundaries of ones profession;
.
political awareness;
.
excellent communication skills;
.
respect;
.
trust; and
.
organizational values of participation, democracy, learning and personal
development.
A key attribute of critical HRD is challenging the search for the truth about HRD,
given the disagreements about what it is, the reluctance to dene it (Lee, 2001) and
then accept/reject this term. Antecedents include the attempts to identify how HRD is
talked about (some might describe this as the ideology or rhetoric) and how it is
accomplished through talk but is this any more real? Is it possible, or even
desirable, to attempt to reveal a single truth about HRD? Other antecedents require the
acceptance (or tolerance) of multiple and often-contradictory constructions and
discourses of HRD, which offer partial, ambiguous and dynamic meanings and
understandings of those activities and actions currently talked of as HRD.
Related to this, another key attribute is epistemological diversity, with new and
different ways of identifying what constitutes knowledge, and new methodologies for
constructing how we know HRD. Antecedents here include a willingness to ask how
does HRD exist (ontology) beyond the performative conception, and how can we learn
about it beyond scientic experiments (methodology). Elliott and Turnbull (2002)
identify the difculties associated with developing newer perspectives as
alternatives to the dominant positivist philosophies and accompanying quantitative
methodological approaches. Also, as researchers and thinking performers, we need to
develop a critical lens through which to explore and develop interpretative approaches.
Antecedents include problematizing the concept of HRD, an acceptance of
methodological plurality and the use of qualitative methods, examining the role of
the researcher and their relationships with subjects, and exploring values, morality
and ethics in HRD and HRD research (Hatcher and Lee, 2003). CHRD challenges
PR
38,1
66
dominant approaches and seeks to contribute to a deeper, different understanding of
HRD. As well as adopting a critical reection on the work and methodologies of others,
a further antecedent involves self-reection and a consideration of the extent to which
our work is reexive. We might also challenge the extent to which critical knowledge
actually pervades into organizational practices. Trehan (2004, p. 23) notes that while
examples of critical pedagogies are accumulating, they seldom exhibit corresponding
changes in HRD practice. Other antecedents include co-operative research endeavour,
and an evaluation of the utility (and ethics) of critical HRD from stakeholders
perspectives.
Another key attribute of critical HRD is the awareness of power relations and the
need to shift power from oppressor to the oppressed to give them voice and freedom,
whether in HRD research or practice. In practice, the oppressor could be manager or
HRD practitioner, failing to listen to, invite the views of or involve the oppressed
trainee or learner in decisions relating to their learning. In teaching and research, the
oppressor could be HRD academic enforcing or restricting the options of the oppressed
research assistant or student. Focusing on the political dimension, to understand the
concept of CHRD, we need to ask questions such as who are the stakeholders involved
in HRD, who inuences HRD, in what ways and for what gains? In the academic arena,
HRD specialists might struggle for their own academic space and freedom. Sambrook
(2001, Sambrook (2004)) has argued that HRD has been talked into being to serve the
needs of academic career development, by creating valuable resources with which to
trade in the organizational political arena such as new job titles and new products such
as postgraduate programs and textbooks. In the practitioner arena, Vince (2005, p. 27)
argues that we need to ask, what function HRD has within the political systems of
organizing, how and why HRD provides mechanism for the control and manipulation
of organizational members and what role fear (or other such powerful emotion) plays in
dening how HRD is and is not done. The associated antecedents include sharing of
power, co-operation, shared planning and decision making and non-hierarchical
learning and working relationships. Other personnel factors include political
awareness, understanding and acceptance of ones role, motivation to change
practice, willingness to allow learners control, effective communication skills, trust and
respect. Organizational antecedents include: re-structuring and job re-design to enable
power sharing and autonomy, an open, blame-free culture, an appropriate reward
system that rewards learning, risk-taking, and change as well as performance, and
adequate resources eg time, money to provide space for the (critical, challenging)
activities associated with CHRD.
Another, but no less important, attribute of critical HRD is emancipation. An
antecedent of CHRD is awareness (and acceptance) of the struggle concerning whether
HRD is or should be emancipatory. There is an inherent tension between
reconciling the needs of individuals and those of employing organizations, so how
could HRD emancipate? This relates to the political dimension (Vince, 2005). Should
HRD interventions serve the purpose of freeing humans perhaps from capitalist
exploitation and employment degradation (ODonnell et al., 2006)? Or should it focus
exclusively on organizational performance? What is HRD about, and whose needs do
academics and practitioners serve? Some might ask whether HRD might be
emancipated from HRM, or even its own performance cage?
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
67
But what are we trying to break free from? The attribute of iconoclasm is concerned
with breaking down the dominant imagery and icons of HRD. Symbols such as
personal development plans or individual learning accounts might suggest a
humanistic orientation, but is their underlying purpose pure performance? Iconoclasm
involves attempting to uncover and unpick signiers and symbols used in
organizational life, including the right phrases associated with a particular HRD
discourse. Here, discourse analysis is useful in examining what discursive resources
are being used, by whom and to construct which dominant image. So, despite the
rhetoric of a humanistic orientation, HRD could be exposed for its exclusively
performative objective and disregard for personal development. Iconoclasm is used to
debunk conventional myths (Burrell, 2001, p. 15), in this case, of HRD. The associated
antecedent involves a willingness of HRD professionals (and learners, and managers)
to seek and challenge cherished beliefs.
Perhaps a less glamorous, although associated, attribute is investigation, through
attempts to uncover what others take for granted and deal with issues of human
concern that are often neglected because they are suppressed and excluded from the
agenda (Burrell, 2001, p. 15). Antecedents include asking what do we actually mean
by HRD rather than taking this for granted, perhaps by questioning those who
(powerfully) decide what HRD should mean, and then exploring what this in turn
might mean for those exposed to HRD. For example, questioning the label HRD
suggests an investigative critical dimension. The 2002 AHRD conference Town Forum
enabled such an investigation of the appropriateness of HRD label. Walton (2002)
believes that one term HRD cannot be used to mean many things to many people,
whether it be theories or organizational activities. He argues that the label we use to
designate our domain is a major factor contributing to the creation of such a barrier,
(Walton, 2002, p. 1). Yet, Ruona (2002, p. 2) argues for retaining the label whilst we
attempt to gain increased clarity of HRD. She argues that:
[. . .] a major barrier for HRD professionals is that our work and what we stand for are not yet
well understood by others. Some would argue that we do not yet well understand ourselves
either. As a profession, we have not done a very good job working to identify who we are,
what we stand for, and what we can do for those we serve.
Concept analysis makes a small contribution in trying to examine these issues.
Consequences
Having described the key attributes and antecedents of critical HRD, a further element
of concept analysis involves identifying consequences of the concept, whether in
teaching, researching and/or practising CHRD. Although little empirical work has been
conducted to evaluate the impact of CHRD in work organizations, Brookeld (2001, p.
20) suggests that a critical pragmatism offers a exible pursuit of beautiful
consequences. In the practice arena, these consequences might include: more
democratic work production, improved (working/learning) relationships; more
effective and relevant learning; enhanced transfer of learning; improved creativity
and productivity; and an acceptance of alternative approaches to knowing. These
should also apply in the academic arena, where there would be more democratic
relationships between teachers and learners, researchers and participants. As teachers
of CHRD, we should be teaching both the content of CHRD (eg critical theory,
emancipation, politics, etc) and role modelling the process. This involves examining
PR
38,1
68
our own power relations with students and identifying whether we are demonstrating
the antecedents required for a critical approach within our own professional roles. This
shift is not unproblematic neither for teachers nor students. Expectations and
understandings need to be carefully negotiated and managed. Teachers need to feel
secure in letting go of their power and being questioned and challenged in a more
vigorous and rigorous manner. Students need to feel secure that their questioning and
challenging of our practice is a developmental opportunity in a relatively safe
environment, before attempting to adopt such a critical approach within their work
organisations. However, we are reminded of Trehans (2004, p. 23) concern that while
examples of critical pedagogies are accumulating, they seldom exhibit corresponding
changes in HRD practice. Does this suggest that it is easier to teach CHRD than
practise in a performance driven organization? Furthermore, is it ethical to expose
students to critical thinking when the consequences of such an approach might be
opposed in their own work organizations? Also, we must beware attempts to establish
a new orthodoxy nor neglect our own reexivity (Brookeld, 2001, p. 19).
Methodological conclusions and limitations
This paper presents an initial concept analysis of the emerging concept of critical HRD.
This is not without difculty given the complexity and ambiguity associated with the
concept, and the use of this method itself makes a new contribution to the study of
HRD. It has been beyond the scope of this paper to present model and contrary cases of
CHRD, but that is an area for further research. This concept analysis provides other
researchers, teachers and practitioners insight into what CHRD might be, through the
identication of its attributes, what antecedents and actions it requires, and the
possible positive consequences it might realise, thus contributing to new knowledge.
However, there are possible limitations with this endeavour. First, theoretically,
given the difculties in dening HRD, no denition of CHRD is provided. This is
justied, in line with Lees (2001) work, in that attempting to nd one, single denition
or truth of CHRD dees a critical perspective. Lee (2001) argues that HRD resists being
known as a static ontology, as it is, instead, in a constant state of becoming. CHRD
may also mean different things to different people in different contexts/practice
settings. Thus, the concept analysis is left a little fuzzy around the edges, to
acknowledge the contested boundaries and continuing evolution of what we have come
to know (or label) as critical HRD.
Second, empirically, it has not yet been possible to provide model and contrary
cases of CHRD. It would be easy to construct these conceptually, or hypothetically, but
little empirical research has been conducted to explore what CHRD might look like in
reality in work organizations. Yet, Rigg (2005) cautiously notes that critical
management learning can develop critical managers. And Fenwick (2005) notes some
critically-oriented development work in organisations, suggesting that sites of critical
HRD may already exist in practice if not in name, however peripherally. These
practices might align with notions of workplace democracy. They might include what
Alvesson and Deetz (2000) refer to the three aims of CMS, seeking to: foster insight (by
creating greater awareness of the tensions within HRD through dialogue and
reection), provide critique (by analysing the messy, complex, lived experience of HRD
as a social and discursive practice) and create a transformative redenition
(transforming HRD into a more critical endeavour, whether in the classroom or
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
69
workplace). Rigg and Trehan (1999, pp. 269-270) provide examples of other ways of
seeing CHRD in practice, including questioning the performative lean of HRD where all
learning is assumed to result in increased organisational performance and prots,
examining power relations which inuence how HRD is talked about, valued and
accomplished, and creating alternative models that move beyond empowerment to
emancipation to embrace workplace democracy and a socially conscious HRD. As
these new practices emerge, we might begin to see borderline cases. Within the method
of concept analysis, it is useful to identify or construct borderline (or partial, perhaps
peripheral) cases to highlight the ongoing tensions and developments in struggling to
achieve a critical approach. Again, further research is needed in this area.
Finally, the paper has not addressed the potential negative consequences of
practising CHRD. There may be both personal and organizational barriers to such an
approach, caused by dogma, fear, misunderstanding, and perceived threat of loss of
power, particularly. These may be experienced by all HRD stakeholders teachers,
researchers, learners, managers, business partners etc. Once we have identied
organizations where CHRD is practised, we might then be able to explore empirically
the antecedents and supporting factors as well as the barriers, and nd examples of
coping strategies to help overcome these. However, we must beware and acknowledge
the complexity of organizational life to ensure critical HRD cannot be accused of
idealism, an elitist disregard for practitioners experiences and bodies of knowledge,
and the mere offering of trite or unrealistic solutions.
A concept analysis involves a review of relevant literature, focusing on the concept
itself and associated concepts, but also attempts to relate the characteristics and
attributes to empirical evidence. This analysis has attempted to clarify the concept of
critical HRD, which is arguably complex, ambiguous, evolving, and lacking
consistency. It works towards exploring what we might mean by CHRD (and how this
differs from HRD) by presenting theoretical denitions and dening characteristics of
the concept to enhance our understanding of the phenomenon, and perhaps help
construct shared meaning. It is also hoped that by helping provide clearer (but not
static) operational denitions, this concept analysis will assist practitioners and
academics enact, research and evaluate critical HRD, and develop the concept.
References
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (1999), Critical theory and postmodernism: approaches to
organizational studies, in Clegg, S. (Ed.), Organization Theory and Method, Sage, London.
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research, Sage, London.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction,
Sage, London.
Billig, M. (2000), Towards a critique of the critical, Discourse & Society, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 291-2.
Bierema, L. and Cseh, M. (2003), Evaluating AHRD using a feminist research framework,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 5-26.
Blake, R. (1995), Memories of HRD, Training and Development, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 22-8.
Brookeld, S. (2001), Repositioning ideology critique in a critical theory of adult education,
Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp. 7-22.
Burrell, G. (2001), Critical dialogues on organization, Ephemera, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-29.
PR
38,1
70
Chinn, P.L. and Kramer, M.K. (1995), Theory and Nursing: A Systematic Approach, 4th ed.,
Mosby, St Louis, MO.
Elliott, C. (1998), HRD in the United Kingdom - a review of the literature, Proceedings of the
AHRD Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Baton Rouge, LA,
pp. 536-43.
Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (2002), Critical thinking in HRD: a panel led discussion, Proceedings
of the Annual AHRD Conference,Academy of Human Resource Development, Honolulu,
Hawaii, pp. 971-3.
Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (2005), Critical thinking in human resource development: an
introduction, in Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (Eds), Critical Thinking in Human Resource
Development, Routledge Studies in Human Resource Development, Routledge, London,
pp. 1-7.
Fenwick, T. (2005), Conceptions of critical HRD: dilemmas for theory and practice, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 225-38.
Hatcher, T. and Lee, M. (2003), Ethics and HRD: a new approach to leading responsible
organizations, Proceedings of the Annual AHRD Conference, Academy of Human
Resource Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Kitson, A. (1993), Formalizing concepts related to nursing and caring, in Kitson, A. (Ed.),
Nursing: Art and Science, Chapman Hall, London, pp. 25-47.
Lee, M.M. (2001), A refusal to dene HRD, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4,
pp. 327-41.
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetoric and Reality, Macmillan, London.
McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2002), Researching HRD, in McGoldrick, J., Stewart,
J. and Watson, S. (Eds), Understanding Human Resource Development: A Research-based
Approach, Routledge, London, pp. 1-17.
McLean, G. (1998), HRD: a three-legged stool, an octopus or a centipede, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 375-7.
ODonnell, D, McGuire, D. and Cross, C. (2006), Critically challenging some assumptions in
HRD, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-16.
Rigg, C. (2005), Becoming critical: can critical management learning develop critical managers,
in Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (Eds), Critical Thinking in Human Resource Development,
Routledge Studies in Human Resource Development, Routledge, London, pp. 37-52.
Rigg, C. and Trehan, K. (1999), Not critical enough? Black women raise challenges for critical
management learning, Gender and Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 265-80.
Rigg, C., Stewart, J. and Trehan, K. (Eds.) (2007), Critical Human Resource Development: Beyond
Orthodoxy, Pearson Education, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Rodgers, B.L. (1989), Concept, analysis and the development of nursing knowledge: the
evolutionary cycle, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 14, pp. 330-5.
Ruona, W.E.A. (2000) in Kuckinke, K.P. (Ed.), Should we dene the profession of HRD? Views of
leading scholars, Proceedings of the Annual AHRD Conference, Raleigh-Durham, AHRD,
NC, Vol. 1, pp. 188-95.
Ruona, W.E.A. (2002) in Marshall Egan, T. and Lynham, S.A. (Eds), Whats in a name? Human
resource development and its core, Town Forum, Proceedings of the Annual AHRD
Conference, Hawaii, Academy of Human Resource Development, Vol. 1, pp. 9-16.
Sambrook, S. (2000), Talking of HRD, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 159-78.
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
71
Sambrook, S. (2001), HRD as emergent and negotiated evolution, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 169-93.
Sambrook, S. (2004), A critical time for HRD?, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28
Nos 8/9, pp. 611-24.
Short, D.C., Bing, J.W. and Kehrhahn, M.H. (2003), Will human resource development survive?,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 239-43.
Swanson, R.A. (1995), HRD: performance is the key, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 6, pp. 207-13.
Swanson, R.A. (1999), HRD theory, real or imagined?, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-5.
Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. (1995), Work Organizations: A Critical Introduction, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Trehan, K. (2004), Who is not sleeping with whom? Whats not being talked about in HRD?,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-38.
Trehan, K., Rigg, C. and Stewart, J. (2002), A critical turn in HRD, call for papers for the Critical
Management Studies 3 Conference, available at: www.cms3.org.
Turnbull, S. and Elliott, C. (2005), Pedagogies of HRD: the socio-political implications, Critical
Thinking in Human Resource Development, Routledge Studies in Human Resource
Development, Routledge, London, pp. 189-201.
Valentin, C. (2005), Researching human resource development: emergence of a critical approach
to HRD enquiry, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 17-29.
Vince, R. (2005), Ideas for critical practitioners, in Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (Eds), Critical
Thinking in Human Resource Development, Routledge Studies in Human Resource
Development, Routledge, London, pp. 26-36.
Walker, L.O. and Avant, K.C. (1988), Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, 2nd ed.,
Appleton and Lange, Norwalk, CT.
Walton, J. (2002), How shall a thing be called? A debate on the efcacy of the term HRD, Town
Forum, in Marshall Egan, T. and Lynham, S.A. (Eds), Proceedings of the Annual AHRD
Conference, Hawaii, Academy of Human Resource Development, Vol. 1, pp. 1-8.
Walton, J. (2003), How shall a thing be called? An argumentation on the efcacy of the term
HRD, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 310-26.
Further reading
Bates, R., Hatcher, T., Holton, E. and Chalofsky, N. (2001), Redening human resource
development: an integration of the learning, performance and spirituality or work
perspectives, Proceedings of the Annual AHRD Conference, Tulsa.
Torraco, R.J. (Ed.) (1999), Performance improvement: theory and practice, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 1, Academy of Human Resource Development,
Berrett-Kohler, San Francisco, CA.
Trehan, K. (2005), Exploring the relationship between critical HRD and psychodynamic
approaches to leadership development, Proceedings of 6th International Conference on
HRD Research and Practice Across Europe, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
PR
38,1
72
About the author
Sally Sambrook is Professor of HRD, Deputy Head of School and Director of the MBA
programmes at Bangor Business School. Sally joined Bangor University in 1999, and after
several years a Lecturer in Human Resource Management (HRM), joined the Faculty of Health,
where she developed the MSc in Health and Social Care Leadership. Sally returned to the
Business School in 2006 as Director of Postgraduate Studies for Business and Management,
leading the schools research and teaching in Human Resource Management. Prior to this, Sally
studied and worked at Nottingham Business School for eight years, and retains her links there as
a Visiting Research Fellow in HRD, supervising and assessing DBA students. An active
researcher, Sally is a member of the university forum for HRD and has recently been elected a
Board member of the American Academy of HRD. She is associate editor of Human Resource
Development International and on the editorial boards of the Journal of European Industrial
Training and the International Journal of Management Education. With her nursing background
and involvement in training other nurses, Sallys research interests include studying HRD within
the health service. She has recently become interested in a critical approach to the study of HRD,
and explores the role of power and emotions in learning and critical reection, particularly in
postgraduate management and leadership courses and in doctoral supervision. Sally has
published numerous journal articles, edited texts and book chapters on HRD and was awarded
Outstanding Paper, for her work on critical HRD, by the Emerald Literati Club in 2005. Sally
Sambrook can be contacted at: sally.sambrook@bangor.ac.uk
Critical HRD:
a concept
analysis
73
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints