The one best way? ‘Scientific’ research on HRM and the threat to critical scholarship

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12082
• Date: 01 November 2015
• Author: Bill Harley
• Published date: 01 November 2015

PROVOCATION SERIES PAPER

The one best way? ‘Scientific’ research on HRM

and the threat to critical scholarship

Bill Harley, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Melbourne

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 25, no 4, 2015, pages 399–407

HRM scholarship is increasingly dominated by ‘scientific’ research characterised by a positivist

methodology, complex statistical techniques, correlational theorising and incremental advances in

knowledge. While this approach has long been prominent in HRM research, what is new is the almost

total dominance of this kind of research, which has largely crowded out alternative approaches,

particularly those that are overtly critical in orientation. A variety of institutional factors has contributed

to this shift in HRM scholarship, and these place significant obstacles in front of those who seek to

reclaim space for critical voices. There is, however, room for greater methodological pluralism, and

researchers, academic institutions and journals have roles to play in promoting viable alternatives.

Contact: Professor Bill Harley, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of

Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Email: bharley@unimelb.edu.au

Keywords: HRM scholarship; critical scholarship; pluralism

INTRODUCTION

Recently, a number of authors have commented on the extent to which the field of

management studies has narrowed, with creative scholarship increasingly being

supplanted by ‘formulaic’ research (Alvesson and Gabriel, 2013) and an increasing

narrowing of academic publishing activity to ‘the one best way’ (Mingers and Willmott, 2013).

A similar trend can be observed in the field of HRM, with a growing dominance of positivist

research informed by psychological theory and employing complex statistical analysis (see

Harley and Hardy, 2004; Kaufman, 2012; Godard, 2014).

This article sounds a warning for HRM scholars about the increasing narrowing of the field

and the threat that this poses to critical scholarship. It begins with a brief account of the

trajectory followed by HR research since the 1980s, before moving to map and critique the key

features of the dominant approach. The article then makes an argument for pluralism in HR

research, and considers the roles of authors, editors and institutions in fostering it.

THE QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL AND THE RISE OF ‘SCIENTIFIC’ RESEARCH

In the period following the emergence of contemporary models of HRM in the 1980s,

researchers embarked on ‘the search for the Holy Grail of establishing a causal relationship

between HRM and performance’ (Legge, 2001: 23). This search was at the heart of attempts by

academics and practitioners to establish the legitimacy and relevance of HRM (Ramsay et al.,

2000). During the 1990s, there was an explosion of research that sought to demonstrate the

HR–performance link, mostly using statistical analysis of cross-sectional survey data (e.g.

Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Ichniowski et al., 1997).

A variety of theoretical models was employed to frame this research, but the dominant

approach was associated with the so-called high performance work systems (HPWS) model

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12082

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 4, 2015 399

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Harley, B. (2015) ‘The one best way? ‘Scientific’ research on HRM and the threat to critical scholarship’. Human

Resource Management Journal 25: 4, 399–407.