The Subjective Perceptions of Critical HRD Scholars on the Current State and the Future of CHRD

• Author: Pyounggu Baek,Namhee Kim
• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21275

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 28, no. 2, Summer 2017 © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21275 135

MIXED METHODS STUDY

The Subjective Perceptions

of Critical HRD Scholars on

the Current State and the Future

of CHRD

Pyounggu Baek , Namhee Kim

We intended to understand the currently predominant viewpoints or bodies

of knowledge relative to critical human resource development ( CHRD )

based on personal meanings and viewpoints to a particular concept of

CHRD naturalistically rather than in a theoretically induced meaning of

CHRD . This research was designed to examine the subjective perceptions

of CHRD scholars on the current state and the future of CHRD using

Q methodology. A total of 13 CHRD scholars from the United States

and the United Kingdom were asked to impose their opinions using 36

statements that were constructed according to a conceptual framework of

theory–practice–research about CHRD in the current study. As a result,

we identified three unique perspectives with regard to the current state

and future of CHRD : (a) CHRD as an alternative HRD theoretical lens;

(b) pluralistic views on CHRD practice in a broader context; and (c) the

future prominence of CHRD in the HRD academic community. This

revealed several implications in terms of content and practical application

of criticality in organizations, which are expanded to the implications for

theory, practice, and education of HRD .

Key Words: critical human resource development , critical management

studies , critical pedagogy , Q methodology , subjectivity

Introduction

When human resource development (HRD) evolved into an independent dis-

cipline, the highest priority was to establish its foundations by theorizing the

discipline (Lynham, 2000 ). This element was crucial because the HRD field,

136 Baek, Kim

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

categorized as an applied social science, is of a multidisciplinary nature (Gara-

van, McGuire, & O ’ Donnell, 2004 ; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011 ). Thus, although

there has been no consensus on the conceptual–theoretical identity of HRD

(McGoldrick, Stewart, & Watson, 2002 ), the journey for theorizing HRD is

ongoing, from which many strands of literature have been emerging. For exam-

ple, academic debate between learning and performance is one of the most rep-

resentative (Kuchinke, 1998 ; Swanson & Holton, 2009 ). In addition, defining

HRD and its boundaries (Walton, 2003 ; Wang & Sun, 2009 ), philosophical

underpinnings (Ruona & Lynham, 2004 ), foundational theoretical approaches

(Garavan, Gunnigle, & Morley, 2000 ; Weinberger, 1998 ), core beliefs in rela-

tion to the focus, responsibility, and setting for HRD (Ruona, 2000 ), and in

more general perspective, issues in theorizing HRD (Garavan, Heraty, & Bar-

nicle, 1999 ) have been discussed. The ongoing quest for theorizing HRD and

theory-building research presents equal opportunity to apply these discussions

to CHRD.

Historically, in academia, the first CHRD session at the Academy of

Human Resource Development (AHRD) International Conference of the

Americas in 2002 was facilitated by Elliott and Turnbull ( 2002 ), and CHRD

has been employed as an independent track since 2009 at the AHRD Interna-

tional Conference in the Americas. The papers presented from Critical, Social

Justice, and Diversity Perspectives in the HRD track of that 2009 conference

encompassed various research topics such as diversity, spirituality, gender dif-

ferences, sexual orientation, feminist leadership, and transformational lead-

ership. In the same year, ADHR (Advances in Developing Human Resources)

published a special issue, Sexual Minority Issues in HRD: Raising Aware-

ness (Vol. 11, No. 1; Rocco, Gedro, & Kormanik, 2009 ), and later on pub-

lished the article “Disability, Diversity, and Discharge Issues at the Workplace:

Implications for Human Resource Development” (Vol. 12, No. 4; Roessler,

& Nafukho, 2010 ). In the past few years, the number of publications with

CHRD-relevant topics in AHRD journals and conferences has been increasing.

Responding to the growing interest in and importance of critical approaches

to HRD, AHRD announced the first Laura Bierema Excellence in CHRD Award

in 2015, which acknowledges a CHRD scholar or practitioner. CHRD is now

more recognized in the field of HRD than in previous years.

Conceptually, CHRD has emerged as a means of challenging traditional

approaches to HRD that often neglect political factors and are reluctant to

include the views of those who are marginalized or oppressed (O ’ Donnell,

McGuire & Cross, 2006 ; Sambrook, 2004 ). Foregrounding questions of power,

emotions, or political–social dynamics, CHRD involves an examination of what

has been taken for granted in HRD research and theory, and an analysis of

power and control within the workplace (Trehan, Rigg, & Stewart, 2006 ).

Consequently, defining CHRD academically and contrasting it with tra-

ditional and/or conventional HRD is necessary, and initial scholarly efforts are

beginning to build theoretical foundations (Fenwick, 2004 ; O ’ Donnell et al.,