A Scholar-Practitioner Case Approach

Abstract

The Problem. Though there is growing interest in the nature of scholarly practice in Human Resource Development (HRD) there is little understanding of how the everyday activities of HRD practitioners are mediated by HRD theories and research. The Solution. This preface provides the framework for this special issue on HRD scholarpractitioners. Each article in this issue, with the exception of the final article by Lombardozzi, presents a real-world case on how HRD scholar-practitioners used HRD theory and research to navigate an intractable problem in their practice. This issue explores the wide and varying ways in which scholar-practitioners approach their work, how research and theory were both applied and extended in practice, and the implications for HRD theory, research, and practice. The Stakeholders. HRD scholars, researchers, and practitioners who are members of the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD), as well managers, educators, and higher education administrators who have a stake in effective organizations may gain insight into the nature of HRD scholarly practice and the role of the HRD scholar-practitioner.

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory’s Relevance to HRD: A Review and Application

“…The examination of the relationship between research and practice in HRD has been a long-standing theme in the field (Kuchinke, 2004). In particular, two issues of Advances in Developing Human Resources (Scully-Russ, Lehner, & Shuck, 2013; Short, Kormanik, & Ruona, 2009) and a recent book edited by Hughes and Gosney (2016) focused on exploring the link between HRD research and practice.…”

Integrating Research and Practice: Looking Back

“…In fact, a considerable gap has long been recognized by both scholars and practitioners between theory and practice, research and practice, and rigor and relevance (Hughes & Wang, 2015; Lynham & McDonald, 2011; Marsick, 1990; Watkins, 1994). The research–practice tension permeates multiple fields, for example, management (Hutt, 2008; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; Van De Ven & Johnson, 2006), compensation (Giancola, 2012), accounting (Amabile et al, 2001; Dyckman, 1989; Johnson & Leisenring, 1994; Tucker & Parker, 2014), marketing (Lilien, 2011), industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology (Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001), counseling (Murray, 2009), education (Abbott, Walton, Tapia, Greenwood, 1999; Kezar, 2000; Kezar & Eckel, 2000; Peterson, 2000; Solis, 1999), health (Haines, Kuruvilla, & Borchert, 2004; Holmes, 2002; Walshe & Rundall, 2001), human resource management (HRM; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007), and HRD (e.g., Graham & Kormanik, 2004; Gray, Iles, & Watson, 2011; Hamlin, Reidy, & Stewart, 1998; Hughes & Gosney, 2016; Hughes, Wang, Zheng, & McLean, 2010; Kormanik, Lehner, & Winnick, 2009; Lynham & McDonald, 2011; Scully-Russ, Lehner, & Shuck, 2013; Short, 2006; Short, Kormanik, & Ruona, 2009).…”

“…The third issue, coedited by Scully-Russ et al (2013), “explores how learning (theory) and doing (practice) were both employed and extended by HRD scholars, researchers, and scholar-practitioners in the context of HRD practice” (p. 244). Consisting of five articles, this issue shifted the focus from understanding “the contours of HRD scholarship and practice, to examine the problems that HRD practitioners encounter and the choices they made in the context of their everyday activities” (p. 244).…”

Planting Seeds: Actively Developing Scholar-Practitioners

“…, what role they fill (Moats & McLean, 2009;Short, 2006), and even what outcomes they produce (Scully-Russ, Lehner, & Shuck, 2013). In the field of human resource development (HRD), this discussion has been fruitful and, at times, passionate.…”