Between ideal and tradition: the roles of HRD practitioners in South Australian organisations

Abstract

Abstract Purpose – To investigate how modern or traditional are the current roles of South Australian HRD practitioners in the context of present‐day work organisations. Also, how are their roles related to the organisational context in which they operate? Design/methodology/approach – The study is a replication of two prior qualitative empirical studies conducted in the UK and The Netherlands. Learning‐Network Theory was used to analyse qualitatively 18 in‐depth interviews with South Australian HRD practitioners. Four phases were distinguished in the analysis of interview data, namely exploration, specification, reduction, and integration. Findings – HRD practitioner roles are still rather traditional in nature, focusing, for example, on training needs analysis and delivery. Furthermore, roles of HRD practitioners are related to the work type in their organisation. Those dealing with team‐based work were found to have the least traditional tasks, emphasising the continuation of learning, evaluation and acting as a resource to the organisation. Research limitations/implications – Qualitative small sample study limits generalisation. Also, interviews may yield respondents' espoused theories rather than those in use. Further research should use larger, more diverse samples and include more direct ways of data collection (e.g. observation). Practical implications – The question arises whether HRD practice is too conservative or HRD theory and professional ideals are too progressive, if a huge gap between the two continues to come to the fore. Originality/value – Besides corroborating earlier research conducted elsewhere, this study developed a more fully elaborated and more structured interview guideline based on Learning‐Network Theory.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.