'Variety is the spice of life'... but is it so in HRD? A discussion on the convenience of defining the discipline

Abstract

Definitions matter in life, and they particularly seem to matter in emergent professional fields like HRD where much recent scholarly writing has called for greater definition, clarity and transparency of the field itself. The objective of this paper is to question whether it is really necessary (and for whom) to arrive at a shared definition of HRD. In order to reach this objective, the authors review the contributions made to HRD by authors coming from different perspectives. In this regard, they question the following: Is it too early in the discipline's development to try to confine all its possible practice and research into a very static and somehow narrow definition? Could such a definition act as an inhibitor of the natural future development of the young HRD? Is it in the interest of any specific agent (academics and/or practitioners) to avail of such a definition? The discussion poses that, rather than being a weakness of HRD, the variety of approaches and the lack of an agreed definition may be a source of opportunities. Bestowing HRD with a definition would provide it with further internal consistency, yet would that make it devoid of external validity?

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 — 2 citations exist upstream.

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