Defining human resource development: an integrative literature review

Abstract

Purpose Human resource development (HRD) poses complex challenges for scholars and practitioners due to its elusive nature in definition, scope, and boundaries. Driven by lived experiences, this integrative literature review aims to explore the complexities of HRD, focusing on its conceptualizations, boundaries, and trajectories from 1990 to 2023. Design/methodology/approach Using Callahan’s (2014) Six Ws, Page et al. (2020) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search process, and Lester et al. (2020) thematic analysis, 26 peer-reviewed articles from leading HRD journals and databases were analyzed. Findings This literature review’s findings enhance our understanding of HRD’s trajectory by illuminating its tumultuous beginnings, precarious present, and uncertain future – potentially even its demise. The author urges prominent HRD scholars to take decisive action to secure the discipline’s future before it is too late. Research limitations/implications One limitation is the reliance on specific articles for data analysis. The propensity to emphasize only the prevailing viewpoint is a constraint inherent in literature reviews (Dickson et al., 2011). Another limitation is this study’s reliance on articles exclusively from English-speaking literature. By focusing solely on publications in English, this study overlooked HRD literature published in other languages, potentially excluding valuable insights and perspectives from non-English-speaking regions and cultures. Originality/value Over the years, the debates regarding the definition of HRD have been fraught with ambiguity and contradictions. The boundaries of HRD remain similarly nebulous, with scholars debating its scope and applicability across contexts. This literature review adds to this debate from a unique perspective.

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 — 9 citations exist upstream.

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