Closing the gap between research and practice in HRD

F O R U M

Closing the Gap BetweenResearch and Practice in HRD

Darren C. Short

At the 2006 Academy of Human Resource Development Conference inColumbus, I was asked, “What are the main steps you would take to closethe gap between HRD research and practice?” This article offers anextended response.

Creating synergy between research and practice is viewed as the basis for cre-ating successful and meaningful HRD outcomes (Dewey & Carter, 2003) andis fundamental to the maturation of the profession (Swanson, 2001). Giventhis, there is naturally an interest in the strength of the relationship betweenresearch, theory, and practice, and this has been reflected in the journals of theAcademy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from their inception. Inthis article, I summarize some of the key points from the past ten years of thosejournals and use these to answer the question, “What are the main steps Iwould take to close the gap between HRD research and practice?”

Is There a Gap?

There is a deficiency of empirically based literature on the relationship betweentheory and practice in HRD. Those who have discussed it have generally doneso by speaking from their guts using informed opinions and informal polls oftheir networks (Ruona, 1999). Their comments have included claims that:

• Organizations do not incorporate much of what we have learned aboutdesigning, delivering, implementing, and evaluating successful training(Salas & Kosarzycki, 2003).

• HRD practice does not come close to what we know from sound theory(Swanson, 2001).

343HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 17, no. 3, Fall 2006 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1178 343

344 Short

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

• HRD practice has not moved far from criticism of fads and of false short-term training panaceas (Short, Bing, & Kehrhahn, 2003).

Despite increased research activity in the field, few advances in practicehave been grounded in research (Jacobs, 1999), and it would be optimistic toclaim that HRD research is influencing practice in meaningful ways (Berger,Kehrhahn, & Summerville, 2004). In fact, it has been expressed that the gaphas been around for as long as we can remember (Short, Sherlock, & Sugrue,2004), and it is not going away anytime soon (Yorks, 2005).

To Which Gap Are We Referring?

Although the term gap is widely used, it takes a variety of forms. For example,there are multiple ways in which authors have referred to the gap in AHRDjournals: the research-practice gap, theory-practice gap, research-to-practicegap, the gap between research and practice, the implementation gap, theresearch-practice divide, the theory-practice void, and the disconnect betweenHRD researchers and research consumers. In addition, Holton (2004) arguedfor using the term evidence-based practice rather than the “bland talk about‘linking research and practice’ or academic speak of eliminating ‘atheoreticalpractice’” (p. 187).

The terms used to describe key stakeholders are similarly varied: HRDscholars and HRD professionals; HRD academics and practitioners; HRD scholarsand practitioners; HRD practitioners and researchers; and HRD scholars, practi-tioners, and professionals. These terms are usually not defined and tend to beused to imply some degree of mutual exclusivity.

Finally, to add to our medley of terms, there are those used to describepractitioners who place a particular value on research and the implementationof research in practice: researcher-practitioners, scientist-practitioners, scholar-practitioners, practitioner-theorists, scholarly practitioners, and reflective practitioners.

What Causes the Gap?

According to articles in AHRD journals, the gap is caused by forces attributedmainly to research and researchers, practice and practitioners, and HRDprofessional organizations. To focus on the first two of these:

Research and Researchers. Most HRD research focuses on a relativelynarrow aspect of a given topic (Bassi, 1998), and most is conducted in a pos-itivistic framework, so the complex and vexing problems faced by practition-ers are not addressed or fully captured (Kuchinke, 2004). When combinedwith the lack of an articulated, practice-friendly research agenda for HRD(Berger et al., 2004), the result is research that fails to address what is currentlyrelevant for practitioners (Berger et al.).

The research that is completed tends not to be disseminated in ways likelyto influence practice: research publications do not give enough information on

Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice in HRD 345


practical implications of the research (Berger et al., 2004), research articlesrequire readers to dig much deeper into referenced materials to obtain abroader picture (Ruona, 1999), and HRD publications tend to preach to theconverted rather than extend their reach beyond an existing readership andscholarly community (Short et al., 2003). As a result, many practitioners can-not find the research needed to guide or justify their intervention designs(Berger et al.).

Practice and Practitioners. Practitioners face the pressure to succeed,coupled with the pressure of time (Swanson, 1997a), and are bombarded withnew HRD dilemmas at accelerating rates of speed (Dilworth & Redding, 1999).They have little time to consult scholars or consider how scholars’ insights andunderstandings might assist them (Bassi, 1998) and can succeed quite wellwithout ever reading research reports or reviewing current literature (Baldwin,2000).

Attitudes also play a key role: practitioners are often searching for certaintyin a world of contradictions (Vince, 2003), do not demand evidence-basedpractices (Holton, 2004), and focus instead on what they know rather thanlooking at the literature (Ruona, 1999). In addition, there is a lack of valueplaced on research by organizational decision makers (Berger et al., 2004), andthere is reluctance on the part of managers to adopt research-informed prac-tice (Huint & Saks, 2003). As a result, practitioners are not rewarded for apply-ing research and can be operating in a world where being branded astheoretical is intentionally derisive and can be a ticket to the unemploymentline (Yorks, 2005).

Competence also plays a role, particularly practitioners’ lack of compe-tence in research. The lack of formal barriers to becoming an HRD practitionermeans that anyone can label themselves as such (Gold, Rodgers, & Smith,2003). The lack of an education requirement to join the profession also meansthat many HRD practitioners are not aware that HRD research could be auseful tool with which to improve their practice (Bassi, 1998).

Why Do We Need to Close the Gap?

Time is running out for the HRD profession to straighten out the core discon-nect between what it knows and what it does (Swanson, 1997b), and system-atically filling the theory-practice void is fundamental to the maturation of theprofession (Swanson, 2001). Consequently, realizing the ideal (of theory topractice and practice to theory) is perhaps the most significant challenge con-fronting HRD (Yorks, 2005). Without this, HRD will be viewed as secondaryto other professions as long as it is fad driven, reactive, and practiced by thosewho lack a sound understanding of core HRD theory and practice (Bing,Kehrhahn, & Short, 2003).

Although the need to close the gap is widely recognized, some argue thatthe tension between the worlds can be to the advantage of both and that there

346 Short


is a danger in too much parsimony between the world of theory and researchand that of practice (Yorks, 2005). Holton (1999) argued that there is a greatdanger in HRD research becoming too closely connected to practice. This isnot to argue that the gap cannot be more productively narrowed (Yorks, 2005)but recognizes that there are benefits from some HRD research being discon-nected from practice, distinguishing between researchers of application andapplied researchers (Holton).

What Has Been Tried Already to Close the Gap?

In response to the call for closing the gap, several steps have already been taken.Some have addressed the need for activities to bring together researchers and practi-tioners, including preconferences on research-practice links (Berger et al., 2004),research-to-practice as keynote addresses and main conference sessions (Shindell,2005), and scholar-practitioner tracks at conferences (Short, 2004). Others havelooked at publications as a means of closing the gap, including the ASTD “WhatWorks” series of short volumes describing research-based solutions on topics ofmost relevance to practitioners (Dilworth & Redding, 1999) and the AHRD stableof journals that provide HRD scholars outlets for their best work: outlets that canreach many stakeholders of HRD and influence practice (Roth, 2003). On the pro-duction and use of research, several examples of research projects directly relate toresearch and practice (Dilworth & McClernon, 2000), including published exam-ples of practitioner-academic research partnerships (Hamlin, 2002), and awardshave been created to recognize those who excel in linking research and practice(Short et al., 2004).

How Do We Close the Gap?

Suggestions to close the gap fall into the main categories of those related toresearchers and the nature of research, practitioners and the nature of practice,and organizations involved in research and practice.

Research and researchers

• HRD needs a research agenda directed toward timely, practice-focusedHRD research. HRD needs a research agenda that is aligned with practitionerpriorities (Short, 2004), keeps up with the realities of the workplace, and antic-ipates what research is needed to inform HRD practice in the future (Shortet al., 2003).

• Greater use of partnership research. There has been a significant call forHRD professional partnerships between universities and organizations(Hamlin, Reidy, & Stewart, 1998) and between scholars and practitioners( Jacobs, 1997). The underlying principle is that practice is enhanced whenbased on rigorous research and that research should be linked back to thepractice ( Jacobs, 1999).



• HRD researchers as practitioners. HRD researchers need to maintain a highlevel of involvement in business and the performance problems organizationsface (Ruona, 1999).

• Adopt different ways of doing research. This includes alternative researchframeworks, particularly hermeneutic and emancipatory approaches, admit-ting other sources of knowledge and wisdom (Kuchinke, 2004), and creatingand testing evidence-based interventions (Holton, 2004).

• More HRD research in authentic contexts. HRD research should not takeplace in isolation but should reflect a closeness to real HRD contexts (Baldwin,2000) and use the crucible of research and practice to test theories thatprovide answers to practitioner problems (Yorks, 2005).

• More research on HRD research-practice. This includes conductingresearch into how other disciplines have framed and addressed the research-to-practice issue and into how research-to-practice is experienced within ourown profession (Berger et al., 2004).

• Improving the dissemination of research. Researchers need to do a betterjob of communicating the results and practical applications of their research(Huint & Saks, 2003). This may require repackaging research for practition-ers’ use (Berger et al., 2004), disseminating it using the language and mediamost likely to facilitate its understanding and usage by practitioners (Short,2004).

Practice and Practitioners

• A greater emphasis on evidence-based practices. Hamlin (2002) and Holton(2004) have argued the need for a shift to evidence-based practices, whichhave some reasonable level of scientific support—a standard more possible toachieve than the lofty but impractical standard of scientific proof (Holton).

• HRD practitioners as researchers. Practitioners need to become researchminded and build a research orientation into their practice (Hamlin, 2002),create research opportunities in their own organization (Ruona, 1999), andbecome more skilled in conducting internal academic research as a means ofenhancing their effectiveness as evidence-based practitioners (Hamlin et al.,1998).

• Encouraging new practitioner behaviors. HRD professionals should beencouraged to ask for the underlying theory and supporting research of bothnew and old practices (Swanson, 1997b), work to identify criteria by whichthey can judge research and theory, and challenge themselves to consultscholarly resources on the next HRD issue they face (Ruona, 1999).

• Changes to HRD education and professional development. Calls have beenmade for a professional education for all HRD professionals with accompa-nying certification and continuing professional development (Bing et al.,2003) and increasing practitioners’ knowledge and skills in understanding,judging, and using research and theory (Ruona, 1999).

348 Short


HRD organizations

• Facilitate more dialogue. There is a need for researchers and practition-ers to participate in each others’ communities of practice (Torraco, 2005) andfor meaningful dialogue between practitioners and academics (Graham &Kormanik, 2004).

• Standards for the profession. This covers standing up for HRD practice thathas integrity, speaking out against practices that are harmful, and groundingpractice in sound research and theory. Standards should be developed that setout a core set of practices that practitioners use at particular points in time(Holton, 2003).

• Collaboration between organizations. Synergy between research and prac-tice can be created by academic institutions, professional associations, andpractitioners working together (Dewey & Carter, 2003). For example, byASTD and AHRD collaborating, consumers can access the best practice fororganizations, informed by the best research (Dooley, 2004).

• Reward and recognition. Recognizing and rewarding those who are exem-plary at bridging the research-to-practice gap encourage those behaviors inothers. The information produced also allows the profession to research howsuch exemplars operate and why they are successful (Berger, Kehrhahn, &Summerville, 2004).

Conclusions and Implications

To return to the question I posed at the start of the article: based on this analysisof AHRD literature over the past ten years, it seems reasonable to concludethat many in HRD claim that a gap exists between research and practice; that, formany, there are good reasons to close this gap; that several means have been triedalready; and that the profession is certainly not short of suggestions for furtheractions. Yet, despite all of the articles, preconferences, awards, symposia, andenergy, who would claim that we have made much progress over the past tenyears?

So what are the main steps I would take? The answers are, of course,located throughout this article. They offer the basis for our continued worktoward research-informed practice and practice-informed research and togreater utility and impact for both HRD research and practice.

References

Baldwin, T. T. (2000). Fundamental choices in human resource development scholarship andpractice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 70–74.

Bassi, L. J. (1998). Connecting research and practice through the ASTD research committee: Stay-ing relevant in an electronic world. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9 (4), 315–317.

Berger, N. O., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Summerville, M. (2004). Research to practice: Throwing arope across the divide. Human Resource Development International, 7 (3), 403–409.

Bing, J. W., Kehrhahn M., & Short, D. C. (2003). Challenges to the field of human resource devel-opment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (3), 342–351.

Dewey, J. D., & Carter, T. J. (2003). Exploring the future of HRD: The first future search confer-ence for a profession. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (3), 245–256.

Dilworth, R. L., & McClernon, T. (2000). Why HRD practitioners can lack respect: Sizing thecredibility gap between what top managers want and HRD professionals deliver. In K. P.Kuchinke (Ed.), AHRD conference proceedings (16–1). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of HumanResource Development.

Dilworth, R. L., & Redding, J. (1999). Bridging gaps: An update from the ASTD research com-mittee. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (3), 199–202.

Dooley, L. M. (2004). AHRD and ASTD: Competitors or collaborators. Human Resource Develop-ment Quarterly, 15 (4), 359–361.

Gold, J., Rodgers, H., & Smith, V. (2003). What is the future for the human resource develop-ment profession? A UK perspective. Human Resource Development International, 6 (4), 437–456.

Graham, P., & Kormanik, M. (2004). Bridging the conference gap: A challenge to enhance theresearch-practice dialogue. Human Resource Development International, 7 (3), 391–393.

Hamlin, R. G. (2002). In support of evidence-based management and research-informed HRDthrough HRD professional partnerships: An empirical and comparative study. Human ResourceDevelopment International, 5 (4), 467–491.

Hamlin, R. G., Reidy, M., & Stewart, J. (1998). Bridging the HRD research-practice gap throughprofessional partnerships. Human Resource Development International, 1 (3), 273–290.

Holton, E. F., III (1999). What does applied field really mean? Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 10 (4), 301–304.

Holton, E. F. III. (2003). On the misapplication of customer service in HRD. Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 2 (2), 103–105.

Holton, E. F., III (2004). Implementing evidence-based practices: Time for a national movement?Human Resource Development Review, 3 (3), 187–188.

Huint, P., & Saks, A. M. (2003). Translating training science into practice: A study of managers’reactions to posttraining transfer interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (2),181–198.

Jacobs, R. L. (1997). HRD partnerships for integrating HRD research and practice. In R. Swanson& E. Holton, III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 47–64). SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Jacobs, R. L. (1999). Partnership research: Ensuring more useful HRD collaborations. In K. P.Kuchinke (Ed.), AHRD conference proceedings (pp. 874–879). Bowling Green, OH: Academyof Human Resource Development.

Kuchinke, K. P. (2004). Theorizing and practicing HRD: Extending the dialogue over the rolesof scholarship and practice in the field. Human Resource Development International, 7 (4),535–539.

Roth, G. L. (2003). Fame as an honorable HRD scholar. Human Resource Development Quarterly,14 (4), 365–368.

Ruona, W.E.A. (1999). Theory in “theory to practice”: Voices of practitioners. In K. P. Kuchinke(Ed.), AHRD conference proceedings (pp. 888–896). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of HumanResource Development.

Salas, E., & Kosarzycki, M. P. (2003). Why don’t organizations pay attention to (and use) find-ings from the science of training? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 487–491.

Shindell, T. J. (2005). Seeing it from both sides: Bridges in research-to-practice. Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 16 (2), 153–155.

Short, D. C. (2004). 2004: A significant year for research-practice links in HRD. Human ResourceDevelopment International, 7 (4), 541–543.

Short, D. C., Bing, J. W., & Kehrhahn, M. T. (2003). Will human resource development survive?Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (3), 239–243.



350 Short

Short, D. C., Sherlock, J. J., & Sugrue, B. (2004). Time to recognize those who link research andpractice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (3), 259–262.

Swanson, R. A. (1997a). HRD research: Don’t go to work without it! In R. Swanson & E. HoltonIII (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 3–20). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Swanson, R. A. (1997b). TADD short! Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8 (3), 193–196.Swanson, R. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource

Development International, 4 (3), 299–312.Torraco, R. J. (2005). Ratings, rankings, results and what really matters. Human Resource Devel-

opment Review, 4 (1), 3–7.Vince, R. (2003). The future practice of HRD. Human Resource Development International, 6 (4),

559–564.Yorks, L. (2005). Nothing so practical as a good theory. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (2),

111–113.

Darren C. Short is a training manager at Avanade Inc. in Seattle, Washington.


Documents

Closing the gap between research and practice in HRD