European Journal of Training and DevelopmentInvestigating the HRD cube and explicating extant paradigms of HRDAndrew C. Hurt Susan A. Lynham Gary N. McLean

Article information:To cite this document:Andrew C. Hurt Susan A. Lynham Gary N. McLean , (2014),"Investigating the HRD cube and explicatingextant paradigms of HRD", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. 323 - 346Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2013-0081

Downloaded on: 06 December 2014, At: 08:08 (PT)References: this document contains references to 90 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 41 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Thomas N. Garavan & Ronan Carbery, Thomas N. Garavan, Ronan Carbery, (2014),"Advancing HRDtheory: New theoretical perspectives and promoting methodological pluralism", European Journal of Trainingand Development, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. 262-264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-03-2014-0028Thomas N. Garavan & Ronan Carbery, Meera Alagaraja, Pradeep Kotamraju, Sehoon Kim, (2014),"Aconceptual framework for examining HRD and NHRD linkages and outcomes: Review of TVET literature",European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. 265-285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2013-0009Thomas N. Garavan & Ronan Carbery, Rajashi Ghosh, Minjung Kim, Sehoon Kim, Jamie L. Callahan,(2014),"Examining the dominant, emerging, and waning themes featured in select HRD publications: Is ittime to redefine HRD?", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. 302-322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2013-0012

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 451335 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Investigating the HRD cube andexplicating extant paradigms

of HRDAndrew C. Hurt

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Susan A. LynhamColorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, and

Gary N. McLeanMcLean Global Consulting, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this study is to focus on the issue of paradigms in human resourcedevelopment (HRD) and validate the HRD cube as a synthesized model of HRD praxis and to explicatesome of the extant paradigms of HRD.Design/methodology/approach – The study was carried out by examining the text of articlespublished in Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD)-sponsored journals over a specificperiod. Sixteen articles published in AHRD-sponsored journals were treated as if they were therepresentative voice(s) of their author(s). Data units were axially coded and sorted into one of sevenpre-determined categories based on the axioms of theory, research and practice. Then, data units wereopen coded using the constant comparative method, and themes were developed.Findings – Axial coding results identified a dominant emphasis on practice. The accumulation of unitsrepresenting research and theory were comparatively smaller. Evidence of shared perspectives was foundthat emphasized the practice axiom. Open coding results identified representative themes within each of theaxiom-based categories of theory, research and practice. Six themes developed in the theory category, ninethemes developed in the research category and six themes developed in the practice category.Originality/value – The results support the overall construction of the HRD cube. Given the initialvalidation and support of the HRD cube and of the components described within the theory, researchand practice sides within these 16 articles published in AHRD-sponsored journals, at least 18prospective paradigms of HRD were identified.

Keywords Human resource development, Paradigm, HRD cube

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionHuman Resource Development (HRD) is an area of theory, research and practice that isdevoted to studying people. This focus on people is perhaps one of the few points that nearlyevery scholar or practitioner of HRD can agree upon. Like many other areas of academicstudy, the HRD literature and Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD)conferences are rife with vigorous discussions, debates and controversies. The foundationaltheories of HRD provide one such example (Swanson and Holton, 2001; Weinberger, 1998).Classifying HRD as a field, discipline or profession is another issue (Bing et al., 2003;Kuchinke, 2001). In more recent times, there has been a debate regarding the relevance and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

Investigating theHRD cube

323

Received 24 July 2013Revised 28 October 2013

Accepted 30 October 2013

European Journal of Training andDevelopment

Vol. 38 No. 4, 2014pp. 323-346

© Emerald Group Publishing Limited2046-9012

DOI 10.1108/EJTD-07-2013-0081

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

importance of the National HRD (NHRD) movement (Lynham and Cunningham, 2004,Lynham et al., 2006; McLean, 2007; McLean et al., 2008, 2004; Swanson, 2007; Wang andSwanson, 2008). Although all these debates have focused on different topics, central to all ofthem is the issue of perspective. Fundamentally, what distinguishes each is a different viewof what HRD is, has been and, perhaps, will become. This difference in perspectives of HRDhas, consequently, led to many of the vigorous discussions, debates and even controversiesseen throughout the history of the HRD literature and has played a key role in directinginquiry and what makes for good theory, research and practice in HRD.

Paradigms are ways of viewing the world; they are “the prevailing view of things”(Paradigm, 2009). Paradigms are the embodiment of those ideas and beliefs, thoseperspectives that an individual or an entire field of study holds central to theirunderstanding of the world (Guba, 1990; Guba and Lincoln, 1981, 1994; Lincoln andGuba, 1985). Kuhn (1996) suggested that paradigms are those central tenets that anentire academic field holds to be true. However, Kuhn’s (2000) work, by his ownadmission, was focused on the physical sciences and not on the social sciences. Gubaand Lincoln (1994), two social science researchers, supported the idea that paradigmsare individually constructed views of reality. They defined a paradigm “as the basicbelief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of methodbut in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways” (p. 105). Thus, it isthrough the use of paradigms that individuals and academic fields define the guidingprinciples that they use to understand a topic and practice within a field. It is alsothrough paradigms that a field/discipline determines what constitutes problems ofimport – for investigation, understanding and resolution.

If paradigms are the prevailing view of things and HRD is struggling to understandthe multiple perspectives of various topics within its literature, then it could be arguedthat HRD is unclear about its paradigms or that it has multiple paradigms. Thus, theproblem is that there is an uncertain understanding of the various paradigms that arerepresented within HRD as an integrated area of theory, research and practice. Asevidence to this uncertain understanding, debates within HRD often focus on andaround the various perspectives, or paradigms, of individuals and groups of authors.

The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to begin validating theHRD cube as a synthesizing model of HRD. The second purpose was to explicate someof the extant paradigms within HRD. In accomplishing these purposes, this study maylend aid to many of the current debates within HRD. It may also aid HRD in helping toidentify how it has developed, its current state and its potential for future directions.Validating the HRD cube and explicating paradigms of HRD may also help scholars andpractitioners of HRD to understand better the role that paradigms have played in thehistorical development of HRD. Further, it may provide a stepping stone for furtherresearch on potential paradigms of HRD that are not identified within this study.

Theoretical frameworkThis study used as its primary informing theoretical framework a model developed byLynham (2007, 2008), Lynham et al., 2010) called the HRD cube (Figure 1).The HRD cube comprises three sides; each side has as its focus a particular aspect oftheory, research or practice perspectives in HRD. The cube depicts the integration ofthese three perspectives. The use of this model provided the basic typology used toinform and initiate the analysis of HRD paradigms embedded in the informing

EJTD38,4

324

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

literature. Further, this model provided the informing/meta-paradigm for this study. Noidea or research can be paradigm free. It is impossible to conduct any type of work(research or any other) without having a perspective or paradigm from which to informthe study of such work; thus, the HRD cube is what guided the overarching frameworkfor conducting this research. The rationale for this selection lies in the adaptability of theHRD cube. Because the HRD cube was designed to expand or contract as new ideas arecreated/identified, this research was able to accommodate these new ideas as data werecollected.

To provide some answers to its problem and fulfill its purposes, this study wasguided by the following four research questions:

Figure 1.The HRD cube: a

synthesis framework forselecting and integrating

foundational theory,research, and practice in

HRD

325

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(1) What evidence of theory, research and practice perspectives of HRD existswithin the AHRD journals?

(2) How does this evidence support, or not, the hypothesized construction of theHRD cube?

(3) What (if any) changes need to be made to the HRD cube to increase itstrustworthiness and utility as a synthesizing model of theory, research andpractice in HRD?

(4) Given an understanding of the theory, research and practice perspectives ofHRD and the adaptation/confirmation of the HRD cube, what can be postulatedand described about the predominant paradigms of HRD and how can thisdiscovery be used to inform further development of inquiry and practice in HRD?

The first research question seeks to identify what evidence of each side of the HRD cube(theory, research, and practice) exists with AHRD-sponsored publication venues. Thesecond question is a comparison of the data collected from the literature to the currentconstruction of the HRD cube. The third question asks what changes need to be made tothe HRD cube. Finally, the fourth question asks what can be postulated about the extantparadigms of HRD.

Literature reviewRelevant HRD journals were systematically searched utilizing the keyword paradigmfor a period of 1990-2010. Article titles, abstracts and keywords were reviewed. Further,a reverse search of Kuhn’s 1962 work on the nature of Scientific Revolutions wasconducted to identify relevant literature that cited this foundational book. Articles werereviewed and ultimately organized into one of three sections pertaining to this literaturereview.

The first section details a brief history and explanation of four philosophicallyoriented epistemologies. These four epistemologies provide the foundation for much ofthe discussion regarding paradigms. They are themselves, often labeled as beingparadigms of understanding. The second section provided a brief account of thehistorical development of the word paradigm; from Thomas Kuhn’s initial analysis to amodern understanding and interpretation of the word. This historical account relays theimportance and evolution of the notion of paradigms within the social sciences. The finalsection describes the HRD cube. The cube, as a new developing model of HRD, is aparadigm of HRD as it integrates various theory, research and practice perspectives ofHRD. Specific details regarding each side of the cube are provided.

Four epistemologies of HRDParadigms are intimately tied to the idea of epistemologies. Within HRD there are fourepistemologies that are widely used in the literature (Hultgren and Coomer, 1989;Lincoln et al., 2011; Merriam, 1991):

(1) positivism (the world is objective and answerable) (Swanson, 2005b);(2) post-positivism (the world is objective and can be estimated) (Schwandt, 2001;

Swanson and Holton, 2001);(3) interpretive (the world is subjective or constructed) (Guba and Lincoln, 2005;

Merriam, 1991, 1998); and

EJTD38,4

326

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(4) critical (the world revolves around the ideas of power and oppression) (Bierma,2002; Callahan, 2007; Giroux, 1982; Valentin, 2006.

These epistemologies influence how the world is interpreted and enacted (Pallas, 2001)by individuals in HRD; each represents a different perspective through which to do so.

Several HRD scholars have presented similar views on ontologies, epistemologiesand axiologies. McGoldrick et al. (2004) said that an ontology is “how we see our world”and epistemology is “how we think about our world” and axiologies are “the values thatdetermine how we should and actually act in research and practice” (p. 14). Ruona andLynham (2004) presented similar perspectives; ontology as “being”, epistemology as“knowing” and axiology as “acting” (p. 153). Furthermore, Lincoln and Lynham presenta system of metaphysical questions in which each paradigm operates, and which, inturn, locates and directs/informs choices of inquiry design, strategy and relatedimplementation decisions (Lincoln and Lynham, 2011, Figure 2, p. 19).

A brief history of paradigm developmentA paradigm is a lens through which the world is viewed (Kuhn, 1996). The historicaldevelopment of the word and of the ideas pertaining to paradigms could be divided intoa series of five chronological categories beginning in the early 1960s and ending in thefirst decade of the 21st century. Although the word paradigm has been in existence sinceat least the year 1483 (Paradigm, 2010), the term gained much of its popularity andrecognized status with the work of Kuhn (1996) in the early 1960s.

In these early years, paradigms were seen as a specific period(s), where oneperspective of the world held dominance over all others (Kuhn, 1996). As research andscholarship continued, refinement in the understanding of paradigms occurred (Lodahland Gordon, 1972), and the idea of multiple paradigms specific to the social andorganizational sciences was explored (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Guba and Lincoln,1981, 1989; Guba, 1990). This idea of multiple paradigms in the social and organizationalsciences lead to what was labeled as the paradigm wars (Jackson and Carter, 1993) or theparadigm incommensurability debates (Willmott, 1993). Pursuant to these debatesevolved the recognized importance of multiple (Guba, 1990) and meta-paradigms (Gioiaand Pitre, 1990) in these sciences. The final period in the history of paradigms focused onthe popularity of paradigms and how this popularity changed interpretations of theword. One effect of this growth in popularity of the word paradigm is an increase in thenumber of ideas that received the label of paradigm (Marris, 2008). Gokturk (2005)described it as a watering down of the definition and ideas contained in a paradigmacross many social and scientific disciplines.

The HRD cubeThe HRD cube is presented as a way of identifying representative paradigms of HRD(Figure 1). The HRD cube is a developing model of HRD that was proposed by Lynham(2007, 2008). The HRD cube is, simultaneously, both a theoretical model of HRD and atypological sort mechanism for ideas within HRD. As a theoretical model, the HRD cubedefines much of the theory, research and practice components that have been presentedwithin the HRD literature. As a typological sort mechanism, the HRD cube could be usedto sort ideas contained within HRD based on their founding or informing theory,research and practice perspective(s). The HRD cube has as its foundation three sides:one representing theory, one representing research and one representing practice.

327

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Within each side of the cube are a series of categories. When categories (from each side)of the cube intersect, a smaller cube, representing a particular perspective, is described.As the model has been drawn (Figure 1), there are three theory categories, six researchcategories and nine practice categories. Thus, a minimum total of 162 smaller cubesform the larger HRD cube, with each smaller cube representing a different perspective ofHRD.

The HRD cube is surrounded by a dashed line. This line represents the context ornature of the phenomenon/problem under investigation. Problem and its context informthe choice of theory, research and practice perspective. Thus, Lynham et al. (2004), (2009)suggests that it is the prevailing problem and its context that drives the selection offocus areas within each respective side of the HRD cube.

The HRD cube is a developing model. The model is drawn using a series of dashedlines. These lines represent the model’s ability to add (or remove) categories from withineach side of the cube. This flexibility is one of the reasons why this model was used asthis study’s informing theoretical frame. The use of the HRD cube as an informingtheoretical frame allowed this study to begin the initial investigation of the paradigms ofHRD and to provide the initial testing of this newly developed theoretical model.

Although individual scholars’ opinions differ as to the understanding of paradigms,taken as a whole, it can be seen that paradigms have components of all three sides of theHRD cube. Paradigms have informing theoretical grounds and, in some cases, aretheories themselves; thus, they contribute knowledge to the theory side of the cube.Paradigms are often grounded in philosophical or metaphysical frames/systems; thus,they contribute knowledge to the research side of the cube. Finally, paradigms oftenhave an outcome or performance focus that informs the practice side of the cube. Takentogether, each of those 162 smaller cubes (3 theory categories � 6 research categories �9 practice categories � 162 smaller cubes) within the HRD cube represent a potentialparadigm, or perspective, of HRD.

MethodsIn addressing this study’s problem and purposes, a series of methods focused ondocument analysis was used. Fundamentally, this entire study is about taking what hasbeen presented within a delimited range of HRD literature that was used in this researchand comparing it to the hypothesized constructs of the HRD cube. By making thiscomparison, this research can aid in validating the construction and utility of the HRDcube and provide recommendations for how it might be adapted and enhanced to reflectbetter the published perspectives of HRD as an area of applied theory, research and practice.Thus, this study used a series of select articles published by the AHRD-sponsored journals.The articles selected were treated as the representative voices of their authors. Articles wereused as if they were transcribed participant interviews.

Articles were purposefully delimited to only AHRD-sponsored publications. Theseincluded four journals:

(1) Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ);(2) Human Resource Development International (HRDI);(3) Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR); and(4) Human Resource Development Review (HRDR).

EJTD38,4

328

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

These four AHRD-sponsored journals were selected because they are the most readilyidentifiable published representation of the perspectives of scholars and practitioners inHRD as an area of theory, research and practice. Although there is evidence to argue thatHRD scholars and practitioners publish frequently outside of these selected journals(Dooley, 2002; Sleezer and Sleezer, 1998), a smaller subset of potential articles wasneeded that can readily be identified with HRD. Thus, only those articles published inAHRD-sponsored journals were used as potential candidates for inclusion in this studyand related analysis. Interestingly, because of this decision to limit the articles selectedto AHRD-sponsored journal, this work is effectively a critique of the paradigms and ofthe editorial influences of those journals during the selected time frame.

Sixteen articles published in AHRD-sponsored journals were randomly selected inthree stratified and purposeful stages (see Table I for a complete list of articles used).First, the four AHRD-sponsored journals (HRDQ, HRDI, ADHR and HRDR) wereidentified. Next, articles were listed in each journal for even numbered years, 2002-2008.Finally, one article was randomly selected from each identified journal for each of thefour years, totaling 16 articles.

Data analysisThe selected articles were read for clarity and understanding, and units were identifiedand demarcated from within each article in a process as described by Lincoln and Guba(1985). First, a unit of data must be “heuristic aimed at some understanding or someaction that the inquirer needs to have or to take” (p. 345). Second, the unit of data had toelaborate enough information such that it could fully describe the articulated or citedidea of the article’s author(s) regardless of the presence of the surrounding text. Asdescribed by Lincoln and Guba (1985), a unit is “the smallest piece of information aboutsomething that can stand by itself” (p. 345).

In some instances, these units were as short as a few words or a sentence, and, in otherinstances, the units were as long as a paragraph. However, units primarily consisted ofdeclarative statements (often a single sentence) regarding the article’s topic. They

Table I.Sixteen articles published

in AHRD-sponsoredjournals used for data

analysis

Article Reference

A Roth (2002)B Hetrick (2002)C Naquin and Baker (2002)D Bierema (2002)E Rogier and Padgett (2004)F Bonnin et al. (2004)G Yang (2004)H Brewer and Shapard (2004)I Hatcher (2006)J Byrd and Demps (2006)K Allen (2006)L London and Sessa (2006)M Egan (2008)N McGuire et al. (2008)O Storberg-Walker (2008)P Wang and Swanson (2008)

329

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

represented a coherent idea because they addressed something specific regarding theresearch or topic. Findings, results, procedures, suggestions and implications were allwords that often suggested the articulation of a coherent idea. Specifically, any idea thatarticulated any side or component of the HRD cube was captured. Additional notes andcomments were made about selected units when helpful to capture ideas as they weregenerated. Ideas presented by authors that described a belief of the author were alsocollected.

Each unit was then coded. First, the units underwent an axial coding process to sortthem into predetermined categories. Second units in each category were open coded.This axial coding process relied on a predetermined typology that was generated fromthe HRD cube. The typology was used initially to sort the units into representativecategories. Seven categories were used. The first three are based on the axioms of theHRD Cube, namely, theory, research and practice. The next four categories were basedon the interaction of the three axioms, namely, theory–research, theory–practice,research-practice and theory–research–practice.

To identify the appropriate category of the typology in which to place selected units,a definition for each axiom was constructed and used. For each unit, the unit was readand a question asked, to which typological category does the unit best conform? Thetheory category of the typology was defined as any “coherent description, explanation,and representation of observed or experienced phenomena” (Lynham, 2000, p. 161). Theresearch category of the typology was defined as “any description or part of an orderlyinvestigative process for the purpose of creating new knowledge or confirming orreplicating prior knowledge” (Swanson, 2005a, p. 4). The practice category of thetypology was defined as the activities, outcomes or results (often presented in real-worldterms) that are either suggested or implied of any idea, process or phenomenon. Thisworking definition was developed because a clear definition of practice in HRD could notbe found in the extant literature.

The notion of practice itself is rarely defined, yet, intuitively, we all have a sense ofwhat practice entails. Practice could be the replication of an idea or a process such thatlearning or improvement in performance occurs. Practice is the general term that isapplied to the application of an idea, theory or research; as an example, “action researchis a methodology of practice” (Ruona and Lynham, 2004). In HRD, the word practice isoften used to denote where HRD is encountered; “the field is viewed by most as appliedand focused on practical problems in organizational life at various levels of analysis”(Kuchinke, 2008, p. 109). Thus, the definition that was developed tried to articulate manyof the variations of the word practice.

If the unit did conform to one of the axiom definitions, then it was placed in thatcorresponding category based on the three axiom definitions. If the unit conformed totwo or three of the axiom definitions simultaneously, then it was placed in one of the fourcategories based on the interaction of axiom definitions. This process continued until allunits had been sorted and classified into one of the seven categories.

Once the data units had been sorted into the seven categories, each category in thetypology underwent an open coding analysis, meaning that no preidentified themeswere used to sort and cluster the data within each of those seven categories (Lincoln andGuba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). Rather, the data were allowed to group based on similarityof ideas and their description. The clusters of data units, now called a theme, werelabeled based on the themes’ similarities. Thus, the open coding of units was an

EJTD38,4

330

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

exploratory and interpretive analysis of themes and subthemes within the axiom-basedcategories of theory, research and practice.

To create the common themes in each category during the open coding process, aconstant comparative method (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was used. The constantcomparative method involves comparing each data unit to all other data units within thecategory. In doing so, all common themes develop around a similarity of description ofunits. The process below describes how themes within each category were established:

• Step 1: Data units were initially recorded electronically on a Microsoft Excelspreadsheet. At the onset of the coding process, units were printed onto individualindex cards. Each identified unit was printed on a 3 � 5 index card, one unit percard, and each card was labeled with information on where the unit was obtained.This entire process ensured that each unit was clearly labeled, and a clear trail ofwhere that unit was obtained could be readily identified.

• Step 2: A single data card (unit) was read. Then, a second data card was read andcompared with the first. If they were alike, then they were placed in a single pile.If they were not alike, then a second pile was created. This process continued untilall units within a category had been sorted into piles.

• Step 3: Each pile was then examined for common features, and rules weredeveloped that encapsulated the essence of that pile. A rule was an idea thatdescribed the rationale for a card’s inclusion in that pile. Rules for each developingtheme were written on a card and placed near each pile to denote what that pilerepresented. As an example, if a series of data cards all described training, then arule card might be created to indicate an emphasis on training. A record was thenmade of each pile, with its rule and the cards that were contained in it.

• Step 4: After a lapse of one week’s time, so that memory of their earliercategorization would diminish, all data cards were removed from piles andreassembled into a single stack, while the rule cards remained. Each data card wasthen re-examined. The data card was read, and the idea presented was noted.Then the data card was assigned to one of the available rule card piles. This stepdid not rely solely on my intuition to sort the cards as in step one; but, rather, onthe defined rules that were created in step three.

• Step 5: Any data cards that could not be sorted into any of the defined rule cards(from Step 3) were collected and examined for similarity. If a similarity was found,then a new rule card was created. If no similarity was found, the cards wereretained for later review.

• Step 6: Finally, each category and subsequent themes were reviewed to ensurethat nothing had been overlooked. Particular care was given to cards that weredistributed in Step 4 to a different pile than in Step 2 to ensure correct assignment.

• Step 7: Themes were then given a name which best represented those data cardsand rules of that theme.

TrustworthinessTrustworthiness in interpretive/naturalistic research ensures that the data collected andthe process by which the data were analyzed is truthful and accurate (Lincoln and Guba,

331

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

1985). Trustworthiness can be broken down into four criteria: credibility, transferability,dependability and confirmability.

Credibility establishes that the multiple constructions of the original stakeholders arerepresented, given their original “constructions” and the “reconstructions” of their ideas(Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 296). To ensure credibility in this work, three techniqueswere utilized: prolonged engagement, multiple sources and a reflective journal. Lincolnand Guba (1985) suggested that the best way to encourage the transferability of resultsis through the use of rich, thick description. Thick description “means that the complete,literal description of the incident or entity being investigated” (Merriam, 1998, p. 30) isprovided. By presenting a data unit in its literal form (as spoken or written by theoriginal author), readers of this study can see exactly how the idea was presented andmake their own interpretations of the unit’s idea. Additionally, the way the 16 articleswere selected should encourage the transferability because all articles used in thisanalysis should be representative of the conversations that were occurring in HRDduring the selected timeframe. To ensure that the data obtained in this research weredependable, meaning that they could be trusted to account for all of the perspectivescontained within an article, a pilot test article and audit were used to check the processof data collection and analysis. A test article was selected from the HRDQ journal from2000. This year was outside of the data range used for this dissertations analysis; thus,no overlap of data could occur. The test article underwent the process noted in the priorsection, and the results and processes were audited by all of this manuscripts authorsand one unrelated yet highly experienced qualitative researcher. Confirmability is atrustworthiness criterion that is used to check the process of the research. The techniqueutilized was an audit trail. The construction of an audit trail ensured that all data had aclear and identifiable source and aided in locating each data unit. Further, because eachof the articles used within the research is publicly available, the reader may confirmthese ideas by reviewing the full-text articles.

Axial coding findingsWith regard to the findings pertaining to the axial round of coding, the number of data unitscollected within the theory, research and practice categories reflected a dominant emphasison practice. The practice category had the greatest number of units, followed by research andtheory. The number of units in the shared-sides categories (theory-research, theory-practice,research-practice and theory-research-practice) similarly had a pre-dominant emphasis onpractice. Within the shared-sides categories, research-practice had the most units, followedby theory-practice, then theory-research and theory-research-practice.

After identifying all of the data units contained within these articles, it becameevident that their authors did not equally describe the categories of theory, research andpractice. In terms of data accumulation (the number of like data units), there were manymore data units that focused on the practice category than that of either the research orthe theory categories. Figure 2 depicts this overlap and imbalance among these threecategories of theory, research and practice. Within Figure 2, each of the three categoriesis drawn based on the accumulation of data units. Thus, the circles that represent eachcategory are approximately proportional to the number of units identified within acategory relative to all other categories.

As this was not a quantitative study, and the relative impact or value of data unitswas not identified or calculated, the reader is cautioned not to over-extend the

EJTD38,4

332

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

interpretation of the relative size of any component of Figure 2. However, the diagramprovides a visual sense/depiction of how the data units clustered, relatively, in terms ofthe three axioms.

In total, 1,085 units were identified. As illustrated in Figure 2, there were many moredata units describing practice than there were of theory or research. Practice had 508units, research had 169 units and theory had 130 units. The overlap between the threecategories showed an approximately equal number of theory-practice (T-P) data units(97 units) and research-practice (R-P) data units (121 units). The shared sides oftheory-research (T-R) had few data units (39 units) as compared to the other two sharedsides. The overlap of all three categories, theory-research-practice (T-R-P), had very fewdata units (21 total units). All the unitized data were coded into one of the threeaxiom-based categories (T, R, P), or one of the four shared sides (T-R, T-P, R-P, T-R-P).

The notion that each side of the HRD cube exists as part of a Venn diagram is one ofthe founding concepts of the HRD cube. The HRD cube was built utilizing the threeinteracting axioms of theory, research and practice. The HRD cube could not exist as acube if it did not share commonality among its sides; thus, the idea of the HRD cubepresented as a Venn diagram is not novel (Lynham, 2000, 2002; Swanson and Holton,2001). What makes this diagram distinct is the relative size of each category(represented as circles in Figure 2). The size of each category is based on theaccumulation of data units identified. Based only on these 16 articles, HRD appears toplace more emphasis on the practice category. This emphasis is either singularlyfocused on practice or is jointly shared between practice-theory and practice-research. Ifthe number of data units is an indication as to the relative importance of these categories,then the practice category was clearly the most important – a finding that resonates withthe much applied nature of HRD. Again, the reader is cautioned not to over-extend theinterpretation of the results beyond the purpose, intent and scope of this analysis. Theimportance of an individual unit was not the focus of this analysis. Thus, in thisanalysis, it is not possible to ascertain the value of a unit; however, if a category isimportant to an area of study, then it might logically be expected to be discussedfrequently, and the practice category was the most frequently discussed category.

Figure 2.Proportional Venn

diagram of categoriesbased on theory, research,

and practice axioms

333

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

The research and theory categories had a smaller number of units than the practicecategory. The number of units in the research category is perhaps smaller than might beexpected. All articles utilized herein were obtained from research-oriented journals,meaning that the target of all four journals is to expand on research within HRD. Giventhe focus of these journals, one would have expected to see a large number ofresearch-related data units. Although research category units were found, there werenot as many as were found in the practice category. This outcome may indicate thatHRD is in need of tying its ideas to research. Or if the ideas are tied to research, then HRDmay need to articulate better those research endeavors within its publications.

In units collected from these articles, the theory category was the smallest in regards tothe number of data units. The results might indicate that HRD is not as articulate regardingtheory as it is in either research or practice. Several authors in HRD (Lynham, 2002;McGoldrick et al., 2004; Swanson, 2001) have called for HRD to be more theoretically orientedand driven, and these results may lend aid to those authors’ arguments.

Open coding findingsThe findings from the open round of coding identified several themes within each of thethree categories of theory, research and practice. A summary of all themes andsubthemes identified from the respective open rounds of coding is presented in Table II.

Table II.Summary of themes andsubthemes that wereidentified from the opencoding of units

Category Theme

Theory Description of HRD foundationsDescription of specific theoriesSystems as a discipline/systems as a theoryTheory building in HRDContext-specific descriptions of specific theoryDescribing the need, value or purpose of theory

Research The need for multiple perspectives of HRDInterpretiveFunctionalist worldviewCritical

Sub-theme: Feminist perspectiveDescribing methodology within researchDescribing specific methods within researchContext-specific discussions of research resultsRecommendations, cautions or deficiencies of researchResponsibilities of research and researchers

Practice Levels of practical outcomesSubthemes: Individual level, Group level, Organizational level, Nationallevel, Global/societal level

Specific topics of practiceSubthemes: Governance, policy and politics, Training and development,Education and teaching, Learning and performance, Culture

Context–specific outcomes and beliefs of practiceApplicable tools for practiceProblems and critiques of practiceGoals of practice

EJTD38,4

334

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Theory categoryThe theory category consisted of data units that articulated some aspect of theory.Theory was defined as “any coherent description, explanation and representation ofobserved or experienced phenomena” (Lynham, 2000, p. 161). Units within thiscategory often described a specific theory that was being used or explored within thearticle. Within this category, the open coding of the data units clustered around sixthemes (Table II):

(1) description of HRD foundations;(2) description of specific theories;(3) systems as a discipline/systems theory;(4) theory building in HRD;(5) context-specific descriptions of specific theories; and(6) description of the need, value or purpose of theory.

Research categoryThe research category consisted of data units that articulated some aspect of researchthat was defined as an orderly investigative process for the purpose of creating newknowledge or confirming or replicating prior knowledge (Russ-Eft, 2004; Swanson,2005a). The data units described a particular approach to research or a researchphilosophy of the author. Within this category, the coding of units clustered around ninethemes and one subtheme (Table II):

The nine themes included:(1) the need for multiple perspectives of HRD research;(2) understanding and investigating social phenomena;(3) a functional/post-positive worldview;(4) Critical, (d sub-theme 1) Feminist Perspective;(5) describing methodology within research;(6) describing specific methods within research;(7) context-specific discussions of research results;(8) recommendations, cautions or deficiencies of research; and(9) responsibilities of research and researchers.

Practice categoryFinally, the practice category consisted of ideas that pertain to the practicaloutcomes of the articles investigated. Practice has been defined as the activities,outcomes or results (generally presented in real-world terms) that are suggested orimplied by any idea, process or phenomenon. The data units in this category oftendescribed the outcomes of the articles and the topics discussed. Within thiscategory, the coding of units clustered around six themes and 10 sub-themes(Table II):

(1) levels of practical outcomes: (a subtheme 1) individual, (a subtheme 2) group, (asubtheme 3) organizational, (a subtheme 4) national (a subtheme 5) and global/societal levels;

335

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(2) topics of practice: (b sub-theme 1) governance, policy and politics, (b sub-theme2) training and development, (b sub-theme 3) education and teaching, (bsub-theme 4) learning and performance and (b sub-theme 5) culture;

(3) context-specific outcomes and beliefs of practice;(4) applicable tools for practice;(5) problems and critiques of practice; and(6) Goals for Practice.

DiscussionThis discussion is organized around the first three research questions. Each question isdiscussed in sequence, along with an interpretation of the findings. The fourth researchquestion is presented in the conclusions section.

RQ1. Evidence of theory, research, and practice perspectives

The articles used in this analysis clearly utilized theory, research and practiceperspectives as a way of understanding and interpreting their topics. Evidence oftheory, research and practice can be seen from the classification of data units during theaxial coding process. All collected data units were classifiable into at least one of thesethree perspectives or a combination thereof (i.e. one of the four shared-sides categories).

The practice category was articulated more than the research or theory categories.Although large in the number of units, a concentrated emphasis on practice is notnecessarily a novel finding. HRD has historically been described as an applied area ofstudy (Holton, 1999; Storberg-Walker, 2006; Torraco, 2002), and, as such, the practicecategory emphasizes the applied nature of HRD. Further, all of the articles that wereused came from AHRD-sponsored publications. One of the missions of AHRD is “tofoster research-practice linkages” (Academy of Human Resource Development, 2009).This mission would logically apply to publications sponsored by AHRD; hence, authorsoften link their writing to practice. Other journals may have different foci and thusdifferent results.

Additionally, the four AHRD-sponsored journals that were used all require authorsto identify explicitly how their research connects to practice. To ensure that theseconnections are made, each article is blind-reviewed using a criteria matrix. One elementof that matrix mandates that authors explicitly articulate the practical outcomes of theirresearch. Thus, regardless of an author’s desire (or not) to connect research to practice,they are required to make these connections. By mandating research to practiceconnections, there will undoubtedly be many practice category units and a greateremphasis placed on practical outcomes in HRD.

Many scholars (Garavan et al., 2000; Lynham, 2002; Marsick, 1990; McGoldrick et al.,2004; Storberg-Walker and Chermack, 2007; Swanson, 1999) have claimed that HRDneeds to do a better job of integrating theory, research and practice. The results of theaxial coding process (a predominant emphasis on practice) may provide one potentialreason why scholars feel that HRD is lacking in theory and research connections and intheir overall integration of theory, research and practice.

All units were classifiable into one of the seven possible pre-determined categories;however, the accumulation of units in these categories was not equally dispersed. TheHRD cube is designed as a cube and, as such, is itself comprises at least 162 smaller

EJTD38,4

336

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

cubes. Each of these smaller cubes represents a specific perspective of theory, researchand practice. During the axial coding of units, these individual perspectives would berepresented in the theory-research-practice category. However, this category was thesmallest of all categories. This is a potentially concerning result, as it demonstrates thatthese 16 articles do not necessarily address an integration of theory, research andpractice.

RQ2. Supporting the hypothesized construction of the HRD cube

At a superficial level, the results of the theory category suggest that authors do not tend todescribe that theory using the words people, process or outcomes. Although the use of people,processes and outcomes was not explicitly identified in the analysis, results suggested thatinforming HRD theory does come from this type of categorization of theory. Ideas labeled asa theory by article authors (e.g. adult learning, andragogy, behavioral, cognitive, criticalpedagogy, critical reflective, holistic, self-directed, situated, social and transformational)could be positioned within these theoretical foundations areas. Theme 2, Description ofSpecific Theory, in the theory category, describes many of these ideas.

The second component on the theory side of the HRD cube lists informingdisciplinary foundations (Figure 1). Those disciplines identified in this analysis provideevidence for the existence of many of the example disciplines presented in the HRD cube.They provide further evidence for the multi-, intra-, inter- and cross-disciplinary natureof HRD (Lynham and Cunningham, 2004; Lynham et al., 2006; McGuire and Cseh, 2006;McLean, 1998). Those disciplines that were identified in this analysis (Allied Health,Anthropology, Communication, Community Development, Economics, Education [Adultand K-12], History, Human Resource Development, Ideology, Instructional Technology,Management, Performance Improvement, Politics, Psychology [Behavioral and Cognitive],Sociology and Systems Engineering) could be potentially added to the HRD cube. HRDclearly utilizes multiple disciplines for gaining its informing theoretical understanding.

The research side (z-axis) of the HRD cube (Figure 1) is entitled Modes of Knowledgeand Inquiry (Metaphysical position). In this side, two ideas were confirmed through thefindings. The first theme in the research category, The Need for Multiple Perspectives ofHRD, provides support for all of the ideas that Lynham identified on this side of theCube. Units in this theme described why we need multiple perspectives of HRD.

On the research side, the HRD cube names six specific epistemologies and denotesmetaphysical systems and perspectives of HRD. Of those named epistemologies, three,post-positivism, interpretive and critical, were expressed within the data. Threeepistemologies (positivism, participatory and indigenous) named in the cube were notrepresented in the data; but, may exist in other articles.

The majority of data units describing epistemological perspectives came from thearticles that took a critical focus. Post-positivist articles rarely (if ever) discussed theirphilosophical perspective. Interpretive articles presented their philosophicalperspectives on only a few occasions. However, the critical articles generally went togreat lengths to describe their philosophical position. This finding may suggest thatauthors of post-positive and interpretive inquiry do not feel the need to explicitlyarticulate their underlying philosophical position. Swanson (2005a) stated that thedominant paradigm in HRD is post-positivism. Perhaps these perspectives have becomedominant within the literature such that authors do not perceive the need to describetheir undergirding philosophy, even though it directs their inquiry design, methods

337

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

choices and informs the quality criteria for such an inquiry. Thus, two dominantepistemologies were identified: post-positivism and interpretive.

S.A. Lynham has suggested (personal communication, August 8, 2009) that theresearch side of the HRD cube has embedded in it an implicit metaphysical systemconsisting of a series of ontological, epistemological, methodological, method,axiological and teleological questions that are used to inform research (this system isinformed by Guba and Lincoln, 2005, among others). There was evidence in these 16articles of authors describing this embedded system. Although, this system is notspecifically described on the research side of the Cube, all the themes in this categorycould be attributed to at least one element of this embedded system.

The practice side (y-axis) of the HRD cube (Figure 1) describes the domains ofoutcomes and performance for the inquiry of practice. The practice side describes ninedifferent domains of outcomes and performance. Of these nine levels, five, individual,group, organizations, national and global/societal levels, were confirmed within articlesused in this analysis. Four levels on the practice side of the HRD cube, process, family,community and regional, were not represented in the articles analyzed. Although thisanalysis did not find these levels, they may be represented in other articles.Additionally, certain levels may be more difficult to identify than others. Forinstance, consider the process level. Many outcomes have an embedded process.Unless that process is specifically labeled as such, then it would not have beencaptured in this analysis. The Tuckman (1965) model (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977) ofgroup development is an example. In the Tuckman model, a group works through aseries of stages, beginning with forming and ending with adjourning. Oneperspective of the Tuckman model is to suggest that its outcome is how the groupdevelops, classifying it in the group level. Another perspective might suggest thatits outcome is the process that the group moves through as it develops, classifyingit in the process level. Hence, the process level may be represented in many of theother levels.

A second significant finding in the practice category was that many (if not all) of thelevels were related. A unit from article L succinctly describes this relationship:

Individuals are embedded in groups and groups in organizations (London and Sessa, 2006,p. 305) [Unit# L38-305]

Evidence of the relatedness between levels, as described in unit L, was seen throughoutunits in the practice category. All levels described on the cube appear to share some formof relatedness. This relatedness is depicted in the cube as the dashed/dotted lines whichindicate that the cube is an open, interrelated system of the HRD praxis.

RQ3. suggested changes in the HRD cube

While this analysis used a limited number of articles, some changes to the HRD cube areoffered for consideration. Suggestions are offered for the cube as a whole and for eachside as it is currently constructed.

For the cube as a whole, findings from the axial coding indicated that there waslimited evidence of a theory-research-practice category. This finding has directimplications for the shape of the cube and for the nature of the HRD literature. As a cube,the HRD cube comprises at least 162 smaller cubes. Each of these smaller cubesrepresents a specific perspective of theory, research and practice. The results of this

EJTD38,4

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

analysis suggest that there was more evidence to indicate that current HRD literature isbetter depicted as a Venn diagram than as a cube. If it is possible to re-conceptualize/orient all of the information contained in the HRD cube into the shape of a Venn diagram(or similar), then this might prove valuable.

Additionally, it would be valuable to consider how the cube itself is named. As thetitle implies, the HRD cube is designed for use within HRD as an area of theory,research and practice. But there is evidence to conclude that the HRD cube may havea broader impact and utility for other applied social science disciplines. On thetheory side, evidence was found of multiple informing theories and disciplines usedby HRD. There is no reason why these theories and disciplines would not be used byother applied social sciences disciplines. On the research side, modes of knowledgeand inquiry are metaphysical positions that have applicability to many fields ofstudy and disciplines. Many of those epistemologies described on the research sideare not unique to HRD as evidenced by much of the literature that describes them.On the practice side, all applied sciences focus their efforts at different levels ofoutcomes; thus, it could be utilized by fields outside of HRD. The HRD cube couldpotentially be re-titled to reflect its broader nature and applicability within otherapplied social science fields and disciplines.

Assuming the shape and name of the HRD cube is to remain as it is, then changesmay be necessary only to specific sides (described below) without significantfundamental changes to the cube itself. In this case, the cube may well be informingauthors and journal editors that articles need to be more complete in describing all threesides of the cube in every article.

On the theory side of the HRD cube, two such changes are recommended. First, theresults of this analysis showed that authors do not use the terms people, processes andoutcomes. While Lynham indicated that these are categories of theories one mightsuggest that this distinction be more clearly and explicitly identified. Further, the resultssuggested that authors often used specific theories to inform their work. It would behelpful to provide examples of specific theories that might exist.

The results pertaining to the research side of the cube did not identify allproposed metaphysical positions. It would be advantageous to combine positivismand post-positivism into one category, as this analysis found no evidence thatauthors made a distinction in the way they described these two perspectives. Whileit is evident from the findings that authors made no distinctions in the way theydescribed the positivist and post-positivist perspectives, it is tempting to suggestthat, for example, these two paradigms be combined into one category on theresearch side of the cube. However, to do so would be incorrect, as these paradigmsare fundamentally different in nature. What one might suggest from this finding isthat there may be a lack of discernment in the field between these paradigms – evenan ability to so discern – and perhaps a need for epistemologically diverse trainingin HRD (Guba, 1990; Merriam, 1991; Pallas, 2001). The Cube would be helpful ininforming a more adequate spectrum of such training.

On the practice side, many of the data units identified in this category showed adegree of relatedness between outcome levels (i.e. individuals form groups, groups formorganizations, organizations aid nations, etc.). It might prove beneficial to denote thisrelatedness more clearly and explicitly.

339

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

ConclusionsUtility of the HRD cubeAlthough specific recommendations for changes have been made for the HRD cube,perhaps the greatest value of the cube is in its utility for HRD (among other fields ofstudy). The HRD cube has been described in many different ways, as a theoreticalframework, a typological sort mechanism, a synthesizing model of HRD, a learning tooland a heuristic. In each of these descriptions, the utility of the cube is highlighted.

As a theoretical framework of HRD, the cube represents a series of HRD-relevantperspectives. These perspectives are informed by HRD literature, and they representmany of the informing theory, research and practice ideas in HRD. This analysisprovides evidence of these literature and theory, research and practice connections.Further, as a theoretical framework, the HRD cube depicts the integration of theory,research and practice perspectives in HRD.

The HRD cube has been described as a typological sort mechanism (Lynham et al.,2010). As such, the cube could be used to sort articles within a typology of theory,research, and practice. An article for instance could be read, then sorted based on itsinforming theory, chosen research philosophy and practical outcome. This processwould identify which smaller cube in the HRD cube is most representative of thatarticle’s perspective. Thus, the HRD cube could be used to show where knowledge gapsare located within a topic of inquiry. The three-dimensional construction of the cube aidsthose who seek to understand a topic fully by emphasizing where knowledge does anddoes not exist.

As a synthesized model of HRD, it describes the extant theory, research and practiceareas of HRD. Similarly, the cube has been described as a learning tool (Lynham et al.,2010). As a learning tool, it provides HRD educators with a way of organizing andpresenting theory, research and practice components of HRD to learners.

Finally, the HRD Cube’s greatest contribution may be as a heuristic for authors andeditors to determine the adequacy of a manuscript in describing as fully as possible thecomponents that were critical in the conduct of research. Determining if there are gapsin any one of the axes on the Cube could be useful in helping identify such adequacy. Asa heuristic, the Cube acts as a tool for conducting a meta-analysis of relevant literature.Within a given topic or phenomenon, the Cube could be utilized to identify where gapsexist and where historical knowledge resides.

The paradigms of HRDOn the theory side of the HRD cube, all three people, process and outcome theory groupswere represented. Specific theories were most often described by authors. Of thosespecific theories, several authors identified multiple theories about people (e.g. learningtheories), although many specific theories are shared between fields and disciplines.However, there is evidence to conclude that all three areas on the theory side arerepresented within this data.

On the research side of the HRD cube, three of the six modes of knowledge andinquiry perspectives were identified. The post-positivist perspective was articulated insome units; however, the majority of authors who wrote post-positivistic articles did notexpress their philosophical position. The interpretive perspective was articulated.Similar to post-positivistic authors, interpretive authors did not often express theirphilosophical position. A critical perspective was also articulated; however, authors

EJTD38,4

340

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

using this perspective often clearly described their philosophical positioning. Thus,within these 16 articles, it appears that the post-positive and interpretive articles weremore dominant than critical articles. Kuhn (1996) suggested that paradigms pervade allthat we do. They become entrenched as a way of thinking. A paradigm is a paradigmbecause it is assumed to be true within an area of research. Because post-positive andinterpretive authors did not articulate their views, it could be argued that they assumedthat these views were understood and accepted by the HRD community. Otherperspectives provided in the HRD cube were not identified within these 16 articles;however, it is presumed that a wider sampling of literature would provide examples ofthese perspectives, as well as others that might not be listed explicitly on the cube.

On the practice side of the HRD cube, three outcome levels of practice were clearlydescribed. The individual, group and organization levels were often articulated.Although two additional levels were identified, national and global/societal, these levelswere seen as emerging.

Paradigms are the embodiment of those ideas and beliefs, those perspectives that anindividual or an entire field of study holds to be central to their understanding of theworld (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Based on this research, there are at least 18 prospectiveparadigms of HRD represented in these 16 articles with three dominant theoretical areas(people, processes and outcomes), two dominant research areas (post-positivism andinterpretive) and three dominant practice areas (people, groups and organization).

The 18 paradigms found within 16 articles provide evidence of the multiple operatingparadigms of HRD. These 18 represent some of the potential views within HRD as anintegrated area of theory, research and practice. Additional study will have to be givento these identified paradigms to understand how they exist within HRD and whatpredominant form(s) they take within the literature. Further study will help to clarifywhy these paradigms exist and which ones tend to dominate our literature and ourthinking. Further, 18 identified paradigms indicate that HRD is multi-paradigmatic.Many of the historical debates and controversies that exist within HRD may beattributed to this distinct nature.

People comprise HRD, and it is through those people (scholars, researchers andpractitioners) that an understanding of HRD will ultimately be gained. However,ambiguity will always exist within HRD, and we must gain a level of comfort with it orfind ourselves siloed in one or a limited number of perspectives. It is throughunderstanding those individual perspectives, identifying those assumptions that areimplicit and uncovering those paradigmatic controversies that we will be able to explorefurther the paradigms of HRD. In so doing, we will continue to enhance the development,growth, tolerance of ambiguity and maturity of the field.

ReferencesAcademy of Human Resource Development (2009), “Academy of human resource development:

about AHRD”, available at: www.ahrd.org/index.cfm (accessed 11 April 2010).Allen, W.C. (2006), “Overview and evolution of the ADDIE training system”, Advances in

Developing Human Resources, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 430-441.Bates, R. and Chen, H. (2005), “Value priorities of human resource development professionals”,

Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 345-368.Bierma, L.L. (2002), “A feminist approach to HRD research”, Human Resource Development

Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 244-268.

341

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Bing, J.W., Kehrhahn, M. and Short, D.C. (2003), “Challenges to the field of human resourcedevelopment”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 342-351.

Bonnin, D., Lane, T., Ruggunan, S. and Wood, G. (2004), “Training and development in themaritime industry: the case of South Africa”, Human Resource Development International,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7-22.

Brewer, E.W. and Shapard, L. (2004), “Employee burnout: a meta-analysis of the relationshipbetween age or years of experience”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 2,pp. 102-123.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: elementsof the Sociology of Corporate Life, Ashgate, Burlington, VT.

Byrd, M. and Demps, E. (2006), “Taking a look at national human resource development (nhrd):interviews with Gary Mclean and Susan Lynham”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 553-561.

Callahan, J.L. (2007), “Gazing into the crystal ball: critical HRD as a future of research in the field”,Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 77-82.

Dooley, L.M. (2002), “HRD literature: where is it published?”. in Egan, T.M. and Lynham S.A.(Eds). Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Academy of HumanResource Development, Honolulu, HI, pp. 722-728.

Egan, T.M. (2008), “The relevance of organizational subculture for motivation to transferlearning”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 299-322.

Garavan, T.N., Gunnigle, P. and Morley, M. (2000), “Contemporary HRD research: a triarchy oftheoretical perspectives and their prescriptions for HRD”, Journal of European IndustrialTraining, Vol. 24 No. 1-4, pp. 65-93.

Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990), “Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 584-602.

Giroux, H.A. (1982), “Critical theory and educational practice”, in Aronowitz, S. and Bologh, R.(Eds), Theory and resistance in education, Bergin and Garvey, Boston, MA, pp. 7-41.

Gokturk, E. (2005), “What is “paradigm”?”, available at: www.folk.uio.no/erek/essays/paradigm.pdf (accessed 11Febuary 2009).

Guba, E.G. (1990), The Paradigm Dialog, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1981), Effective Evaluation: improving the Usefulness of EvaluationResults through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 105-117.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005), “Paradigmatic, controversies, contraditions, and emergingconfluences”, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), The sage handbook of qualitative research,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 191-215.

Habermas, J. (1962), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into aCategory of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press, Boston, MA.

Hatcher, T. (2006), “An editor’s challenge to human resource development”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-4.

Hetrick, S. (2002), “Transferring HR ideas and practices: globalization and convergence inPoland”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 333-351.

EJTD38,4

342

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Holton, E.F. (1999), “What does applied field really mean?”, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301-304.

Hultgren, F.H. and Coomer, D.L. (Eds). (1989), Alternative Modes of Inquiry in Home EconomicsResearch, Glencoe, Peoria, IL.

Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (1993), “‘Paradigm wars’: a response to Hugh Willmott”, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 721-725.

Kuchinke, K.P. (2001), “Why HRD is not an academic discipline”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-294.

Kuchinke, K.P. (2008), “The scholarship of HRD practice”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 109-111.

Kuhn, T.S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Kuhn, T.S. (2000), “The natural and human sciences”, in Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (Eds), Theroad since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970-1993, with an autobiographical interview,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 216-223.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The structure of scientific revolutions, 1st ed., University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Lincoln, Y.S. and Lynham, S.A. (2007), “Criteria for assessing good theory in human resource

development and other applied disciplines from an interpretive perspective”, inNafukho, F., Chermack, T.J. and Graham, C.M. (Eds), Proceedings of the Academy of HumanResource Development Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development,Indianapolis, IN, pp. 23-30.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Lynham, S.A. (2011), “Criteria for assessing theory in human resourcedevelopment from an interpretive perspective”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-22.

Lodahl, J.B. and Gordon, G. (1972), “The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of universitygraduate departments”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 57-72.

London, M. and Sessa, V.I. (2006), “Group feedback for continuous learning”, Human ResourceDevelopment Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 303-329.

Lynham, S.A. (2000), “Theory building in the human resource development profession”, HumanResource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 159-178.

Lynham, S.A. (2002), “The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines”,Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-241.

Lynham, S.A. (2007), “A theoretical foundations cube for human resource development: selecting andintegrating theory, research, and practice”, unpublished course handout on Theoretical FrameworkSynthesis in EHRD 601, Foundations of HRD, TX A and M University, College Station, TX.

Lynham, S.A. (2008), “The HRD cube: a synthesis framework for selecting and integratingfoundational theory, research and theory, research and practice in HRD”, unpublishedpresentation at the Texas A and M University HRD Chautauqua Round-Up, CO StateUniversity, Ft. Collins, CO.

Lynham, S.A. and Cunningham, P.W. (2004), “Human resource development: the south africancase”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 315-325.

Lynham, S.A. and Cunningham, P.W. (2006), “National human resource development intransitioning societies in the developing world: concept and challenges”, Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 116-135.

343

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Lynham, S.A., Chermack, T.J. and Noggle, M. (2004), “OD theory from an HRD perspective”,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 2., pp. 151-172.

Lynham, S.A., Paprock, K.E. and Cunningham, P.W. (Eds). (2006), “National human resourcedevelopment in transitioning societies in the developing world”, Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, Vol. 8, No. 1., pp. 116-135

Lynham, S.A., Nafukho, F.M. and Cunningham, P.W. (2009), “The cultural context of humanresource development paradigms and practices in South Africa”, in Hansen, C.D. andLee, Y. (Eds), The Cultural Context of Human Resource Development, Palgrave MacMillan,Hampshire, UK, pp. 57-76.

Lynham, S.A., Lincoln, Y.S., Hurt, A.C. and McLean, G.N. (2010), “The HRD cube: a synthesisframework of understanding theory, research, and practice in HRD”, in Storberg-Walker, J.,Graham, C. and Dirani, K. (Eds), Proceedings of the Academy of Human ResourceDevelopment 2010 International Research Conference, Academy of Human ResourceDevelopment, Knoxville, TN.

McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2004), “Philosophy and Theory in HRD”, in Woodall, J.,Lee, M. and Stewart, J. (Eds), New frontiers in HRD, Routledge, NY, NY, pp. 13-26.

McGuire, D. and Cseh, M. (2006), “The development of the field of HRD: a delphi study”, Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 653-667.

McGuire, D., Garavan, T.N., O’Donnell, D., Saha, S.K. and Cseh, M. (2008), “Managers’ personalvalues as predictors of importance attached to training and development: a cross-countryexploratory study”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 335-350.

McLean, G.N. (1998), “HRD: a three-legged stool, an octopus, or a centipede?”, Human ResourceDevelopment International, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 375-377.

McLean, G.N. (2005), “Doing organization development in complex systems: the case at a largeU.S. research, land-grant university”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7No. 3, pp. 311-323.

McLean, G.N. (2006), Organization Development: principles, Processes, Performance,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

McLean, G.N. (2007), “Deja vu, all over again”, Human Resource Development International,Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 459-463.

McLean, G.N. and McLean, L. (2001), “If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define itin an international context?”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 313-326.

McLean, G.N., Osman-Gani, A.M. and Cho, E. (Eds). (2004), “Human resource development asnational policy”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6, No. 3.

McLean, G.N., Lynham, S.A., Azevedo, R.E., Lawrence, J.E.S. and Nafukho, F.M. (2008), “Aresponse to Wang and Swanson’s article on national HRD and theory development”,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 241-258.

Marris, E. (2008), “Disputed Definitions”, Nature, Vol. 455 No. 7216, pp. 1023-1028.

Marsick, V.J. (1990), “Altering the paradigm for theory building and research in human resourcedevelopment”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-24.

Merriam, S.B. (1991), “How research produces knowledge”, in Peters, J.M. and Jarvis, P. (Eds),Adult education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 42-65.

Merriam, S.B. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

EJTD38,4

344

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Naquin, S.S. and Baker, D.E. (2002), “Developing policy, governance, and foundation systems”,Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 133-150.

Pallas, A.M. (2001), “Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity”,Education Researcher, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 6-11.

Paradigm. (2009), “The American heritage dictionary of the English language”, 4th ed., availableat: www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradigm (accessed 7 September 2008).

Paradigm. (2010), “Oxford English dictionary online”, available at: www.dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl (accessed 7 April 2007).

Rogier, S.A. and Padgett, M.Y. (2004), “The impact of utilizing a flexible work schedule on theperceived career advancement potential of women”, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 89-106.

Roth, G.L. (2002), “Humor, humor theory, and HRD”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 351-355.

Rothwell, W.J., Sullivan, R. and McLean, G.N. (Eds) (1995), Practicing OD, Pfeiffer, SanFrancisco, CA.

Ruona, W.E.A. and Lynham, S.A. (2004), “A philosophical framework for thought and practice inhuman resource development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7 No. 2,pp. 151-164.

Russ-Eft, D.F. (2004), “So what is research anyway?”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-4.

Schmuck, R.A. and Miles, M.B. (Eds) (1971), Organization Development in Schools, National PressBooks, Palo Alto, CA.

Schwandt, T.A. (2001), Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Sleezer, C.M. and Sleezer, J.H. (1998), “The status of HRD research in the United States from 1980

to 1994”, Human Resource Development International, Vol 1 No. 4, pp. 451-460.Storberg-Walker, J. (2006), “From imagination to application: making the case for the general

method of theory-building research in applied disciplines”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 227-259.

Storberg-Walker, J. (2008), “Wenger’s communities of practice revisited: a (failed?) exercise inapplied communities of practice theory-building research”, Advances in Developing HumanResources, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 555-577.

Storberg-Walker, J. and Chermack, T.J. (2007), “Four methods for completing the conceptualdevelopment phase of applied theory building research in HRD”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 499-524.

Swanson, R.A. (1995), “Human resource development: performance is the key”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 207-213.

Swanson, R.A. (1999), “The foundations of performance improvement and implications forpractice”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Swanson, R.A. (2005a), “The challenge of research in organizations”, in Swanson, R.A. andHolton, E.F. (Eds), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-10.

Swanson, R.A. (2005b), “The process of framing research in organizations”, in Swanson, R.A. andHolton, E.F. (Eds), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 11-26.

Swanson, R.A. (2007), “Defining intergalactic human resource development (IHRD)”, HumanResource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 455-457.

345

Investigating theHRD cube

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. (2001), Foundations of Human Resource Development,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Torraco, R.J. (2002), “Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: a comparativeanalysis”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 355-376.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Development sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63No. 6, pp. 384-399.

Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M. (1977), “Stages of small-group development revisited”, Group andOrganization Studies, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 419-427.

Valentin, C. (2006), “Researching human resource development: emergence of a critical approachto HRD enquiry”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 17-28.

Wang, G.G. and Swanson, R.A. (2008), “The idea of national HRD: an analysis based on economicsand theory development methodology”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 79-106.

Weinberger, L.A. (1998), “Commonly held theories of human resource development”, HumanResource Development International, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 75-93.

Willmott, H. (1993), “Breaking the paradigm mentality”, Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 5,pp. 681-719.

Yang, B. (2004), “Holistic learning theory and implications for human resource development”,Advances In Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 241-262.

About the authorsAndrew C. Hurt PhD is an Assistant Professor in the department of Technology Leadership andInnovation at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. His expertise is in the area of HumanResource Development, with particular emphasis on the role of paradigms, training anddevelopment and organizational development practices within organizations. Andrew C. Hurt canbe contacted at: hurta@purdue.edu

Susan A. Lynham PhD is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Colorado StateUniversity in Fort Collins, Colorado. Her research areas include strategic human resourcedevelopment, responsible leadership and leadership development and theory building research.

Gary N. McLean PhD has worked in higher education for over 40 years and is the founder ofMcLean Global Consulting. He consults primarily in international Human Resource Development(HRD) and organization development, including conflict management, mergers and acquisitions,training, executive coaching, organizational design/structure and other interventions related toimproving individual and organizational performance.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

EJTD38,4

346

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

onas

h U

nive

rsity

At 0

8:08

06

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)