Title: HRD Programme Provision in the UK: Past, Present and Future

Authors:

Dr Paul Tosey (corresponding author), Senior Lecturer, Surrey Business School,University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH P.Tosey@surrey.ac.uk

Dr Valerie Anderson, Reader in Human Resource DevelopmentPortsmouth Business SchoolUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3DEValerie.anderson@port.ac.uk

Dr Carole Elliott, Senior Lecturer, Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham DH1 3LB c.j.elliott@durham.ac.uk

Dr Patricia Harrison, Senior Lecturer,Liverpool John Moores UniversityRedmonds Building Room 230Clarence Street Liverpool L3 5UGp.a.harrison@ljmu.ac.uk

Dr Claire Valentin, Depute Director Postgraduate StudiesInstitute for Education, Community & Society,   Moray House School of Education, The University of Edinburgh, 8 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQclaire.valentin@ed.ac.uk

Stream: Stream 8: Scholarly Practitioner Research/Teaching and Learning

Submission type: Refereed paper

Acknowledgements: We wish to thank UFHRD for their support of this project through an Honorarium; all participants in the 2014 symposium; and Mina Dragouni for her contribution to compiling the database.

1

Abstract

Purpose: To report on a UFHRD Honorarium project to identify and map current HRD

postgraduate level programme provision in the UK; to review changes in postgraduate

level HRD programme provision over the past 20 years; and, through a neo-

institutionalist perspective, to discuss the significance and future implications of

changes in programme provision for HRD as a field of practice and academic

discipline.

Design: First, an audit of UK HRD programme provision was undertaken to establish

current provision. Second, a symposium was convened at the UFHRD conference 2014.

This was recorded and transcribed.

Findings: There are findings about a mixed economy of HRD programme providers;

shifts in nomenclature whereby programmes in coaching, OD and other practices are

featuring prominently in the landscape of HRD provision. We characterize HRD as

having porous boundaries which make sense of the struggle to define HRD as a

recognisable, definable field.

Research limitations: We have focused on postgraduate level qualifications in UK,

therefore have not examined provision in Europe or HRD provision within

undergraduate courses. Both the audit and the symposium represent data gathered at a

single moment in time.

Practical and social implications: We identify implications of our findings for HRD

programme provision and scholarship, and for the HRD professionalization project.

2

Originality and value: To our knowledge, no comprehensive database of HRD

programme provision in the UK exists. The paper represents a timely, contemporary

contribution to debates about HRD as a field of practice and academic discipline.

Key words: HRD; postgraduate programmes; neo-institutionalist; professionalization.

3

HRD Programme Provision in the UK: Past, Present and Future

Introduction

As a relatively ‘young’ area of enquiry and practice the HRD ‘arena’ has evolved over

the last 20-30 years (Gold, Rodgers and Smith, 2003; Sambrook and Willmott, 2014)

and new patterns of delivery of educational programmes have emerged (Walton, Moon,

McGoldrick and Sambrook, 1995; Stewart, Mills and Sambrook, 2014). Evidence

relating to the UK (see, for example, Stewart and Sambrook, 2012) suggests that

specialist qualification pathways (e.g. MSc in HRD) are becoming rarer and the

‘embedding’ of HRD into broader programmes of study such as MBA or MA (HRM) is

increasing. The extent to which the HRD curriculum can and should be incorporated

into general educational pathways such as ‘Business Studies’; ‘Human Resource

Management’; ‘Adult Education’ and so on is contested.

One of the founding aims of UFHRD was to develop professionally-focused

qualifications at postgraduate level in the field of HRD. However, to our knowledge,

no comprehensive database of HRD programme provision in the UK exists, nor has any

systematic and deep review relating to HRD programmes and qualifications been

published more recently than the `Qualifications and Mapping Project’ (Walton et al.,

1995)1.

To address this, a UFHRD Honorarium project has been investigating postgraduate

level HRD programme provision. The objectives of the project are to:

1 The project commenced before publication of Stewart et al. (2014).

4

1. Identify and map current HRD postgraduate level programme provision in the

UK, resulting in database2 of provision (as at September 2014);

2. Review changes in postgraduate level HRD programme provision over the past

20 years;

3. Discuss the significance and future implications of changes in programme

provision for HRD as a field of practice and academic discipline.

This paper reports interim findings from that project. First, it sets issues of HRD

programme provision within the context of HRD literature and literature about the

sociology of professions. Second, it identifies patterns in current HRD programme

provision in the UK through quantitative analysis of the database. Third, it presents a

qualitative, thematic analysis of data from a symposium held at the 2014 UFHRD

conference about changes in programme provision. The paper concludes by posing

questions for debate about the significance and implications of the findings for HRD

programme provision for academics as actors in the HRD profession, and for the field

and profession of HRD, including relationships with the Chartered Institute of

Personnel and Development (CIPD), the UK professional body.

A note on terminology concerns our usage of HRD and HRM in this paper. We set out

to investigate HRD programmes, however most HRD provision is under the guise of

HRM, hence we could not isolate HRD from HRM. This applies not only to CIPD

accredited programmes but also to non-accredited programmes, half of which are

combined courses (e.g. MSc HRM/D, International HRM, and so on). Where we make

reference to HRM it denotes that programmes labelled as HRM include HRD. We have 2 The database itself is due to be available via the UFHRD website.

5

not checked, and are therefore unable to say, whether HRM programmes exist that do

not have any HRD component. However we do know that all CIPD accredited

programmes must include Learning and Development (L&D being the phrase now used

by the CIPD).

Literature Review

We begin with the HRD literature, from which three trends in HRD programme

provision are evident. The first trend is a shift in demand from part-time modes of study

aimed primarily at early or mid-career professionals domiciled in UK and employed in

HR or people management related roles, to the provision of full-time ‘entry level’

specialised ‘pre-employment’ postgraduate courses directed at international as well as

UK students (Stewart et al., 2014). The second trend concerns the increasing dominance

of one professional body, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

(CIPD), on both the curriculum and pedagogy of HRD-related courses (Anderson and

Gilmore, 2010; Stewart and Sambrook, 2012; Zachmeier and Cho, 2014). The third

trend is the widening of the ‘market’ for HRD and HRM courses to include

undergraduate as well as postgraduate level provision (Stewart et al. 2014).

Although currently under-developed, the scholarship of HRD education illuminates

debates about professional identity and career in the HRD field (Gold et al., 2003;

Sambrook and Willmott, 2014) and the relationship between scholarship and practice

(Ardichvili, 2012; Ardichvili and Oh, 2013). Comparative assessments (see, for

example, Zachmeier and Cho, 2014) indicate the importance of the ‘location’ of HRD

education for ‘grounding paradigms’ and for what are determined as the ‘boundaries’ of

the field. In the UK most courses are located in Business Schools but in the USA and

6

parts of Europe HRD forms part of the course provision of Schools of Education and/or

private providers.

While educational theories provide a basis for debate about the extent to which the

purpose of the HRD curriculum is `academic’ and `developmental’ or `vocational’

(McCombs, 2007; Maaike, Endedijk, Vermunt, Meijer and Brekelmans, 2014), a

developed theoretical perspective has yet to emerge. This paper will explore the

potential for a neo-institutionalist perspective as the basis for examining changes in

programme provision and their implications.

This theoretical lens recognises the role of the HRD profession and the ‘academic

profession’ as both institutions and agents in the creation, maintenance, and

development of the HRD field, taking into account the organizational context of the

practice of HRD (see, for example, Muzio, Brock and Suddaby, 2013). Muzio et al.

(2013) propose a neo-institutional lens as a way to make sense of ‘professions and

processes of professional change’ (p. 700). In recognising the significance of the

‘relationship between professions and institutions such as markets, organizational

forms, and business practices’ (ibid) as well between professional groups and

organizations, neo-institutionalism moves away from traditional sociological

approaches that do not address professionals’ role in constructing, organizing and

ordering social life (p. 701). Traditional sociological approaches have therefore been

unable to theorize implications arising from professional work’s shift to organizational

settings. These new forms of professional work include, according to Reed (1996),

HRM specialists ‘who are born directly out of organizational contexts’ (Muzio et al.,

2013, p. 703) and who succeed ‘by solving core problems for their employers and

7

colonizing enclaves and key positions in the organizational hierarchies they inhabit’

(ibid, p. 710).

McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard (2013) summarise recent literature on the effects

of professionalization projects and institutional entrepreneurship which draw attention

to their ‘complex, ambivalent and highly contingent nature’ (p. 753). Suddaby and

Viale (2011) for example, analyse the role that professionals play in creating,

maintaining or transforming institutions. In their terms, professional projects are ‘an

endogenous mechanism of institutional change’ (p. 424). They add that the

‘professional project’ is a well-established, ‘powerful conceptual explanation for

understanding both motivations and processes of professionalization (Larson, 1977,

cited in Suddaby and Viale, p. 426). McCann et al.’s (2013) study of the

professionalization project of NHS paramedics draws on practice theory and focuses on

the intricacies of day-to-day work practices of professional members. They therefore

encourage a focus on ‘how things work’ (Watson, 2011) at the micro-level. McCann et

al. conclude that while institutional entrepreneurship by professional bodies can

enhance workers’ status, professionalization projects might not translate into changes in

everyday work practices.

We shall review how our data inform the trends and themes noted here, and apply the

neo-institutionalist lens to our data, in the Discussion section that follows the data

analyses.

8

Research Design

There are two components to the research design. In order to address our first project

objective, following initial work reported at UFHRD 2014 (Stewart et al., 2014) an

audit of UK HRD programme provision was undertaken to establish current provision

(e.g. modules, programmes and providers). Secondary sources comprise the basis for

the quantitative data presented here. CIPD accredited course provision was identified

from the CIPD website between June and September 2014. Once this information had

been gathered further data were obtained from websites of provider organizations. The

data relating to non-accredited programmes were further extended through an on-line

search directed at: Google, ‘FindAmasters.com’ and ‘Prospects.ac.uk’ making use of

the following search terms, in recognition that HRD curricula provision does not

necessarily employ the title HRD.: ‘Training and development’, ‘Coaching’,

‘Mentoring’, ‘Organization Development’, ‘Instructional design’, ‘E-learning’,

‘Workforce development’, ‘Leadership development’, ‘Management development’,

‘Organizational learning’. We acknowledge that the view that these titles belong to

HRD is our interpretation. Others – for example, people operating within OD and

coaching – might well contest this.

Second, a one-hour long symposium titled `HRD Programme Provision in the UK:

Trends and Directions’ was convened at the UFHRD conference 2014. This was

recorded and transcribed. These data addressed our second project objective regarding

longitudinal features specifically. In addition, participants reflected on changes in the

content of the HRD curriculum and the extent to which HRD programmes are aligned

with the values of scholarship and with the values of practice. This paper presents the

9

results of deploying some of the analytical tools (conceptual coding and categorisation)

from grounded theory to elicit themes from the transcript.

Together, these two sets of data are used to address our third project objective

concerning the impact of changes in higher education policy, professional practice and

the ‘market’ for HRD education on HRD programme provision.

Quantitative Analysis of Programme Audit

Developing from the approaches utilised by Walton et.al (1995) and Zachmeier et al.

(2014), the data from the audit process provide:

a) An analysis of the number of and types of organizations and institutions offering

HRD postgraduate study programmes. This includes programmes accredited by

the CIPD, highlighting particularly the role of private providers and vocational

colleges; and an analysis of programme data from over fifty Higher Education

Institutions that offer non-accredited programmes and an assessment of the

emerging areas of focus (such as Organization Development; Consultancy and

Change; Skills and Workforce Development; Coaching and Mentoring;

Technology Enhanced Learning);

b) An assessment of the media and modes of learning (full-time; part-time; burst

mode; distance; on-line etc.);

c) An examination of the extent of the shift in market emphasis from ‘post-

experience’ and part-time UK students to professional formation courses

directed at international students.

10

Programme provision

Our audit identified a total of 259 programmes, of which 193 are CIPD-accredited and

66 are non-accredited. Drawing on 2012-13 data from UK Higher Education Statistical

Agency (HESA), Stewart et al. (2014) estimated that 105 Higher Education Institutions

(HEIs) were involved in postgraduate level programme provision in HRM and/or HRD.

Our audit identifies a larger number of 159 course providers in UK. Of these 126 (79%)

offer programmes accredited by the CIPD and a further 33 (21%) offer programmes

that are not formally accredited. Within this population HEIs dominate course

provision; in all but one case located in Business Schools or Faculties of Management.

However, vocational colleges (in the UK referred to as Colleges of Further Education)

and private providers represent 35% of provision. Stewart et al. (2014) suggest that

vocational colleges and private providers outnumber HEIs in HRD education provision;

clearly, our data offer an alternative perspective.

65%

22%

14%

HEIsFE collegesPrivate providers

Figure 1: HRD Programme Providers (CIPD-accredited programmes). Data

derived from CIPD website

11

Our identification of HEIs that offer non-accredited programmes indicates emerging

areas of focus in HRD programme provision reflecting the ‘porous’ nature of the

boundaries of the field. We estimate that as many as 55 HEIs may be offering non-

accredited postgraduate programmes that incorporate some feature of HRD within the

curriculum. `As many as’ means that we found 55 HEIs that have details of non-

accredited programmes on their websites. In other words, this is what providers claim to

be offering - we do not know whether these programmes are actually running. Verifying

this would entail enquiries to each individual provider, which is outside the scope of our

project.

Stewart et al. (2014) have established that CIPD accredited programmes in UK

explicitly include both HRM and HRD within their curriculum. In addition the data set

suggests that 25 programmes within the data set offer teaching in International HRM/D;

and others may include HRD teaching within programmes in Leadership, Global

Leadership and Sustainable Leadership. The data reflect and confirm the decline in the

use of the generic term ‘Human Resource Development’, alongside the presence of

what may be conceptualised as specialised domains within the field. Although Manning

(2012) found fewer (i.e. four), our data suggest that 12 institutions in UK include the

term ‘Human Resource Development’ as the specific focus of their Masters level

award. However, Table 1 provides an illustration of the relative decline in the use of the

term HRD. It shows that, within the 55 HEIs that offer non-accredited programmes, 23

programmes that we would classify as HRD do not use the term `HRD’ in the

programme title (nb it is possible that some of these HEIs offer more than one

programme). Table 1 may indicate a fragmentation of HRD into a variety of terms,

among which coaching and organization development are prominent.

12

Programme title HEIs (n)

Coaching and/or Mentoring 11

Organization development/organization change/consultancy 6

Skills and workforce development 1

Personal/professional/leadership development 4

Technology enhanced learning 1

Total 23

Table 1: Specialist terms appearing in programme titles

Summary

To summarise, these data challenge the views expressed by Stewart et al. (2014) that FE

colleges and independent private providers (PP), outnumber HEIs in HRD education

provision. When non-accredited programme provision is included in the analysis it is

likely that HEIs are at least as represented within the population of HRD programme

providers as vocational colleges and private providers. Providers also appear to be

moving into areas that UFHRD might seek to claim, but which are not called HRD. We

shall return in the Discussion to the theme of terminological fragmentation of the

curriculum associated with the field of HRD.

Media and modes of learning

This section of the analysis considers approaches to teaching and learning HRD in the

UK. Our data provide evidence of the distribution across programme providers of six

modes of delivery: full-time, part-time; ‘burst’ mode (block-delivery); distance

13

learning; on-line course delivery; and blended or ‘mixed modes’ of delivery. Table 2

shows the different modes of delivery broken down into CIPD accredited and non-

accredited programmes. This indicates that around half of programmes offered in part-

time mode of attendance. Teaching sessions typically occur on a weekly basis during

academic terms with attendance expected for about 6-8 hours per week over the

duration of the programme. This mode of programme provision is designed for students

who are already in employment, providing an opportunity for post-experience and

work-related study in the HRM/D field although data from HEI websites suggests that

only 27% of these programmes explicitly require applicants to have current or previous

work experience. Currently full-time modes of study account for around one-third of

provision. However, only ten of the 77 full time programmes (eight of which are CIPD

accredited) explicitly offer some form of work experience as a part of their course

offering.

Mode CIPD accredited

(n)

CIPD accredited

(%)

Non-accredited

(n)

Non-accredited

(%)

Part-time 109 56 29 44

Full-time 53 27 24 36

Burst

(block)

8 4 5 8

Distance 11 6 5 8

On-line - - 2 3

Blended 12 6 1 2

Total 193 100 66 100

Table 2: Modes of delivery

The data also indicate that HEIs and other course providers in UK have been slow to

develop other modes of study. Only two HEIs and one vocational college indicate a

14

mixed or blended learning mode for these programmes; the remaining eleven are all

private providers. Half of the distance learning providers also come from the non-HEI

sector.

Web-site data from the programme providers also give some indication of the different

learning processes included within some provision (Table 3).

Media

HEI (CIPD

accredited)

HEI (Non-

accredited)

Vocational

College

Private

Provider n

Classroom / face to face 58 42 13 12 100

Online resources 16 11 3 7 37

Web-based discussions 3 6 1 3 13

Guest speakers 9 4 13

Field visits 5 6 11

Telephone 2 3 6 11

Email 1 3 6 10

Self-study resources 1 4 1 5

Conferences 1 0 1

Table 3: Learning Processes (as indicated by programme providers’ web pages)

These data suggest that traditional classroom and face-to-face forms of delivery

continue to dominate learning and teaching within UK HRD programme providers. On-

line resources, often provided on an institutional virtual learning environment, are

provided as supplements to this form of delivery. Field visits and guest speakers form a

published feature of a few courses.

15

In summary, we offer five conclusions from these data:

1. Although international comparisons indicate that HRD is taught as part of an

academic programme in many different host departments such as education,

management, psychology, social work, and public policy (Cho and Zachmeier,

2014), in the UK Business Schools and management departments continue to

dominate programme provision.

2. Although HEIs dominate programme provision, over a third of providers are

privately run organizations or vocational (Further Education) colleges.

3. Although other accreditation bodies operate in UK (see, for example, the

European Mentoring and Coaching Council and the Institute of Training and

Occupational Learning), CIPD accredited programmes dominate accredited

HRD programme provision.

4. In contrast to provision in the USA which focuses on instructional design and

training and development techniques (Kuchinke, 2003), the UK curriculum is

grounded in HRM and other fields of practice and knowledge such as coaching

and mentoring, OD, workplace learning and workforce development.

5. Traditional media and modes of learning continue to dominate UK programme

provision, a finding which confirms Stewart et al (2014).

Qualitative Data Analysis

This section of the paper analyses the transcript and contemporaneous notes from the

symposium held at the UFHRD Conference in June 2014.

The symposium was privileged to feature three speakers with significant experience in

the UK HRD field who shared their knowledge of HRD provision and related themes.

16

These were John Walton (JW), former Professor in HRD at London Metropolitan

University, with some 30 years’ experience of HRD provision; Jim Stewart (JS),

Professor of HRD at Coventry Business School, currently Executive Secretary and

formerly Chair of the University Forum for HRD; and Dr John McGurk (JM), Head of

CIPD Scotland. Speakers’ initials are used to identify quotes in the narrative that

follows. Views from the audience during the questioning phase are also captured in the

analysis. Thus the contents of the transcript reflect a significant amount of tacit

knowledge from `key informants’ who shared their experience of (HRD) provision past,

present and future as identified

By deploying some of the analytical tools (conceptual coding and categorisation) from

grounded theory to explore the transcript and contemporaneous notes, the following

three themes emerged:

1. The status of HRD: the social history and development of HRD and HRD

programme provision, noting key events and their implications for the status of

HRD.

2. Labelling: terminology used in HRD programme provision including its

disciplinary location and mode of delivery;

3. A concertina’d profession? routes into HRD as a profession, access,

progression, continuing professional development (CPD) and advanced

standards.

17

Theme 1: The status of HRD

A Forum for HRD was established around 1990 following the introduction of the first

Masters HRD programme at South Bank University. The Institute of Training and

Development (ITD) funded the time of the retired principal, Alan Moon to set up a

network of HRD provision, whose purpose was to meet the main aim of ITD to

professionalise the occupation. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications

(NVQs) supported this activity by providing a lunch and space in their Euston Road

office, hence the name the Euston Road Group.

The ITD had two objectives to meet the professionalization aim: to develop Masters

programmes and to achieve CPD for HRD professionals. This is important because it

emphasises that the original purpose of HRD qualifications was vocational. The Euston

Road Group also initiated the sharing of knowledge through research and journal

publications.

With regard to the introduction of Masters provision, the network expanded quickly

with key partnerships being formed at UK Universities including Liverpool John

Moores (who appointed the first Professor of HRD) and Portsmouth. As a result of the

formation of the network ‘most of the masters programmes … virtually followed the

same format’ (JW); Lancaster was an exception to this but JW emphasised how there

was ‘consensus’ among others who adopted a very similar approach.

Despite strong growth in HRD programmes, JS told of his struggles to get acceptance

for the first HRD programme at his (then) institution. Gaining recognition for HRD has

continued to be challenging. One reason cited for this is the ‘significant issue’ (JW) that

18

academic provision is often housed in Business Schools, in which vocational subjects

may be perceived as having lower status than `academic’ subjects. In this respect the

UK scene contrasts both with the USA, where HRD is housed typically in Education

Faculties, and with Europe, where the German model of separating academic and

vocational qualifications is common, such that those with a first degree will ‘follow it

through with their masters; they don’t do a totally unrelated vocational subject’ (JW).

This emphasises not only that the position of HRD in the UK is somewhat distinctive,

but also that the potential for HRD to develop globally would need to acknowledge

such international variations.

In 1994 there came a pivotal a change in the landscape. This was the merging of the

Institute of Personnel Management (IPD) with the Institute of Training and

Development (ITD) to form the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

(CIPD). One of the differences between the two professional bodies was that there was

no qualification needed for entry to the ITD. As JS stated, ‘ITD was much less strict …

than the IPM in relation to membership’. Also according to Reid and Barrington (1999)

the status of ITD was perceived to be low at the time – reflecting Eraut’s (1994)

emphasis on the central role of knowledge in the perceived status of professions. It

might be argued that this historic inferiority persists in the status of HRD within the

CIPD compared with that of HRM; and that this parallels HRD’s position relative to

HRM in the academic world (e.g. manifested in the relative `rating’ of journals in these

fields).

19

Theme 2: Labelling

Speakers were unanimous that since the combining of ITD and IPD there has been a

change in terminology, with a significant decline in programmes that use the title HRD

but an increase in those with the title HRM (see also Stewart and Sambrook, 2012;

Stewart et al., 2014). This is consistent with the research by Manning (2012, p.4) who

found only four UK programmes with HRD in the title, as well as two in Training and

Development and six HRM Masters with an HRD component

JW felt that the loss of HRD in the title of programmes was not positive for the HRD

profession. Kuchinke (2003), similarly, suggested that the consequences will be that the

HRD profession will lose out, owing in particular to the dominance of HRM. Other

issues include the concern that HRD will be deemed to be a subset of HRM (Auluck

2006) rather than a partner, as suggested in the terminology of ‘merger’. As with

company mergers, it is frequently the case that one organization retains or assumes a

dominant position.

Counter to this concern, JS put forward the argument that the overall net effect is

positive in terms of HRD education at postgraduate level because all CIPD professional

programmes must include HRD; while there may be fewer awards there are `a lot more

people being educated in and about HRD’ (JS). JM lent support to this view and

emphasized the importance of Learning and Development (L&D) in the (new) CIPD

qualification scheme; hence CIPD have ‘set up many more L&D communities’ (JM) and

HRD practitioners have been appointed to key central roles in the CIPD. Furthermore,

JM highlighted instances of HRD featuring in the CIPD `professional map’.

Nevertheless, although such benefits were acknowledged, the prevalent view in the

20

symposium was that the absence of HRD from programme titles has more negative than

positive consequences.

The issue of labelling is clearly relevant to the first theme of the status of HRD. One

member of the audience reported that in her experience that the label ‘training’ was not

perceived as strategic and therefore not valued by senior management. Another member

of the audience put forward the view that the subsuming of HRD into HRM has been its

‘death knell’.

Theme 3: A concertina’d profession?

As discussed earlier one of the key objectives of the ITD was to achieve CPD for its

members. In the early days of the IPM and ITD the primary aim of qualification

schemes were to enable professional recognition. To achieve this aim a postgraduate

diploma level qualification was developed and deployed. Later came a Masters’ degree

qualification including advanced standards, the specific aim of which was CPD for

practising professionals. Therefore, the postgraduate curriculum was deliberately

designed to reflect the advanced standards of the professional qualification, reflecting

for example strategic aspects of HR work. This system was linked to the NVQ route

with access commencing at (in terms of today’s higher education qualification levels)

level three to Masters at level seven. This created a clear structure of Postgraduate

Certificate, Postgraduate Diploma and Masters.

This has changed over time. Most CIPD accredited programmes are now validated at

Masters’ level, with very few programmes at Postgraduate Diploma level only. A

consequence of entry to the profession being at Masters’ level, however, is that there

21

are no advanced standards, and no provision for further study as CPD. As explained by

JW; ‘the current standards with the CIPD have lost these advanced standards, because

the current qualification is classified as the highest level’.

This has significant implications for HRD as a profession. CPD is a compulsory

element of many professions, such as accountancy, medicine and law. CPD also

provides for progression and enables distinctions between levels of practice. HRD is

therefore not only lacking an essential feature of most professions, but is also lacking

opportunities for development – both unfortunate and ironic in a profession whose very

raison d’ȇtre is learning and development. One way to meet the need for advanced

standards could be in the form of vocational doctorates, however according to JW the

`jury is out’ concerning their perceived value.

As well as the impact on post-qualification CPD, there have also been important

consequences for access at the entry levels to the HR profession. Whereas Postgraduate

Diploma level was initially the accepted entry level, it is now Masters’ level; the entry

point is level five or six, as opposed to entry at level three. JS thought this was ‘bad’

and that ‘access to higher level education and qualifications in HR is worse now’. He

was very concerned that Masters’ level entry has resulted in the loss of the old

Certificate in Personnel Practice (CPP), a level three qualification that used to be (but

seems no longer to be) offered by many universities. JM suggested that it was important

that professions such as HR and accountancy should be socially inclusive and have

opportunities for access, possibly through a Further Education (FE) College. A member

of the audience agreed but observed that this is market driven because universities ‘do

not make money…’ so `there’s no incentive’ for senior management to support this level

22

of qualification. Such programmes are not part of university agendas because they do

not enhance the reputation of Business Schools.

Members of the audience noted other possible shifts in the market, including that

students prefer a generalist to a specialist degree; that the undergraduate market has

declined not only for HRD but also for HRM; and that student preference is for

Business Studies degrees with an HR pathway. JS challenged this view, suggesting that

the main demand from students was for CIPD recognition and that this was the defining

aspect more than the type of award. Also, from his experience he felt that there had

been a growth in the undergraduate HRM market. A third view was put forward, citing

one institution at which students wanted both titles (Business with HRM) in the award.

According to Kuchinke (2003), HRD provision does not sufficiently capture the variety

of HRD practice. Unfortunately, however, it is likely that such provision would have

small cohorts, again at odds with the market led, business model prevalent in UK

universities.

HRD could therefore be characterized as a `concertina’d’ profession in the sense that

entry, advanced levels and CPD are effectively squeezed into Masters’ programmes.

Not only are there barriers to access but also those who have entered the profession

have few if any options for progression in terms of qualifications. Despite some

possible shifts in the market, the overall effect is surely constraining not only in terms

of attracting people into HRD but also in terms of supporting HRD’s claim to be a

profession.

23

A related, final point is that there appears to be `leakage’ through the porous boundaries

of the profession. Thus JM observed that organizational design and development,

coaching, leadership and change management are frequently being undertaken by senior

managers, not necessarily HRD specialists. Auluck (2006), similarly, notes the dispersal

of traditional HRD activities to line managers and outsourcing organizations.

In summary, a qualitative analysis of the symposium transcript led to three main

themes. First, provision of HRD programmes is influenced by the perceived status of

HRD; not only can HRD be perceived to have lesser standing than HRM, perhaps due

to historical reasons linked to the relationship between the IPD and ITD, but also within

academic contexts HRD may be perceived as vocational more than as a `serious’

discipline. Second, usage of the title HRD appears to be in decline. HRD provision risks

being subsumed under HRM, although the compulsory inclusion of L&D in CIPD

provision was seen by some to have the effect of maintaining the presence of HRD

provision. Third, HRD might be characterized as a `concertina’d’ profession that lacks

differentiation between entry and advanced levels, has barriers to access and is deficient

in CPD. In the next section we discuss, and attempt to theorize, key themes from our

analyses.

Discussion

This section addresses our third project objective, that is, to discuss the significance and

future implications of changes in programme provision for HRD as a field of practice

and academic discipline.

24

In the literature review we identified three trends in the HRD literature. First, a shift in

demand from part-time modes of study aimed primarily at early or mid-career

professionals domiciled in UK and employed in HR or people management related

roles, to the provision of full-time ‘entry level’ specialised ‘pre-employment’

postgraduate courses directed at international as well as UK students (Stewart et al.,

2014); second, the increasing dominance of one professional body, the Chartered

Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), on both the curriculum and pedagogy

of HRD-related courses (Anderson and Gilmore, 2010; Stewart and Sambrook, 2012;

Zachmeier and Cho, 2014); third, the widening of the ‘market’ for HRD and HRM

courses to include undergraduate as well as postgraduate level provision.

Our data confirm those trends in many respects, although with variations that are worth

noting. For example, around half of the programmes in our database , for both CIPD

accredited and non-accredited courses, are offered for a part-time mode of attendance.

Full-time modes of study account for only one-third of course provision.

It is perhaps remarkable and salutary that traditional classroom and face-to-face forms

of delivery continue to dominate learning and teaching among UK HRD programme

providers. Quantitative data show that despite massive economic and technological

change, UK provision remains firmly rooted in face to face, non-technological delivery.

This chimes with Stewart and Sambrook’s (2012) observations about the limited impact

of massive online open courses (MOOCs).

There appears to be clear evidence of a mixed economy of providers. While Stewart et

al. (2014) suggest that vocational colleges and private providers outnumber HEIs in

25

HRD education provision, our data offer an alternative perspective in which vocational

colleges (in UK referred to as Colleges of Further Education) and private providers

represent 35% of provision. It is also relevant that such providers are not staffed by

HRD academics – for example they may be hired by the CIPD. Even at postgraduate

level, therefore, the provision of HRD programmes is by no means an exclusively

academic practice.

A neo-institutionalist lens provides a framework for an examination of issues

concerning professional identity, the relationship between scholarship and practice and

the ‘location’ of HRD education for ‘grounding paradigms’ and for what are determined

as the ‘boundaries’ of the field. As described above, this is a period during which HRD

educators have witnessed the emergence of a ‘unifying’ professional body – the CIPD –

and the growth of full-time Masters’ provision to a predominantly young, international

student body. Those academics who teach HRD have therefore found themselves

operating at the intersection of two forces: a professional body that privileges the

accreditation of programmes offered to experienced practitioners where HRD is just

one element in a broader curriculum, and a university sector financially reliant on

international student fees.

The concept of institutional entrepreneurship in particular presents a lens through which

we can make sense of the role of HRD educators. Academics can be regarded as agents

or entrepreneurs who actively manage tensions between CIPD and the university, and

also in the relationship between HRD and HRM. This may help to explain, for example,

the apparent shift towards programmes that appear to be within the domain of HRD (as

we, as members of UFHRD, perceive it) but which are not labelled as HRD (or even as

26

HRM). Here, HRD academics act entrepreneurially to develop programmes that are

driven by the economic interest of universities even though they result in a distancing

from CIPD accredited programmes. While such academics might be CIPD members,

they are also rebellious; as university employees and members of peer (scholarly)

communities, including but not confined to UFHRD, their loyalty is perhaps greater to

their academic identities than to their role as agents of the CIPD. Academics as

entrepreneurs may be pitching their efforts towards other goals and values, such as the

prospect of research outputs deemed as ‘high quality’ in terms of citations within so

called ‘top ranked’ academic journals.

The porous nature of the boundaries of the field is emphasized and illustrated by our

identification of HEIs that offer non-accredited programmes; by the mixed economy of

providers; by the fact that by no means all programmes are delivered by academics; by

the shifts in nomenclature whereby programmes in coaching, OD and other practices

are featuring prominently in the landscape of HRD provision; and by the dispersal of

HRD activities to line managers and outsourcing organizations.

These porous boundaries make sense of the struggle to define HRD as a recognisable,

definable field. Furthermore it may be significant that most of the terms shown in Table

1 are directly descriptive of specific forms of practice (e.g. `coaching’); HRD is not

necessarily even on the radar of these (HRD) programmes. That is, not only is there a

shift away from using the title HRD, but also there is no apparent shift towards new,

overarching titles that would substitute directly for HRD. HRD, at least symbolically,

may be fragmenting into constituent practices that represent more coherent, or more

easily comprehended, territories. It is recognised that the label `HRD’ entails the

27

challenge of reconciling individual and organizational development; we might speculate

that the evidence in Table 1 about the terms now being used in programme titles could

indicate that this challenge is being abandoned by many providers. If so, this could

resonate with questions raised by authors such as Ruona (2014) of whether HRD is

better described as a field of practice than as a profession.

The CIPD is also influencing those boundaries by replacing the label of HRD with that

of L&D. As noted above, some have argued that this has been to the benefit of HRD,

resulting in more HRD teaching than might otherwise have been the case. On the other

hand, we are surely entitled to ask whether L&D/HRD – despite CIPD espousal of its

importance – is perceived as being as prominent as HRM within the CIPD `profession

map’ (CIPD, 2014). The analogue of that map is surely more likely to draw attention

towards constituent elements of HRD (e.g. learning and development; organization

development), and to reinforce their decoupling from the label HRD and reassemblage

as components of HRM. Incidentally, we should not assume that the CIPD is unaffected

by shifting boundaries. Other professional bodies or quasi-professional bodies – such as

the European Mentoring and Coaching Council– are also playing in this space. As our

quantitative analysis shows, much provision is not accredited (by any professional

body, not necessarily CIPD).The CIPD itself is exercised by the question of how

international its scope should become.

We offer the following scenario to encapsulate a broad conclusion from our analyses.

The field of HRD is increasingly characterised by porous boundaries that render the

field and the profession diffuse and difficult to contain. HRD bodies (e.g. UFHRD)

have little power either to influence the boundaries themselves or the traffic that passes

28

across them; or to contain and control what lies within the boundaries. Usage of the

label `HRD’ is in decline in programme titles and has disappeared from the CIPD

profession map. HRD education is being delivered through – and possibly usurped by -

constituent practices such as coaching, illustrating the porous nature of the boundaries

because there are no effective barriers to entry into non-accredited HRD programme

provision. HRD may be better described as a loose alliance of practices, and its claims

to be a profession are vulnerable. The structure of HRD programme provision that

involves a single, Masters’ level tier and is devoid of CPD seems almost designed to

limit and eventually reduce the population of HRD professionals. HRD is perceived as

having lower status relative to HRM within the profession, and lower status with

respect to many other disciplines within Business Schools. HRD academics would seem

to be caught betwixt the demands of employers and the interests of institutional bodies,

i.e. HEI’s and CIPD.

Alongside this, our audit has shown that there are 259 HRD programmes in the UK.

This is a substantial and potentially significant number and suggests that demand for

entry to the `HRD profession’ continues to exist amongst both individuals and

employers. The longevity and success of the UFHRD conference itself provides

evidence of an effective, continuing scholarly community.

Questions for HRD – and for UFHRD - might therefore include:

1. While some participants in our symposium regretted the decline of HRD usage, is

this more of a reality to face up to? By clinging to the flotsam of HRD do we risk

becoming marooned in these shifting seas?

29

2. What are the implications of the very porous boundaries of the field, and of (for

example) the lack of CPD, for claiming that HRD is a profession? Would it be more

realistic and effective to conceive of HRD as a broad alliance of practices?

3. What are the implications of the answer to (2) for HRD’s relationship with

professional bodies (including, but not confined to, CIPD)?

4. If HRD is perceived as a profession, how can the concertina effect be addressed in

terms of access and entry? And how can CPD be provided for HRD practitioners?

Could professional doctorates – which exist in areas such as leadership and

coaching – offer an advanced route?

5. What are the implications for HRD and for HRD academics of HRD programme

provision in UK universities being be housed Business Schools?

6. What is the evidence about the market for HRD programme provision – including

student demand as well as trends in nomenclature - and what are the implications

for programme provision?

7. What is the scope to expand use of non-traditional, e-learning methods in HRD

programme provision?

Within the neo-intuitionalist literature, there is a ‘growing recognition’ that

‘professionals do effect change by constructing and enforcing social categories

(Suddaby and Viale, 2011, p. 435). The questions above highlight the extent and

breadth of the competing institutionalising processes within which HRD educators find

themselves. We need to reflect long and hard regarding the extent to which we, as HRD

educators, are committed to (re)engaging with a professionalization project for HRD.

30

Limitations

We acknowledge certain limitations of this research. First, in line with the founding aim

of UFHRD we have focused on postgraduate level qualifications in UK and have not

yet taken into account the changing pattern of HRD provision within undergraduate

courses. Second, our focus has been on UK provision and further examination of

provision in Europe would be valuable. Methodologically, our qualititative data set

comprises a single transcript and so there are insufficient data to support a full,

systematic grounded analysis. Our quantitative data set does not illuminate the

characteristics of different types of course cohorts; it is probable that part-time cohorts

are different from full-time cohorts but these data were not available from webpages.

Finally, both the audit and the symposium represent data gathered at a single moment in

time.

Conclusion

HRD education straddles the sites of practice and scholarship. Our paper contributes

both cross-sectional data and a longitudinal consideration of the provision of HRD

education in UK. It provides the basis for engagement and debate amongst the HRD

community in relation to professional identity and career. Drawing on neo-institutional

theory and making use of both quantitative and qualitative data we examine the

influence and agency of HRD (and HRM) professional bodies and academic

professionals in the redefinition of the HRD field. HRD has been characterized as

having highly porous boundaries coupled with relatively low status and influence. We

have identified questions about the implications of this for HRD programme provision

and scholarship, and for the HRD professionalization project.

31

References

Anderson, V. and Gilmore, S. (2010) Learning, experienced emotions, relationships and

innovation in HRD, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34, Iss 8/9, pp. 753 –

771

Ardichvili, A. (2012) Sustainability or limitless expansion: paradigm shift in HRD

practice and teaching. European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 36, No. 9,

pp. 873-887.

Ardichvili, A. and Oh, J.R. (2013) The second academy-practice gap: Comparing areas

of focus of HRD practitioner publications and academic programs, Bilgi Ekonomisi ve

Yönetimi Dergisi, Vol. VIII No. I.

Auluck, R. (2006). The Human Resource Development function: the ambiguity of its

status within the UK public service. International Review of Administrative Sciences

Vol. 72, No. 1, pp.27-41.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77-101.

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London,

Routledge Falmer.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2014) CIPD Profession Map,

http://www.cipd.co.uk/cipd-hr-profession/profession-map/, accessed 19th March 2015

32

Gold, J., Rodgers, H., and Smith, V. (2003) What is the future for the Human Resource

Development professional? A UK perspective, Human Resource Development

International, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 437-456.

Kuchinke, P. (2003). Contingent HRD: Toward a theory of variation and differentiation

in formal Human Resource Development. Human Resource Development Review Vol.

2, No.3, pp. 294-309.

Larson M.S. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

McCann, L., Granter, E., Hyde, P. and Hassard, J. (2013) Still blue-collar after all these

years? An ethnography of the professionalization of emergency ambulance work,

Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 50. No. 5, pp. 750-776

McCombs, B. L. (2007) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A

phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated

learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 67-

123). Taylor and Francis e-library: http://books.google.co.uk/books?

id=I2GQFz3v2T8C&q=

Maaike D. Endedijk, J, Vermunt, C., Meijer, P.C. and Brekelmans, M. (2014) Students'

development in self-regulated learning in postgraduate professional education: a

longitudinal study, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No.7, pp.1116-1138

33

Manning, S. (2012) European Research in Learning and Work, Directory of Masters

Programmes, © WIFO, http://www.b.shuttle.de/wifo/l&w-pro/dir-uk.htm, accessed 26th

March 2015

Muzio, D., Brock, D.M. and Suddaby, R. (2013) Professions and institutional change:

Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. Journal of Management

Studies, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 699-721

Reed, M. I. (1996) Expert power and control in late modernity: An empirical review

and theoretical synthesis Organization Studies, Vol. 17, pp. 573-597

Reid, M. and Barrington, H. (1999). Human Resource Development, CIPD.

Ruona, W. (2014) UFHRD 2014: 6 June, key note on Exploring HRD,

http://pj-evans.net/2014/06/ufhrd-2014-6-june-key-note-on-exploring-hrd-wendy-

ruona/, accessed 20th March 2015.

Sambrook, S and Stewart, J. (2010), Teaching, learning and assessing HRD, Journal of

European Industrial Training, Vol. 34, Iss 8/9, pp. 710 – 734

Sambrook, S. and Willmott, H. (2014) The rigor of management education and the

relevance of human resource development: Natural partners or uneasy bedfellows in

management practice? Management Learning, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 39-56.

34

Stewart, J., Mills, S. and Sambrook, S. (2014) HRD programmes in the UK,

Presentation at the UFHRD Conference, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.

Stewart, J., and Sambrook, S. (2012). The historical development of Human Resource

Development in the United Kingdom. Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 11,

No.4, pp. 443-462.

Suddaby, R. and Viale, T. (2011). ‘Professionals and field-level change: institutional

work and the professional project’. Current Sociology, Vol. 59, No.4, pp. 423–42

Walton, J., Moon, A., McGoldrick, J. and Sambrook, S. (1995) Qualifications Mapping,

S/NVQs & Academic Qualifications in Training & Development, Employment

Department Research & Development Series, No. 32, pp. 1-154.

Watson, T. (2011) Ethnography, reality and truth: the vital need for studies of “how

things work” in organizations and management. Journal of Management Studies, Vol.

48, No.1, pp. 202-217

Zachmeier, A., Cho, Y. and Kim, M. (2014). The same but different: HRD master’s

programmes in the United States. Human Resource Development International, Vol. 17,

No. 3, pp. 318-338

Zachmeier, A. and Cho, Y. (2014), Taking stock of the literature on HRD education,

European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38, Iss. 4, pp. 347 – 363

35