Sei sulla pagina 1di 24

660148

research-article2016
ADHXXX10.1177/1523422316660148Advances in Developing Human ResourcesRuss-Eft

Article
Advances in Developing Human
Resources
Controversies That Shaped 2016, Vol. 18(4) 512535
The Author(s) 2016
the Field of Human Resource Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Development: Town Hall DOI: 10.1177/1523422316660148
adhr.sagepub.com
Forums of the Academy
of Human Resource
Development

Darlene F. Russ-Eft1

Abstract
The Problem.
There is a dearth of information concerning the various controversies that have arisen
within human resource development, as encapsulated within the Town Hall Forums
provided at the annual meetings of the Academy of Human Resource Development
(AHRD). Turnover and growth in the field result in a loss of institutional memory,
which can provide vital context for current practices and decisions.
The Solution.
This article summarizes the Town Hall Forums that have been presented at AHRD
from 1995 to 2015. The Forums are grouped into related themes. Following the
summary for the Forums within each theme, there is a brief statement as to the
current status of that issue. The conclusion section identifies some of the research
needs that still exist around some of the topics. By documenting the discussion and
resolution of important issues, we can see how AHRD and its members have had an
impact on the field and have led the field through research.
The Stakeholders.
These include the scholars and scholar-practitioners within AHRD and those
undertaking research related to HRD.

Keywords
human resource development, HRD, Academy of Human Resource Development,
AHRD, HRD issues

1Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA

Corresponding Author:
Darlene F. Russ-Eft, Oregon State University, Furman Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
Email: darlene.russeft@oregonstate.edu
Russ-Eft 513

Most academic fields, whether purely research oriented or applied, tend to be shaped
by specific controversies. Kuhn (1962), for example, described the paradigms that
capture a field for a period of time only to be replaced by other paradigms. The field
of human resource development (HRD) is not immune to such controversies. Indeed,
the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) recognized the importance
of these controversies as a means of defining the field. As a result, the AHRD confer-
ences have tended to highlight certain controversies through the Town Hall Forum, a
plenary session typically held at the beginning of the conference.
This article presents an overview of the Town Hall Forums, which began in 1995
through the last conference in 2016. Its purpose is to highlight the controversies that
shaped and are continuing to shape the field. These controversies have included debates
on learning versus performance; collegiality versus critique; research versus practice;
the issue of diversity and inclusion from the performativity, critical, and radical perspec-
tives; and several others. In addition, the Town Hall Forums have examined the role of
ethical guidelines as one marker of a profession and the development of academic stan-
dards as guidance for programs. Table 1 provides a chronological listing of these Forums.
Given the revisiting of certain topics over time, the discussion of these Forums has
been organized by the following topics: (a) What HRD Is, Now and Future (1995,
2002, 2003, 2008, 2012), (b) Research to Practice (1997, 2004, 2006, 2014, 2016), (c)
Ethics and Integrity (1996, 1998, 2000, 2001), (d) Practitioner Certification (1999,
2009), (e) HRD Program Accreditation and Standards (2005, 2013), (f) Concerns With
Diversity (2007, 2015), and (g) Networking (2010, 2011). The content of the topical
subsections consists of a discussion of each related Town Hall Forum, the controver-
sies, and the participants or presenters. It also includes some selected literature related
to the topic. In some cases, the controversy may no longer be of concern or may have
been resolved. In other cases, the controversy may still be engaging some debate.
Thus, the status of the controversy, at the present time, is described. Whether the con-
troversy has been resolved or not, the article identifies the practical implications
emerging from that controversy or its different sides, as well as any remaining research
issues that might be explored.

First AHRD Conference1994


The first AHRD conference was held at the same time as the meetings of the American
Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and the Professors Network of ASTD
decided to form its own organization and conference. This first conference took place
in San Antonio, Texas, and there was no Town Hall Forum at that meeting.

Controversy: What HRD Is, Now and Future (1995, 2002,


2003, 2008, 2012)
The Town Hall Forums related to this theme focus on trying to define HRD. These con-
sisted of (a) a debate as to whether HRD focused on learning or performance (1995), (b)
the use of HRD as an appropriate name for the field (2002), (c) the connection or lack
Table 1. Listing of AHRD Conferences, Town Hall Forum Topics, and Presenters.

Year Location Topic Presenters Available materials

514
1994 San Antonio, TX No Town Hall Forum Presented
1995 St. Louis, MO HRD: Learning Versus Performance Richard A. Swanson Manuscripts
Karen E. Watkins
1996 Minneapolis, MO HRD With Integrity Ronald L. Jacobs Manuscripts
Victoria J. Marsick
1997 Atlanta, GA HRD Research: Is Anyone Listening? Michael Leimbach Manuscripts
Gary N. McLean
1998 Oak Brook, IL Collegiality Versus Critique Timothy T. Baldwin Manuscripts
Darlene F. Russ-Eft
1999 Washington, DC HRD Certification Michael Leimbach Manuscripts
Catherine Sleezer
2000 Raleigh-Durham, NC Should AHRD Have a Code of Ethics AHRD Task Force on Related manuscript
Ethics & Integrity
2001 Tulsa, OK HRD Professionals as Global Citizens: HRD Jamie Callahan Manuscript (as addendum)
Ethics and Integrity in the Global Era Darren C. Short Powerpoint slides and notes
2002 Honolulu, HI Debate on Efficacy of the Term HRD Wendy E. A. Ruona Manuscripts
John S. Walton
2003 Minneapolis, MN Adult Education and HRD: The Individual, Baiyin Yang Brief description in proceedings
the Organization, and the Community Phyllis Cunningham and emails with one author
Joseph Kessels
2004 Austin, TX Which Informs MoreTheory or Practice? Jerry Gilley Powerpoint slides and notes
Darlene F. Russ-Eft
2005 Estes Park, CO Accrediting HRD Programs? K. Peter Kuchinke Brief description in Proceedings
Richard A. Swanson and emails with one presenter
2006 Columbus, OH Beyond Good Practice Jean Woodall Powerpoint slides and emails with
Tom J. Shindell one presenter
2007 Indianapolis, IN Measuring Diversity Initiatives Ann K. Brooks Powerpoint slides and emails with
Terrence E. Mattbia two presenters
Martin B. Kormanik
Anthony A. Wade
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)

Year Location Topic Presenters Available materials


2008 Panama City, FL Enterprise-Wide Technology Margaret ODriscoll Notes from Proceedings
Donna Petherbridge
William Railer
2009 Arlington, VA Membership Voices: AHRD & Certification Richard Herling Powerpoint slides and emails with
of HRD Professionals Holly Hutchins Rachelle one presenter
Lehner Bassou El
Mansour Jason Moats
Darren C. Short
2010 Knoxville, TN Networking and Socializing Session No papers provided Powerpoint slides and emails with
one presenter
2011 Schaumburg, IL Networking With Leading Scholars No papers provided Notes from Proceedings
2012 Denver, CO Future of HRD HRD Scholar Award Later published article
Winners
2013 Arlington, VA Leading HRD Through Academic Programs Gary N. McLean Notes from Proceedings, personal
Wayne Pace notes, and emails with some
Richard A. Swanson presenters
Karen N. Watkins
2014 Houston, TX Research to Practice: Learning from Other Leanne Atwater Notes from Proceedings
Applied Fields Robin Hardwicke
Patrick Leung
Steven Craig
2015 St. Louis, MO Enhancing Frontiers of Diversity and Three panels of members Notes from Proceedings
Inclusion addressing performative,
critical, and radical views
2016 Jacksonville, FL Theorizing, Knowledge, and Community: Susan Madsen Notes from Proceedings and
Exploring the Hidden Connections Julia Storberg-Walker statements from organizers and
Panel Members panelists

515
Note. AHRD = Academy of Human Resource Development; HRD = human resource development.
516 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

thereof of adult education with HRD (2003), (d) the use of enterprise-wide technology
in HRD (2008), and (e) the future of HRD (2012). Each of these will be discussed below.

Learning Versus Performance


The Town Hall Forum in 1995 was held in St. Louis, Missouri, featured Karen E.
Watkins of the University of Texas at Austin (arguing for learning) and Richard A
Swanson of the University of Minnesota (arguing for performance). Watkins stated
that there needed to be a shift from a reliance on behaviorism to a broader, more
transformative conception of learning (Watkins & Marsick, 1995, 1-1, p. 1).
Specifically, the view of learning contradicted the work of Nadler and Nadler (1970)
in defining what is and is not included in the field and of McLagan (1989) in identify-
ing 11 competencies for HRD. HRD was then defined as fostering learning at the
individual, group, and organizational levels and as including training, career develop-
ment, and organization development. This view emphasized a focus on the learning
organization and suggested that HRD researchers and practitioners consider the fol-
lowing questions:

How do you create a learning culture in an organization?


What is different about learning in the workplace?
What is it about the organization that enhances or thwarts learning?
How is learning enhanced in the workplace?
How do we systematically develop an organization over time as a learning
system?
How do we systematically design learning for maximum person, career, and
organizational learning and development? (Watkins & Marsick, 1995, 1-1, p. 3)

Watkins suggested that the capacity to learn represented the organizations strategic
advantage, and she indicated the importance of concepts such as work redesign,
employee involvement, boundary spanning, free time, and informal and incidental
learning.
Swanson (1995a, 1995b) proposed that the theoretical foundations of HRD are
drawn from psychological theory, system theory, and economic theory (Swanson,
1995a, 1-2, p. 1), and he offered the image of these three theories as a three-legged
stool. Furthermore, he defined HRD as a process of developing and/or unleashing
human expertise through organization development and personnel training and devel-
opment for the purpose of improving performance (1-2, p. 2). He stated that one
aspect of expertise involved learning and that organizations were concerned with
worthy performance (Rummler & Brache, 1990; Swanson, 1994, 1995a, 1-2, p. 2).
For HRD to be considered as a major business process, or something that an organiza-
tion must do, HRDs contribution should be connected to the internal and external
customer. He stated that, in the ideal, learning leads to expertise, which leads to per-
formance. It follows, then, that critical measures of performance in business and
industry should be used to measure the effectiveness of HRD.
Russ-Eft 517

HRD as a Name for the Field


The 2002 AHRD conference was held in Honolulu, Hawaii. Wendy E. A. Ruona
(2002) of the University of Georgia asserted that, although the name HRD presented
some problems by being both limiting and ambiguous, changing the name would not
solve the problems confronting the field. Her major arguments revolved around (a) no
clear alternative names exist; (b) the current name is grounded both historically and
socially; and (c) changing the name would not help to resolve any of the controversies
and debates. Instead of changing the name, she recommended focusing on profession-
alizing the field and developing boundaries for what HRD is.
John Walton (2002) of London Guildhall University, UK, argued that HRD has too
many different connotations and too many negative connotations. He posed several
questions, such as

Is HRD a subset of Human Resource Management or an independentalbeit


linkeddomain?
Is HRD a synonym for training and development or something broader?
Is HRD concerned exclusively with work-related behavior or does it encompass
non-work related skills?
Is HRD concerned exclusively with adult learning or with learning from cradle-
to-grave? (pp. 4-5)

For Walton the difficulty with HRD rested with the words human resource which
viewed humans as assets or resources.

Adult Education and HRD


There were three presenters at the 2003 AHRD Town Hall Forum: Baiyin Yang of the
University of Minnesota, Phyllis Cunningham of Northern Illinois University, and
Joseph Kessels of the University of Twente, the Netherlands. The conference was held
in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the presenters focused on the issue of adult education
and HRD involving the individual, the organization, and the community. Baiyin Yang
argued that adult education and HRD represented two distinct disciplines. Phyllis
Cunningham suggested that it was important to establish new thresholds for the com-
mon good. She argued, similar to Yang, that adult education was focused on the com-
munity, while HRD supported the corporation. Joseph Kessels focused on adult
education and individual learning as important for HRD in a knowledge economy.
[Unfortunately, no manuscripts from this Forum were available.]

Enterprise-Wide Technology
The 2008 AHRD conference, held in Panama City, Florida, featured a Town Hall
Forum titled Enterprise-Wide TechnologyIs HRD Harnessing the Potential? The
presenters were Margaret ODriscoll of IBM Global Services, Donna Petherbridge of
518 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

North Carolina State University, and William Railer, Deputy Director for DnDLearn,
Department of National Defense in Canada. The panel members represented corporate
executives who had implemented enterprise-wide technologies, and they discussed the
technical, organizational, and cultural challenges that they faced in introducing tech-
nology in organizations. The session recognized that e-learning technology promises
to change the way in which HRD practitioners deliver training. Furthermore, learning
management systems promise to automate many of the administrative functions and to
broaden the reach of HRD initiatives within organizations. Unfortunately, the imple-
mentations of such technologies have not been as promised. The technologies did not
address the tasks needed, the HRD groups were unable to use all of the capabilities, or
the organizational acceptance was lacking. The questions that were asked were as
follows:

What are the barriers and issues to implementing enterprise-wide technology?


What has been the impact of technology standards?
What empirical research has been done in the area of implementing enterprise-
wide technology?
What are the considerations for implementing enterprise-wide technologies in
HRD?
What are the implications and opportunities of these technologies for research,
theory, and teaching? [Questions appeared on p. 26 of the program booklet.]

[Unfortunately, no manuscripts were available; only the program booklet provided


some information.]

Visions of the Future of HRD


The 2012 AHRD conference was held in Denver, Colorado. The Town Hall Forum
featured a panel discussion among the early winners of the AHRD Outstanding Scholar
Award focused on the issue of the future of HRD research. These presenters were
Ronald Jacobs of University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign (1995 winner), Victoria J.
Marsick of Columbia University, Teachers College (1996 winner), Gary N. McLean of
McLean Global, Inc. (1997 winner), Karen N. Watkins of the University of Georgia
(1998 winner), Darlene F. Russ-Eft of Ohio State University (1999 winner), Richard
A. Swanson retired from University of Minnesota (2000 winner), Edwood F. Holton,
III of Louisiana State University (2001 winner, but did not participate), Wim J. Nijhof
of University of Twente (2002 winner, but did not participate), Todd J. Maurer of
Georgia State University (2003 winner, but did not participate), Reid Bates of
Louisiana State University (2004 winner, but did not participate), Baiyin Yang (2007
winner) of Tsinghua University, Jerry Gilley of University of Texas at Tyler (2008
winner), and AAhad Osman-Gani of the International Islamic University of Malaysia
(2009 winner).
Although no formal manuscripts were presented for this Town Hall, five of the
presenters collaborated on a related journal article (Russ-Eft, Watkins, Marsick,
Russ-Eft 519

Jacobs, & McLean, 2014), with each presenter reflecting his or her interests. Russ-Eft
suggested that future HRD research should focus on the conceptualization of compe-
tencies and various approaches to their measurement, on approaches to program eval-
uation and accountability, on the use of technology and its effects on interpersonal
interactions, and on sustainability, as related to social responsibility, but also related to
continuation permanence.
Watkins and Marsick focused on developing individual and organizational learning
capacity. They indicated a need for research to address how informal learning affects
work satisfaction, worker retention, performance, and productivity (p. 12). They also
recommended research to foster a learning culture within an organization. Another
area of concern involved approaches to developing the contingent workforce.
Jacobs proposed a conceptual framework that describes the roles of the HRD prac-
titioner and researcher (p. 14). He recommended that HRD researchers and practitio-
ners focus on areas that bring them together. At the same time, however, HRD researchers
should seek interested practitioners and should become more strategic in their research.
Finally, McLean emphasized the continuing importance of national HRD or
National HRD. He suggested a need for more conceptual work on the meaning of
National HRD and the need for both single-country and cross-country case studies.
With a greater array of such case studies, it may eventually be possible to create a
model of National HRD.

Current Status of What Is HRD


The issues of the focus, the content, and even the name have been raised throughout
the years, they may still be of concern. Certainly, other organizations have grappled
with a name change, such as the ASTD changing its name to Association for Talent
Development (ATD) or the American Psychological Society (APS) to the Association
for Psychological Sciences (APS).
If the term HRD does get changed, then there would need to be some other modifica-
tions that would be needed, as suggested by Ruona. So, the organization name of the
Academy of Human Resource Development may need to be reconsidered, as well as the
European-based group called the University Forum for Human Resource Development
and three journals using HRD in their titles, Human Resource Development Quarterly
(now SSCI-indexed), Human Resource Development Review (now SSCI-indexed), and
Human Resource Development International. As for making some prediction, I can sim-
ply quote Russ-Eft etal. (2014) on the future of the field: One of the positives for us is
that no one can conclude that we are wronguntil 25 years have passed (p. 21).

Controversy: Research to Practice (1997, 2004, 2006,


2014, 2016)
The Town Hall Forums in this grouping focused on issues related to research and prac-
tice. These considered topics such as (a) whether anyone listens to HRD research
(1997), (b) whether practice or theory provides greater direction to the field (2004), (c)
520 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

what it means to go beyond good practice (2006), (d) how one can go from research to
practice in various fields (2014), and (e) how to make a difference in the world through
actionable theorizing (2016). The sections below describe each of these.

HRD ResearchIs Anyone Listening?


The Town Hall Forum held at the 1997 AHRD Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, focused
on the impact of HRD research on HRD practice. Michael Leimbach (1997) of Wilson
Learning explored why research and practice were not more integrated and what could
be done to improve the situation. He began, however, by suggesting that research has
indeed guided practice, pointing to the use of adult instructional design and behavior
modeling as examples. He used his own experiences and the experiences of five line
executives to inform his thinking. Four issues emerged: (a) practice and research are
not linked to business strategy . . . ; (b) research is not addressing performance . . . ; (c)
science does not explain observed phenomena . . . ; and (d) researchers fail to sell
the science (sec. 0-2, p. 14) He then addressed each of these issues, suggesting that
researchers (a) use more business-relevant definitions, (b) align research goals with
value creation propositions for business, (c) explore correlates of business perfor-
mance, (d) study successful initiatives, and (e) let practice determine research ques-
tions. In terms of selling science, he suggested writing in a language familiar to
business leaders, including shorter, more focused discussions and partnering with
research-oriented practitioners.
Gary N. McLean (1997) of the University of Minnesota asked the question, Why
are HRD best practices, as identified through academic research, so often ignored by
practitioners? (sec. 0-1, p. 3). McLean interviewed 12 practitioners and included his
own observations. He identified that some of the responsibility rested with academi-
cians and researchers because of a focus on quantity not quality, a concern about writ-
ing for colleagues rather than practitioners, and simple obfuscation. The scholarly
journals bear some responsibility in meeting the needs of academicians, and the trade
journals bear some responsibility by being concerned with what will sell and what is
hot. Finally, some responsibility falls on HRD practitioners, who find research articles
to be boring and unintelligible and change as difficult. He recommended (a) profes-
sional associations need to create bridging opportunities; (b) a monograph should be
published to aid researchers in writing for practitioners; (c) research journals should
include theory-to-practice and trade journals should include research translation.

Which Informs the Field MorePractice or Theory?


The 2004 Town Hall Forum, held at the AHRD Conference in Austin, Texas, focused
on the issue of the contribution of practice or theory as informing the field. Jerry Gilley
of Colorado State University argued that HRD, as a practical field, necessarily obtains
major ideas from practice. For research and theory to be useful and used, they must be
practical and address practical problems. Therefore, first practice encounters an issue
or problem and then may turn to research or theory to inform it. In contrast, Darlene
Russ-Eft 521

Russ-Eft of Oregon State University argued that theory provides the major direction to
both research and practice. Theory attempts to explain and predict phenomena
(Kerlinger, 1986). Not only does it predict, but it helps to make the current complex
world simpler; it interprets what has happened and why it has happened. Thus, Russ-
Eft argued that theory informs practice and practice, in turn, informs theory.
[Unfortunately, no manuscripts were prepared for this Forum.]

Going Beyond Good Practice


The 2006 AHRD conference held in Columbus, Ohio, focused on the issue of going
beyond good practice. The presenters were Jean Woodall of Oxford Brookes University,
UK, and, at the time, editor of Human Resource Development International, and
Thomas J. Shindell of the Texas Educational Agency. Woodall argued that good prac-
tice must come from good research and that the notion of best practices is flawed.
Furthermore, she rejected the notion that AHRD should embrace practice and practi-
tioners to become more like ASTD or International Society for Performance
Improvement (ISPI). Shindell argued that practitioners are at the heart of a practice-
based, applied field and that AHRD should embrace practitioners. He identified three
challenges facing practitioners in their attempts to apply good research to practice: (a)
contextdifferences between the organization in the research and that for the applica-
tion; (b) integrityissues with applying research when real world constraints exist; (c)
credibilitylack of awareness of the research. Both Woodall and Shindell asked,

How can we move scholars and practitioners closer together in strategic and
productive collaborations to enhance the field?
How can we best utilize scholar-practitioners as a linking pin or bridge between
researchers and practitioners in HRD?

[Unfortunately, no manuscripts were available; but Powerpoint slides provided some


information.]

Research to Practices
The 2014 AHRD conference was held in Houston, Texas. The Town Hall Forum
focused on the issue of research to practice, a continuing concern from previous Town
Hall Forums. In this case, a panel of researchers from other fields was asked to discuss
their approaches. The major question was as follows: What is the relationship between
research and practice in other applied fields? What can we learn from their experi-
ences? The presenters included Leanne Atwater, Department of Management from the
University of Houston; Robin Hardwicke, Internal Medicine and Maternal Fetal
Medicine/Reproductive Health from the University of Texas Health Medical School;
Patrick Leung, Graduate College of Social Work from the University of Houston; and
Steven Craig, Department of Economics from the University of Houston. [No manu-
scripts or Powerpoint slides were available.]
522 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

Theorizing, Knowledge, and Community: Exploring the Hidden


Connections
The 2016 Town Forum, held in Jacksonville, Florida focused on the interconnections
of HRD research and theory with the community. The session was facilitated by Susan
Madsen of Utah Valley University and Julia Storberg-Walker of George Washington
University, and the panelists included Laura Bierema, Rajashi Ghosh, Rob Poell, and
Lyle Yorks. The panelists described how they initiated and led HRD change initiatives
in collaboration/partnership with diverse stakeholders.
Through her personal loss of an infant son, Laura Bierema of University of Georgia
described how she and her husband Mark have developed a foundation to support the
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and help families going through infant illness.
She used her HRD to partner with hospital leaders and staff and has slowly changed
the culture of service and support to these families. Through relationship building and
a guiding vision, Laura and Mark have incrementally helped hospital staff develop
new ways to support and serve.
Lyle Yorks of Teachers College, Columbia University, described a long-term action
research/action learning project with the Veterans Administration (VA) office. He
described how he used HRD theory to build relationships with non-HRD VA leaders.
Based on those relationships, he and the leaders then designed collaborative and emer-
gent interventions to address organizational needs.
Rob Poell of Tilberg University, the Netherlands, described working with multiple
school systems and using his HRD to serve the learning and development of teachers.
Like the others on the panel, Rob seemed to put HRD below the collaborators
instead of on top directing and deciding the best solutions. These collaborators were
empowered and were facilitated by Rob and his team.
Rajashi Ghosh of Drexel University used an action learning intervention to build a
community of teachers who could help each other in reflecting on their beliefs and
approaches to addressing student bullying. Transformative learning helped teachers
rethink how they framed their perspectives and interpretation of experiences of student
bullying. This transformation, in turn, impacted their action plans for addressing stu-
dent bullying in their classrooms. [Unfortunately, no manuscripts were available. Text
was developed from comments provided by presenters.]

Current Status of Research to Practice


The issue of linking or bridging research and practice is one that continues to be of
concern to researchers and scholar-practitioners. Indeed, the 2014 Town Hall Forum
attempted to identify how these linkages are strengthened in other fields. Furthermore,
recognizing the importance of theory, AHRD established the Theory Development
Special Interest Group. And, recognizing the importance of practice, AHRD continues
to be enriched by a very active Scholar-Practitioner Special Interest Group.
As a result of some of the concerns raised about research affecting practice, AHRD
began a fourth journal, Advances in Developing Human Resources. The goal was to
Russ-Eft 523

have this journal provide some of the translation of the research into practice, similar
to the Harvard Business Review. The journal has appeared to have partially filled that
need, as well as a separate niche, that of a topical journal. More recently in 2016, the
University Forum for HRD (UFHRD) and the International Federation of Training &
Development Organisations (IFTDO) launched a research-to-practice journal,
International Journal of HRD Practice, Policy & Research. Nevertheless, AHRD and
UFHRD both continue to wrestle with the practical use of its research.

Controversy: Ethics and Integrity (1996, 1998, 2000,


2001)
The issues for this group of Town Hall Forums revolved around (a) HRD and integrity
(1996), (b) collegiality and critique (1998), (c) the question of whether HRD should
have a code of ethics (2000), and (d) ethics and integrity in a global world (2001). The
following subsections describe each Forum.

HRD With Integrity


The 1996 AHRD Conference, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, featured a Town Hall
Forum focused on the issue of HRD with Integrity. Ron Jacobs (1996, sec. 0-1) of The
Ohio State University began by defining integrity in terms of consistency and relative
completeness. He stated that ethics distinguish between good and bad and are prescrip-
tive, whereas integrity challenges the individual to follow those ethical beliefs. He
then suggested two components of HRD with integrity: (a) integrity in ethical beliefs
and (b) integrity in using HRD processes. With regard to integrity in ethical beliefs, he
identified four important dimensions: (a) confidentiality of individuals responses, (b)
purpose of the research study, (c) publication of the results in journals, and (d) owner-
ship of the data after study (sec. 0-1, p. 3). In terms of integrity in using HRD pro-
cesses, he suggested an adaptation of the ADDIE model (Branson etal., 1975) that
added managing HRD processes and conducting research relevant to HRD interests.
Victoria J. Marsick (1996) of Columbia University, Teachers College, began by
defining integrity as (a) adherence to a code of conduct . . . , (b) wholeness or organic
unity . . . , and (c) a condition of soundness . . . (sec. 0-2, p. 1). Then, she indicated
the need for the HRD profession to develop a code of conduct and turned to adult
development theory for insights. She examined the work of Kegan (1994) and Torbert
(1991). Using these theorists, she suggested that HRD professionals primarily operate
as diplomats, technicians, and achievers, with a few working as strategists. Given that
a code of ethics could not be uniformly followed, as the various types of professionals
would approach the code differently, she suggested that

a code be constructed that would enable Technicians and Achievers to follow a minimum
set of core guidelines, but that would allow some leeway so that the Strategist could
argue, case by case, that an alternative solution would be more appropriate in a given
situation. (sec. 0-2, p. 12)
524 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

Collegiality Versus Critique


The 1998 Town Hall Forum held at the AHRD Conference in Oak Brook, Illinois,
focused on the tension between collegiality and critique and the relative pros and cons
of each for advancing HRD research. Timothy T. Baldwin (1998) of Indiana University
cautioned against an obsession with critique and posed three questions: (a) Can we
embrace a more critically evaluative culture without trading off those characteristics
that have made AHRD so special? (sec. 0-2, p. 10), (b) Can we move to a more criti-
cally evaluative culture without narrowing the type of research inquiries members will
attempt and be rewarded for? (sec. 0-2, p. 12), and (c) Do we have any agreement
whatsoever on just how we should go about moving to more critical evaluation? (sec.
0-2, p. 14). He concluded that an over-emphasis on critique would lead to a loss of
spirit and nurture, a narrowing of the types of research projects submitted, and a risk
of diluting the collaborative and supportive culture that has been the trademark of the
AHRD conference.
Darlene F. Russ-Eft (1998) of AchieveGlobal, Inc., argued for critique to improve
the quality of HRD research. She began by defining critique as involving evaluating or
analyzing and considering the merits and demerits or faults and making a judgment.
She then discussed critique within the context of other fields, such as the history of
science, paleontology, psychology, and HRD. The conclusion listed some ways in
which to infuse critique into AHRD; these included (a) requiring all conference papers
to include a section on the limitations of the research, (b) providing a critique for all
symposiums or paper sessions, (c) encouraging replication and secondary analyses of
published work, and (d) encouraging increased use of meta-analysis.

Should AHRD Have a Code of Ethics?


The 2000 AHRD Conference, held in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, featured a
Town Hall Forum focused on the issue of a code of ethics for AHRD. A task force,
consisting of Darlene F. Russ-Eft of AchieveGlobal, Inc., Janet Burns of Georgia State
University, Peter Dean of The University of Tennessee and The University of
Pennsylvania, Timothy Hatcher of the University of Louisville, Fred Otte retired from
Georgia State University, and Hallie Preskill of the University of New Mexico, had
previously developed a draft statement titled AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity
(Russ-Eft, etal, 1999). These Standards, developed with guidance from other existing
standards, such as those from the Academy of Management, American Educational
Research Association, American Evaluation Association, and the American
Psychological Association, included general principles, general standards, research
and evaluation, advertising and other public statements, publication of work, privacy
and confidentiality, teaching and facilitating, and resolution of ethical issues and viola-
tions. The Standards were reviewed by the group, and then the audience members
were asked to form small groups to discuss and suggest additions or modifications.
Hatcher and Brooks (2000) provided some of the background to the session. These
authors argued that HRD had developed a set of competencies, but it had not yet
Russ-Eft 525

acknowledged and resolved its responsibility to society (p. 7). They identified two
approaches: (a) a rational economic stance, which is morally neutral and suggests that
there is no moral responsibility beyond helping the organization to achieve profits, and
(b) a moral stance, which suggests that there is a moral responsibility to assist com-
munities as well as the organization. They began by examining economic theory, indi-
cating that it does not connect easily with HRD. Furthermore, traditional capitalist
economics views resources as endlessly sustainable, while, in fact, there is growing
awareness of the limitations and lack of sustainability. They then turned to psychology,
and they suggested that HRD practices are incorporated blindly . . . in the name of
increased efficiency . . . (p. 9). The authors then discussed the effect of worldviews,
including logical positivism and systems theory. They posited that logical positivism
leads to determinism and reductionism and the disastrous effects of capitalism. In
contrast, systems theory sees the world as an integrated whole rather than a detached
collection of parts (p. 10). They concluded that organizations must serve society, and
HRD has a moral responsibility to individuals, organizations, and society.

HRD Professionals as Global Citizens: HRD Ethics and Integrity in the


Global Era
The 2001 AHRD Conference, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, focused on the global aspects
of HRD, specifically the issue of HRD Violates Its Integrity When It Assists an
Organization in Going Global (ppt., Slide 1). Darren C. Short of Perspectives, UK,
and Jamie Callahan of Virginia Tech (Short & Callahan, 2001) provided a manuscript
on the topic of HRD professionals as global citizens. The Town Hall Forum itself was
comprised of various AHRD members who participated in specified roles.
The presenters stated that globalization benefited both rich and poor countries
through increasing employment, infrastructure development, and rising standards of
living. At the same time, it has led to increases in international migration, ethnic con-
flict, social tensions, inequality, and social disintegration. As a result, they asked,
How do HRD professionals act as global citizens in a global era? What HRD ethical
dilemmas are raised by globalization? How can those dilemmas be understood and
resolved using the AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity (1999-2000)? (p. 2).
They elaborated these ethical issues in a later publication (Short & Callahan, 2005).
To explain globalization, they introduced market theories (favoring corporations),
dependency theory (favoring human rights), and work systems theory. This last theory
uses multiple perspectives to examine issues. Some of the issues or problems men-
tioned included sweatshops and labor abuses, Americanization and loss of local culture,
environmental degradation, and increasing urbanization. The manuscript concluded
with the following questions:

What are the good ends toward which human resources develop?
Which of our responsibilities and values have the deepest roots?
How do our feelings and intuitions define ethical dilemmas?
526 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

How do we operate in a global economy that lacks universal ethical practices?


How do we balance the need for long-term social responsibility with the imme-
diate economic needs of organizations? (p. 8)

Current Status of Ethics and HRD


Following the 2000 session, the task force members met to discuss the outcomes. A
final set of Standards on Ethics and Integrity was later presented to and then
adopted by the Board. Since that time, AHRD has used these Standards. At the
2015 AHRD conference, a group from Penn State University undertook a review
and critique, suggesting some additions (Kim, Park, & Kolb, 2014). Currently,
another task force has been formed to undertake a formal review and revision of the
Standards.
One issue regarding the AHRD ethical standards involves that of whether they
speak to a global community. AHRD recognizes the global nature of the field, specifi-
cally with the annual Asia/MENA conference, the connection with the UFHRD, and
the sponsorship of the international journal, Human Resource Development
International. Another issue concerns the question as to whether the ethical standards
should remain voluntary or whether there should be some punitive action taken regard-
ing violations that are reported.

Controversy: Practitioner Certification (1999, 2009)


Two of the Town Hall Forums focused on the issue of certification of practitioners.
These discussed (a) HRD certification (1999) and (b) certification of practitioners by
AHRD (2009). The text below presents the arguments from those Forums.

HRD Certification
The 1999 AHRD Conference, held in Washington, DC, featured a Town Forum
focused on the issue of HRD certification. Michael Leimbach (1999) of Wilson
Learning argued that AHRD should approach certification, particularly of products,
with caution. He began by identifying three steps to such certification: (a) defining
standards, (b) data sharing, and (c) endorsement (pp. 2-3). Furthermore, the defining
of standards and the endorsement can be at the technical level, the process level, or the
utility or impact level. The reasons for some caution included

(a) talk of certification is premature, as there had been no development of standards; (b)
important characteristics are largely qualitative; (c) the responsibility and liability is too high;
(d) certification is inconsistent with the AHRD mission of inclusion; (e) certification could
consume the Academy; and (f) certification reinforces a static product orientation. (p. 4)

He concluded that developing and disseminating standards would be an appropriate


AHRD action, but the Academy should not enter this area as a certifying agency (p. 5).
Russ-Eft 527

Catherine M. Sleezer of Oklahoma State University and Dale E. Kunneman of


Meridian Technology Center (Sleezer & Kunneman, 1999) begin by reporting on the
staggering investments made in HRD products in the United States, with an estimate
that 50% of HRD efforts are ineffective. They defined what is meant by certification,
quality, and consumer, and they recommended that evaluation standards should be
based on an accepted theory of performance. The authors then turned to some mea-
surement issues, such as reliability, validity, relevance, and feasibility. They concluded
that AHRD certification will serve as a driver for performance improvements that
benefit individuals, organizations, and the HRD profession (p. 12). Furthermore, they
stated, HRD certification provides the AHRD with a strategy for learning the HRD
profession through research (p. 12).

AHRD and Certification of HRD Professionals


The 2009 AHRD conference was held in Arlington, Virginia, and the Town Hall Forum
was titled Membership Voices: AHRD and Certification of HRD Professionals. The
facilitators were the AHRD Certification Task Force: Richard Herling of Pittsburg
State University, Holly Hutchins of the University of Houston, Rachelle Lehner of
Emory University, Bassou El Mansour of Indiana State University, Jason Moats of
Texas Engineering Extension Service, and Darren C. Short of Avanade Inc.
At the time, there were growing calls for increasing the professionalism of HRD.
As a result, the AHRD Board convened a task force to examine the issue of certifica-
tion of HRD professionals. The presenters began by defining certification as a process
to standardize and validate professional competencies, processes, or technologies.
Such certification could be offered by vendors or professional associations.
Furthermore, it might require training or verification of professional work and might
include an exam. The presenters facilitated an interactive session in which participants
addressed four questions:

(a) Would the HRD profession benefit from a new practitioner certification that
emphasizes understanding HRD research and theory and applying them in practice? (b)
Given AHRDs mission, should AHRD offer a practitioner certification that emphasizes
understanding HRD research and theory and applying them in practice? (c) What are the
three most critical components of an AHRD certification process that would need to be in
place in order for you to value it / recommend it / use it? and (d) What three pieces of
feedback or advice would you like to share with the AHRD Board as it considers options
for its role in certifying HRD professionals? (ppt., pp. 10-11)

Following the data collection from the attendees, the presenters described the
results of a convenience sampling of 40 organizations. Employers expressed that they
valued certification because it provides a demonstration of professional knowledge
and employee attributes. The task force then described some of the features of a certi-
fication process: (a) be challenging/not easy to attain, (b) demonstrate business acu-
men and include verifiable job experience, (c) include current/relevant content to
business world, and (d) demonstrate professional knowledge and employee attributes.
528 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

Finally, the goal would be to have the certification process accredited by the National
Association for Certification Agencies.
[No manuscripts were available; information appeared in Powerpoint slides and
some handouts from the session.]

Current status of Practitioner Certification


The task force formed in 2009 compiled the results from the attendees and other dis-
cussions with AHRD members. A recommendation was provided to the AHRD Board.
AHRD has shied away from the certification issue, primarily for some of the reasons
discussed by Leimbach (1999).
At the present time, no further work on such certification has taken place within
AHRD, although other, larger practitioner organizations such as ATD, ISPI, and the
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) have undertaken certification ini-
tiatives. Recognition of HRD practices has, however, arisen through an award process,
with the AHRD Excellence in Scholarly Practice begun in 2010.

Controversy: HRD Program Accreditation and Standards


(2005, 2013)
Another pair of Town Hall Forums dealt with the issue of HRD program accreditation.
Specifically, the two sessions involved a debate on accrediting HRD academic pro-
grams (2005) and (b) a panel discussion on the ways in which academic programs lead
the field (2013). The following sections present those Forums.

Accrediting HRD Programs


The 2005 AHRD conference, held in Estes Park, Colorado, featured a Town Hall
Forum devoted to arguing whether or not HRD academic programs should be accred-
ited. The title of the Forum was Accrediting HRD Programs: Will it Improve the
Quality of HRD Academic Education? Richard A. Swanson of the University of
Minnesota presented the argument for developing such an accreditation process, while
J. Peter Kuchinke of the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign presented the
opposing argument. The debate panel included members of the AHRD Committee on
Standards and Accreditation: Timothy Hatcher of North Carolina State University,
Ron Jacobs of The Ohio State University, Victoria J. Marsick of Columbia University,
Teachers College, Hallie Preskill of the University of New Mexico, and Wendy E. A.
Ruona of the University of Georgia.
In the Town Hall Forum, Swanson and Kuchinke debated the merits of establishing
a formal accreditation process for HRD academic programs. Swansons main argu-
ments were that other professional programs have strong accreditation regimes that
ensure consistency, relevance, and a unified public image. Kuchinkes arguments
against accreditation were based on U.K. research (CIPD) showing no hiring benefit
because of accreditation; need for flexibility and ability to respond to department-based
Russ-Eft 529

needs, resources, and traditions; difficulty of agreeing on common content; and the
nature of HRD as interstitial, making it hard to codify. [Unfortunately, no manuscripts
were available for this Forum.]

Leading Academic Programs


The 2013 AHRD conference was held in Arlington, Virginia, and the Town Hall Forum
focused on the issue of leading HRD through academic programs. The presenters
included early AHRD Presidents Gary N. McLean of the University of Minnesota at
the time, Wayne Pace retired from Brigham Young University, Richard A. Swanson
retired from the University of Minnesota, and Karen N. Watkins of the University of
Georgia. Wayne Pace argued that a focus on research alone was a limited aspect of
AHRD. He claimed that a field advanced through its academic programs, and he was
particularly concerned that universities should continue to offer undergraduate pro-
grams in HRD. Gary N. McLean argued that there were more issues facing AHRD than
simply those confronting academic programs, specifically, the talent management of
journal editors and boards, the need for a greater international focus, and the need for an
enforceable code of ethics. Richard Swanson was primarily committed to maintaining
and enhancing a focus on research and on recognizing high-quality research. Karen E.
Watkins argued for building both scholarship and academic programs. [There were no
manuscripts, and the content was generated from personal notes of the discussion.]

Current Status of Accrediting HRD Academic Programs


The Academic Standards Committee of AHRD developed the current Academy of
Human Resource Development Standards for HRD Graduate Program Excellence
(Chalofsky etal., 2008). The committee included Neal Chalofsky, George Washington
University (Co-Chair); Wendy E. A. Ruona, University of Georgia (Co-Chair); Larry
Dooley, Texas A & M University; Timothy Hatcher, North Carolina State University;
Ronald Jacobs, The Ohio State University; K. Peter Kuchinke, University of Illinois at
UrbanaChampaign; Richard A. Swanson, University of Texas at Tyler; and Victoria J.
Marsick, Teachers College, Columbia University. The Standards focused on the fol-
lowing seven core areas: 1.0 Program Purpose, 2.0 Faculty, 3.0 Curriculum, 4.0
Students, 5.0 Research, 6.0 Resources, and 7.0 Leadership and Support. These
Standards are still in use, primarily for self-review processes. Also, the Program
Excellence Network of the AHRD tries to promote their use in HRD programs.
AHRD recognizes the importance of academic programs and the faculty and stu-
dents involved in such programs. Each conference previously included an Emerging
Scholars course, aimed at helping students learn more about the field and participate
in critiquing some of the scholarship contained in the conference papers. This course
originally included all students, whether graduate or undergraduate. Now, however,
the course is called Graduate Student Research Colloquium and is limited to gradu-
ate students. In addition, AHRD has established PEN to enable faculty leads and chairs
to meet and discuss issues, problems, and approaches to those problems. The University
530 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

of Texas at Tyler annually produces the Human Resource Development Directory of


Academic Programs in the United States, with the most recent edition being edited by
Roberts (2016).

Controversy: Concerns With Diversity (2007, 2015)


Concerns with issues revolving around diversity emerged in two separate Town Hall
Forums. These focused on (a) appropriate methods for measuring or evaluating diver-
sity initiatives, and (b) enhancing diversity and inclusion in HRD research and prac-
tice. The following sections discuss those Forums.

Measuring Diversity Initiatives


The 2007 AHRD conference was held in Indianapolis, Indiana, and featured a Town
Hall Forum titled What Are the Various Ways Organizations Are Measuring Diversity
Initiatives in the Workplace? Implications for Human Resource Development. The
panelists included Ann K. Brooks of Texas State University, San Marcos; Terrence E.
Maltbia of Columbia University; Martin B. Kormanik of O.D. Systems; and Anthony
A. Wade of Denver Water. The panel highlighted the public sector as contrasted with
private sector frameworks with regard to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) com-
pliance, affirmative action programming, and day-to-day management. Some of the
factors involved were (a) socioeconomic status/background, (b) age/generation, (c)
disabling condition/health status, (d) gender/sexuality/attractiveness, (e) marital/fam-
ily status, (f) race/national origin/color/region, (g) employee type/occupation, (h) reli-
gion/spirituality, (i) personality/working style, and (j) skill/education. In terms of
evaluation, the presenters suggested that some immediate outcomes were increased
awareness of diversity issues, increased acknowledgment of barriers, and enhanced
skills. They turned to the Kirkpatrick (1994) Levels 3 and 4 and suggested measuring
increased use of skills, enhanced employee empowerment and self-management, and
closer alignment of management and employee perceptions. Furthermore, they recom-
mended triangulating these evaluation results with extant data, such as reductions in
employee grievances/EEO complaints, decreased levels of harassment, and reduction
in absenteeism and turnover. [No manuscripts were available; Powerpoint slides pro-
vided some information.]

Enhancing the Frontiers of Diversity and Inclusion in Research and


Practice
The 2015 AHRD Conference took place in St. Louis, Missouri, about 6 months after
police fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black man, in Ferguson,
Missouri. The Town Hall Forum was titled Enhancing the Frontiers of Diversity and
Inclusion in Research and Practice: Performative, Critical, and Radical Perspectives
on the Contexts and Issues for HRD. A panel of AHRD members addressed the topic
using the performative, critical, or radical view. The discussion centered on HRDs
Russ-Eft 531

responsibilities and limitations for diversity and inclusion in relation to the issues for
HRD (such as relating, learning, changing, and organizing) and in the various contexts
that HRD serves (such as individual/career, relational/workforce, organizational/
workplace, and structural/community).
Participants were encouraged to grapple with questions about how responsive HRD
in organizations is or should be to problems and issues in the surrounding communi-
ties. After a period of presentations from panelists from each perspective and engaging
in a question/answer session, participants were divided up into groups representing the
Performative, Critical, and Radical perspectives to discuss key issues and problems
posed by HRDs incorporation or rejection of diversity and inclusion conversations.
Whether one sees diversity and inclusion as additional means for improving perfor-
mance or as an ethical and moral obligation that should be undertaken regardless of
impact on performance or profitability, the consensus across the groups was that HRD
does have a responsibility to promote and enhance diversity and inclusion in organiza-
tions. The conversation marked an open acknowledgment of and attentiveness to the
plurality of diversity perspectives present in the field and thus enhanced the conversa-
tion by making it more accessible to a wider range of individuals.

Current Status of Issues Relating to Diversity


The issue of diversity, equity, and social justice continue to be of concern to AHRD. A
Special Interest Group was formed to support conference sessions and other activities
to promote diversity and equity.
As mentioned above, the 2015 Town Hall Forum reexamined those issues from
various worldviews. Since that time, there have been a number of high-profile police
shootings of persons of color, which has prompted the Black Lives Matter movement.
At the same time, beginning with the University of Missouri, a number of college
campuses have experienced student protests over racial and other forms of discrimina-
tion. Examining HRDs responsibility to encourage inclusion and equity among all
persons will continue to be of concern until systemic forms of discrimination are
eliminated.

No Controversy, Just Networking (2010, 2011)


Two of the conferences did not feature a Town Hall Forum that focused on some spe-
cific issue. Instead, both of these conferences held sessions that facilitated networking
among members. Those Forums are described below.

Town Hall Networking and Socializing Session


The 2010 AHRD conference in Knoxville, Tennessee, held a networking and social-
izing session. The organizers of the session were Barbara Eversole from Indiana State
University, Robin Grenier of the University of Connecticut, Rachelle Lehner of Emory
University, Emmanuel Okafor of Texas A&M University, and Darren C. Short of
Avanade, Inc. Attendees identified areas of common interest and started conversations
532 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

with others based on some guiding questions. Participants were given time to discuss
the following questions with others at different tables:

What single piece of advice or resource would you recommend to someone new
to the profession?
What role should HRD play in the economic recovery?
What was the best meal you ever had at a restaurant?

[No manuscript was available; questions came from Powerpoint slides from the session.]

Networking With Leading Scholars


The 2011 Town Hall Forum for AHRD, held in Schaumburg, Illinois, hosted a session
that facilitated networking in small groups with leading HRD scholars. In this case,
scholars, such as Jerry Gilley of Colorado State University, Ron Jacobs of The
University of Illinois, Gary N. McLean of Texas A&M University, Gene Roth of
Northern Illinois University, Darlene F. Russ-Eft of Oregon State University, and oth-
ers held round table sessions with small groups of participants.

Current Status of Networking Efforts


The two sessions helped attendees to become acquainted with each other and to find
common ground and common interests. The second year with the networking focused
on specific research topics. In some ways, this aided the collegiality of the conference,
as suggested by Baldwin (1998).

Conclusion
The AHRD members have examined a number of issues through the Town Hall
Forums. At the time, these issues were of concern and potentially needed some resolu-
tion. Indeed, some of these Forums highlighted task forces that were examining that
issue. Specific actions were undertaken to develop the Standards on Ethics and
Integrity, the Standards for Graduate Program Excellence, and the Award for Scholarly
Practice. In addition, new journals have been created to bridge the gap between
research and practicespecifically Advances in Developing Human Resources and
International Journal of HRD Practice, Policy & Research. Thus, wrestling with each
of these controversies has advanced the field. For HRD researchers and HRD scholar-
practitioners, some lingering questions remain:

What can HRD researchers and scholar-practitioners do to improve equity and


social justice within organizations and communities? And, what are the best
approaches for evaluating those efforts?
What are the best approaches to getting research findings used by practitioners?
What can AHRD do to foster stronger connections between researchers and
practitioners?
Russ-Eft 533

How can technology be best used for HRD practice? What are the short-term
and long-term effects of such use on individuals, groups, and organizations?
How are the AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity used both in the United
States and in other countries? What are some of the needed changes to these
standards to reflect changes in society as well as the global nature of the field?

Hopefully, future AHRD Town Hall Forums will address these and other emerging
issues. To facilitate future examinations of these Forums, I strongly recommend that
the Board consider establishing an archive of all of the AHRD Proceedings. This
would require gathering those Proceedings from the earliest years of the organization
(presumably from some of the founding members). In addition, all future Town Hall
Forum should provide a manuscript for the Proceedings, even if somewhat brief, and
those manuscripts and any PowerPoints should be included in such an archive. Such
an archive will enable further development of the field. As attributed to George Santana
those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following individuals for providing manuscripts or other documents
related to the AHRD Town Hall Forums: Timothy T. Baldwin, Ann Brooks, Laura Bierema,
Marilyn Byrd, Jamie Callahan, Joshua Collins, Andrea D. Ellinger, Jerry Gilley, Rajashi Ghosh,
Tim Hatcher, Ronald L. Jacobs, Martin Kormanik, J. Peter Kuchinke, Victoria J. Marsick,
Michael Leimbach, Gary N. McLean, Wayne Pace, Rob Poell, Tom Shindell, Darren C. Short,
Catherine Sleezer, Julia Storberg-Walker, Richard J. Torraco, John Walton, Karen E. Watkins,
Jean Woodall, Baiyin Yang, and Lyle York. In addition, many of these individuals provided
member checking on my summaries. And I would like to thank all those who participated in and
contributed to the Town Hall Forums throughout the years.

Authors note
This article was subjected to a two-tier, blind review process that did not involve any of the
contributing authors who are currently members of the editorial board.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests


The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Baldwin, T. T. (1998). The folly of moving to a more critically evaluative culture at AHRD:
Lets not go there. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 Academy of Human
Resource Development (pp. 10-15). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource
Development.
534 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(4)

Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., & Hannum, W. H. (1975,
August). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development (Vols. 1-5,
TRADOC Pam 350-30, NAVEDTRA 106A). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command (NTIS No. ADA 019 486 through ADA 019 490).
Chalofsky, N., Ruona, W. E. A., Dooley, L., Hatcher, T., Jacobs, R., Kuchinke, K. P., . . .
Marsick, V. (2008). Academy of Human Resource Development standards for graduate
program excellence. St. Paul, MN: Academy of Human Resource Development. Retrieved
from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ahrd.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/AcadStds2008.pdf
Hatcher, T. G., & Brooks, A. K. (2000). Social responsibility of human resource development:
How our definitions and worldviews impact our leadership role. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 7-13). Baton Rouge,
LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Jacobs, R. L. (1996). Human resource development with integrity. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 1-5). Austin, TX:
Academy of Human Resource Development.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace.
Kim, T., Park, J., & Kolb, J. A. (2014). Examining the AHRD standards on ethics and integrity
using a multiple ethical paradigms approach. Human Resource Development Review, 13,
293-313. doi:10.1177/1534484313513952
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Leimbach, M. (1997). Integrating the art and science of HRD. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 1997 Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 13-19). Baton Rouge, LA:
Academy of Human Resource Development.
Leimbach, M. (1999). Certification of HRD professionals, products, and academic programs
The role of AHRD. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Academy of Human
Resource Development (Vol. 1, pp. 1-6). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource
Development.
Marsick, V. J. (1996). Performance with integrity: Thoughts on a code of conduct for HRD that
reflects adult development theory. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy
of Human Resource Development (pp. 6-13). Austin, TX: Academy of Human Resource
Development.
McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
McLean, G. N. (1997). Human resource development research: Is anyone listening? In R.
J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Academy of Human Resource Development
(pp. 2-12). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Nadler, L., & Nadler, Z. (1970). Developing human resources: Concepts and a model. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, P. B. (Ed.). (2016). Human resource development directory of academic programs in
the United States. Tyler, TX: The University of Texas at Tyler.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white
space on the organization chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Russ-Eft 535

Ruona, W. E. A. (2002). Whats in a name? Human resource development and its core. In
T. M. Egan & S. A. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development (pp. 9-16). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Russ-Eft, D., Burns, J. Z., Dean, P. J., Hatcher, T. G., Otte, F. L., & Preskill, H. S. (1999).
Academy of Human Resource Development Standards on ethics and integrity (1st ed.).
Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development. Available from www.ahrd.
org.
Russ-Eft, D., Watkins, K. E., Marsick, V. J., Jacobs, R. L., & McLean, G. N. (2014). What
do the next 25 years hold for HRD research in areas of our interest? Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 25, 5-27. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21180
Russ-Eft, D. F. (1998). CritiqueThe method to improve theory, research, and practice in
human resource development. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 Academy of
Human Resource Development (pp. 1-9). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource
Development.
Short, D. C., & Callahan, J. L. (2001). HRD professionals as global citizens: HRD ethics and
integrity in the global era. In O. A. Aliaga (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human
Resource Development [Addendum; available in ERIC: ED453406]. Baton Rouge, LA:
Academy of Human Resource Development.
Short, D. C., & Callahan, J. L. (2005). Would I work for a global corporation? And other
ethical questions for HRD. Human Resource Development International, 8, 121-125.
doi:10.1080/1367886042000338281
Sleezer, C. M., & Kunneman, D. E. (1999). Human resource development certification: A strat-
egy for leading the HRD profession through research. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Academy of Human Resource Development (Vol. 1, pp. 7-13). Baton Rouge, LA:
Academy of Human Resource Development.
Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organiza-
tions and documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Swanson, R. A. (1995a). Human resource development: Performance is the key. In E. F. Holton
III (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 1-2). Austin,
TX: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Swanson, R. A. (1995b). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 207-213. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920060208
Torbert, W. R. (1991). The power of balance: Transforming self, society, and scientific inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Walton, J. S. (2002). How shall a thing be called? A debate on the efficacy of the term HRD.
In T. M. Egan & S. A. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development (pp. 9-16). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1995). The case for learning. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (p. 1). Austin, TX: Academy
of Human Resource Development.

Author Biography
Darlene F. Russ-Eft, PhD, is professor and discipline liaison of Adult Education and Higher
Education, College of Education at Oregon State University, where she teaches masters and
doctoral courses in research, program evaluation, and learning theory. She also serves as faculty
member in Human Resource and Organization Development Program at the National Institute
for Development Administration (NIDA) in Bangkok, Thailand. She was previously director of
research at AchieveGlobal and division director of research for Zenger-Miller.

Potrebbero piacerti anche