Frame your research in the field of HRD and with cultural sensitivity: important considerations for publications in HRDI

The purpose of this editorial is to discuss two important considerations for prospective authors to ponder when submitting their manuscripts to the journal of Human Resource Development International. First, the journal of Human Resource Development International (HRDI) has a tradition of being inclusive. Based on the multidisciplinary roots of human resource development (HRD), the journal has been open to publish provocative debates, challenging assumptions, and ideas that push against seemingly established boundaries (Elliott 2016). As the editorial team, we are committed to the aims and scope of HRDI published on the journal’s website. I think it is important to repeat them here:

HRDI promotes all aspects of practice and research that explore issues of individual, group and organisational learning and performance. In adopting to this perspective HRDI is committed to questioning the divide between practice and theory; between the practitioner and the academic; and between traditional and experimental methodological approaches.

Furthermore,

HRDI is committed to a wide understanding of ‘organisation’ – one that extends through self-managed teams, voluntary work, or family businesses to global enterprises and bureaucracies; to explore the development of organisations and the life-long learning of people and their collectivity, their strategy and policy, from all parts of the world (see HRDI website).

As a leading forum for debate and exploration of the interdisciplinary field of human resource development, we are proud of this tradition.

With that said, the first important consideration for a prospective author to deliberate when preparing your study for the journal of Human Resource Development International is to demonstrate clear connections to the core of HRD topics and issues (Werner 2014). In the US, a number of academic scholars have invested their effort to distinguish HRD from HRM (Human Resource Management). If you are interested in the US perspective of the matter, Werner (2014) editorial provides an eloquent articulation. Outside of the US, the distinctions between the two might be perceived differently in different regions and are much less discussed or discerned. It is not my intention here to discuss the distinctions between HRD and HRM, instead, I want to focus on what HRD related topics or issues are by presenting the words or keywords often used in the published papers of HRDI over the past ten years (2008 to 2017).

Figure 1 shows a word cloud produced using NVivo 12 Plus. The analysis included all the papers published during a ten-year period from 2008 to 2017 by HRDI. The word cloud is based on word frequency. Among the top 100 most frequently used words, development and learning, two of the core activities of HRD stand out. Upon further examination using the keywords provided by the authors, we found the word development often appeared in the following phrases: training and development, leadership development, human resource development, career development, management development, social development, group development, community development, human capital development, professional development, strategic development, theory development, adult development, skills development, workforce development, organizational development, and personal development.

Figure 1. Most frequently appeared words of published papers in HRDI from 2008 to 2017.

The second most frequently used word is learning, it often appeared in phrases like workplace learning, e-learning, self-directed learning, action learning, informal learning, organizational learning, learning organization, life-long learning, situated learning, socio-cultural learning, team learning, experiential learning, management learning, transformative learning, problem-based learning, and intercultural learning. Other frequent keyword phrases used during this ten-year period including performance management, knowledge management, talent management, training design, corporate training, leadership development, transformational leadership, organizational culture, organizational change, human capital, critical HRD, and workplace diversity. It is rather alarming that the words culture or cross-cultural did not appear among the top 50 frequent words in an International journal. In a reflective article, McLean (2017) has warned us that we need more cross-cultural or cross-country research. This is certainly not an exhausted list of keywords, however, the word cloud showed in Figure 1 should provide an idea of the topics and issues of most interest to HRD scholars and practitioners.

The second important consideration from the perspective the editor of this international journal is for a prospective author to position her or his research in the context of the global readership of the journal. Due to the international nature of the journal, your paper may either be reviewed by a reviewer from a different culture or read by a someone from a different region. By providing enough social context of your research setting, you allow the reviewers to understand the specific research context with proper sensitivity, for example, the reviewer can become aware of the differences in cultural values, social norms, economic systems, and organizational types. It will help the reviewers to make sense of your research with the right contextual information and it will give you a better chance to receive a more positive outcome. If adequate contextual information is not provided, your reviewer might make decisions on the basis of the social context that is most familiar to the reviewer which is often the reviewer’s home culture.

Another important reason to provide adequate contextual background is to help the reader to understand the social context of your research to avoid misinterpretation or apply your research findings in a culturally insensitive way. Cross-context theory borrowing is a practice of using a theory developed in a ‘foreign’ context. It is especially common for western developed theory to be used in other parts of the worlds. Whetten (2009) has criticized that for reasons of deliberate avoidance or careless oversight, many cross-context or cross-cultural theory borrowings have shown little context sensitivity. When an author fails to specify the research context, it might be perceived by a less experienced reader as applicable in a worldwide setting. Hence, responsible authors should show sensitivity by providing the context that may limit their research applications. It is my hope that authors will take into consideration these two important issues related to international HRD research, together, we can fulfill the aims and support the traditions of HRDI.

Acknowledgments

I want to express my sincere appreciation to Xiao Xu, a doctoral student at Human Resource Development Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for providing the support with keywords analysis using NVvio.