Indigenous research in HRD: reflections from HRDI & call for contributions

View correction statement:

Correction

In the most recent editorial published in Volume 21 and Issue 4 of Human Resource Development Review (HRDR), a group of scholars commented on the gap of and scope for Indigenous research in the field of HRD. We at Human Resource Development International (HRDI) share this interest and commitment towards being more inclusive of voices that are presenting alternative and counter narratives to the commonplace ways of theorising and examining phenomenon relevant to HRD. Given that HRD scholarship is still predominantly skewed towards highlighting research conducted in the West, it is a moral imperative for journals in the field of HRD to be intentional in inquiring why we are lacking Indigenous voices and how we can make space for those voices in an equitable manner.

Indigenous research has been defined by Li, Sekiguchi, and Zhou (2016) as encompassing ‘the context-sensitive and context-specific approaches to a uniquely local phenomenon, which may have global implications’ (p.584). Thus, an emphasis on the ‘context’ is required to be at the essence of how such research is conceptualised and conducted. With this understanding, HRDI has proactively attempted to make space for contextual understanding of HRD phenomena, constructs, and practices. For instance, in 2022, HRDI has published articles that have an intentional focus on the role that context plays in shaping the constructs being studied. A few such examples are listed here:

• Crocco, O. S., and O. Tkachenko .2022. ‘Regional human resource development: The case of Southeast Asia and ASEAN’. Human Resource Development International 25(1): 40–58.

• Elbanna, S., and T. Fatima .2022. ‘Quantifying people in the GCC region: the uses, challenges, and efficacy of the quota system policy’. Human Resource Development International 1–25.

• Lans, T., C. P. van Wagenberg, H. Biemans, R. Hoste., and Y. Jung. 2022. ‘Learning apart or together? The relationships of the social interdependence orientation and social competence of owner-managers with their social learning behaviour and firm performance within a Korean small-business context’. Human Resource Development International 1–19.

• Abadi, M., K. M. Dirani., and F. D. Rezaei. 2022. “Women in leadership: a systematic literature review of Middle Eastern women managers’ careers from NHRD and institutional theory perspectives”. Human Resource Development International 25(1): 19–39.

• Petchsawang, P., G. N. McLean, & P. Lau. 2022. ‘Empowerment discrepancies: are employees empowered as they prefer in hotels in selected areas of Thailand?’ Human Resource Development International 1–21.

• Waight, C. L., T. N. Kjerfve, A. Kite, and B. Smith, B. 2022. ‘Connecting and relating in Brazil: implications of remote work’. Human Resource Development International 25(2): 231–253.

• Yamnill, S., and G. N. McLean, G. N. 2022. ‘Can action research sustain longitudinal change? A case study of Lumpaya community, Thailand’. Human Resource Development International 25(4): 433–452.

As examples of macro-level Indigenous HRD research, Crocco and Tkachenko (2022) present a multilevel framework and initial definition of Regional Human Resource Development (Regional HRD) through examining the role of human resource development (HRD) in the region of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This is a fine example in which through reviewing 287 ASEAN publications, the authors constructed a nuanced understanding of how the region of Southeast Asia can uniquely inform the conceptualisation of the novel construct, Regional HRD. Similarly, Elbanna and Fatima (2022) conducted an integrative literature review by studying the quota system based on empirical, conceptual, and theoretical research conducted in GCC or Gulf Cooperation Countries. This review enabled the authors to propose a framework for discerning the role of the quota system (a context-specific construct) in implementing the nationalisation strategy in GCC. In another attempt, Yamnill and MacNeal (2022) conducted a longitudinal case study to examine if the concept of action research drawing from the knowledge management (KM) literature in HRD led to sustainable change in the Lumpaya community in Thailand. What is noteworthy is that the authors involved the leaders and core group members of the Lumpaya Village community in conducting this study thus, making space for understanding the local perspective from a bottom-up approach instead of applying a top-down view of action research and sustainable development in the region.

In other examples of studies with more micro-level focus, Lans et al. (2022) draw from their understanding of Korea’s collectivistic culture to examine and analyse the role that Korean owner-managers play in enabling social learning and performance in small pig firms; Petchsawang et al. (2022) problematise the concept of empowerment by arguing that the effectiveness of empowerment practices in organisations depends on employees’ perceptions and their organisational contexts and that how empowerment is implemented and experienced in Asia is likely to vary from how it is practiced in the Waight et al. (2022) helped shed light on how remote work prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic was experienced in the high-context culture of Brazil, thus expanding our understanding of that concept beyond the dominant Western perspectives.

Following this line of work, Abadi et al. (2022) leans on a both micro and macro perspectives in conducting a systematic literature review of articles published on Middle Eastern women leadership careers through the lens of Institutional Theory (INT) to identify gaps and propose guidelines for HRD at organisational and national levels. In addition, HRDI has always invited Special Issues (SI) with specific focus on contexts. For example, the Special Issue co-edited by Dr. Sanghamitra Chaudhuri and Dr. Nisha Manikoth published in Vol 25 Issue 3 in 2022 provided a cross-country comparison of leadership in different sectors and countries in the backdrop of specific challenges and responses to the pandemic, especially in managing the expectations for HRD. What was most impressive about this SI was that the Editors created cross-cultural collaborations through inviting emerging scholars in different regions of the world to collaborate with senior HRD scholars in the West to write the articles in the SI. Throughout their efforts of creating such partnerships, the editors were mindful of ensuring that the emerging international scholars felt included and could engage with their senior co-authors as equal contributors and that their voices were not dominated by Western perspectives. As a continuation of such initiatives, we are excited to announce the current Special Issue Call on Global Feminism, Sustainability, and Human Resource Development (30 April 2023 deadline for submission) where the guest editors, Drs. Metcalfe, Cronshaw, and Stewart call for comparative analyses of different context-sensitive conceptualisations of feminisms (Islamic Feminisms/Latino feminisms/Chinese Feminisms/African Feminism/White Feminism) across the world (Global North, Global South) and implications for sustainability and decoloniality. See this page for Call for Papers for this Special Issue.

Having noted these encouraging efforts towards context sensitive HRD research, we would be remiss if we do not point out the gaps that are critical in our efforts of including Indigenous voices to inform the realm of HRD scholarship and practice. For instance, even though the work referred to above takes a context-sensitive approach to examining phenomena of interest to the field of HRD, most of these take a country- or continental-level view of the phenomenon being studied. Salmon, Chavez, and Murphy (2022) noted that it is:

important to highlight the political implications of such an analysis, as the imposed geographical labels (such as country or continent) associated with particular Indigenous Peoples may be perceived as artificial or insensitive. Specifically, there are valid concerns with categorising research at a country level, as this falsely equates colonial boundaries with Indigenous boundaries. It is also a concern when categorising Indigenous research at a continental level, as this may be erroneously understood to imply homogeneity across broad areas where there is great diversity among Indigenous Peoples

(p.12).

Given this, how can we support HRD scholarship that can make space for exploring the nuances of how contextual boundaries at different levels (region/country/community) might impact the identity and lived experiences of Indigenous people at the intersection of such boundaries?

To do that, we need to challenge how we evaluate and reward rigour and quality in scholarship. In other words, we need to consider if we should challenge the Western ontologies of reductionism and individualism (Hardy et al. 2012) that can encourage generalisations resulting in homogeneous constructions of phenomena to make space for Indigenous ontologies of holism, reciprocity, and interconnectedness that can accommodate diversity within diversity. Further, we need studies that employ Indigenous research methodologies to study phenomena with a context-sensitive approach. In a systematic review of Indigenous research methods, Drawson, Toombs, and Mushquash (2017) lists different research methodologies such as: (1) conversational method to collect data that is sensitive to Indigenous knowledge, reflexivity, and is relational in nature (Kovach 2010); (2) Photovoice that invites participant engagement and diffuses the divide between researchers and the Indigenous people with whom they collaborate (Jones et al. 2013); (3) Combined Indigenous research paradigm – autoethnographic approach (Smithers-Graeme 2013); (4) Mixed methods research that combines traditional qualitative/quantitative methods with Indigenous methods or ways of knowing (Botha 2012); (5) Emic-etic approach that can help to uncover both universal (emic) and Indigenous (etic) factors influencing the construct being studied (Fetvadjiev et al. 2015); (6) Yarning where the researcher engages in ‘a conversational process that involves the sharing of stories and the development of knowledge’ prioritising ‘indigenous ways of communicating, in that it is culturally prescribed, cooperative, and respectful’ (Walker et al. 2014, 1216) to name a few. In all these methodologies, the common thread is an alignment with the principles of Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) (Cameron et al. 2014) that recognises the strength and knowledge of communities and empowers the members of those communities as equal partners in creating knowledge with impact, pushing the boundaries and offering insightful evidence-based Indigenous research. At HRDI, we would welcome submissions that align with CBPR principles and employ indigenous research methodologies.

The question here is whether our higher education institutions are prepared to take that leap so that researchers working with Indigenous people can feel included and recognised than being in the periphery and feeling forced to confirm to dominant standards of research? We as journal editors can make space for Indigenous Research in HRD, but will that derail our aspirations of publishing research that follows dominant and more typical norms of scholarship and hence, are more likely to be cited to advance us in our quest to get SSCI ranking?

The challenge is that these are competing commitments and unless we question which systemic factors are driving us to have these competing commitments, it is difficult to change the status quo. HRDI is committed to continuing this important conversation with other journals like HRDR to collectively identify ways to dismantle the systemic barriers constraining us to become more inclusive and offer the platform for these voices to be expressed. This gap also shows the need to encourage collaborations across the field and engage in an open dialogue on how Indigenous research can be a ‘mainstream’ research activity.

Within HRDI, the Perspectives section represents a meeting place for different voices on a range of HRD topics and hence, can be a venue for inviting bold ideas on Indigenous research. From conversations about research and practice to debates and polemics about the changing nature of HRD, the goal of the Perspectives section is continuous growth and evolution of the field through making space for discussion and challenge. Horton (1998) discusses the importance of growth in the following terms:

My goal for the tree I planted in front of my house is for it to get big enough to shade the house, but that tree is not going to stop growing once it shades my house. It’s going to keep on growing bigger, regardless of whether I want it to or not … I think there always needs to be struggle. In any situation, there will always be something that’s worse, and there will always be something that’s better, so you continually strive to make it better. That will always be so, and that’s good, because there ought to be growth. You die when you stop growing.

(p. 228)

Embracing and including Indigenous voices broadens our understanding of HRD and recognises the moving, complex and contextual nature of HRD. Seeing HRD intentionally from a context different from our own provides for a shift in focus, composition and emphasis, providing for the possibility of renewing and reinventing relationships between HRD’s principal actors (Garavan et al. 2007). It is important to recognise that there is strength in plurality and indigenous research may encourage a greater openness to research methods that are sensitive to and capture the richness of HRD across different contexts.