Inviting contributions on international HRD research in HRDI

The purpose of this editorial is to help prospective authors contemplate how to advance research on international HRD and use HRDI as a vehicle to disseminate their cutting-edge work. As articulated by HRDI’s aims and scope, authors have a unique opportunity of publishing their pioneering and novel work in HRDI, which can be distinct in three ways: (1) challenging the practice-research divide; (2) accommodating experimental methodologies alongside traditional research methods; and (3) entertaining a broader understanding of organization to include self-managed teams, voluntary work, family businesses, global enterprises and bureaucracies. This positions HRDI well to challenge the status-quo in international HRD research. Hence, in my first editorial as the Associate Editor of the peer reviewed section of HRDI, I want to invite authors to push the boundaries of our thinking about international HRD (IHRD), within the following four strands of: (1) global HRD; (2) national HRD; (3) comparative/cross-cultural HRD; and (4) internationalizing organizations and expatriates (Garavan, McCarthy, and Carbery 2017).

Global HRD concerns the extent to which the design of HRD systems, policies, and practices in organizations considers the domestic, regional, and international levels in preparing a well-developed and highly skilled workforce. It emphasizes the potential of HRD to define the employer brand that can be attractive to all irrespective of locations of a globalizing organization (Cascio 2014; Kim and McLean 2012). Most importantly, the global strand accommodates a focus on sustainability and societal outcomes, thereby highlighting the social responsibility of HRD (Kuchinke 2010; Thite 2013). To extend work on this strand, I invite contributions that would delineate how local strategies in different organizations (e.g. corporate, not-for-profit, government, etc.) are contributing to developing global competencies, and how sensitivity towards sustainability and ability to impact societal outcomes are being integrated into the global competency model. While HRD scholarship has made some strides in delineating frameworks for global competencies (e.g. Cumberland et al. 2016; Kim and McLean 2015), empirical studies are needed to examine the relevance of applying those frameworks in different countries. The conceptual framework proffered by Valentin (2017) on Green IHRD and the key tenets of ethics in HRD practice noted by Kuchinke (2017) might help authors to think in new ways about studying global competencies.

National HRD focuses on human capacity building through development of national-level policies. It highlights the role of labour market institutions, vocational education, and training systems in building human and social capital (McLean 2004; Alagaraja and Wang 2012). Although there has been an upsurge of scholarly work on this strand, it remains undertheorized (Garavan, McCarthy, and Carbery 2017). While there have been conceptual papers delineating frameworks to study NHRD (e.g. Alagaraja, Kotamraju, and Kim 2014; Alagaraja and Githens 2016; Collins, Zarestky, and Tkachenko 2017; Murphy and Garavan 2009), scholars need to conduct theory-building empirical studies to add to the literature and inform practice of NHRD. To advance this strand, I invite prospective authors to design methodologically innovative studies to theorize NHRD using a multilevel approach (i.e. macro, meso, and micro) (Garavan et al. 2018).

The cross-cultural/comparative strand of IHRD draws our attention to the influence of national cultures, traditions, values, and beliefs on HRD practices and policies. Scholarly work on this strand till date has been heavily influenced by the Hofstede framework (Garavan, Carbery, and Rock 2012), even though several scholars have critiqued the scope of Hofstede’s framework to be limited in delineating within-country variations of cultural preferences at the individual (generational differences), organization (organizational culture differences), or state/province levels (regional differences of cultures) and for its overt focus on differences between national cultures instead of commonalities (Ailon 2008; McLean 2017; Signorini, Wiesemes, and Murphy 2009). Besides, HRD scholars need to weigh in more on the ongoing debate on advantages and disadvantages of divergence and convergence of HRD practices (Cseh, Davis, and Khilji 2013). To address these gaps, I invite contributions to HRDI that use both postpositivist and constructivist approaches to add to the literature on cross-cultural/comparative HRD (see recommendations for using appreciative inquiry and perspective taking by Ardichvili and Kuchinke 2002; see recommendations for using Hofstede’s framework with improved precision by Taras, Kirkman, and Steel 2010).

The strand on internationalizing organizations and expatriates has largely focused on issues related to developing employees who undertake international assignments, primarily expatriates (Anderson 2015). Comparatively, much less focus has been given to the structures needed to support the functioning of HRD practices in different types of organizations in international spaces that include INGOs, MNCs, international joint ventures and SMEs, and inter-governmental organizations (Garavan, McCarthy, and Carbery 2017). For instance, little is known about how diffusion of HRD practices is happening across subsidiaries of global organizations (Garavan, Carbery, and Rock 2012). Given that a key aim for HRD is to bring learning and change into an organizational context (Watkins 2000, 58), and HRD integrates the values and practices of organization development (OD) (Ruona 2016), it is imperative that HRD scholars conduct studies to understand how international organizations function. To that end, I invite contributions to HRDI that complement the scholarship on expatriates with a focus on the structural arrangements that facilitate the delivery of HRD effectively in international organizations.

Furthermore, I would draw attention to the concept of IHRD ecosystem proffered by Garavan, McCarthy, and Carbery (2019). IHRD ecosystem can help us to understand ‘the multiplicity of actors that work collaboratively to shape IHRD practices, develop IHRD systems and add value to individuals, organizations, countries, regions and society’ (p. 2). Adopting the lens of IHRD ecosystem can help to avoid a universalistic approach of generalizing the application of IHRD practices and extend the focus to macro and meso-levels of analysis beyond individuals and organizations.

I look forward to contributions to HRDI that address the above noted areas. Please email me on [email protected] if you have any questions.