A discourse approach totheorising HRD: opening a

discursive spaceAileen Lawless

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Sally SambrookBangor University, Bangor, UK

Tom GaravanLimerick University, Limerick, Ireland, and

Claire ValentinEdinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss how a discourse approach to theorising humanresource development (HRD) can open a “discursive space” to challenge dominant discourses withinthe field; enabling a more critical discourse to emerge.

Design/methodology/approach – Discusses two approaches to discourse analysis, a “practice”and a “critical” approach, and illuminates how both approaches can contribute to theorising HRD.

Findings – The notion of what constitutes HRD is being constantly renegotiated both in theory andin practice. While contemporary HRD discourses are many and there is fluidity in the field a dominantdiscourse can be identified. The authors argue that a focus on the discourses which construct andconstitute HRD need to consider both the “practice” and “the order of discourse” enabling theemergence of alternative discourses within the field.

Research limitations/implications – Due to word restrictions an empirical example has not beenincluded. However, future work will address this limitation.

Practical implications – The two approaches to discourse analysis discussed provide a usefulframework; enabling an analysis of the dominant and competing discourses within the field of HRD.

Originality/value – Discourse analysis is rarely discussed in business settings despite the evidencethat applied discourse analysis focuses on questions that are of relevance to the field. This papercontributes to a perceived gap and demonstrates how discourse analysis can contribute to researchingalternative notions of HRD in order to encourage a variety of conceptual developments.

Keywords Human resource development, Human resource management

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIncreasingly, language and language use is being understood as the most importantphenomenon accessible for empirical investigation in social science research (Alvessonand Karreman, 2000). Consequently, discourse has become a fashionable word. In somecases underlying the use of the word “discourse” is the general idea that language isstructured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when theytake part in different domains of social life (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002). Discourseanalysis represents an extensive area of contemporary debate and research that

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT35,3

264

Received 9 February 2010Revised 28 June 2010Accepted 22 December 2010

Journal of European IndustrialTrainingVol. 35 No. 3, 2011pp. 264-275q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0590DOI 10.1108/03090591111120412

crosses linguistic, literary and communication arenas. It focuses not only on the wordsor the text, but it also examines the micro processes and nuances used when academicsand practitioners talk about a field of practice. It brings to bear a set of fundamentalassumptions concerning the nature of language and reality and in particular the way apractice is constructed through social interaction in particular contexts.

Discourse analysis found its way into the field of management, organisation, humanresource management (HRM) and human resource development (HRD) at thebeginning of the 1990s and in that time it has become increasingly popular. Within thefield of HRD there is an emerging emphasis on the social and conversational aspects ofdiscourse (Pavlica et al., 1998; Rigg et al., 2007; Holman and Thorpe, 2003). However,despite the importance of communications and language in the practice of HRD,discourse analysis is rarely ever discussed in business settings. This fact is not onlystressed by discourse analysts but also we find that many HRD text books have little tosay about discourse analysis as a way of looking at HRD. It is also the case that fewHRD practitioners use discourse analytic techniques and findings in their day-to-daywork. However, Hormuth (2009) suggests that applied discourse analysis increasinglyfocuses on addressing questions that are of relevance to practitioners. In addition, Hall(2001) argues that discourse influences how ideas are implemented in practice andregulates the conduct of others.

However, discourse has no agreed upon definition and “we cannot help sometimesfeeling that the word is used to cover up muddled thinking or postponed decisions onvital analytical matter” (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000, p. 1128). Arguably the abovecriticism arises because of the variety of approaches that are labelled discourse analysis.Various authors including: Phillips and Jorgensen (2002), Wetherell et al. (2001), andAlvesson and Karreman (2000) discuss how the approaches differ. They acknowledgethat the differences are matters of degree but caution that analysts need to weigh theapproaches against each other, ensuring that the research forms a “complete package”, atheoretical and methodological whole (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002).

This paper focuses on two particular approaches to discourse analysis which wehave found particularly useful in theorising HRD; a “practice” approach and a “critical”approach. In discussing each approach we illuminate how an examination of thediscourses which construct and constitute HRD can contribute to theorising HRD.First, we discuss a “practice” approach to discourse analysis and the utility ofconceiving HRD as a discursive practice; second, we discuss a “critical” approach todiscourse analysis and introduce the notion of HRD as “an order of discourse”; third,we undertake a critical examination of HRD by applying some of the strands of criticalthinking to HRD practices and discourses and finally we conclude by arguing that thetwo approaches to discourse analysis provide a useful framework which can enable ananalysis of the dominant and competing discourses within the field of HRD. Thisanalysis can open a “discursive space” and contribute to theorising HRD.

A “practice” approach: HRD as discursive practiceA “practice” approach views language as situated within a particular social andcultural context rather than within a particular interaction. For example, by focusingon the language associated with HRD practice we can draw attention to how new termsenable people to talk about different things. This extended vocabulary is not viewed assimply attaching different labels to already existing objects, but highlights thatlanguage is constitutive. It creates what it refers to, it is the site where meanings are

Theorising HRD

265

created and changed. This approach views language as situated within a particularsocial and cultural context. A “practice” approach to discourse analysis focusesattention on the construction of HRD as a discursive practice.

From a social constructionist perspective knowledge is created through socialinteraction in which social actors construct common truths and compete about what istrue and false. In theorising differences are acknowledged between knowledge andknowing (Chia, 2009). Familiar terms are episteme and techne as formal and technicalaspects of knowledge associated more with dominant research philosophies, where anactor has to construct mental representations of the world prior to any practicalengagement with it (Chia, 2009). Less familiar terms are the ideas of phronesis(practical wisdom) and metis (being street smart) and gnosis (intuitive knowing),perhaps more related to constructionist and interpretive approaches, where (tacit)knowledge emerges as a locus of understanding through social practices.

Such an approach is concerned not only with what social actors know, but howthey/we come to know and respond, through social interaction and dialogic processes.Torraco (2004) argues that social constructionism models an understanding of thesense people make of the social world in their everyday lives and offers insightsconcerning how social experience is created and given meaning. Similarly, Ruona andLynham (2004) assert the importance for practitioners and academics of holdingconversations as a means of developing the field. It is through conversations that thedeep assumptions driving the field of HRD can be explored and identified. Rather thanaccept a dominant positivist performativity world-view a discourse practice approachquestions, unsettles and challenges this and provides dialogic space to create differentunderstandings, and theories, or ways of knowing HRD. As Gergen (1995) argues,discourse cannot be conceptualised as a reflection or map of a practice, but only as anartefact of communal interchange, thus we need to speak of multiple, and potentiallycompeting discourses and discursive practices.

Faced with the ontological difficulties of establishing what HRD is, and the consequentmethodological problems of how to sense andmeasure this thing (critiquing the objective),HRD can usefully be thought of as social and discursive construction (Sambrook, 1998).This involves focusing on what HRD practitioners do, and, more interestingly, how theytalk about what they do – in that there could be differences between what they say theydo and what they actually do (an investigative perspective). Linking these two ideas, itseems that much of what HRD practitioners do is talk, hence the notion of discursiveaction emerged. When talking of HRD, it is possible to examine various dimensions. Forexample, how has HRD been talked into being, that is how it has been invented, or sociallyconstructed by academics and practitioners. We can also investigate how “it” is talkedabout, that is how we draw upon particular discursive resources, or ways of framing howwe think about and articulate our sense-making of HRD. In addition, we can explore how“it” is achieved through talk, that is through HRD practices such as delivering training,persuading, advising, consulting, and formulating strategies etc. However, Garrick (1998)cautions that discursive constructions about a subject can be problematic, in that they(we) construct what is both sayable, and what is not.

We can study HRD as practice discourse by analysing how “it” is written and talkedabout by various stakeholders (Garavan, 1995). We can then investigate if there arecommunal discursive resources being used amongst these diverse stakeholders orwhether there are mixed accounts of HRD. This helps us understand how differentagents think and speak of HRD. Thinking critically, this approach helps give voice tothe potentially excluded or suppressed (employees, trainees), thereby offering more

JEIT35,3

266

democratic involvement in the research process, co-construction of knowledge, andpossible emancipation. We can also study HRD as action by analysing how “it” ispractised through talking, and how this can influence how organisational membersperceive HRD. This leads to the notion of HRD as discursive action – a complexsocially constructed concept with real consequences – something that is both enactedand negotiated. Thinking of HRD as discursive practice gives us a means of criticallyanalysing what is being said, by whom, how and what consequences arise.

There is a growing body of work exploring HRD as discursive practice (Sambrook,1998; Rigg and Trehan, 2002; Fenwick, 2004; Rigg, 2005; Francis, 2007; Sambrook,2007; Lawless and Stewart, 2009). Sambrook (1998, 2000, 2001) for example, exploredhow learning and development was talked about in two NHS organisations andidentified (or, perhaps more honestly, constructed) three distinct discourses of HRD –tell, sell and gel. These were later validated in the literature review conducted byGaravan et al. (1999) who identified three similarly distinct perspectives. However, thisis not to say that there might be other discourses employed in other contexts. Forexample, Kessels (2002) notes that HRD practices vary between large and smallenterprises and between private and public sector organisations. Rigg and Trehan(2002) also explored HRD in small organisations from a discourse practice andintroduced the distinction between discursive practice and discursive resource.Building on this approach, Rigg (2005) argued that understanding can be enhancedthrough a discourse perspective which focuses on discourse as both noun and verb. Sheillustrated that by differentiating between discursive practice and discursive resource,research can be enriched through study of both the content (what) of communicationbetween organisation members and their communicative practices (how). She alsonoted that discursive studies have tended to be undervalued as “an obsession withtalk” and “an intellectual luxury” yet demonstrates the practical utility of themethodological approach for advancing understanding. Sambrook (2001) also warnedabout the danger of “all talk”. In another example, Francis (2007) considered how HRDspecialists worked with colleagues from the personnel function to strategically draw ona complex mix of discursive constructions to promote a supportive learningenvironment and enhanced worker participation. Francis treated language as socialpractice, demonstrating how this ability to act strategically was shaped by a variety ofdiscursive practices at corporate level and beyond.

Such an emphasis on discourse, discursive resources and discursive practices can bedescribed as a “practice” approach to discourse analysis. This approach is compatiblewith another approach to discourse analysis; critical discourse analysis.

A “critical” approach: HRD as an order of discourseIn contrast to a “practice” approach a “critical” approach to discourse analysis focuseson investigating patterns in language use within a much larger context, such associety. Within this approach the analyst aims to identify patterns of language andrelated practices and in doing so, to show how these constitute aspects of society andthe people within society. The focus is how language is important as part of widerprocesses and activities. Discourse is viewed as a fluid, shifting medium in whichmeaning is created and contested. The language user is not viewed as a detachedcommunicator, but located and immersed in an activity and struggling to take his orher social and cultural positioning into account. From this perspective, the languageuser is not a free agent but heavily constrained in terms of the choice of language and

Theorising HRD

267

action. This approach highlights that the analyst is not outside these constraints andstruggles but located within and constrained.

Fairclough’s concept of an “order of discourse” is useful to highlight thisrelationship as it focuses attention on the potential dominance of particular discoursesand, in particular, how an order of discourse can “control the linguistic variability forparticular areas of social life” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 24). This draws attention todominant discourses and how these discourses can channel meaning and attentionwithin HRD talk and literature (Francis, 2007). Discourses help to determine socialpractices by shaping what can be said and by whom. A discourse rules in certain waysof talking about objects and subjects, and thus also rules out, limits or restricts (Grantet al., 2009). Grant and Hardy (2003) highlight the ways in which dominant meaningsemerge from “the power-laden nature of organisational contexts”, and the “discursivepractices and rhetorical devices that are deployed in these struggles around meaning”(Grant and Hardy, 2003, p. 5). The concept of hegemony is useful for understandingpower and struggles about power. It emphasises forms of power that depend uponconsent rather than coercion. Hegemonies are sustained ideologically in the “commonsense” assumptions of everyday life, and can be understood as the dominance of oneparticular perspective. However, “hegemonic struggle” is typical within orders ofdiscourse as discourses compete to frame meaning (Fairclough, 2003).

Thomas (2003) presented the notion that discourses emerge and are developed via aframework of conjunctures, and through what he terms “recontextualisation”. Hesuggested that management academia, management consultancy, and the “guru”industry make up the three main conjectures in development of management discourse.“Recontextualisation” of discourse occurs as it moves between discursive actors –from consultants to practitioners to academics. The cultural authority of scienceremains a key part of the academic conjecture, whereas we see a growingcommodification of knowledge in what he terms the consultancy/guru conjecture. Theconjuncture of management practitioners is more extensive and diverse:

Within this conjecture valuable discourse is that which “works” on whatever pragmatic sensethat entails. In many cases it seems that what works can be defined as that which enhancesmanagement control (Thomas, 2003, p. 788).

Reed (2000) critiques a Foucauldian analysis, which asserts that reality is entirelysocially constructed, in which discourses are assumed to take on an “object-constituting”character. Reed contends that this sole focus on meaning marginalizes the materialaspects of economic and political reality, which act to constrain social action. He arguesalso for the role of agency in the “construction, reproduction and transformation ofdiscursive formations” (Reed, 2000, p. 52). Whilst discourses are important, they operatewithin “structures”, and these and the mechanisms through which they are generated are“fundamental to the constitution of our natural and social reality” (Reed, 2000, p. 527).However, critical theorists would caution against the suggestion of a post-modernrelativism in which all discourses are regarded as equal. Certain discourses are accordedmore power than others. The modernist perspective of much management research,which has emerged from the approaches to researching the natural sciences, limits whatis “talked about”. We can interpret the situation as an ongoing “hegemonic struggle”(Fairclough, 2003).

Reed (2000) commented on the political economy of discursive formation, viewingdominant discourses as “generative mechanisms” through which new “regulatoryregimes” seek to become established. Dominant discourses “such as the

JEIT35,3

268

quantitatively-based discourse of financial audit, quality control and risk management –are now seen as the generative mechanisms through which new regulatory regimes‘carried out’ by rising expert groups – such as accountant, engineers and scientists –become established and legitimated in modern societies” (Reed, 2000, p. 529).

This raises a range of questions regarding HRD. In theorising HRD are we seekingto establish a regulatory regime, of experts, practitioners and academics or are wetrying to open a discursive space? Within the following section we begin the process ofopening a discursive space by examining the discourses associated with “beingcritical” as well as the emerging and eclectic discourses of “HRD”.

A critical examination of HRDAs we are taking a discursive stance, it is helpful to explore what we might mean bybeing critical. Therefore, we undertake a critical examination of HRD by applyingsome of the strands of critical thinking to HRD practices and discourses.

Billig (2000) notes that the term “critical” is itself an interesting one; as languageanalysts, “we should not shy away from examining (critically examining) the termsthat we use to describe our own work and, indeed, our own identity” (Billig, 2000,p. 291). As HRD professionals, we need to examine the terms that we use to describeour own work and identity, and how this shapes our theorising. In his critique of thecritical, Billig argues that when academics apply the term “critical” to their ownparadigm, discipline or theory, the label tends to signal both a new approach thatincludes social analyses, particularly of social inequality, and one that is opposingexisting approaches (the other). More broadly, Antonacopoulou (1999) synthesisedcommon themes of critical perspectives into a definition: providing voice for therepressed and marginalized, exposing assumptions and values, revealing the use ofpower and control, and challenging inequities and sacrifices made in the name ofefficiency, effectiveness, and profitability through a self-reflexive critique of rhetoric,tradition, authority, and objectivity. As talk emerges of critical HRD, are we becomingcritical to address inequalities, for example, in access to learning and developmentopportunities, or do we wish to distinguish ourselves from those “others” who do not?This has implications for both theory-building and our own practice. Being criticalcould mean furthering “knowing” (more locally situated theorising) and/or effectingpractical, emancipatory outcomes. However, these are connected and we need to thinkcarefully about our own practices – as HRD academics and/or practitioners – and the(potentially oppressive or emancipatory) effect they have. Such a project requires a“defensive flexibility” and “a self-critical, self-referential stance” (Brookfield, 2001, p. 5),or what Cunliffe (2009) would describe as reflexive practice.

Burrell (2001, pp. 14-17) identified six interrelated strands to a critical approach:political, iconoclastic, epistemological, investigative, revelatory and emancipatory.This provides a framework to consider HRD as a social and discursive construction.Each of these strands can be thought of as particular discourses, or ways of framingwhat we consider to be critical. From a political perspective, who are the stakeholdersinvolved in HRD, who influences HRD, in what ways and for what gains? In theacademic context, which theorists and theories of HRD are most powerful, and why?What are the (competing) theories of HRD? In practice, what power does HRD have tocontrol and manipulate organisational members and who defines how HRD isperformed (Vince, 2005, p. 27)? From the iconoclastic perspective, what lies behind the“dominant imagery and icons” of HRD? McGuire et al. (2007) suggest that symbols and

Theorising HRD

269

stories form an important aspect of the language meta-perspective, and constitute aweb of meanings for organisational members, enabling the interpretation of activitiesand events. Signifiers and symbols used in organisational life include the “rightphrases” associated with a particular HRD discourse. Here, discourse analysis couldusefully examine what discursive resources are being used, by whom and to constructwhich dominant image. This also links to the political perspective, and criticaldiscourse analysis. From the epistemological perspective, what constitutes knowledge,and what methodologies are accepted in constructing how we “know” and theoriseHRD? Focusing on HRD as social and discursive practice enables us to explore newways of creating and sharing representational knowledge as well as knowing (Chia,2009). Turnbull (2002) identified the difficulties associated with developing “newer”perspectives as alternatives to the dominant positivist philosophies and accompanyingquantitative methodological approaches. However, there are now possibilities tochallenge the dominant approaches, with new interpretive and qualitative approaches,such as ethnography, action research and discourse analysis. In our pursuit of newways of theorising, we need to examine to what extent is this emerging work “critical”and how does it contribute to a deeper understanding of HRD. As well as criticallyreflecting on the work and methodologies of others, we also need to engage inself-reflection and consider to what extent is our work reflexive (Cunliffe, 2009). Moreimportantly, we also need to examine if and how “critical” knowledge influencesorganisational practices. Trehan (2004, p. 23), for example, notes that “while examplesof critical pedagogies are accumulating, they seldom exhibit corresponding changes inHRD practice”. We could usefully explore how HRD is talked into and perhaps out ofbeing, how it is talked about and accomplished through talk as providing tangible“evidence” to examine through (critical) discourse analysis.

From an investigative perspective, what is taken for granted and which issues areoften neglected because they are suppressed and excluded from the agenda (Burrell,2001, p. 15)? Here, we can investigate what do we actually “mean” by HRD rather thantaking this for granted, perhaps by questioning those who (powerfully) decide what HRDshould mean, and then explore what this in turn might mean for those exposed to HRD.Walton (2003) believes that one term – HRD – cannot be used to mean many things tomany people, whether it be “theories” or organisational practices. From a revelatoryperspective, being critical is searching for “the” truth about HRD, given thedisagreements about what “is” HRD and the reluctance to first define (Lee, 1998) andthen accept/retain this term. We could also attempt to identify how HRD is talked about(some might describe this as the ideology or rhetoric) and how it is accomplished throughtalk – but is this any more “real”? Is it possible, or even desirable, to attempt to reveal asingle truth about HRD? There are multiple and often-contradictory constructions anddiscourses of HRD, offering partial, ambiguous and dynamic meanings andunderstandings of those activities and actions currently talked of as HRD.

From an emancipatory perspective, there is an inherent tension between reconcilingthe needs of individuals and those of employing organisations, so how could andshould HRD theory and practice emancipate? Here we might talk of the need of “them”rather than “us.” This relates back to the political dimension (Vince, 2005). We havepossibilities to espouse theories and practices of HRD that constrain humans within thedominant performative ideology or we can attempt to develop humanistic HRDtheories and practices that free employees.

These six perspectives could also be described as attributes and antecedents ofcritical HRD, when employing concept analysis (Sambrook, 2009). However, a further

JEIT35,3

270

element of concept analysis involves identifying consequences in practice. For us, thisincludes the interrelated practices of researching, theorising, teaching and enacting HRD.We have argued that a critical approach to theorising HRD involves moving beyonddominant and orthodox methodologies towards newer ways of knowing and researchingHRD and have suggested exploring HRD as a social and discursive practice.

We would argue that a focus on the discourses which construct and constitute HRDneed to consider both the practice and the order of discourse. Therefore a “practice”and a “critical” approach to discourse analysis can contribute to theorising HRD andcontribute to the emergence of alternative discourses within the field.

ConclusionAs illustrated a “practice” and a “critical” approach to discourse analysis provides tools toanalyse the nature of HRD and its web of ideology, control and power relations. This socialconstructionist approach contrasts with the more positivist and rationalist approach thatcharacterises research on what is considered mainstream HRD. Discourse analysisarguably talks to the current context in organisations and as a field of academic practice.The two approaches to discourse analysis considered in this paper have the potential toproduce a coherent description of how HRD is constructed and enacted in organisations.Discourse is not produced without context and cannot be understood without takingcontext into account. Discourses in HRD are ultimately connected to other discourses.

Power issues and discursive struggles are a key focus of “critical” discourseanalysis and this may be a “critical” time for HRD (Sambrook, 2004). Discourses areconsidered continuously in competition with each other to find the one that best andmost “truthfully” represents HRD at any point in time. HRD in organisations will becharacterised by multiple discourses, some of them strong and some of them weak. Oneor more will dominate and as a result the balance of power is constantly renegotiatedthrough a series of relational processes. A dominant discourse on HRD in an academicfield and/or organisation emerges when alternative discourses become marginalized,subverted or discredited in the continual dynamic of power relations. Ultimately adominant discourse will emerge from the various competing discourses that areproduced, developed or transformed in day-to-day communicative practices.

Discourses in HRD, while having a strong internal logic, will also be contradictory.Within organisations there will likely be mutually contradictory discourses on HRD atany one time. There will likely be multiple perspectives on which one is the best andmost appropriate. Social practices by their very nature are characterised by tension,paradox and contradictions. Discourses deal with such contradictions by calibrating orrecasting themselves in their struggle to be dominant. Change in discourse is likely tooccur because of such inconsistencies and paradox.

HRD discourses are embedded in a local organisational context but also in a muchwider context such as national culture, academic debate, the press, television andliterature. Ideas about what HRD should be about are viewed as travelling from onelocal context to another. Ideas by their very nature continually go on travelling. Theyarrive in a different local context and become embedded.

Historically, HRD was understood in terms of a systematic process involving theapplication of techniques to address performance gaps for which there was a trainingand development solution. In terms of the perceived purposes of HRD, two particulardiscourses have prevailed and remain prominent; “performance” and “learning”. The“performance” discourse focuses on the development of individual skill for the

Theorising HRD

271

purposes of improved individual, organisational or system performance. The“learning” discourse focuses on enhancing individual knowledge and skill andcreating an organisational environment and culture where learning is both facilitatedand encouraged. The relationship between the trainer and learner in traditionaldiscourse is assumed to be a vertical one, suggesting a top-down power relationship.HRD is assumed to focus primarily on organisational priorities; strategic HRD, thelearning organisation, TQM and work force training all belong to this tradition. It is adiscourse that has dominated the field of HRD for many decades. Typical HRDprocesses associated with this traditional discourse include dominance, control, gaps inperformance, systematic measurement and evaluation.

However, in recent years, a number of scholars (Reynolds, 1998; Gold et al., 2003)have challenged these conceptions or notions, arguing that HRD is an activity that canaddress multiple objectives, encourage critical reflection that can be shared ordistributed in terms of control and decision making (Elliott and Turnbull, 2003). Thereis hope that alternative approaches to HRD will gain some momentum and it isimportant to look at other ways of theorising about HRD. The notion of whatconstitutes HRD is therefore being constantly renegotiated both in theory and inpractice. For now, it must be stated that while contemporary HRD discourses are manyand there is fluidity in the field a dominant discourse can be identified. Indeed, the twoapproaches to discourse analysis discussed within this paper provide a usefulframework; enabling an analysis of the dominant and competing discourses within thefield of HRD. This analysis can open a “discursive space” and contribute to theorisingHRD.

References

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000), “Varieties of discourse: on the study of organizationsthrough discourse analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1125-49.

Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1999), “The power of critique: revisiting critical theory at the end of thecentury”, paper presented at the International Critical Management Studies Conference,Manchester.

Billig, M. (2000), “Towards a critique of the critical”, Discourse and Society, Vol. 11 No. 3,pp. 291-2.

Brookfield, S. (2001), “Repositioning ideology critique in a critical theory of adult education”,Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 9, pp. 7-22.

Burrell, G. (2001), “Critical dialogues on organization”, Ephemera, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-29.

Chia, R. (2009), “The nature of knowledge and knowing in the context of management learning,education and development”, in Armstrong, S. and Fukami, C. (Eds), The Sage Handbookof Management Learning, Education and Development, Sage, London, pp. 25-41.

Cunliffe, A. (2009), “Reflexivity, learning and reflexive practice”, in Armstrong, S. and Fukami, C.(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development, Sage,London, pp. 405-18.

Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (2003), “Reconciling autonomy and community: the paradoxical role ofHRD”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 457-74.

Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Routledge,London.

JEIT35,3

272

Fenwick, T.J. (2004), “Discursive work for educational administrators: tensions in negotiatingpartnerships”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 171-87.

Francis, H. (2007), “Discursive struggle and the ambiguous world of HRD”, Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 83-96.

Garavan, T. (1995), “Stakeholders and strategic human resource development”, Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 11-16.

Garavan, T., Heraty, N. and Barnicle, B. (1999), “Human resource development literature: currentissues, priorities and dilemmas”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5,pp. 169-79.

Garrick, J. (1998), Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human ResourceDevelopment, Routledge, London.

Gergen, K. (1995), “The social constructionist movement in modern psychology”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 40, pp. 266-75.

Gold, J., Rodgers, H. and Smith, V. (2003), “What is the future for the human resourcedevelopment professional? A UK perspective”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 437-56.

Grant, D. and Hardy, C. (2003), “Introduction: struggles with organizational discourse”,Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 5-13.

Grant, D., Iedema, R. and Oswick, C. (2009), “Discourse and critical management studies”,in Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T. and Wilmott, H. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of CriticalManagement Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 213-32.

Hall, S. (2001), “Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse”, in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. andYates, S.J. (Eds), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, Sage, London, pp. 72-81.

Holman, D. and Thorpe, R. (2003), Management and Language: The Manager as a PracticalAuthor, Sage, London.

Hormuth, J. (2009), “The benefits of discourse analysis for human resource management”,Zeitschrift fur Personalforschung, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 147-65.

Kessels, J. (2002), “HRD practice: a comparison of European and US models”, Proceedings of theannual European conference on HRD Research and Practice, p. 6, Edinburgh, January,available at www.b.shuttle.de/wifo/ehrd-per/Edin02.pdf

Lawless, A. and Stewart, J. (2009), “Competing with the dominant discourse: discursive spaceswithin an MA HRD ‘community’”, paper presented at the 6th Critical Management StudiesConference, Warwick University, Coventry.

Lee, M. (1998), “HRDI: a journal to define”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 1-6.

McGuire, D., Garavan, T.N., O’Donnell, D. and Watson, S. (2007), “Metaperspectives and HRD:lessons for research and practice”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 1,pp. 120-40.

Pavlica, K., Holman, D. and Thorpe, R. (1998), “The manager as practical author of learning”,Career Development International, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 300-7.

Phillips, L. and Jorgensen, M.W. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Sage, London.

Reed, M. (2000), “The limits of discourse analysis in organizational analysis”,Organization, Vol. 7No. 3, pp. 524-30.

Reynolds, M. (1998), “Reflection and critical reflection in management learning”, ManagementLearning, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 100-83.

Theorising HRD

273

Rigg, C. (2005), “It’s in the way they talk: a discourse analysis of managing in two smallbusinesses”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 58-75.

Rigg, C. and Trehan, K. (2002), “Do they or don’t they? A comparison of traditional and discourseperspectives of HRD in SMEs”, Education and Training, Vol. 44 Nos 8/9, pp. 388-97.

Rigg, C., Stewart, J. and Trehan, K. (Eds) (2007), Critical Human Resource Development: BeyondOrthodoxy, Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh.

Ruona, W.E.A. and Lynham, S.A. (2004), “A philosophical framework for thought and practice inhuman resource development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7 No. 2,pp. 151-65.

Sambrook, S. (1998), “Models and concepts of human resource development: academic andpractitioner perspectives”, unpublished Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Business School,The Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham.

Sambrook, S. (2000), “Talking of HRD”,Human Resource Development International, Vol. 3 No. 2,pp. 159-78.

Sambrook, S. (2001), “HRD as emergent and negotiated evolution”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 169-93.

Sambrook, S. (2004), “A ‘critical’ time for HRD?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28Nos 8/9, pp. 611-24.

Sambrook, S. (2007), “Exploring HRD in two Welsh NHS Trusts: analysing the discursiveresources used by senior managers”, Journal of Health Organisation and Management,Vol. 21 Nos 4/5, pp. 418-31.

Sambrook, S. (2009), “Critical HRD: a concept analysis”, Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 61-73.

Thomas, P. (2003), “The recontextualization of management: a discourse-based approach toanalyzing the development of management thinking”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 775-800.

Torraco, R.J. (2004), “Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resourcedevelopment”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 171-88.

Trehan, K. (2004), “Who is not sleeping with whom? What’s not being talked about in HRD?”,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-38.

Turnbull, S. (2002), Proceedings of the Annual AHRD Conference, Hawaii, February-March.

Vince, R. (2005), “Ideas for critical practitioners”, in Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (Eds), CriticalThinking in Human Resource Development, Routledge, London, pp. 26-36.

Walton, J. (2003), “How shall a thing be called? An argumentation on the efficacy of the termHRD”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 310-26.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (Eds) (2001), Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis,Sage, London.

About the authorsAileen Lawless is Head of Research for the Centre for Public Service Management, andProgramme Leader for the MA in Strategic HR and the partnership programmes with MOL andNorth West Employers Organisation. She is also the Module Leader for a range of postgraduateand undergraduate modules focusing on research methods, Human Resource Development andskills development. Prior to joining Liverpool Business School Aileen worked as a senior HRDpractitioner within an international organisation. Her practitioner background has influenced herapproach to teaching, consultancy and research and this is reflected in her interest in actionmethodologies. Aileen’s first degree was in psychology (Queen’s University, Belfast), her Masters

JEIT35,3

274

was in Management (Salford University) and she completed her PhD with Lancaster University.She is a Chartered Fellow of the CIPD, a Member of the British Psychology Society, and aMember of the British Academy of Management. Aileen Lawless is the corresponding authorand can be contacted at: A.Lawless@ljmu.ac.uk

Sally Sambrook is Professor of Human Resource Development, Deputy Head of School andformerly Director of Postgraduate Studies in Business and Management at Bangor BusinessSchool. Sally leads the Business and Management team, and the school’s research and teachingin Human Resource Management/Organisational Behaviour. Sally is a member of the UniversityForum for HRD and elected a Board member of the American Academy of HRD. She is AssociateEditor of Human Resource Development International and on the editorial boards of the Journalof European Industrial Training and the International Journal of Management Education, and areviewer for numerous other journals, including Personnel Review, Qualitative Research inOrganisations and Management, Journal of Health Organisation and Management, Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, and International Journal of Nursing Studies (HR/managerial issues). Sallyhas published over 40 international journal articles and 20 book chapters and edited texts onHRD and has received awards for her work on critical HRD. Her current research includes criticalaction learning and leadership development, and reflective practice. She has extensivelypublished a number of journal articles, books and book chapters in the field and currently is aneditorial board member of Journal of European Industrial Training, Journal of BusinessInnovation and Research and is Co-Editor of Action Learning: Research and Practice – the firstinternational journal for action learning from Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

Thomas N. Garavan is a professor at the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerickwhere he specialises in both the research and teaching of Human Resource Development,Leadership Development and Vocational Training and Education. He has authored orco-authored 14 books and 100 refereed journal papers and book chapters. Thomas is a Fellow ofthe Irish Institute of Training and Development (FIITD) and a member of the Chartered Instituteof Personnel and Development (MCIPD). He is also a member of the Society of Industrial andOrganisational Psychologists (USA), a board member of the University Forum for HumanResource Development (UFHRD) and past board member of the Academy of Human ResourceDevelopment (AHRD). Thomas is currently Editor in Chief of the Journal of European IndustrialTraining. He is a member of the editorial board of Human Resource Development Review,Advances of Developing Human Resources, Human Resource Development Quarterly, and theJournal of Vocational Education and Training. His most recent co-authored publication isDeveloping Managers and Leaders: Perspectives, Debates and Practices in Ireland, published byGill & Macmillan.

Claire Valentin is a Lecturer in Human Resource Development at the University ofEdinburgh, leader of the CIPD programme and research co-ordinator for the Management ofTraining and Development. She is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment (CIPD), and Vice-Chair of the University Forum for HRD. She is on the EditorialBoard of the International Journal of Management Education, and a reviewer for severalpublishers of HRD texts. Her current research interests focus broadly around the policy andpractice of organisational learning and development, teaching and learning in HRD education,and critical perspectives on learning for and in work.

Theorising HRD

275

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints