Search results

The gap between evaluation theory and practice is a serious problem for training in industry and business[1]. A recent literature review of the summative evaluation on training noted:

Explains the advantages of using a culture survey as part of an organization′s change effort and examines the use of culture surveys in information gathering and communication. Culture surveys, used properly, become invaluable in guiding change. Used improperly, however, they can be counterproductive. Describes the principles for designing, implementing and analysing the data resulting from a culture survey, along with a case study describing the successful application of these principles in one organization.

There are many reasons for engaging in evaluating training and development (T&D). One reason would be to keep a complete, accurate, and detailed account of the satisfaction, learning, and performance resulting from every T&D programme. This is typically the view of the evaluation expert who sees evaluation as central to the T&D process. This view usually is expensive in terms of time and money.

This study aims to show that human resource development (HRD) criteria have a significant role on the quality of building projects.

It is worth mentioning that the present research is a survey in terms of practical purpose and in terms of data collection. In this regard, first, review of the related literature and then the HRD criteria were identified and initial questionnaire was developed after interviews with connoisseurs and approved them. The questionnaire consists of three main criteria and 21 subcriteria that have been distributed among 50 experts. The statistical population of the research includes project managers of grade 1 building companies. Data were processed by SPSS software tests.

Findings showed that all three main criteria of HRD, including training, motivation and participation have a direct and positive effect on the quality index, but the effectiveness of the training criterion is more than motivation and participation. In other words, the desired quality cannot be achieved only by training employees, and with it, a sense of motivation and participation of employees must be aroused.

Most researchers believe that achieving good quality in construction projects depends on the performance of human resources, so the development of human resources in the construction industry is very important.

The purpose of this paper was to explore how the two groups of action learning experts (Korean and non-Korean experts) define success of action learning to see whether there are any cultural differences. To this end, the authors conducted a total of 44 interviews with action learning experts around the world. Research questions guiding our inquiry included: How do action learning experts around the world define the success of action learning? Are there any cultural differences in action learning experts’ definitions of success? What do we learn from action learning experts’ definitions of success?

The authors approached willing participants first and then recruited more participants using a snowball sampling technique by requesting them to help us make contact with additional participants. Due to interview participants’ busy schedule at an international conference and work, individual interviews took approximately 30 min to complete using an interview protocol of 10 questions regarding the definitions of success in action learning.

To answer RQ1 (How do action learning experts around the world define the success of action learning?) and RQ2 (Are there any cultural differences in action learning experts’ definitions of success?), the authors analyzed interview data using a content analysis method. Analysis of interview participants’ narratives generated four themes including: definitions of success in action learning, the context where action learning is being practiced, challenges in action learning practice and the comparison of action learning with other approaches. The authors compared and contrasted cultural differences in the review of non-Korean and Korean experts’ narratives.

The authors presented four significant discussion agendas including: cultural differences, relationships between interview questions, typology of definitions of success and comparing action learning with other approaches. Based on the discussion, the authors presented four propositions, three research questions, two methodological questions and two more questions for cultural differences for future investigation.

To answer RQ3 (What do we learn from action learning experts’ definitions of success?), the authors provided at least three practical implications for action learning practitioners.

Previous studies, using research methods such as Delphi and surveys, have not captured a complete picture of the meaning of success in action learning, and the interview method was used for a small number of experts only. In addition, as action learning originally emerged from the UK and Europe, and Korean companies adopted a US approach to action learning with little effort at indigenization, international comparison studies were called for, so the authors turned to action learning experts around the world to learn how they define success in action learning.

This study aims to examine how case study research has been applied in the field of human resource development (HRD).

The authors examined HRD case study research by analyzing 118 refereed, empirical case study articles published between 2000 and 2020 in three Academy of HRD-sponsored journals.

Findings suggest that case studies have an established place in HRD research. The disciplinary convention has been exploratory case studies, which, to a greater extent, draw on single-case research designs. When examining the proportion of case study articles in relation to all empirical, peer-refereed publications in the journals, the authors found a slight decline in case study research publications in recent years. The results of our post hoc exploratory analysis indicate that HRD case study research that contributes to theory development by eliciting concepts and their relationships is likely to receive more scholarly attention than case studies that provide rich descriptions of the phenomenon. The results also suggest that it is rather case study’s contribution to theory than selected features of case study that attracts scholars’ attention.

The study identified several approaches to conducting case study research that have received less attention by HRD researchers. The authors encourage HRD researchers to expand their repertoire of case study approaches. The authors also provide recommendations addressing the issues of methodological self-awareness, rigor and transparency in case study research.

Presents a three‐level model to enable the design and conduct of an audit of training and development developed from the authors’ consultancy experience working with training and development managers and specialists from diverse medium and large organizations. Describes three levels ‐ event/programme, function and organization levels. Considerably extends the framework first described by one of the authors in an earlier article. This extended model permits the benchmarking of training and development against established best practice. Use of the model enables the identification of where an organization’s training and development can be considered successful and where challenges and opportunities for improvement exist.

This paper aims to analyze the development of global human resource development (HRD) articles published in journals indexed in the Scopus database since 1960s until present time.

A publication collection of 1,905 articles collected from the Scopus database was downloaded and analyzed by using bibliometric techniques available in the VOSviewer and Biblioshiny software.

Three different development stages of HRD research have been identified: a seeding stage between 1962 and 1989, a growth stage between 1990 and 2007 and a development stage from 2008 onward. The USA and the UK were the biggest contributors who participated to 30.02% and 12.55% of articles in the collection and received 43.82% and 19.54% of the total number of citations, respectively. Scholars with the most publications and citations are mostly from the USA and the UK, and nine over ten most cited articles having first author’s affiliation located there. Emerald Group is the most popular publishing house, as five over ten most popular journals belong to this publishing house.

After six decades of development, it is necessary to examine the evolution of HRD research, its characteristics and its intellectual framework as this type of analysis is not yet available in the literature. This study helps scholars better understand this research field, as well as better prepare for future work in HRD.

This paper is an extension of a panel presentation delivered in response to a joint call for panels by the Social Informatics and Information Ethics and Policy Special Interest Groups for the 2022 Association for Information Science and Technology conference. The purpose is to introduce critical race frameworks and tenets as a lens to develop, assess and analyze the social informatics (SI) within information science (IS) research, professional discourse, praxis and pedagogical paradigms. This paper spotlights one of the presentations from that panel, an iteration of Critical Race Theory (CRT) designed specifically for information studies: CRiTical Race information Theory (CRiT).

Just as importantly, using SI as part of the context, the paper also includes a discussion that illustrates research and theory building possibilities as both counter and complement to the technocratic advances that permeate society at every level (macro, mezzo and micro), which can also be reasonably framed as the information industrial complex. Thus, CRiT joins other forms of critical discourse and praxis grappling with deconstructing, decolonizing, demarginalizing and demystifying the influence and impact of information technologies. While CRiT has global intentions and implications, this specific discussion has an extensive American focus.

If we consider the rapid pace in which techno-determinism is moving toward the vise grip of techno-fatalism controlled by frameworks generated from the information industrial complex, we can reasonably consider that humanity on a global basis is living within a meta-large technocratic crisis moment. This crisis moment is both acute and chronic. That is, the technocratic crisis is continuously moving quickly while simultaneously worsening over an extended period of time with no remedies and few responses to substantively address the crisis.

Part of the nature of information and data is measurability. Thus, identifying compatible nomenclature connecting the descriptiveness of intersectionality (a seminal CRT tool) as a qualitative research method to the measurability of data connected to quantitative research, a mixed method approach moves from possible to plausible. Additionally, within IS, there are often opportunities to measure human engagement, such as social media content, search engine use, assessing practices of categorizations, and multiple forms of surveillance data as a short list. Hence, the descriptiveness of intersectional qualitative research “mixed” with the measurability of quantitative research within information settings implies exponential methodological possibilities.

CRiT is multilayered, on the one hand, with the intention of being a discipline-specific, information-specific form of CRT. On the other hand, CRiT theory building is interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary based on information as omnipresent phenomena. An ongoing challenge for CRiT theory building is identifying and working within a balance between, practitioners who typically throw anything and everything at practical problems, while scholars often slice problems into such small segments that practical understanding is severely limited. Embracing and integrating the dynamic interplay between developing ideas and using them is the key to evolving CRiT within the social sciences.

There is plenty of room as well as a need for additional narrative discussing or challenging the use or appropriation of information from a technocratic approach, a counter to the information industrial complex.

CRiT is emerging and cutting edge in discussion that addresses the technocratic determinism found in most scholarly discourses.