{"title":"人力资源开发应致力于使封闭的环境更加开放:对王和多蒂、拉斯·埃夫特和尹的元反应","authors":"R. Poell","doi":"10.1177/15344843221134654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this meta reaction paper, I reflect on the initial paper by Wang and Doty (2022a), the two responses (Russ-Eft, 2022; Yoon, 2022), and the final response-to-respondents (Wang & Doty, 2022b). I focus on two observations that stood out for me, encompassing: (1) how HRD is defined; (2) what HRD should contribute to and to what extent the initial authors’ theorizing of HRD is actually “emancipatory.” First, I conclude that Wang and Doty’s systems perspective leaves little room for the individual agency and legitimate interests that various stakeholders have around the ways in which employee learning is organized. Connected with this, their treatment of “the mainstream HRD literature” is not convincing, which limits the rationale for and contribution of their own theorizing efforts. Second, I conclude that Wang and Doty’s work violates the ethical core of HRD and, moreover, falls short of being about “emancipatory theorizing” as they claim.","PeriodicalId":51474,"journal":{"name":"Human Resource Development Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"465 - 472"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human Resource Development Should Aim to Make Closed Contexts More Open: A Meta Reaction to Wang and Doty, Russ-Eft, and Yoon\",\"authors\":\"R. Poell\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15344843221134654\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this meta reaction paper, I reflect on the initial paper by Wang and Doty (2022a), the two responses (Russ-Eft, 2022; Yoon, 2022), and the final response-to-respondents (Wang & Doty, 2022b). I focus on two observations that stood out for me, encompassing: (1) how HRD is defined; (2) what HRD should contribute to and to what extent the initial authors’ theorizing of HRD is actually “emancipatory.” First, I conclude that Wang and Doty’s systems perspective leaves little room for the individual agency and legitimate interests that various stakeholders have around the ways in which employee learning is organized. Connected with this, their treatment of “the mainstream HRD literature” is not convincing, which limits the rationale for and contribution of their own theorizing efforts. Second, I conclude that Wang and Doty’s work violates the ethical core of HRD and, moreover, falls short of being about “emancipatory theorizing” as they claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Resource Development Review\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"465 - 472\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Resource Development Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843221134654\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Resource Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843221134654","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Human Resource Development Should Aim to Make Closed Contexts More Open: A Meta Reaction to Wang and Doty, Russ-Eft, and Yoon
In this meta reaction paper, I reflect on the initial paper by Wang and Doty (2022a), the two responses (Russ-Eft, 2022; Yoon, 2022), and the final response-to-respondents (Wang & Doty, 2022b). I focus on two observations that stood out for me, encompassing: (1) how HRD is defined; (2) what HRD should contribute to and to what extent the initial authors’ theorizing of HRD is actually “emancipatory.” First, I conclude that Wang and Doty’s systems perspective leaves little room for the individual agency and legitimate interests that various stakeholders have around the ways in which employee learning is organized. Connected with this, their treatment of “the mainstream HRD literature” is not convincing, which limits the rationale for and contribution of their own theorizing efforts. Second, I conclude that Wang and Doty’s work violates the ethical core of HRD and, moreover, falls short of being about “emancipatory theorizing” as they claim.
期刊介绍:
As described elsewhere, Human Resource Development Review is a theory development journal for scholars of human resource development and related disciplines. Human Resource Development Review publishes articles that make theoretical contributions on theory development, foundations of HRD, theory building methods, and integrative reviews of the relevant literature. Papers whose central focus is empirical findings, including empirical method and design are not considered for publication in Human Resource Development Review. This journal encourages submissions that provide new theoretical insights to advance our understanding of human resource development and related disciplines. Such papers may include syntheses of existing bodies of theory, new substantive theories, exploratory conceptual models, taxonomies and typology developed as foundations for theory, treatises in formal theory construction, papers on the history of theory, critique of theory that includes alternative research propositions, metatheory, and integrative literature reviews with strong theoretical implications. Papers addressing foundations of HRD might address philosophies of HRD, historical foundations, definitions of the field, conceptual organization of the field, and ethical foundations. Human Resource Development Review takes a multi-paradigm view of theory building so submissions from different paradigms are encouraged.