Is HRD research making a difference in practice?

E D I T O R I A L

Is HRD Research Making aDifference in Practice?

Jeffrey Keefer, Robin Yap

This editorial discusses the meaning of “making a difference” and theopportunities it presents for the various types of “practices” that is valuedby scholar-practitioners. HRD research that provides an important link inthe application of theory and research to HRD practice is imperative for thefurtherance of the work of scholar-practitioners.

As scholar-practitioners, we have been working in the “bridge area” betweenresearch and practice for many years. We are pleased that this area is beginningto receive increased attention, especially within the Academy of HumanResource Development (AHRD). In a recent discussion on the need for explor-ing and developing bridges between scholars and practitioners and research andpractice, we found ourselves with more questions than answers. A portion ofthat dialogue follows.

ROBIN How can we make sure that our clients’ HRD personnel areevidence-based practitioners?

JEFFREY I guess we can train them; that’s what we do. Or maybe we can goback further in time and try to influence a scholar-practitioner focusedinterview process so we can “screen” better for actual training issues. Thisis something we could even continue to focus on during an extended on-boarding process.

ROBIN Wait! How about going back even further, to when they’re still inschool? In some of the research we have been working on, we have beentalking about the need to embed critical thinking processes into classes.So, how about looking at their course materials and adding lessons oncritical thinking? Also, lots of the courses are oriented toward practice, solet’s look at the references they use and see if they have practical applic-ability in the workplace.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 18, no. 4, Winter 2007 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1214 449

450 Keefer, Yap

JEFFREY Great idea. You know, this just may be consistent with some of therecent efforts to create guidelines and frameworks for developing HRDresearch that is useful and usable for scholars and practitioners alike.What’s more important now is to analyze if these courses and referencesare really making a difference in practice.

ROBIN You know, this raises an important question that I don’t think isoften discussed: What exactly do we mean by difference when we ask ifHRD research is making a difference in practice?

JEFFREY Exactly! And maybe we should take it further. When we ask if HRDresearch is making a difference in practice, seems we also need to askwhose practice are we talking about.

ROBIN Those are two important questions that we really need to explore.When we ask if HRD research is making a difference in practice, what wereally want to know is, What do we mean by difference and whose practiceare we talking about?

Whither HRD Research?

The question of whether or not research is making a difference in practice canmean different things to different people. We view this question through ourscholarly lens as well as our practitioner lens. HRD research certainly makesa difference for scholars and researchers who publish and then read oneanother’s works, continuing development of the findings and suggestingfurther research in other areas. They subscribe to HRDQ and other relatedscholarly journals. They probably attend academy conferences. They needpeer review, but our guess is that they also appreciate what it does for theirresearch. They need the peer review. This is the typical audience of HRDQ.Practitioners do not often read journals written by and for a scholarlyaudience, because their needs are not always met (Keefer & Stone, 2007).If practitioners find their needs are met elsewhere, one assumption is that theydo not use or need scholarly publications. So, we could ask, where does thatleave HRD research?

Does HRD Research Address the Needs of Practitioners? Going back toour original question, in answering whose practice we are referring to, we reit-erate HRDQ’s back matter (and encourage the reader to review it). If wecompare the aim and scope, we are given a clue as to whose practice HRDQ isgeared to.

Human Resource Development Quarterly . . . provides a central focus forresearch on human resource development issues as well as the means for dis-seminating such research. HRDQ recognizes the interdisciplinary nature ofthe HRD field and brings together relevant research from the related fields,such as economics, education, management, sociology, and psychology. Itprovides an important link in the application of theory and research to

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HRD practice. In general, HRDQ publishes scholarly work that addressesthe theoretical foundations of HRD, HRD research, and evaluation of HRDinterventions and contexts.

Again, we query: Whose practice? Is it for practitioners working in the trenches,the very ones that many HRD graduate programs prepare for the professionand for their individual careers? Or is it for practitioners that we hope readHRD research and findings (including theory) but often see no evidence of itsuse in practice? One would hope that the premiere journal in HRD researchwould make a difference in practice, but it seems that because we have to askthe question, maybe it is not. To the extent that an answer is not readily obtain-able, we really have to wonder what this means and to what extent we shouldbe concerned, especially because HRD practice and many organizations con-tinue to be successful with almost no evidence of using HRD research.

On a more positive note, there is growing awareness of this issue (Short,2006), as well as some concrete efforts under way to address it. A standingcommittee within AHRD, the Scholar-Practitioner Committee (http://ahrd.org/ABOUT/committees/schol_prac.html), is now several years old and focusing onhow to address this and other research critical to practice issues. For example,the committee organizes an annual preconference session before the AHRD Inter-national Conference; it has resulted in significant growth of scholar-practitioner-oriented (S-P) papers being submitted and accepted at the annual conference.This is significant in that the papers submitted by scholar-practitioners gothrough the same blind review process as all the research papers by HRDscholars and researchers. But is this small number of papers accomplishinganything in practice? With only seven hundred or so members, we wonder if theefforts within the academy are enough. What is happening with the tens ofthousands of members of ASTD, AERC, ISPI, NIACE, SIOP, OD-Network, andother professional organizations around the globe also trying to pursue evidence-based decisions and interventions in the workplace? Is the profession ready forthe demand for metrics and evidence-based approaches to performance andHRD concerns? At the very least, to what extent is the issue of research usabilityin practice on our radar screen, as an academy and as HRD professionals?

What we need are some best practices for what it means to get usableresearch to practitioners so it will make a difference in their work. Imagine howmuch more seriously HRD research would be taken by those in practice ifthere were concrete, practical applications available. Shouldn’t that be a goalof all our organizations, but especially for AHRD? Shouldn’t we be providinga venue for people who really want to read our research findings because theyare meaningful beyond the peer-review-focused readers and authors? Thequestion then becomes, How do we address what we mean by usable research?

What Makes Research Usable in Practice? In our workplaces, we lookfor research that directly applies to the specific issue at hand, when it is neededand given the context. For us, and we suspect for most practitioners, there is

Is HRD Research Making a Difference in Practice? 451


452 Keefer, Yap

simply no time to do anything more than that. We look for material that hasimmediate use because time is of the essence. Competitors are impatientlywaiting at the door. Management wants results, and they want them yesterday.Stakeholders are holding their breath for positive outcomes. And performancemust be stellar—always. Oh yeah, we forgot that all this has to happen at thespeed of light and within (or under) budget. “Now,” or even yesterday, alwaysseems to be the deadline. How do we get the best and most useful informationthat we need, quickly and efficiently?

There is unfortunately no silver bullet, no quick fix to these concerns.However, in an effort to help move the issue of usable research along, we havesome ideas (actually a checklist) about how to expeditiously start the processof accessing usable research. For example, when a research article is published,having clear keywords in both the title and the abstract tends to help us findspecifically what we are looking for. This is assuming we have ready access toa searchable database (which we should also add to our list).

Our checklist should be used by HRD researchers and authors ofresearched material intended for practice (we hope that all research isdeveloped for practice; HRD is in fact a practice-oriented discipline) and byscholar-practitioners seeking theoretical and data-driven answers to workplaceperformance, learning, and change issues. The researcher/author shouldanswer as many of the checklist questions as possible to ensure that the result-ing article is practice-usable. The S-P can use the checklist to ensure the rightmanuscript is chosen and that he or she can obtain the most use from theresearch in the shortest amount of time.

Research-to-Practice Manuscript Checklist

To make HRD research usable in practice, the researcher/author or S-P shouldconsider each topic and seek answers to the questions that follow the topic.We begin with what the article is about.

Phenomenological Trends. An HRD phenomenon that we are askedto address is often the result of organizational leaders seeking to assess orreassess processes and procedures, products and services, and programsor practices. To offer professional and fast service to our organizations, HRDprofessionals should consider published research that answers questions suchas these:

• What are the current trends in the phenomenom?• Why should I (the practitioner) care about the research?• How will this research help my organization become more efficient, effec-

tive, and evidence-based?• How can I leverage the research to senior executives who do not want to

read long and dry research reports but instead need an elevator speech?


• What opportunities exist at my office where I might use this knowledge ortrend, now and in the future?

• How do I distinguish between perceived and real trends?

These questions give us a framework for whether or not the researchedphenomenon in the article reflects what we are currently encountering in prac-tice. If there is alignment, then we can better choose articles that lend real assis-tance in resolving workplace performance or other HRD-related problems.

Impact Analysis. The impact of HRD interventions on the bottom line isa growing concern of most successful organizations. Any project undertakenby an HRD professional must involve the understanding of the departmental(if not organizational) fiscal and values-based impact. Scholar-practitionersmust understand not only the theoretical value of any proposed project but thepractical implications and overall financial or nonfinancial value of its imple-mentation as well.

• How will this affect ROI (in terms of money or whatever the organizationconsiders a value-based investment)?

• What will happen if I do nothing?• Who should we get involved with this HRD issue or problem?

Responses to these questions give us an understanding of whether the researchhelps us to yield the impact that we need for all our HRD interventions. If theresearch necessitates further investigation, we use it as part of a framework thatconsiders how a workplace problem affects our stakeholders as well as ourproducts and services.

Snapshots and Graphical Representations of HRDTheory, Models, and Methods

Although they may not want to admit it, executives are learners too. A skillthat many good leaders have is the ability to process and understand largeamounts of data and information. Like any adult learner, they use visual, kines-thetic, and auditory inputs. Thus material that we present to our clients thatis in more than one format likely has a higher chance of being considered andused. Because a large percentage of learners in the West are primarily visual,research that offers a pictograph, spreadsheet summary, or snapshot of the keydiscussion points is more helpful and usable than research that does not. Thesequestions are asked by scholar-practitioners as they review research:

• Is there an understandable, brief, and explanatory abstract or executivesummary?

• To what extent is the research’s model or method useful in practice?



454 Keefer, Yap

• What visual, auditory, or kinesthetic approaches can I use to quickly convertthis research into something that catches the attention of my team or my client?

Answered positively, the questions suggest that articles with clearly identifiedgraphs, snapshots, and visual representation of the study and its results furnishusable tools for us to speak to our C-level executives and key clients whoprimarily want short executive summaries. This is also a learning tool that helpscreate workplace stories (successful or otherwise) that we can later use in orien-tation training and other change efforts. A caveat is that because this is primarilya Western approach, if we are faced with multicultural applications we must takeinto consideration how other cultures process information. We should not assumethat everyone accepts and uses snapshots and graphics the same way we do.

Suggested Use in Practice

If use in practice or implications for HRD practice are clearly identified in themanuscript, then its potential for reference-list-worthiness and applicability inpractice increases. Scholar-practitioners try to balance their time betweenorganizational responsibilities and scholarly pursuits. Because they havean appreciation for scholarship, it becomes a motivating factor in choosingeffective and useable research-to-practice materials. Here are other things theyare also looking for:

• Are there ways to use this research other than as originally studied? Canwhat was learned be transferred to other contexts?

• What industry or research limitations are identified so that issues aroundapplicability and usefulness as applied in a specific work context are high-lighted? (For example, qualitative research results cannot be generalized,but only transferred.)

• How can this research best be leveraged within a specific work environment?

If use in practice is clearly defined (or at least mentioned in the title or abstractof an article), the article becomes an immediate target for further investigation.Unfortunately, not all abstracts are so representative of the study; nor do theymention implications for practice as they should. Unclear and incompleteabstracts may be overlooked by scholar-practitioners even if the material in thearticle is valuable and usable.

Stories and Case Studies

Workplace learning is multifaceted. All approaches to learning, whether formal,informal, tacit, or otherwise, benefit from the use of stories and cases as a wayto connect to colleagues, employees, peers, clients, and partners. A good case orstory involves learning that is gained not just by a small group but by casting


a wider net with the capacity to be used by a larger group of learners. Thus, aspractitioners review research articles, they should keep these questions in mind:

• Are there stories or cases that illustrate successful or failed approachesto workplace learning?

• Does the story include what the researcher learned from experience, and towhat extent is it similar to the workplace in question?

Finding applicable cases and stories are a clear requirement for any scholar-practitioner needing to apply research to practice. We look for stories and casestudies that are similar to our own workplace issues. We are drawn to andexcited about studies that reflect specific workplace concerns because they areso readily usable in practice.

Summary and Conclusions

Workplace usability of HRD research obviously comes in many flavors, as evi-denced in the many ways research can and should be used. As we attempt toanswer the question of whether or not HRD research is making any differencein practice, it is now clearer that along with a responsibility to continuouslyask the question of researchers, scholar-practitioners play a significant role inmaking it happen.

Scholar-practitioners are critical thinking bridges among academia,research, and practice. They bring evidence-based decisions, HRD interven-tions, and evaluations to their organizations. Because they have special knowl-edge and experience, it is important that they take responsibility to help HRDresearch evolve into research that is significant, readable, usable, accessible,applicable—and actually making a difference in practice.

Is HRD research making a difference in practice? We believe that answer-ing negatively is not an option for the future of HRD.

References

Keefer, J. M., & Stone, S. (2007). Do practitioners use HRD research (and why or why not)? Paperpresented at the March 2007 AHRD International Research Conference, Indianapolis.

Short, D. C. (2006). Closing the gap between research and practice in HRD. Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 17(3), 343–350.

Jeffrey Keefer is a senior instructional designer at Visiting Nurse Service of New York and an adjunct instructor of management communication at the Stern School of Business, New York University.

Robin Yap is a partner at Phronetic International, an organizational strategy firm, focused on training department competencies, quality, standards, and certification, based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.



Is HRD research making a difference in practice?

Documents

Transcript of Is HRD research making a difference in practice?