Abstract
Critical approaches to HRD do not focus solely on improving organizational performance; instead, they address previously undiscussable issues such as power, politics, class, alternative work structures, sexism, racism, and heterosexism. As critical HRD often seeks to raise problems instead of immediately solve them, it is sometimes criticized for being elitist or detached from practice. This article addresses how critical approaches to action research can allow practitioners and researchers to integrate critical approaches into actual practice. Critical action research provides a mechanism for ensuring that critical HRD research is grounded in the realities of real-world practice. A model is presented for considering practitioner-oriented research in HRD, which forms the theoretical basis for using action research as a methodological stance for critical HRD. An overview is provided of foundational literature of critical HRD and action research, followed by a discussion of the practical implications for conducting critical action research within the HRD field.
Issues of social responsibility, questioning core assumptions, and critique of dominant paradigms/approaches have received increasing attention in the HRD field. The original influx of critical HRD perspectives originally came largely from those with European HRD perspectives (e.g., Elliott & Turnbull, 2005a; Sambrook, 2004) and from those with a background in North American adult education. However, in the mid to late 2000s, North American HRD researchers began recognizing the benefits of applying critical perspectives to HRD (e.g., Bierema & D’Abundo, 2003; Hatcher, 2006a, 2006b). Critical perspectives encompass a broad set of approaches examining power, politics, ideology, and status (Bierema & Cseh, 2003; Fenwick, 2004; Trehan, 2004). Although previously seen as “undiscussable” in HRD, issues such as sexism, racism, homophobia, and inappropriate exercises of power have real consequences for individuals and organizations (Bierema & Cseh, 2003). In other words, examination of HRD issues from critical perspectives is not inherently an academic exercise.
Despite the practical implications, critical theory seeks to “problematize” rather than solve problems; therefore, it has been criticized for emphasizing problem identification rather than practical applications (Valentin, 2006). One solution to avoid a sort of academic elitism is to ensure that critical HRD researchers maintain close relationships with practitioners and organizations. Without these symbiotic relationships, researchers are at risk of becoming elitist, which could result in an isolated movement that makes no social impact and fails to understand the complexity of real organizations (Fenwick, 2005). In an applied field like HRD, the risk of an area of scholarship becoming irrelevant to real-world practice is essential to consider. In addition, there is a risk of hypocrisy when critical theorists make prescriptive pronouncements about how others should improve the world (Fenwick, 2004). I argue that critical action research is a viable way to overcome this risk of critical HRD researchers becoming elitist. Not only does critical action research help ensure that researchers do not become removed from organizations, but it also empowers practitioners to conduct their practice from a critical perspective.
Action research has largely been seen within North American HRD as a problem-solving method. As an example, two leading scholars known for their work on the foundations of HRD have written over the years that most researchers do not consider action research to be real research and instead a problem-solving tool (Swanson & Holton, 1997, 2001). Others contend that action research is a viable, legitimate form of research for problem solving within organizations, knowledge production for the field, and for publication in scholarly outlets (e.g., Brooks & Watkins, 1994; Marsick & Watkins, 1997). Brooks and Watkins explain that action research should be more acceptable (for publication) than in the past, due to the increasing openness to specific, localized knowledge presented through many interpretive and qualitative studies. In Swanson and Holton’s (2005) most recent book on research methods in HRD, they appear to have softened their tone on action research and included a chapter on action research as a mixed-method approach to research (e.g., Yorks, 2005). Such developments may indicate a shifting of perspectives in HRD by following other fields with streams that accept action research as a legitimate form of research (Brydon-Miller, 2002; Fals Borda, 2006; Greenwood & Levin, 2000; Noffke, 1994; Reason & Bradbury, 2001).
In this article, I adopt the perspective of Brooks, Marsick, Watkins, and others not in the HRD field who see action research as a viable form of research. A strong precedence exists for using action research to address social, political, and power issues within the fields of adult education, teacher education, and community development (G. L. Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994; Noffke, 1997b). Bierema’s (2010) book on critical approaches to organization development (OD) provided practitioners with the background and tools to do socially conscious, critical action research work in the field. Adoption of critical action research in HRD provides the field with attention to larger social issues, while being grounded in practice. This attention to social issues can provide an alternative to the dominant approaches to HRD that tend to focus on production, control, and efficiency (Bierema, 2010; Collins, 2012; Fenwick, 2004).
To make this case, I first present a framework for viewing research within HRD. Next, I synthesize a selection of literature related to critical HRD, drawing on critical perspectives from adult education, management/organization studies, and HRD. Included are the perspectives of major critical and postmodern thinkers that are outside of education and organization studies. Finally, I provide a brief historical perspective of action research (and related approaches) within HRD and related fields, followed by an integrated perspective of how critical action research is viable for HRD.
Research in HRD
Research in an applied field such as HRD exists to impact, improve, influence, or enlighten practice. However, the ways in which organizations and society are seen and the ways in which social science is conceived impact the ways in which research is conducted and the aims that it serves. Research in HRD can be classified using Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) model of four research paradigms in organizational studies. This classic model has maintained salience throughout the organizational studies field over 30 years after first being introduced (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Goles & Hirschheim, 2000; Storberg-Walker, 2007b; Valentin, 2006). The concept of “research” from Burrell and Morgan is used in a broad sense in the current article to include both academic-oriented scholarship and practice focused use of theory and empirical data. The four paradigms are placed in a 2 × 2 model with two continuums: subjective–objective and sociology of radical change–sociology of regulation.
Considering the first continuum, subjectivity and objectivity describe the nature of social science. Many researchers are familiar with the debate over positivist approaches and interpretive approaches (sometimes inaccurately referred to as a debate between quantitative and qualitative approaches). Burrell and Morgan (1979) explain four main areas of contention regarding the nature of social science. First is the debate over ontology, which addresses whether reality is objectively “out there” or a product of one’s mind. Second is the issue of epistemology, which deals with whether knowledge is firm and transmittable or of a more soft, personal nature. Third is the question of human nature, in which we consider whether humans exist in a deterministic environment or live with free will. Burrell and Morgan conclude that these assumptions affect the orientations toward methodology. For those taking the stand of a firm, external, and objective reality, the focus would be on understanding and measuring universals that could be applied on a large scale. For those believing in the subjective existence of reality, the focus is on understanding the particular rather than the universal and understanding the unique experiences that exist in humankind. However, many variations and continuums exist within the broad viewpoints described here.
The second continuum, the sociology of radical change and the sociology of regulation also need further explanation because this debate is not common in HRD. Burrell and Morgan (1979) explain that the sociology of regulation emphasizes unity and cohesiveness of societies/organizations as they gravitate toward order. The main concern is with what is. The sociology of radical change focuses on understanding deep-seated conflict within societies/organizations because chaos and contradictions are dominating forces. In addition, it is concerned with changing society through emancipation. In the sociology of radical change, a key difference is the focus on potentiality, rather than examining actuality.
Within these continuums, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) four paradigms are as follows: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist (Figure 1). It is important to recognize that these four paradigms exist within the continuums. I contend they are not absolute categories with finite boundaries. Although Burrell and Morgan conceptualized four distinct categories in which continuums existed within each category, subsequent research has reconceptualized the model as having transition zones between them (e.g., Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Goles & Hirschheim, 2000). The Model I present below takes a similar approach, reflecting four distinct categories with differing foundational assumptions, but recognizing the possibilities for some interplay between various paradigms.
Paradigms and approaches for practitioner-oriented research in HRD (adapted in part from Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
Figure 1 provides a typology for considering practitioner-oriented in HRD, according to the paradigms identified in the original model. Most research in HRD exists within the functionalist paradigm, which aims for objectivity and regulation or control of the system. This type of research can include both qualitative and quantitative research that seeks to explain problems and phenomena. Work within this paradigm is usually conducted so that it can affect policies and practices through social engineering (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) or technocratic approaches to problems. Oftentimes, this means that top-down approaches are taken, in which large-scale changes are made within organizations. As displayed in Figure 1, common practitioner-oriented approaches to research within this paradigm include evidence-based decision making, outcomes assessment, and return on investment (ROI) research (e.g., Hamlin, 2007; Holton, 1996; Phillips & Phillips, 2012; Swanson, 2007).
The second most common paradigm in HRD is the interpretive paradigm, which recognizes subjectivity while implicitly adopting the perspective of the sociology of regulation (especially in its emphasis on understanding the status quo vs. making changes to deep-seated problems). Interpretive researchers seek a deep understanding of local settings and are not usually concerned with making direct inferences to larger systems (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Practitioner-oriented research within this paradigm includes many of the typical mixed-method approaches to program evaluation within HRD with the attention paid to understanding local context (e.g., Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009).
Radical humanism recognizes the subjective nature of social science, while seeking radical change. A main emphasis for radical humanism is in the seeking of potentiality, through transcending existing forms of domination (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Most critical and postmodern approaches fall within this paradigm, which is heavily influenced by the early writings of Marx and members of the Frankfurt school of critical theory. Radical humanism emphasizes small-scale, local changes and rejects social engineering. In most ways, this approach is antithetical to the functionalist approach seen in most HRD research. Conventional approaches to research are oftentimes not compatible with the assumptions of fluid socially constructed reality and inherent conflict and disorder associated with this perspective (Storberg-Walker, 2007a). The critical action research perspective outlined in this article primarily falls into this paradigm when considering practitioner-oriented research.
On the other hand, radical structuralism advocates objective approaches to making radical changes. Its approach to social science is similar to functionalism, but the goals are fundamentally different. Like radical humanism, radical structuralism seeks to critique society and organizations, but it focuses on large-scale structural relationships. Radical structuralism is the least common approach to HRD research, with its most influential theorists being Marx (his later work), Engels, and Lenin (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). HRD is largely devoid of this paradigm being used in practitioner research; however, it could potentially be used in applications that span organizations and include larger workforce development and social policy implications. I have termed such an approach as “critical workforce policy studies.”
As mentioned earlier, theorists have challenged Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) original claim that these four categories have firm, finite boundaries. This current project falls primarily addresses research in the radical humanist and interpretive perspectives. The radical humanist perspective is seen through the goal of making positive social changes in the organization from within a grassroots effort, while considering larger social systems. The interpretive perspective is visible in the strong focus on understanding what happened in the past and what is occurring in the present, to report it through a research study. When compared with other action-oriented approaches, critical action research focuses on both understanding and on doing and change. This mixing of perspectives is reconcilable through a continual awareness of these competing interests. The two paradigms share what Burrell and Morgan (1979) call the “assumptions about the nature of social science” (p. 1); however, they differ in their “assumptions about the nature of society” (1979, p. 10). Most importantly, with the radical humanist paradigm, organizations and groups are continuously in conflict and contradiction. On the other hand, the interpretive paradigm emphasizes a natural state of agreement, orderliness, and the status quo. Critical action research’s focus on understanding has to be continually balanced by the radical humanist aim of making change.
Overview of Critical HRD
Those working within critical HRD are influenced by theories ranging from postmodernism to postcolonialism to theories originating with the Frankfurt school (Elliott & Turnbull, 2005b). Although the theories are quite diverse, the uniting factor is a “common concern to question HRD’s ‘taken-for-granteds’” (Elliott & Turnbull, 2005b, p. 2). In addition, critical HRD perspectives do not focus solely on improving organizational performance and instead use as their starting points a diverse range of perspectives aimed at enlightenment, illumination of how language creates reality, community betterment, and broad social change. Most perspectives within critical HRD espouse views from the “radical humanism” paradigm discussed earlier; however, few critical HRD researchers have taken steps to actually make change through their research in organizational settings (outside of academic programs) or have examined those doing so (exceptions include Bierema, 2005a, 2005b; Gedro, Cervero, & Johnson-Bailey, 2004; Githens, 2012b).
As mentioned earlier, critical issues have historically not been addressed frequently in HRD research. Bierema and Cseh (2003) analyzed over 600 papers presented at the North American AHRD conferences from 1996 to 2000. They found that issues of power were addressed in only 4% of the papers. At that time, they concluded that HRD research sometimes used gender or other diversity categories as units of analysis, but most research fails to address “issues of social justice in the workplace or [the] larger social context” (p. 23). “Undiscussable” issues such as “sexism, racism, patriarchy, and violence receive little attention in the literature yet have considerable impact on organizational dynamics” (pp. 23-24). Critical HRD, as defined for this article, addresses issues traditionally associated with social justice such as diversity and economic issues, in addition to issues of power, alternative organizational structure, and development of human potential in non-exploitative ways (Callahan, 2007; Fenwick, 2011; Trehan, 2004; Valentin, 2006). The importance of such issues have been illuminated in the general management literature (O’Neill, St. Clair, & Quinn, 2000), in addition to the critical management studies literature (Aktouf, 1992; Alvesson & Willmott, 2003). Again, examination of issues through critical perspectives is not inherently elitist due to the major impact that these issues have on people and organizations; however, the literature has seen limited examples of critical HRD being implemented in actual organizational practice.
Although critical issues have largely been under-considered, HRD has included various humanistic perspectives and aims toward social equality (Trehan, 2004). These humanistic perspectives have included little discussion of power, politics, or larger social forces. Interestingly, softer forms of humanism have been espoused as being an integral part of HRD by those advocating both learning-oriented perspectives and performance-oriented perspectives (e.g., Swanson & Holton, 2001). McGuire, Cross, and O’Donnell (2005) contend that a more transparent, honest, and ethical approach is needed. According to their perspective, HRD (especially in for-profit corporations) is almost always used for the ultimate purpose of profit (also see Kuchinke, 1999). Instead of acknowledging this fact, HRD practice has sometimes espoused a unitary perspective in which employees are encouraged to believe that their interests are wholly aligned with the interests of the corporation (see Ciulla, 2000). Obviously, management and worker interests are not always aligned. A more complex and forthcoming perspective is needed, where various interests are acknowledged.
One perspective for addressing this need is through recognizing the immense power that language has in shaping and creating our reality. McGuire, Garavan, O’Donnell, and Watson (2007) present a language meta-perspective for HRD research and practice, which recognizes the importance of language in creating the reality in which we exist. Callahan (2007) presents similar ideas, but positions that our socially constructed reality can be shaped through critical thinking aimed at social betterment. She labels this perspective critical constructionist HRD (Callahan, 2007). While these perspectives draw heavily on theoretical and philosophical orientations, these ideas can also be applied in practical ways.
As an example of the common state of affairs regarding power and politics, Hanscome and Cervero (2003) found that men were especially reluctant to admit that gender plays a role in power relations, whereas females were much more forthcoming in discussing the role of gender in power relations at work. They also found that men preferred to speak in impersonal terms when discussing how gender affects power relations in their own work lives. On the other hand, women were direct in talking about how these issues have affected them personally. We often avoid discussing power and politics in organizations, because power is seen as being wholly negative and oppressive. In fact, the terms workplace politics is often considered a pejorative. As Foucault (1978) argued, power is complex and multifaceted. It is not merely wielded by those in official positions of authority, but is dynamic, changing, and exercised from multiple and changing perspectives. Discussing power allows us to deconstruct our assumptions about the everyday practices we engage in (Trehan, 2004). The exercise of power can be used for achieving positive or negative group, organizational, or societal changes. In other words, the examination of power does not necessarily mean describing oppression by others; it is also self-reflexive in helping us to look at the ways in which we exercise power as researchers and practitioners.
Self-reflexive discussions of power and politics can help us understand our own uses of power and can even empower employees and leaders to better navigate political terrain. Bolman and Deal (2008) explain that awareness, training, and attention to politics is good both for individuals and organizations due to the importance of political savvy in accomplishing organizational goals. Discussing power and politics does not mean that people will or should conclude that organizations are evil and sinister. Mentoring and development programs can help employees acknowledge that these issues of power and politics are real. Such acknowledgment and understanding can help foster more savvy employees and open communication.
Trehan (2004) contends that HRD education has not prepared HRD practitioners to address these wider issues of power and responsibility. Instead, most HRD education has been apolitical and assumes that HRD is neutral. Addressing these issues within HRD academic programs is one way to put these issues into the open, which I discuss later in the article.
Critical HRD’s Levels of Intensity
“Critical reflection” has a wide variety of meanings in workplaces (Brookfield, 2000). Most commonly, this label describes challenges to the status quo, which help individuals and groups develop completely new paradigms for solving problems (e.g., double-loop learning, examining internal politics; e.g., Argyris & Schön, 1996; Vince, 2002). Put another way, a critical perspective is associated with “challenging practices, exposing assumptions, revealing illusions and questioning tradition. Being critical means recognizing . . . messiness, complexities, and irrationality . . . ” (Sambrook, 2004, p. 614). Such approaches are not always part of the “radical humanist” paradigm but can also be used for “functionalist” or “interpretive” aims. The second type of “critical reflection” includes challenges to an organization’s way of doing business (e.g., challenging labor practices or environmental degradation) with an inherent (perhaps subtle) critique of capitalism as we now know it. This approach aligns most clearly with the “radical humanist” paradigm. Lastly, much less common is the use of critical reflection in calling for a transformation of the entire system (e.g., re-imagining capitalist systems as something new and different), which would be aligned with the “radical structuralist” paradigm.
All of these types of critical reflection can result in positive societal changes, but they vary in their intensity and scope. Fenwick (2004) presents an argument for focusing on “small wins” within local settings, recognizing both the strength of “acting locally” and the pragmatic need to focus on small critical projects to minimize risk for the practitioners engaging in them. Critical HRD in most for-profit companies will likely focus on the first two types of critical reflection and action. In other words, we are less likely to see attempts to transform capitalism from those working in for-profit companies as most employees (at all levels) are concerned about the risk of losing their jobs (for an account of such efforts, see Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2005). Although the corporate social responsibility movement has provided corporations with some limited space to consider social issues, the idea that a company ultimately exists for the financial benefit of its owners continues to persist in large part. Given this dominant perspective, taking a critical perspective is still most likely to take the form of focusing on “small wins,” due to its practicality and safety, as supported by various empirical studies (e.g., Githens, 2012b; Raeburn, 2004; Scully & Segal, 2002). Meyerson and Scully (1995) coined the term tempered radical to describe individuals who are deeply committed to making social change within organizations but are tempered because of an acknowledgment that smaller-scale changes are more feasible within their organizations.
Overview of Action Research
Action research provides a platform for integrating action and inquiry for those seeking social change. The term action research is contested and has various meanings in different settings. In addition, several related terms overlap in some ways (e.g., participatory research, participatory action research, practitioner research, action science). Approaches to action research could be placed in each of the four paradigms discussed earlier in the article. In other words, action research is not inherently a “critical” endeavor.
History and Types of Action Research
Action research has a long and complicated history. In this space, I can only provide a cursory overview, which should help put some perspective on the emergence of action research (for more detailed accounts, see Noffke, 1994, 1997b). John Collier, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the U.S. government from 1933 to 1945 is widely seen as one of the early advocates for action research in the United States (Noffke, 1997b). Collier believed that Native American communities should see tangible benefits from research, rather than being subjected to social research that merely sought to understand their culture. However, Kurt Lewin, a Jewish refugee who came to the United States during World War II, is largely seen as providing action research with its theoretical footing (G. L. Anderson et al., 1994; Brooks & Watkins, 1994; Noffke, 1994). Lewin sought to institute changes and understand the effects of those changes. He integrated social theory and action. Rather than merely focusing on solving problems, he was deeply concerned with contributing to the wider community of knowledge through his work. Lewin’s work included examinations of social problems (e.g., addressing discrimination issues) as well as industrial issues (e.g., improving efficiency; Noffke, 1997a). Another influence in action research is seen through the work of John Dewey, who impacted early action researchers through his rejection of the separation of research and practice. He warned against borrowing experimental methods from the natural sciences and advocated for approaches that were similar to action research (Noffke, 1997b). However, by the late 1950s, action research greatly declined in the United States due to the dominance of the positivist paradigm (i.e., functionalism) and its emphasis on generalizability (G. L. Anderson et al., 1994). In other words, action research was not seen as being legitimate research as it could not be directly generalized to larger populations.
In the United States, action research continued mainly as a problem-solving technique within organizations and schools. The earlier approaches of Collier and Lewin, which emphasized examinations of social issues, were now transformed into largely apolitical activities (Noffke, 1994). In HRD, action research continues to be seen mainly as an OD tool that is primarily centered around the role of the OD/HRD consultant (Cummings & Worley, 2005; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Maurer & Githens, 2010; for a discussion about action science, which is closely related to action research, see Argyris & Schön, 1991).
Most perceptions of action research within HRD and organizational studies place it primarily within the functionalist paradigm. However, there are exceptions. William Foote Whyte (1991) worked for decades in the area of participatory action research (PAR). Whyte’s form of PAR was largely centered around a democratic sociocultural approach (Brooks & Watkins, 1994). Similarly, Eric Trist (1993) worked from a democratic sociotechnical approach for most of his life, until he died in 1993. Currently, approaches such as appreciative inquiry, dialogue conferences, and storytelling conferences emphasize the transformative effects of dialogue in action research (Maurer & Githens, 2010). These approaches are increasingly becoming more popular within organizations and have the potential of moving further away from the functionalist paradigm (e.g., see Kowalski, Harmon, Yorks, & Kowalski, 2003; Yorks, 2005). However, approaches like these emphasize widespread participation, but typically not an examination of deeper social problems. For that reason, work like this may be better classified as “interpretive” or “humanistic” rather than critical. In other words, this work seeks humanistic aims but does not necessarily seek to understand the underlying sources of social problems. Maurer and Githens (2010) also explain that “dialogical action research” has less emphasis on classical inquiry processes, when compared to critical action research and conventional action research.
Another continuing stream of PAR is seen in adult education, particularly with the work of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian adult educator (starting in the 1960s). Freire’s literacy education work among poor Brazilians aimed to help students conduct their own research, which resulted in social action and the questioning of societal norms and injustices (G. L. Anderson et al., 1994). In the United States, the community development work of the Highlander Center in Tennessee is widely used as an example of PAR (e.g., see Merrifield, 1997). Highlander heavily advocates critical approaches in its work with rural communities in Appalachia. Such examples clearly follow the “radical humanist” approach to action research.
In the United Kingdom and Australia, action research did not fall out of favor as it did in the United States (G. L. Anderson et al., 1994). In fact, there are strong traditions of action research in education, management, and community development both inside and outside of academia. In the United States, the last 20 years has seen a resurgence of action research in K-12 education (often called “teacher research” or “practitioner research”; G. L. Anderson et al., 1994; Cochran-Smith & Donnell, 2006). Much of this work is centered around teachers doing their own research in collaborative groups, which is oftentimes disseminated to larger audiences through conferences and publications. University researchers are sometimes affiliated with these groups. Action research has also become respectable in some U.S. management programs in universities (e.g., Case Western Reserve University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). With these developments, action research that is conducted by practitioners and university researchers is being presented at national conferences, published in respectable academic journals, and published in journals centered around action research (e.g., Action Research, Educational Action Research, Systemic Practice and Action Research). Action Research and Systemic Practice and Action Research are both included in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), indicating a certain level of reputation and acceptance among the traditional academic establishment.
Definition of Action Research
After providing this brief historical overview of the wide variety of approaches to action research, it is important to clearly state the perspective this article takes on action research. In general, action research is a loose set of principles used in everyday practice to (a) understand what has happened in the past, (b) plan for future actions, (c) implement those actions, and (d) reflect on those actions after they have occurred. These steps are typically conceptualized as occurring in multiple cycles or spirals. Most action researchers acknowledge that these steps and cycles often overlap. They are not always neat and tidy. Although there is some general agreement on those ideas, there are vastly different perspectives on other aspects of action research. Some forms of action research rely heavily on theory and formal data collection; others do not. Action research can consider larger social issues and attempt to change the status quo; other approaches seek to make changes within the existing system. At its heart, action research is about deep involvement and action by the people being studied. Sometimes this means that the people being studied are the people doing the action research. Other times it means that an outside consultant is used. Action research can seek small-scale localized changes or it can seek large-scale changes. Some action researchers reject the idea of top-down change and favor a major emphasis on collaborative change processes, whereas others embrace ideas of social engineering. These contrasts highlight how present-day applications of action research are implemented for vastly different aims and goals, as outlined in the four paradigms and approaches to practitioner-oriented research discussed earlier. Many of these differences can be traced back to the various philosophical roots of action research. Action research, like research in general, needs to be understood in terms of its philosophical underpinnings.
Integrating Action Research Into Critical HRD
As outlined above, action research can be used for a variety of purposes and can be used in vastly different ways, corresponding to various paradigms and approaches (Figure 1). However, I argue that the critical use of action research is one of its more powerful applications due to its emphasis on integrating research and practice to seek social change. Similarly, using action research is one of the most vital ways for critical HRD research to make a difference in actual practice. These ideas are supported by the ancient ideas of Aristotle and the more modern thinking of Habermas.
Aristotle described three types of knowledge: episteme, techne, and phronesis knowledge. Most social science research focuses on episteme knowledge (i.e., predictive, theoretical knowledge), which is combined with techne knowledge (i.e., practical technical knowledge; Flyvbjerg, 2001). Habermas, an influential member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, believed strongly in Aristotle’s concept of phronesis, which integrates practical and moral knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2001). In other words, Habermas advocated inquiry that does not neglect the practical day-to-day concerns but integrates those practical concerns with larger moral and societal issues. In addition, Habermas rejected the linear notion that theory should drive practice. Instead, he advocated the integration of theory into the everyday lives of practitioners (McNiff, 2000). Action research is a natural fit with Habermas’ ideas of critical theory and has long been used for emancipatory purposes and community action (Trehan & Rigg, 2003). The principles behind critical action research have a long history beyond the functionalist problem-solving methods that we often see in HRD action research. Functionalist approaches to action research surely have a place in our field, but critical approaches also provide an opportunity to utilize Aristotle’s ideas of phronesis by integrating moral and societal issues with everyday practical concerns.
As mentioned earlier, critical HRD seeks to “problematize” rather than solve problems; however, it has been criticized for placing too much emphasis on alternative explanations and not enough on practical applications (Valentin, 2006). Critical action research emphasizes “problematizing,” at the same time emphasizing action. Bierema’s (2010) approach includes an “analysis of culture and power relations” (p. 42) as part of the regular action research process, which is geared toward a learning process. This action is oftentimes very small scale and cannot necessarily be used as a replicable model for others to follow. However, when shared with others, the insights gained through critical action research can provide HRD practitioners with insights into critical questions that are integrated into everyday practice.
Some may question whether practitioners would set out to examine critical issues; however, employees do start critical projects within their organizations (e.g., Bierema, 2005b; Githens, 2012b; Meyerson, 2001; Raeburn, 2004; Scully & Segal, 2002). Critical action research projects often start as apolitical problem-solving efforts, but evolve into efforts that examine larger social and political concerns (G. L. Anderson et al., 1994; Herr, 1999; Hinsdale, Lewis, & Waller, 1995). For example, a project may begin by looking at employee retention issues but ends in an examination of racial or gender dynamics within the organization. Many practitioners have little knowledge that critical concepts can be integrated into the practices of HRD. It is important for practitioners to have the knowledge that these issues can be examined from critical perspectives, when necessary.
Conducting Critical Action Research in HRD
Levels of Action Research
As most types of social research, action research occurs at the individual, group, and organization/large-scale levels. Reason and Bradbury (2001) conclude that action research is most beneficial when it occurs at all three levels. Action research may begin as an individual project and evolve into a small group effort, which could lead to an organization-wide effort. Alternatively, it could begin as a small group effort or a large-scale effort. On the other hand, others are wary of moving beyond the individual or group levels, for fear that action research will become another tool for social engineering (G. L. Anderson et al., 1994). There is a fear that organization sponsorship or cooption of action research dilutes its political and emancipatory nature (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Noffke, 1994). Involvement at the large-scale level by an organization could thwart the critical nature of action research, especially within a company or other employing organization. On the other hand, it might be more viable for a critical action research project to be taken to a large-scale level by a labor union or non-profit advocacy group (Githens & Aragon, 2009). In such a case, there may be less risk of action research losing its critical edge. However, large-scale projects are often controlled through means of technical rationality, which would certainly go against democratic aims inherent in the “radical humanist” paradigm. Micro projects and small wins can help critical HRD scholars and practitioners overcome these risks inherent in large-scale projects (Fenwick, 2005; Meyerson & Scully, 1995).
Sites for Critical Action Research
Implementation of critical action research in HRD is not as straightforward as conducting conventional research because of difficulties in access and organizational politics. This section attempts to provide some possibilities for sites in which this type of work can be conducted.
There is a strong tradition of critical action research among graduate students of management, HRM, and HRD in the United Kingdom (e.g., L. Anderson & Thorpe, 2007; Corley & Eades, 2006; Trehan & Rigg, 2003). In some ways, the introduction of critical action research into for-profit companies seems most viable among working graduate students who are already employed. Ideally, these critical perspectives will be sustained and spread by the students to other socially conscious employees of the organizations. However, the introduction of critical perspectives to students is not without risk. Depending largely on their level of criticality, students have become alienated from coworkers and managers and have decided to leave organizations as a result of doing critical action research (Corley & Eades, 2006; Trehan & Rigg, 2003). Some have endured deep mental and emotional distress as a result of taking critical approaches within organizations (Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Other projects have had less dramatic personal effects; however, these potential issues should be carefully considered.
Critical action research is also relevant for HRD in an often-overlooked sector: non-profit, volunteer, and advocacy organizations. Although HRD discourse is often centered around for-profit companies, our field has large numbers of practitioners working in the non-profit sector. Within these organizations, HRD is oftentimes intertwined with advocacy and questioning of societal and community norms. Critical action research seems compatible with such efforts, especially related to working toward change outside the confines of a particular organization (e.g., in using HRD process to attain social change). However, we must be cautious in assuming that the internal operations of non-profit and advocacy organizations are idyllic and democratic. Like other organizations, non-profits may have deep-rooted problems or operate in the mold of for-profit enterprises (e.g., English, 2006). Despite that, organizations with strong social missions could be promising locations for critical action research because some may be more open to questioning the activities and norms within their own organizations (when compared with other types of organizations). Therefore, critical action research in advocacy and non-profit organizations could examine norms and assumptions both inside and outside of the organizations.
Another type of setting for critical action research includes companies with strongly humanistic or critical orientations. Such organizations cannot be adequately studied using classic management theories (e.g., Aktouf, 1992). In organizations that have rejected an exclusively production-centered mind-set, critical perspectives are viable for action research. In fact, functionalist action research approaches may be inappropriate. In addition, groups of employees within workplaces seek organizational changes through employee resource groups (or employee affinity) focused on issues like gender, race, and sexuality (Scully & Segal, 2002). Critical approaches to inquiry could be appropriate for many of these groups, as they explore topics such as workplace diversity.
Critical perspectives allow for a more holistic approach that recognizes the multiple dimensions of the human experience, as opposed to solely looking at people as resources to be utilized by the organization. Therefore, critical HRD action research seems most viable in the employing organizations of graduate students, in organizations with critically minded HRD personnel, in non-profit and advocacy groups, in for-profit enterprises rejecting or questioning an exclusively production-centered mind-set, and in employee resource groups.
Moving From Critical “Academic Exercises” to Action-Oriented Inquiry
Critical HRD research illuminates essential questions and problems that affect individuals, organizations, and society. However, problematization is not a sufficient end point in an applied field such as HRD. In this section, I provide a specific example of how a problematization might be reconceptualized as a critical action research endeavor.
Common HRD practices include self-reflection and personal disclosure. For example, diversity training, executive coaching, OD interventions, and leadership development programs all involve significant self-reflection and sometimes personal “confessions” of self-doubt, inadequacy, or bad practice (Swan, 2008). Engagement in critical reflection using confessional techniques can be ill-received, risky to participants, and difficult to implement in organizational settings. Rigg and Trehan (2008) provide a case study of the challenges of using individual and group use of critical reflection within an organizational setting. Problems arose for multiple reasons, including reluctance of engaging in personal disclosure and perception of lack of instrumental goal fulfillment by participants.
A possible application critical action research project might examine subtle and unconscious operations of power and social control through common confessional rituals that occur in HRD (for a complete explanation of this concept, see Foucault, 1978). An action research project might incorporate awareness of this critical perspective to protect against the possibility of “wallowing in confession.” One of the risks of endless discussion, confession, and reflection is that inaction often results and fails to incorporate action due to the individualistic therapeutic orientation (Ellsworth, 1989; Githens, 2012a; Swan, 2008). From a “functionalist” HRD perspective, a lack of action or lack of results is considered inappropriate for an HRD intervention. In a critical action research project, criticality could clearly be connected to better practice by seeking to improve practice through the use of critical and/or postmodern perspectives. An awareness of the risks of confessionals could allow for action research leading to the development of potentially superior approaches that address power dynamics, risk to participants, and the potentially ineffective practices associated with self-reflection and confessions.
Theoretical “problematizations” such as the one described above can be reconceptualized by considering their connection with the various needs of practice. On the individual level, practitioners can conduct action research in moving toward “small wins” or changed personal practice. However, when considering group- or organizational-level action research, organizational needs likely need to be brought to the forefront. In the example above, postmodern ideas were applied in the problematization of self-reflection and confessionals. Action research could result in a changed and improved alternative that could benefit both the individuals involved and increased effectiveness of HRD interventions in the organization.
This type of openness to considering both individual needs and organizational needs differs from the “unitary perspective” of “what’s good for the organization is good for the employees.” Instead, it allows us to use critical perspectives in creative ways by utilizing the permeability and synergy between the various paradigms from Figure 1 (e.g., Gioia & Pitre, 1990). In many ways, this is the application of Meyerson and Scully’s (1995) “tempered radical” label to critical HRD researchers.
Conclusions
Nearly everyone in HRD is concerned with affecting practice, whether we are researchers or practitioners. However, we all have different philosophical orientations toward practice. Some are more concerned with efficiency and production and others are more concerned with fairness, power, and social issues. Some individuals in HRD want to affect top-down changes through research, others want to describe and understand practice, whereas others want to be actively involved in making small-scale changes or large-scale changes.
This article has attempted to provide a lens for understanding the various types of practitioner-oriented research and one way to help socially conscious scholars and practitioners to engage in systematic inquiry aimed at social change. Critical action research is ideal for those who want to be actively involved in making changes and are concerned with HRD’s role in larger societal issues. Like action research, critical action research is not a monolithic concept. There are many conceptions of its use, which are largely based on the location in which it is used and the needs of the stakeholders. As these various approaches are used, it is vital that they are shared with larger communities through discussion groups, presentations, reports, and journal articles. The sharing of experiences will help to influence other practitioners and researchers, add to our knowledge base, and help to encourage the growth of critical HRD in actual practice.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.