History Matters in Theorizing HRD

My parents came from North Korea before the Korean War (1950) broke out to escape from a communist regime; they had to start over without personal connections in South Korea. My mother-in-law came from North Korea as well, though I have never had a chance to meet her in person. Since my mom is the only parent still alive, I worry about losing a significant portion of my family history that may soon disappear without having family members attesting to stories about their lives in North Korea. History matters personally and professionally (McLean, 2016).

History interprets the past in the present (Lawrence, 1984) and offers valuable insights into how people and societies behave (Bedeian, 1998; Callahan, 2010; Watkins, 2016). Only through studying history can we begin to comprehend factors that have changed people, organizations, and society (Stearns, 1998). A historical approach allows for multiple stakeholder analysis of key narratives and an evaluation of how these may evolve over time (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004; Mills et al., 2016).

HRDR has published four types of articles: theory and conceptual articles, literature reviews, research methods for theory building, and historical foundations of HRD since its inception in 2002. HRDR’s founding editor Holton (2002) envisioned that articles on historical foundations of HRD “address philosophies of HRD, historical foundations, definitions of the field, conceptual organization of the field, or ethical foundations” (p. 6). However, historical articles are the least published in the journal. I present two historical articles on HRD (Ruona, 2016; Stewart & Sambrook, 2012) that aptly present Callahan’s (2010) notion of history as the bearer of identity in a field.

Stewart and Sambrook (2012) examined the historical development of HRD in the United Kingdom. To that end, they used various sources: national policy documents, professional body publications, and academic literature, as well as their own personal experiences and reflections. In the process, Stewart and Sambrook (2012) traced the development of the term HRD and evaluated its use in three broad interconnected domains: academics (e.g., the University Forum for HRD), professionals (e.g., the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development), and governments’ national policies on vocational education and training and national HRD. They argued that HRD has been introduced and employed extensively by academics but has not been taken up with such enthusiasm by professionals and governments; therefore, the future of the term HRD and its impact will remain insecure. Stewart and Sambrook’s (2012) article trailblazed historical research on HRD by providing hidden narratives about the growth of HRD and its limited development. Ruona (2016) explored 20+ years of HRD as practice and study and examined its current status as related to professionalization and disciplinary identity: HRD is assessed to be a weak profession and a tenuous discipline. Ruona (2016) offered two potential paths for consideration to move forward: to take a renewed and stronger stand for professionalism by tackling issues around bounding and defining the field; or to move beyond traditional notions of being multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary and to foster transdisciplinarity by integrating disciplines to develop holistic approaches, both of which require radically different approaches to research, theory-building, and practice in HRD.

Why is it timely for us to promote historical research in HRDR? In celebration of HRDR’s 20th anniversary of publication in 2022, we invite articles on theorizing HRD in historical contexts which will inform important future research. This is intended as a catalyst for scholarship so that the HRD field can benefit from its meaningful past as a basis from which the field can take stock and move forward. Given the lack of agreed upon research methods for historical articles in HRD, we also hope to receive articles on historical methods as a feature of HRD research and practice. Historical articles will provide insights for HRD scholars and practitioners as to how theorizing HRD has evolved by looking back to look forward. To that end, we encourage authors to consider the following research questions:

We expect forthcoming articles to be historically rooted in HRD theories, topics, and activities, which can serve to further theorizing HRD. We most welcome historical manuscripts from authors in HRD and related fields.

Finally, I cordially ask you to read an interesting article in Instructor’s Corner which is written in an interview format suggesting that a literature review is an exercise in historical thinking. Also included is a guest editorial that provides a critical review of a controversial paper written by J. Mark Ramseyer, a Harvard professor who argued that comfort women from Korea during the Second World War, which, at the time, was a colony of Japan were contractual prostitutes and not coerced by the Imperial Japanese Army from the lens of game theory. (I grew up listening to my mom’s story about how she was able to flee from Japanese policemen’s search for young girls to take them to war-front comfort stations.) As this is a presumably perfect case to understand how to conduct historical research for theory building, the guest editorial will shed light on what needs to be done to ensure ethical scholarship in HRD.