Very little research has examined the current state of human resource development (HRD) education in the United Kingdom, or the factors influencing its genesis and development.
The Solution
We analyze historical and contemporary factors influencing HRD education in the United Kingdom, identify different levels and providers of HRD qualifications, and outline curriculum content of HRD programs. Our aim is to clarify the current situation, by proposing a tripartite model of stakeholders in HRD education based on the United Kingdom but which might assist in the analysis of HRD education in other geographic areas.
The Stakeholders
HRD education in the United Kingdom is largely influenced by three key stakeholders: the U.K. government, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (the professional body for human resources), and the academy. Our analysis reveals complex and dynamic interactions between these stakeholders, which have implications for them as well as learners, practitioners, and researchers.
DeardenL.McIntoshS.MyckM.VignolesA. (2000). The returns to academic and vocational qualifications in Britain. London, England: Centre for the Economics of Education.
FrancisH.CowanJ. (2008). Fostering an action-reflection dynamic amongst student practitioners. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32, 336-346.
11.
KuchinkeK. P. (2003). Comparing national systems of human resource development: Role and function of post-baccalaureate HRD courses of study in the U.K. and U.S. Human Resource Development International, 6, 285-299.
12.
KuchinkeK. P. (2004). Contested domains: Human resource development programs in colleges of education. Workforce Education Forum, 31(1), 43-60.
13.
KuchinkeK. P. (2007). Birds of a feather? The critique of the North American business school and its implications for educating HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 111-126.
14.
LawlessA.SambrookS.GaravanT.ValentinC. (2011). A discourse approach to theorising HRD: Opening a discursive space. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 264-275.
15.
LawlessA.SambrookS.StewartJ. (2012). Critical human resource development: Enabling alternative subject positions within a master of arts in human resource development educational program. Human Resource Development International, 15, 321-336.
16.
LeeM. (2004). National human resource development in the United Kingdom. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 334-345.
17.
McLeanG. N. (2004). National human resource development: What in the world is it?Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 269-275.
18.
McLeanG. N.BartlettK.ChoE. (2003). Human resource development as national policy: Republic of Korea and New Zealand. Pacific-Asian Education, 15(1), 41-59.
19.
McLeanG. N.McLeanL. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context?Human Resource Development International, 4, 313-326.
20.
MorseS. M. (2006). Assessing the value: Work-based learning placements for post-graduate human resource development students?Journal of European Industrial Training, 30, 735-755.
RidouttL.Selby SmithC.HummelK.CheangC. (2005). What value do employers give to qualifications?Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
23.
SambrookS. (2010). Critical pedagogy in a health service management development program: Can “critically thinking” managers change the NHS management culture?Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23, 656-671.
24.
SambrookS. (2014). Critical HRD. In ChalofskyN.RoccoT.MorrisM. L. (Eds.), Handbook of HRD (pp. 145-163). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
25.
SambrookS.StewartJ. (2010). Teaching, learning and assessing HRD: Findings from a UFHRD/BMAF research project. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 710-734.
26.
ShawS.OgilvieC. (2010). Making a virtue out of a necessity: Part time work as a site for undergraduate work-based learning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 805-821.
27.
StewartJ.CallahanJ.RiggC.SambrookS.TrehanK. (2014). Special issue on critical HRD. Human Resource Development International, 17(4).
28.
StewartJ.RiggC. (2011). Learning and talent development. London, England: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
29.
StewartJ.SambrookS. (2012). The historical development of human resource development in the U.K. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 443-462.
30.
TrehanK. (2004). Who is not sleeping with whom? What’s not being talked about in HRD?Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 23-38.
VernhaegheP. (2014). What about me? The struggle for identity in a market based society. Brunswick, Australia: Scribe Publications.
33.
VosL. (2013). Dissertation study at the postgraduate level: A review of the literature. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
34.
WaltonJ. (1997). The development of common core learning outcomes for HRD professionals which have currency across national boundaries: A European case study. In TorracoR. J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 26-34). Atlanta, GA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
35.
WaltonJ.McGoldrickJ.MoonA.SambrookS. (1995). Qualification mapping: Training and development S/NVQs and academic qualifications. Sheffield, UK: Department for Employment and Education, Learning Methods Branch.
36.
ZachmeierA.ChoJ. (2014). Taking stock of the literature on HRD education. European Journal of Training and Development, 38, 347-363.
