This article explores a perspective of Human Resource Development grounded in Pragmatist philosophy and emerging theories of Practice. Pragmatism focuses on the practical outcomes of what we think and do. Thus, a core focus of Pragmatism is on practice. Practice theories frame and explain activities that are continually performed, produced, and reproduced through a dynamic entanglement of action, politics, communities, discourse, materials, tools, and agents. Pragmatism and practice theories are complementary perspectives focused on the consequences of our ideas and the results of our actions. Both perspectives provide us with valuable insights about our world. Pragmatism is a perspective that can bridge current divides between scientific paradigms, the theory–practice gap, and academic–practitioner interests. We review the general tenets of Pragmatism related to the research, theory, and practice of Human Resource Development. Key topics include pragmatic ideas of inquiry and objectivity; epistemology, truth, and fallibilism; and practice and experience.
BernsteinR. J. (2010). The pragmatic turn. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
2.
BrandomR. B. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, & discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BrandomR. B. (2011). Perspectives on pragmatism: Classical, recent, and contemporary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
ChalofskyN. (March, 2004). Human and organization studies: The discipline of HRD. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492199.pdf
5.
CorradiG.GherardiS.VerzelloniL. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?Management Learning, 41, 265-283.
6.
DeweyJ. (1938a). Experience & education (The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series). New York, NY: Touchstone.
7.
DeweyJ. (1938b). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
8.
DeweyJ. (1948). Reconstruction in philosophy (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1920)
9.
ElkjaerB.SimpsonB. (2011). Pragmatism: A lived and living philosophy. What can it offer to contemporary organization theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 32, 55-84.
10.
EngestromY. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43, 960-974.
11.
EvartsT. M. (1998). Human resource development as a maturing field of study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 385-389.
12.
FeldmanM. S.OrlikowskiW. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22, 1240-1253.
13.
FenwickT. (2010). Complexity theory, leadership, and the traps of utopia. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity in Education, 7(2), 90-97.
14.
FineA. (2007). Relativism, pragmatism and the practice of science. In MisakC. (Ed.), New pragmatists (pp. 684-920). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
15.
FootK. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24, 329-347.
16.
GaravanT. N.MorleyM. J. (2006). Re-dimensionalising boundaries in the theory and practice of Human Resource Development. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 3, 3-13.
GosneyM. W.HughesC. (2016). The history of human resource development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
HaackS. (2011). Double-aspect foundherentism: A new theory of empirical justification. In TalisseR. B.AikenS. F. (Eds.), The pragmatism reader: From Peirce through the present (pp. 407-422). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
HarkemaS. (2003). A complex adaptive perspective on learning within innovation projects. The Learning Organization, 10, 340-346.
21.
HeadB. W.AlfordJ. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47, 711-739.
22.
HoltonE. F. (2004). Implementing evidence-based practices: Time for a national movement?Human Resource Development Review, 3, 187-188.
23.
HookwayC. (2012). The pragmatic maxim: Essays on Peirce and pragmatism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
JamesW. (1995). Pragmatism. New York, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1907)
26.
JayantiE. B. (2011). Toward pragmatic criteria for evaluating HRD research. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 431-450.
27.
KaplanA. (1961). The new world of philosophy. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
28.
KuhnT. S. (2000). The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970-1993, with an autobiographical interview. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LeeM. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4, 327-341.
30.
LeviI. (2012). Pragmatism and inquiry: Selected essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
LincolnY. S. (2005). Institutional review boards and methodological conservatism: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 165-181). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
MargolisJ. (2002). Reinventing pragmatism: American philosophy at the end of the twentieth century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
33.
MargolisJ. (2010). Pragmatism’s advantage: American and European philosophy at the end of the twentieth century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
MisakC. J. (2004). Truth and the end of inquiry: A Peircean account of truth. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
MisakC. J. (2007). Pragmatism and deflationism. In MisakC. (Ed.), New pragmatists (pp. 927-1208). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
36.
MorganD. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 1045-1053.
37.
NeubertJ. C.MainertJ.KretzschmarA.GreiffS. (2015). The assessment of 21st century skills in industrial and organizational psychology: Complex and collaborative problem solving. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 238-268.
38.
NicoliniD. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
NonakaI.TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
PeirceC. S. (1877, November). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1-15.
41.
PeirceC. S. (1878, January). Illustrations of the logic of science: Second paper—How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286-302.
42.
PutnamH. (2002). Pragmatism and non-scientific knowledge. In ConantJ.ZeglenU. M. (Eds.), Hilary Putnam: Pragmatism and realism (pp. 14-23). London, England: Routledge.
43.
RescherN. (2000). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
44.
RescherN. (2001). Philosophical reasoning: A study in the methodology of philosophizing. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
45.
RescherN. (2010). Philosophical inquiries: An introduction to problems of philosophy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
46.
RortyR. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
RortyR. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London, England: Penguin Books.
48.
RumensN.KelemenM. (2013). American pragmatism and organisation studies: Concepts, themes and possibilities. In MihaelaK.RumensN. (Eds.), American pragmatism and organization: Issues and controversies (pp. 3-23). Aldershot, UK: Gower.
49.
RuonaW. E. A. (1999). Theory in theory to practice: Voices of the practitioners. In KuchinkeK. P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development annual conference (pp. 888-896). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
50.
RuonaW. E. A.CoatesT. K. (2012). The power of the “pull” force: Focusing on emerging trends & issues for the future of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14, 559-565.
51.
RuonaW. E. A.LynhamS. A. (2004). A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 7, 151-164.
52.
Russ-EftD.WatkinsK. E.MarsickV. J.JacobsR. L.McLeanG. N. (2014). What do the next 25 years hold for HRD research in areas of our interest?Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 5-27.
53.
RyleG. (1949). The concept of mind. London, England: Hutchinson.
54.
SambrookS. (2004). A “critical” time for HRD?Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 611-624.
55.
SandbergJ.Dall’AlbaG. (2009). Returning to practice anew: A life-world perspective. Organization Studies, 30, 1349-1368.
56.
SarasvathyS. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243-263.
57.
SarewitzD. (2016). Saving science. The New Atlantis, 49, 4-40.
58.
SchatzkiT. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In SchatzkiT. R.CetinaK. K.von SavignyE. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1-14). London, England: Routledge.
59.
SchönD. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
ScottW. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
61.
ShortD. C. (2006). Closing the gap between research and practice in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17, 343-350.
62.
SimpsonB. (2009). Pragmatism, mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30, 1329-1347.
63.
SlifeB. D.WilliamsR. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
64.
StoutJ. (2007). On our interest in getting things right: Pragmatism without narcissism. In MisakC. (Ed.), New pragmatists (pp. 107-444). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
65.
SwansonR. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 207-213.
66.
SwansonR. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 4, 299-312.
67.
SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F. (Eds.). (1997). Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
68.
TalisseR. B.AikinS. F. (2008). Pragmatism: A guide for the perplexed. London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group.
69.
TorracoR. J. (2004). Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 171-188.
70.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
71.
WillF. L. (1997). Pragmatism and realism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
72.
WilsonP. F. (1993). Root cause analysis: A tool for total quality management. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
73.
WinchP. (1990). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
