In light of recent calls to embrace multilevel, nonlinear, and open systems perspectives for theorizing and practicing human resource development (HRD), this article reviews key tenets of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) and its applications as relevant to HRD. Specifically, the article discusses the four areas where the usage of CHAT could inform HRD scholarship: (a) systems theory and thinking in HRD, (b) HRD and learning, (c) HRD as design science, and (d) the interplay between research and practice in HRD. Recommendations for further developing CHAT applications in HRD research and practice are provided.
AdlerP. S. (2005). The evolving object of software development. Organization, 12, 401-435. doi:10.1177/1350508405051277
2.
ArdichviliA. (2003). Constructing socially situated learning experiences in human resource development: An activity theory perspective. Human Resource Development International, 6, 5-20. doi:10.1080/13678860110063596
3.
ArdichviliA. (2008). Can there be a domain-specific knowledge base in HRD? Reflections on the Lille symposium. Human Resource Development International, 11, 539-544. doi:10.1080/13678860802417684
4.
ArdichviliA. (2012). HRD: The science of the artificial. Human Resource Development International, 15, 265-267. doi:13678868.2012.701420
5.
ArdichviliA.YoonS. W. (2009). Designing integrative knowledge management systems: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 307-319. doi:10.1177/1523422309337593
6.
AzevedoR. E.AkdereM. (2011). Examining agency theory in training & development: Understanding self-interest behaviors in the organization. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 399-416. doi:10.1177/1534484311412150
7.
BlacklerF. (2009). Cultural-historical activity theory and organization studies. In SanninoA.DanielsH.GutiérrezK. D. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 19-39). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BleakleyA. (2014). Patient-centred medicine in transition: The heart of the matter. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
9.
ChalofskyN. (2007). The seminal foundation of the discipline of HRD: People, learning, and organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 431-442. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1212
10.
ColeM.EngeströmY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1-46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ColeM.EngeströmY. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In ValsinerJ.RosaA. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484-507). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DafermosM. (2015). Activity theory: Theory and practice. In ParkerI. (Ed.), Handbook of critical psychology (pp. 261-270). London, England: Routledge.
13.
DavydovV. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
14.
DirkxJ. M.GilleyJ. W.GilleyA. M. (2004). Change theory in CPE and HRD: Toward a holistic view of learning and change in work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 35-51. doi:10.1177/1523422303260825
15.
DochyF.EngeströmY.SanninoA.Van MeeuwenN. (2011). Inter-organisational expansive learning at work. In DochyF.GijbelsD.SegersM.Van den BosscheP. (Eds.), Theories of learning for the workplace: Building blocks for training and professional development programs (pp. 125-147). London, England: Routledge.
16.
DochyF.GijbelsD.SegersM.Van den BosscheP. (2011). Theories of learning for the workplace: Building blocks for training and professional development programs. London, England: Routledge.
17.
DubinR. (1978). Theory building (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
18.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
19.
EngeströmY. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In ChaiklinS.LaveJ. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
EngeströmY. (1999a). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93. doi:10.1023/A:1008648532192
21.
EngeströmY. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-404) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
EngeströmY. (2000a). Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: A story of four umpires. Organization, 7, 301-310. doi:10.1177/135050840072006
23.
EngeströmY. (2000b). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. In LuffP.HindmarshJ.HeathC. (Eds.), Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design (pp. 150-168). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
EngeströmY. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747
25.
EngeströmY. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 11-21. doi:10.1108/13665620410521477
26.
EngeströmY. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media.
27.
EngeströmY. (2007a). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 23-39. doi:10.1080/10749030701307689
28.
EngeströmY. (2007b). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In HughesJ.JewsonN.UnwinL. (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 41-54). London, England: Routledge.
29.
EngeströmY. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
EngeströmY. (2011a). Activity theory and learning at work. In MallochM.CairnsL.EvansK.O’ConnorB. N. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of workplace learning (pp. 86-104). London, England: Sage.
31.
EngeströmY. (2011b). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21, 598-628.
32.
EngeströmY. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
EngeströmY. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
EngeströmY.SanninoA. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1-24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
35.
EngeströmY.SanninoA. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 368-387. doi:10.1108/09534811111132758
36.
EngeströmY.EngeströmR.VähäahoT. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In ChaiklinS.HedegaardM.JensenU. J. (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-historical approaches (pp. 345-374). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
37.
EngeströmY.LompscherJ.RuckriemG. (Eds.). (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media.
38.
EngeströmY.SanninoA.VirkkunenJ. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21, 118-128. doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
39.
EngeströmY.VirkkunenJ.HelleM.PihlajaJ.PoikelaR. (1996). Change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10-17.
40.
FenwickT. (2006). Toward enriched conceptions of work learning: Participation, expansion, and translation among individuals with/in activity. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 285-302. doi:10.1177/1534484306290105
41.
FenwickT. (2007). Organisational learning in the “knots”: Discursive capacities emerging in a school-university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 138-153. doi: 10.1108/09578230710732934
42.
GaravanT. N.McCarthyA. (2008). Collective learning processes and human resource development [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 451-471. doi:10.1177/1523422308320473
43.
GvaramadzeI. (2008). Human resource development practice: The paradox of empowerment and individualization. Human Resource Development International, 11, 465-477. doi:10.1080/13678860802417601
44.
HughesC.GosneyM. W. (Eds.). (2016). Bridging the scholar-practitioner gap in human resources development. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
45.
IlesP.YollesM. (2003). Complexity, HRD and organisation development: Towards a viable systems approach to learning, development and change. In LeeM. (Ed.), HRD in a complex world (pp. 25-41). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
46.
JacobsR. (1989). Systems theory applied to human resource development. In GradousD. (Ed.), Systems theory applied to human resource development, theory to practice monograph (pp. 27-60), Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
47.
JayantiE. B. (2011). Through a different lens: A survey of linear epistemological assumptions underlying HRD models. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 101-114. doi:10.1177/1534484310386753
48.
KazlauskasA.CrawfordK. (2007). Learning what is not yet there: Knowledge mobilization in a communal activity. Learning and Socio-cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives International Workshop, 1(1), 114-132. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg/
49.
KerosuoH.MäkiT.KorpelaJ. (2015). Knotworking and the visibilization of learning in building design. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27, 128-141. doi:10.1108/JWL-10-2013-0092
50.
KuchinkeK. P. (2004). Theorizing and practicing HRD: Extending the dialogue over the roles of scholarship and practice in the field. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 535-539. doi: 10.1080/1367886042000299825
51.
KuchinkeK. P. (2013). HRD as design science. Human Resource Development International, 16, 369-373. doi:10.1080/13678868.2013.820525
52.
Leont’evA. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
53.
Leont’evA. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers.
MarsickV. J.WatkinsK. E. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5, 353-360. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920050406
56.
McLeanG. N. (1998). HRD: A three-legged stool, an octopus, or a centipede?Human Resource Development International, 1, 375-377. doi:10.1080/13678869800000048
57.
MiettinenR. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 170-195. doi:10.1080/10749039909524725
58.
MiettinenR.Samra-FredericksD.YanowD. (2009). Re-turn to practice: An introductory essay. Organization Studies, 30, 1309-1327. doi:10.1177/0170840609349860
59.
MinkO. G.EsterhuysenP. W.MinkB. P.OwenK. Q. (1993). Change at work: A comprehensive management process for transforming organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
MorganP. (2005). The idea and practice of systems thinking and their relevance for capacity development. Maastricht, The Netherlands: European Centre for Development Policy Management.
61.
PoellR.RoccoT. S.RothG. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge companion to human resource development. New York, NY: Routledge.
62.
Sadler-SmithE. (2014). HRD research and design science: Recasting interventions as artefacts. Human Resource Development International, 17, 129-144. doi:10.1080/13678868.2013.875355
63.
SanninoA. (2011). Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory & Psychology, 21, 571-597.
64.
SanninoA.EngeströmY.LemosM. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 599-633. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547
65.
Scully-RussE.LehnerR.ShuckB. (2013). A scholar-practitioner case approach: Implications for advancing theory and research through informed practice [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 243-251. doi:10.1177/1523422313487307
66.
SengeP. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
67.
SfardA. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. doi:10.3102/0013189X027002004
68.
ShortD. C.KormanikM. B.RuonaW. (Eds.). (2009). Bridging the gap: Scholar-practitioners in human resource development [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 415-547.
69.
SimonH. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
70.
SleezerC. M. (2004). The contribution of adult learning theory to human resource development (HRD). Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 125-128. doi:10.1177/1523422304263324
71.
SwansonR. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 4, 299-312. doi:10.1080/ 13678860110059311
72.
SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F.III. (2009). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
73.
TkachenkoO.HahnH. J.PetersonS. (2016). Theorizing the research-practice gap in the field of management: A review of key frameworks and models. In HughesC.GosneyM. (Eds.), Bridging the scholar-practitioner gap in human resources development (pp. 101-119). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
74.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Work design theory: A review and critique with implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 85-109. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1125
75.
UptonM. G.EganT. M. (2010). Three approaches to multilevel theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 333-356. doi:10.1177/1534484310380333
76.
VeliquetteA. J. (2013). Structuration theory’s relevance to HRD: A review and application. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 200-220. doi:10.1177/1534484312461636
77.
VictorB.BoyntonA. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
78.
VirkkunenJ. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 3, 43-66. Retrieved from https://activites.revues.org/1850
79.
VirkkunenJ.NewnhamD. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work activities. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
80.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81.
VygotskyL. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In RieberR. W.WollockJ. (Eds.), The collective works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3: Problems of the theory and history of Psychology (pp. 233-243). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1927)
82.
WatkinsK. (1989). Business and industry. In MerriamS.CunninghamP. (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 422-435). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
83.
YawsonR. M. (2013). Systems theory and thinking as a foundational theory in human resource development: A myth or reality?Human Resource Development Review, 12, 53-85. doi:10.1177/1534484312461634
