Using Interpretive Methods to Unleash the Potential of Human Resource Development

Abstract

This paper briefly introduces qualitative approaches to Human Resource Development (HRD), before summarizing the current state of qualitative research methods in management and organization studies. Our intent is to draw lessons from management and organization studies for Human Resource Development, with the ambition of advancing theory building with the field, as well as general understanding of human resource development processes and practices (see Lester, 2023).

Qualitative Approaches to HRD

Like many scholarly fields coming out of the psychological tradition, Human Resource Development is predominately positivistic. A strong tradition of and interest in qualitative methods exists, but these methods are generally underused (Cho, 2023; Lester, 2023; Lochmiller, 2023). Yet, human resource development – with its focus on developing employees and organizations, where the human experience and human dynamics are necessarily central to generating understanding and enacting change – is particularly well suited to qualitative methods because of its socially enacted nature. In relation to such social phenomena, as Perriton (2022, p. 153) aptly states: “…truth claims are interpretive, and facts exist only because normative choices have already been made and are presented within a particular framework of description (Clark et al., 2018).” Interpretation is thus central to all claims and plays a critical role in Human Resource Development.

As such, “a strong need to fill the gap” remains in relation to qualitative research methods within the field (Cho, 2023, p. 4; see also Cho et al., 2022). This has resulted in a recent, and in our eyes welcomed, re-turn toward more qualitative approaches in Human Resource Development (see Discetti & Andersen, 2023; Gisby et al., forthcoming; Kuchinke, 2023; Lester et al., 2023; Li, 2023; and Lochmiller, 2023). Indeed, the few recent articles that have heeded the call to explore qualitative methods in relation to Human Resource Development (ibid; see also Gibson & Hanes, 2003; Githens, 2015; Grenier & Collins, 2016), have been relatively bold; embracing research methods not commonly seen in the broader fields of management and organization studies (see Lê & Schmid, 2019; Lê & Schmid, 2022). Specifically, papers have centered on autoethnography (Grenier & Collins, 2016), phenomenology (Gibson & Hanes, 2003; Kuchinke, 2023) and associated techniques of lived experience (Lochmiller, 2023), discursive methods (Lester et al., 2023), critical action research (Githens, 2015), visual analysis (Gisby et al., forthcoming), and diffractive analysis (Li, 2023). It is thus an exciting time for qualitative approaches to human resource development.

Learning from Management

The fields of management and organization studies have a similarly complicated relationship with qualitative methods. Qualitative methods may best be considered the “ugly duckling” of methods, always an integral part of the field and recognized as producing the odd swan, yet somehow also always considered lesser (see Smith et al., 2014; see also Lê & Schmid, 2019). In recent years, the field has blossomed, and the perception somewhat shifted, with qualitative studies repeatedly recognized for their contribution through awards and citations, and increasingly being seen in top-tier management and organization studies journals (Lê & Schmid, 2019, 2022). Correspondingly, there is less of a need to provide generalized defenses of the role, power, or validity of qualitative methods and the opportunity to engage in a more nuanced discussion about the specific and multiple ways it can be practiced (e.g.,Bansal et al., 2018; Langley & Abdallah, 2011). Some fields, particularly the more traditional and psychologically informed fields, such as Human Resource Development, are lagging in this regard (Lê & Schmid, 2019). There is thus ample opportunity to learn from management and organization studies. This paper offers three key lessons from these fields (see also Lê & Schmid, 2019).

Lesson 1: Growth is Coming

Qualitative research has experienced exponential growth in management and organization studies over the past two decades (Smith et al., 2014), with qualitative research now being represented in all leading international journals. This growth has given important visibility to the rigorous and varied qualitative methods being employed and the resultant contributions to the field. This has changed the academic landscape. It is now common to have experienced qualitative editors at leading journals and a database of skilled qualitative reviewers for them to draw on. As a result, journals are increasingly opening up to qualitative work from various traditions. For instance, the Academy of Management Journal, one of our leading journals, cites the following as one of its key undertakings: “publishing original, responsible, impactful cross-boundary and qualitative research” (Howard-Grenville et al., 2022, p. 1417).

As a result of this growth and increased visibility, qualitative methods have been central to offering critical contributions to multiple areas of management and organization studies. They provide fresh insights on classical topics by introducing entirely new theoretical perspectives or developing new theory in a grounded way (Lê & Schmid, 2019; Suddaby, 2006). These contributions have been celebrated through publications, special issues, awards, and citations. We know that journals have an important role in shaping the quality and practice of qualitative research methods (Lê & Schmid, 2019). The field of Human Resource Development has the great privilege of having a supportive journal in Human Resource Development Review, which explicitly publishes research methods pieces and encourages reflecting on and writing about qualitative research methods (Cho, 2023).

Lesson 2: Traditions are Strong

Yet, at the same time, there are some “guardrails” in terms of which qualitative research methods are accepted in management and organization studies (Gioia et al., 2022; Köhler et al., 2022). Even now, despite the increased visibility and acceptance of methods, management and organizational scholars do not fully leverage the growing and increasingly diverse set of qualitative research methods (see Eisenhardt, 2019; Lê & Schmid, 2019). Traditionally grounded in positivist traditions, the fields of management and organization studies generally give preference to quantitative research methods aligned with principles of positivism (Bryman, 2004; also Lê & Schmid, 2019).

Hence, it is not surprising that many of the qualitative research methods we see in management and organization studies continue to be strongly rooted in post-positivism. This means that these methods ascribe to the natural science model of empirical research, using the well-established quality criteria around reliability, validity, and generalizability (see Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). Research practices in these approaches are relatively standardized. The comparative case study (cf., Eisenhardt, 1989; see also Garg & Eisenhardt, 2017; Martin & Eisenhardt, 2010) or ‘Eisenhardt method’ is a wonderful example of this type of approach. It also continues to be the most used qualitative method in management and organization studies (for more, see Langley & Abdallah, 2011; Lê & Schmid, 2019). Other commonly used approaches include the extended case method and mixed method study (see Lê & Schmid, 2019), with case illustration, quasi-experimental case studies, and causal modeling also, but less commonly, used (see Lê & Schmid, 2019).

While post-positivist designs are the most common, generative qualitative research methods also come out of the interpretivist and critical traditions (Lê & Schmid, 2019). Interpretive designs ascribe to the human science model of empirical research, putting interpretation and meaning-making at the heart of understanding. Hence, they employ quality criteria centered on credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability, and transparency (Creswell, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles et al., 2014). Research practices in such approaches are generally more flexible (see Jarzabkowski et al., 2014). Grounded theorizing (cf. Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) or the ‘Gioia method’ (see Gioia et al., 2022, 2019; Gioia et al., 2010; Nag et al., 2007) is an outstanding example of this type of approach. It is now considered a standard method in management and organization studies (for more, see Köhler et al., 2022; Langley & Abdallah, 2011; Lê & Schmid, 2019). Other interpretive methods commonly used in management and organization studies – but clearly underrepresented in Human Resource Development – include ethnographic studies, generic case studies, practice-based studies, and action research (see Lê & Schmid, 2019). These methods hold great potential for the field.

Finally, qualitative research methods may also come from a critical tradition. Such designs are “theoretically laden”, drawing on critical theory principles to seriously reflect on and question organizations and society more broadly. Quality criteria ensure that accounts have educational, political, ethical, esthetic, and economic power (Hammersley, 2007), while also conveying feeling, ascribing accountability, and stimulating dialog (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). Qualitative research methods conducted in the critical tradition have been less successful in breaking through in management and organization studies. The notable exception is critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995; Wodak & Meyer, 2001) or the “Hardy method” (Hardy & Maguire, 2010; Hardy & Philips, 1998; Maguire & Hardy, 2009). This method is also less commonly seen but has much potential for the field of Human Resource Development. It would nicely complement existing methods.

Lesson 3: Innovation is Critical

In exploiting the full generative potential of qualitative research methods, scholars will increasingly need to “combine technical mastery of methods with their creative crafting” (Gioia et al., 2022, p. 243). While innovation is central to the development of any field (Gioia et al., 2022), this is particularly true for Human Resource Development, as it has been somewhat conservative in its use of methods until very recently. Innovation means both changing what we do (method) and adapting how we do it (tools). Hence, generative innovation requires four things: holistic innovation, clarity of methods, co-developing theory and method, and reflexibility (see Lê & Schmid, 2020).

First, in innovating research methods we need to ensure that various parts of research design are intertwined – changes to one part of the research process necessarily have implications for all other parts. Ensuring consistency and alignment is thus central to any research innovation. We refer to this as the principle of holistic innovation (Lê & Schmid, 2020). Second, we need to ensure transparency of methods, taking seriously our role as researchers and educators, by clearly communicating what we did in pursuing a particular research method. This is central to demonstrating rigor and ensuring quality. We refer to this as the principle of methods clarity (Lê & Schmid, 2020). Third, research method innovation cannot be an end in itself; methods must be innovated with theory development in mind. Theory and method must thus be brought together throughout the research process to ensure a meaningful contribution. We refer to this as the principle of co-developing theory and method (Lê & Schmid, 2020). Finally, it is important to reflect on and be reflexive about research design. Mechanisms for this include sharing ideas, engaging in debate, and intellectually sparring with others (Jarzabkowski et al., 2015). This is important to ensure the appropriateness of a method, as well as its ongoing improvement. We refer to this as the principle of reflexivity (Lê & Schmid, 2020). Heeding these four principles allows for purposeful and meaningful innovation that can generate novel theoretical insights and illuminate the critical processes and practices of Human Resource Development.

How to Innovate Methods in HRD

As Lester (2023) nicely summarizes, qualitative research methods are wonderful precisely because they allow tradition to meet innovation. Yet, messages around innovation may seem contradictory. On the one hand, we accept “Qualitative research, as a set of interpretive activities, [which] privileges no single methodological practice over another” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017, p. 12, as cited in Lester, 2023; text in parentheses added). To the initiated, this may imply that “anything goes” in qualitative research methods innovation and in qualitative research more broadly. On the other hand, as the section above helps to illustrate, we enforce strict guidelines around what constitutes acceptable innovation (see Lê & Schmid, 2022). We must navigate this tension in qualitative research. Thus, this section extrapolates from Lê & Schmid (2022) to help Human Resource Development practitioners and scholars traverse how they might themselves engage in innovation in a little more detail. We suggest this involves understanding the innovation iceberg and drawing inspiration from exemplars. We explain each below.

Understanding the Innovation Iceberg

To innovate effectively, i.e., in a way that generates a meaningful theoretical contribution, it is important to understand that there are two parts to any research method. First, there are the visible elements of research – generally, this refers to the reported research tools and the innovative ways in which they are employed. This comprises the ways data are generated (e.g., covert observations via confederates; e.g., Bernstein, 2012), the ways that data are analyzed (e.g., multimodal analysis; e.g., LeBaron et al., 2016), and the ways that data are displayed (e.g., composite vignette; e.g., Smets et al., 2015). Here we see lots of opportunities for creativity because these tools might be combined in different ways to generate meaningful insights. Second, there are the less visible elements of research – generally, this refers to the implicit guiding principles of innovating methods (see the four principles that concluded the section above). These principles confer important rules about the ways we do research and the ways we can innovate research. They are much less explicit and thus can be less directly reflected upon within the process of research method innovation, but offer critical boundaries of innovation to researchers wishing to be creative. Being aware of the two tiers of research method innovation is critical to being able to effectively innovate. For a full overview of the model, see Lê & Schmid (2022).

Drawing Inspiration from Exemplars

There is much debate in the organizational research methods literature about the advantages and disadvantages of using templates (Gioia et al., 2022; Köhler et al., 2022). We purposefully avoid this term, focusing on phrases like designs-in-use (Lê & Schmid, 2019) and exemplars (Lê & Schmid, 2022) that better convey the “living” nature of research methods practice. We speak out against “blind templating” (Gioia et al., 2022), but nevertheless encourage researchers to draw inspiration from innovative work (Lê & Schmid, 2022). We thus encourage you to look for studies in your field that innovate data generation, analysis and display in ways that meaningfully resonate with your own research goals. If you do not find such studies in your immediate field, consider casting the net wider to include the broader field of management and organization studies.

For instance, Lê & Schmid (2022) found inspiration in studies employing global team-based ethnography (Smets et al., 2015); multimodal, ethnomethodological research (LeBaron et al., 2016); collaborative action research (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008); embedded participation (Bernstein, 2012); insider–outsider studies (Michel, 2007); discursive narrative analysis (Sonenshein, 2010); and historical methods (Lubinski & Wadhwani, 2020). You might find similar inspiration in the work on authoethnography (Grenier & Collins, 2016), discursive methods (Lester et al., 2023), and critical action research (Githens, 2015) recently re-introduced to Human Resource Development. Whatever the case may be, pick some “favorites” and allow them to inspire you to do innovative, impactful work.

Conclusion

Human Resource Development is a field with much promise for both theoretical and practical contributions. Putting the human experience and human dynamics at the center of the field makes it particularly well-suited to exploring the rich traditions of qualitative research methods. We encourage the field to heed the call to use diverse methods to continue producing insightful, impactful work.