طراحی الگوی توسعه دانشعملیِ کاروران توسعه منابع انسانی
محورهای موضوعی :عباس عباس پور 1 , مصطفی حسن زاده 2 , مرتضی طاهری 3 , میر علی سید نقوی 4
1 - استاد تمام گروه مدیریت و برنامهریزی آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
3 - دانشیار گروه مدیریت و برنامهریزی آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
4 - استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: توسعه, دانشعملی, کاروران, توسعه منابع انسانی,
چکیده مقاله :
شکاف بین نظریه و عمل همیشه مورد مناقشه نظریهپردازان و کاروران بوده است. کاروران توسعه منابع انسانی از زمان شکلگیری این رشته در رابطه با مشکل تئوریهای غیرعملی در زمینه سازمانی شکایت داشته و از سویی، محققان حوزه توسعه منابع انسانی نیز از عمل غیرتئوریک در این حوزه ابراز نگرانی کردهاند. از اینرو، دانشعملی موضوع است که به منظور حل این مساله مورد بررسی صاحبنظران قرار گرفته است. بر این اساس پژوهش حاضر با هدف طراحی الگوی توسعه دانشعملی کاروران توسعه منابع انسانی انجام شد. برای انجام پژوهش از روش کیفی و برای جمعآوری اطلاعات از راهبرد مصاحبه استفاده گردید. میدان مطالعه، تمامی کاروران توسعه منابع انسانی در نظام اداری کشور بودند که با استفاده از روش نموهگیری هدفمند و راهبرد نظری با 24 نفر از آنها مصاحبه نیمهساختیافته صورت گرفت. برای تحلیل اطلاعات از روش کدگذاری معنایی (باز و محوری) استفاده شد. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که توسعه دانشعملی از یک الگوی چرخهای تبعیّت میکند که دارای شش گام اصلی است. این شش گام در دو محور صلی "دانستن" و "انجام دادن" قرار گرفتند. در محور دانستن سه گام دریافت، انطباقسازی و جستجو و در محور انجام دادن سه گام مشروعیتبخشی، بازآرایی و برگردان قرار دارد. توجه به این چرخه میتواند باعث توسعه فردی و سازمانی شده و سیستم اجتماعی علم و سیستم اجتماعی عمل را به هم نزدیکتر سازد و برونداد نهایی آن شکلگیری و توسعه دانشعملی برای کاربرد کاروران توسعه منابع انسانی در مواجهه با مشکلات و مسائل روزمره است.
The gap between theory and practice has always been a subject of debate among theorists and practitioners. Practitioners frequently critique the limited applicability of theory in real-world organizational settings, while researchers express concern over the perceived lack of theoretical grounding in Human Resource Development (HRD) practice. In response to this critical issue, actionable knowledge development has emerged as a key area of investigation. The present study aims to address this gap by proposing a model for the development of actionable knowledge among HRD practitioners. Employing a qualitative research approach, the research data were collected through semi-structured interviews with a sample of 24 HRD practitioners from Iran’s administrative system. To this end, thematic coding strategies (open and axial) were used to analyze the interview data. The findings revealed a cyclical model of actionable knowledge development, characterized by six key stages. These stages revolve around two axes: "knowing" and "doing." The "knowing" axis encompasses three stages: Receiving, adapting, and searching for knowledge. The "doing" axis, conversely, comprises three stages: Legitimizing, reconfiguring, and rendering knowledge into practice. By fostering attention to this cyclical model, individual and organizational development can be facilitated. Furthermore, this model has the potential to bridge the gap between the social system of science and the social system of practice, ultimately promoting the formation and application of practical knowledge for HRD practitioners to effectively address everyday challenges.
1. Antonacopoulou E. P. Actionable knowledge. Entry to appear in Clegg, S. and Bailey, J., International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies, London: Sage 2007: 4-11
2. Bartlett S., Burton D. Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms. Educational Action Research 2006; 14(3): 395-405.
3. Beer M. Making a difference: Developing actionable knowledge for practice and theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2020; 56(4): 506-520.
4. Bing J. W. Linking research and practice in human resources development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 2009; 11(4): 417-419.
5. Blood M. R. Only you can create actionable knowledge. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2006; 5(2): 209-212.
6. Chalofsky N. A unifying definition for the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly 1992; 3(2): 175-182.
7. Cross R, Sproull L. More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization science 2004; 15(4): 446-462.
8. Giliey J W. The Bridge Between Human Resource Development Practitioners and Scholars. Human Resource Development Quarterly 2006; 17(3): 235-243
9. Greenwood D. J, Levin M. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1998.
10. Griffioen D. M. E, De Jong U, Jak S. Research self-efficacy of lecturers in non-university higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 2013; 50(1): 25-37.
11. Hay G. W. The nature and significance of the executive doctoral scholar-practitioner of Organizational Development and Change: A morphogenetic account of theory-practice linkages for the achievement of scholarly knowledge and business results. Benedictine University. 2003.
12. Holton III E. F. Implementing evidence-based practices: Time for a national movement? Human Resource Development Review 2004; 3(3): 187-188.
13. Jacobs R. Partnerships for integrating HRD research and practice. In R. Swanson & E. Holton (eds.), Human Resource Development Research Handbook: Linking research and practice (pp. 47–61). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 1997.
14. Gill C. Don't know, don't care: An exploration of evidence based knowledge and practice in human resource management. Human resource management Review 2018; 28(2): 103-115.
15. Keefer J, Yap R. Is HRD research making a difference in practice? Human Resource Development Quarterly 2007; 18(4): 449-455.
16. Kuchinke K. P. Book Review: Understanding Action Learning, by Judy O’Neil and Victoria J. Marsick. New York: American Management Association, 2007., Human Resource Development Quarterly 2008; 9(3): 273-276.
17. Kuchinke K. P. Why HRD is not an academic discipline. Human Resource Development International 2001; 4(3): 291-294.
18. Kuchinke K. P. Theorizing and practicing HRD: Extending the dialogue over the roles of scholarship and practice in the field. Human Resource Development International 2004; 7(4): 535-539.
19. Kuchinke K. P. Birds of a feather? The critique of the North American business school and its implications for educating HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development Review 2007; 6(2): 111-126.
20. Lopes De Leao Laguna L, Poell R., Meerman M. Practitioner research for the professionalization of human resources practice: Empirical data from the Netherlands. Human Resource Development International 2018; 22(1): 68-90.
21. Lynham S. A. Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly 2000; 11(2): 159-178.
22. Mach K. J, Lemos M. C, Meadow A. M, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Arnott J. C, et al. Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2020; 42: 30-37.
23. Myers N. F. Bridging the theory-to-practice gap: Some thoughts from an internal OD consultant. Human Resource Development Review 2008; 7(4): 469-471.
24. Pfeffer J, Sutton R. I. The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard business press. 2000.
25. Ross C, Nichol L, Elliott C, Sambrook S, Stewart J. The role of HRD in bridging the research-practice gap: the case of learning and development. Human Resource Development International 2020; 23(2): 108-124.
26. Russ‐Eft D, Watkins K. E, Marsick V. J, Jacobs R. L, McLean G. N. What do the next 25 years hold for HRD research in areas of our interest? Human Resource Development Quarterly 2014; 25(1): 5-27.
27. Ryle G, Tanney J. The concept of mind. Routledge. 2009.
28. Sexton M, Lu S. L. The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: an action research perspective. Construction Management and Economics 2009; 27(7): 683-694.
29. Swanson R. A. Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 1997.
30. Tenkasi R. V, Hay G. W. Actionable knowledge and scholar-practitioners: A process model of theory-practice linkages. Systemic Practice and Action Research 2004; 17: 177-206.
31. Tkachenko O, Hahn H. J, Peterson S. L. Research–practice gap in applied fields: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review 2017; 16(3): 235-262.
32. Torraco R. J. Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly 2004; 15(2): 171-188.
33. Torraco R. J, Yorks L. Do practitioners compromise scholarly standards? Do scholars comprehend the rigors of practice? Can a theory journal be a viable bridge across the chasm?. Human Resource Development Review 2007; 6(1): 3-6.
34. Van de Ven A. H. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social science research. Oxford University Press. 2007.
35. Wilkins N, Thigpen S, Lockman J, Mackin J, Madden M, Perkins T, et al. Putting program evaluation to work: a framework for creating actionable knowledge for suicide prevention practice. Translational behavioral medicine 2013; 3(2): 149-161.
36. Yorks L. Nothing so practical as a good theory. Human Resource Development Review 2005; 4(2): 111-113.