This issue is the first of two issues we have commissioned to discuss the relationship between adult education and human resource development and related fields. Some of the pieces were originally published several years ago when the faculty in the adult education and human resource development program at Florida International University took over editorship of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development ; as appropriate, these works have been updated. We thought it made sense for the field and the journal to gather these pieces together into one or two issues and invite some additional scholars to reflect on the relationships between fields. This relationship has mystified students and scholars alike for years.
The boundaries are permeable and rigid with separate conferences and journals, scholars’ identities being aligned with one field, while publishing in the journals of related fields. The academic degrees that prepare students to become corporate trainers or community educators are often the same program. When I (Tonette) entered the doctoral program in adult education at Ohio State, three programs were housed together: Human Resource Development (HRD), Adult Education (AE), and Vocational Education. The faculty at times felt forced together and forced to articulate a common mission and vision. As a student in the program I felt a natural connection between the fields but as is true of many students the language to articulate this connection escaped me. The faculty discussions about a common mission and vision were sometimes strident, always thoughtful, and were memorable. So memorable, in fact, that it led me to develop the idea for this compilation of essays on the relationship between fields.
The relationships are not always clear cut. At many universities, HRD programs evolved from interested faculty who were in adult or vocational education. The distinctions between these fields are often blurred further when considering the credentials of the faculty in the programs. Faculty with degrees in adult education or vocational education are often faculty in HRD programs. My colleague and co‐editor Doug Smith ( ) described a situation in 1987 when he attended an American Society for Training and Development local chapter meeting that was attended by less than five professionals aligned with adult education. A little bit later, he attended an AE conference that included a session on education in the workplace that was facilitated by two training directors. In over twenty years, this has not changed much; few scholars attend both the Academy of Human Resource Development conference and the Adult Education Research Conference. At the conference for the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education, there is a presence of HRD in a Commission of Professors of Adult Education special interest group.
There are many in AE and HRD that agree that the purpose of both fields is to provide learning experiences for adults. Others would say that AE and HRD are enemies, for example, Phyllis Cunningham ( ) who titled a piece “The Politics of Worker's Education: Preparing Workers to Sleep with the Enemy” or Fred Schied ( ) who defiantly asked “How did humans become resources anyway?” (p. 287). Both pieces appeared in AE publications. Both Cunningham and Schied on a rare occasion presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference. While they are likely the two most vocal critics of HRD, they articulate a view many share to varying degrees.
One reason adult educators are suspicious of HRD is the uncritical way it has accepted the view of HRD serving corporate America, or as stated by Gilley and Eggland ( ), “calling people ‘human resources’ reveals an organizational orientation just as ‘financial resources’ and ‘capital resources’ do” (p. 3). Calling employees human resources dehumanizes the workers (Schied, ). Dehumanizing the workers allows management to diminish the contributions of the workers, paying them less and paying management more. Another reason adult educators are suspicious of HRD is the mission of HRD. According to Gilley and Eggland ( ): The mission of HRD, that is, what HRD does, is (1) to provide individual development focused on performance improvement related to a current job; (2) to provide career development focused on performance improvement related to future job assignments; and (3) to provide organizational development that results in both optimal utilization of human potential and improved human performance, which together improves the efficiency of the organization. Efficiency is measured by increased organizational competitiveness and/or profitability. (p. 12)
The focus on increased competitiveness and profitability serves the organization. Rarely does a definition of HRD include that, through development (training) activities, workers’ personal worth increases and so does their personal wealth, or income. This is a brief and incomplete discussion of the concerns of some adult educators over the current rise of HRD. But the rise of HRD should be noted. Many former AE degree programs now include HRD as an equal or dominant partner. At our institution, Florida International University, the students pursuing a degree in HRD were three times the number of those pursuing a degree in AE and now the two degrees have been merged into one in AE and HRD. The employment opportunities, both as practitioners and academicians, are greater in HRD than they are in AE. Membership in the professional associations serving practitioners and academicians is greater in HRD than AE. An examination of these differences and similarities is a major theme of New Horizons . We believe AE and HRD need to maintain separate identities and develop a meaningful relationship, working together around common interests.
Hatcher and Bowles’ two part discussion in New Horizons suggests that criticality and critical theory might provide a bridge that joins HRD and AE. HRD is heavily embedded in the rational technical paradigm, a paradigm not unfamiliar to adult educators who are military trainers, or run workforce education and job skill development programs in AE centers. Both fields have also shared behaviorist and progressive philosophies at times. So, can critical theory, which is a rather small part of the scholarship in either field, or any common philosophy really be a bridge that brings together the two fields?
We would like to suggest another position, which may contribute to further discussion of the relationship of AE and HRD. What we suggest is to emphasize a primary focus of AE and HRD. A primary focus of AE is to research and theorize how individuals learn, while a primary focus of HRD is to research and theorize how learning takes place in organizations (i.e., organizational learning). Both disciplines are also interested in each other's primary area. Researchers in AE have studied community education and learning, and formal and informal group learning. HRD has a strong record of research in factors contributing to, or constraining, individual training and development. Thus, both disciplines have specific areas of research expertise, but are also interested in the other's primary research area.
In upcoming issues, we will be examining further the relationship of AE and HRD. We invite your contributions to this discourse by submitting full papers and discussion pieces in the Perspectives sections of each issue. Please refer to our website ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291939-4225/ ) for guidelines. We hope this discourse will contribute to the two fields, noting the unique interests of both , but also contributing to a relationship that reaps better research, useful theories, richer courses and programs, and effective academicians and practitioners.