Abstract
Adult education and human resource development as fields of practice and study share some roots in common but have grown in different directions in their histories. Adult education's roots focused initially on citizenship for a democratic society, whereas human resource development's roots are in performance at work. While they have grown in different directions, they also clearly overlap in important ways; through their focus on helping adults learn, a growing interest in constructivism in the knowledge era, and in broader international and national visions of the field. Differences are also noted, particularly in regard to emphasis on individual growth vs. growth of the organization. The article concludes with a look at three ways of looking at the relationship between the two fields: through the lens of practice, the metaphor of the big tent, and questions associated with philosophical differences.
Differences between adult education (AE) and human resource development (HRD), while important to scholars, may be less important to practitioners who look for the best methods to help adults learn, techniques to improve systems, and ways to improve their personal lives and work situations. Educating adults is often a complex, multi–faceted task. In this article, we examine aspects of AE's and HRD's evolution as fields of practice and study. Both fields, we argue, bring scholars, professionals and practitioners together to address questions related to the practice of helping adults learn. Each field differently defines what adults need or want to know, do, or feel based on a number of factors growing both from the nature of the adults and settings in which they work as well as from their own belief systems, training, and knowledge or skill base. The fields share some roots in common, as we discuss below, but each has grown in different directions based on purposes, stakeholder beliefs and interests, and histories of influential professional associations.
We start by looking, selectively, at highlights of the evolution of AE and HRD as fields of practice and study. We cannot do justice to their histories in this space, but we draw on key influences and turning points to highlight ways the two fields overlap, diverge, and relate to one another. Finally, we reflect on where the fields have been and seem to be going, drawing on our own work over the past 15 years on adult education, human resource development, organization development, and system learning and change.
Historical Perspectives
History reflects the eye of historians, with each focusing on differences based on their own experience of the events they explicate. Thus Stubblefield (1988) points to unifying principles and a common history in adult education, inclusive of workplace learning, that is based on the views of foundational thinkers coming primarily from progressive or humanist traditions. Welton (2010), however, points to the constructed “well–crafted variant on the reductionist approach” in Stubblefield's history. He notes what is left out, as well as what is included, in Stubblefield's “creation of the myth of the American adult education ‘great tradition’” and the way in which his history is thus shaped by powerful views, often “intimately bound up with class, gender, and ethnic interest” (p. 85).
Welton's critique of Stubblefield reflects the contested nature of adult education as a field of study and practice. The instrumental interests of AE focus on helping adults learn. Theory supports this practical focus; but scholars in the field problematize the way in which learning theory and educational practice are understood. Scholars in the traditions of neo–Marxism, critical social theory, and postmodernism keep AE focused on broad concerns of social justice and equity along with its long term focus on practical guidelines for teaching and learning.
HRD, by contrast, has been more uniformly driven by its pragmatic focus on organizational performance and productivity—though not without its own postmodern critics. Bierema (2009), for example, offers these major critiques of HRD: it relies on “a performative philosophy, commodifies employees, gives allegiance to shareholders, it ignores power relations, and there is a lack of alternative models and theories for HRD practice” (p. 72). HRD grew primarily out of instrumental, economic roots. Drawing on Elias and Merriam (1995), Jacobs (2006) contrasts HRD to AE's humanistic concerns with whole–person, human development. HRD, instead, “emphasizes the workplace side of adult education” and, as such, is more concerned with the needs and values of “improving organizational performance and individual learning through the human accomplishments that result from employee development, organization development, and career development” (Jacobs, 2006, p. 21). In Jacobs’ view, the humanistic, progressive interests of AE, in essence, are less central to the working life of individuals than HRD's interests in the organization and in economic productivity.
How did AE and HRD come to focus on these differentiated aspects of each field's evolution—assuming we accept these contrasts as reflective of each field?
Adult Education as a Field of Practice and Study
AE in the United States grew out of the crucible of society's evolution toward a broader based educated citizenry. Historical roots involved individual and social improvement such as increasing literacy and civil rights. The field educated adults to move up the social, intellectual, and economic ladder, often concerning itself with people at society's margins—immigrants, farmers, union members and factory workers, urban poor and minorities, and eventually women and people of color. Influences on adult education as a field of study reflected these practical concerns, i.e., community development, citizenship, literacy, and basic education of underserved populations. Additional specializations developed over time to meet newly identified needs of society, e.g., in community colleges and other higher education settings, professional practice and continuing education, 4–H, and workplace learning and training. Adults were helped to become lifelong learners, but they were also urged to participate actively as citizens in democratic action. Social justice, access and rights to opportunities were key purposes of the field. Adult education's focus has always been on individuals as learners—but individuals understood as part of a larger social context. The AE field examines power dynamics and the way these affect and constrain who adults are, what they can become, and thus, the nature and purpose of their learning.
Eduard Lindeman, for example, made an early impact on the field in writing about the meaning of adult education. A son of immigrants, Lindeman worked with communities and youth, and became engaged in civil rights work. He understood group and social unit dynamics as they factored into negotiation of differences in interests, goals and resources. He emphasized critical thinking by adults on how they are shaped by their social contexts (Brookfield, 1984). Brookfield has written that Lindemann emphasized the social, and distinctly non–vocational, mission of AE. As did other contemporary adult educators, Lindemann identified learning in small discussion groups as unique to adult education. Lindemann (1925) defined adult education as:
… a co–operative venture in non–authoritarian, informal learning the chief purpose of which is to discover the meaning of experience; a quest of the mind which digs down to the roots of the preconceptions which formulate our conduct; a technique for learning for adults which makes education coterminous with life, and hence elevates living itself to the level of an experiment. (p. 3)
Dewey is the foundation of much of AE's emphasis on learning from experience, meaning making, and acceptance of constructivism as core to learning. Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) holds that people construct their own individual and collective meaning of experiences, and thus take an active role in shaping identity and co–constructing knowledge. Constructivism is not the only way to frame learning from experience, although it is a dominant lens, as Fenwick (2000) explains in laying out five different views on cognition that influence how adult educators understand and practice their craft.
The field of adult education acquired a unique identity when Malcolm Knowles popularized the term “andragogy” in the United States—a term Knowles borrowed from Europe to describe the way adults learn in contrast to pedagogy, or the way children learn (Henschke, 2009). Andragogy is based on the assumptions that, as adults mature:
Their self–concept moves from dependence to independence They accumulate a growing reservoir of experience as a rich resource for learning Their readiness to learn is catalyzed by developmental tasks of social roles They are most interested in learning that has immediate relevancy to their lives Their learning is problem–centered Their motivation to learn is intrinsic (Knowles, 1984:12).
Knowles may have exaggerated the differences between teaching adults vs. teaching children, and in later years, Knowles recanted this position. Educational theories and practices have also changed over time. So while there may be a number of practices more common in—or even exclusive to—the teaching of adults, most educational practices can be found in classrooms across the lifespan.
Knowles built on the work of Eduard Lindemann, Kurt Lewin (1948), and the group–dynamics tradition of the National Training Laboratories, and was greatly influenced by the student–centered theories of Carl Rogers (1961, 1969). Rogers’ humanistic discussion of goals for the field included the need for adults to “understand their society and … be skillful in directing social change” (Knowles, 1950, p. 10, as cited by www.infed.org).
AE has moved beyond andragogy, which is, in many ways, a modern (as opposed to a post–modern) understanding of how adults learn. Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) outline research and theories that have most guided the study of adult learning over the past several decades: learning from experience, self–directed learning, and transformative learning. They further discuss adult development, a growing specialty in developmental psychology, that informs how the field understands an individual's learning preferences and capacity; as well as cognitive science that has vastly increased our understanding of how the brain works. However, although the field of study has advanced beyond andragogy, it remains focused primarily on individual learning and development—be that the acquisition of basic skills, participation in higher or continuing education, lifelong learning, workplace training, or professional development.
Professionalization of the Field
Questions can be raised about whether the field of adult education has a truly unique body of knowledge that distinguishes it as a profession. To be a discipline is to offer a unique way of knowing, or as Phenix (1964) said, a realm of meaning. Similarly Houle (1981) outlined the elements essential to a profession, most notably a common body of knowledge. Adult educators borrow from a number of fields and disciplines. It may be more accurate to say that adult education is part of the broader educating professions. Adult educators often earn degrees in this field only after they have worked in various fields and find themselves teaching adults, i.e., such practice constitutes a post hoc discovery that their professional work also qualifies as adult education (Merriam & Brockett, 2011). Under these conditions, it is difficult to argue that AE is a unique body of professional knowledge.
Moreover, with no professional licensure requirements—as there are in K–12 teaching—and no unique ownership of the scholarship and theories about the learning and development of adults, adult education as a field of study and practice has become the umbrella term for a large number of diverse educational activities directed at adults. This breadth is reflected in the vision and mission statements of the largest U.S. based adult education professional association, the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE), as captured on their website (www.aaace.org, downloaded 071513):
[The AAACE] … is dedicated to the belief that lifelong learning contributes to human fulfillment and positive social change. We envision a more humane world made possible by the diverse practice of our members in helping adults acquire the knowledge, skills and values needed to lead productive and satisfying lives. The mission of the …. [AAACE] is to provide leadership for the field of adult and continuing education by expanding opportunities for adult growth and development; unifying adult educators; fostering the development and dissemination of theory, research, information, and best practices; promoting identity and standards for the profession; and advocating relevant public policy and social change initiatives. (www.aaace.org)
For many in adult education, human resource development is seen as a sub–field—an area of practice focused on the workplace learning needs of adults and one component of adult education that the professional association hopes to unify. Adult learning occurs wherever and whenever adults learn—irrespective of the source—and, thus, obviously must include vocational or workplace learning. What the adult educator does is to design instruction with the needs of adult learners in mind. However, for others, HRD is not purely adult education—because it also serves organizational needs. The HRD professional designs learning but may also redesign work, build learning infrastructures, and help communicate and shape a learning culture.
Human Resource Development as a Field of Practice and Study
Early roots of HRD can be found in the federally funded Training Within Industry [TWI] project led by Channing Dooley. Dooley helped ready an unprepared workforce of older individuals, women, and minorities to support our national defense in World War II. Dooley (1945, 2001) wrote:
We all want to meet the demands of war—maximum production through best use of our facilities and talents. But we can also build for the future in meeting the present challenge. The training we give the worker to do a good job now for war production can be more than an expedient means of getting the job done. It can be suitable to the individual and in line with his native talent and aspiration. Then it becomes education because the worker placed in the line of work he desires, and trained in accordance with his talent and aspiration, is a growing individual—mentally, morally, and spiritually, as well as technically. Training done from this point of view promotes production now and builds better citizens for a greater national stability afterwards. National strength may be increased without limit by education that builds men. A nation of strong men may multiply its strength many fold by organization of its manpower into an effective team driving to achieve a common goal. Education and organization are thus the tools with which America must shape her destiny. (Dooley, 1945, pp. 128–129)
Dooley's views blend the humanistic aims of Lindemann and the utilitarian or vocational aims essential to the war effort. The social good was still preeminent, but via a clear focus on job–related learning for war production. Dooley also developed a model of instruction that was very similar to the plan, do, check, act learning process in some quality programs. His model asked supervisors to prepare the work, present the operation (tell, show, and illustrate), then have the worker perform the operation—explaining each key point, and then follow– up [check on his or her performance” (Ibid., pp. 158–159). Dooley's project used both professional vocational educators and managers to deliver the instruction. The focus of the TWI project was the defense industry labor force.
This early work reflects a dominating focus on performance and organization in human resource development that is often ignored or problematized in adult education literature. Thus, subsequently, Swanson (1995) defined human resource development as “a process of developing and/or unleashing human expertise through organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of improving performance” (p. 208). This definition signaled a shift from the humanistic aims of adult education to the organizationally defined aims of HRD.
In 1943, fifteen corporate training directors, primarily from the petroleum industry, formed a professional association, the American Society for Training Directors (ASTD) (Fyfe, 2013). ASTD has had a significant role in defining the field of human resource development, particularly through competency studies. Defining the field as a set of roles—initially training, career development and organization development—ASTD sought to capture skills and knowledge essential to these functions. McLagan (1983), who carried out many of these HRD competency studies, described a Human Resource Wheel that encompassed personnel research and information systems; human resource planning, selection, and staffing; compensation and benefits; employee assistance; union/labor relations; organization and job design; organization development; and training and development. McGuire (2011), in reviewing definitions and foundations of HRD, confirms the disciplinary origins of HRD in the 1980s and McLagan's Human Resource Wheel. ASTD's mission and vision for training and development are succinct and demonstrate the simultaneously narrow focus on knowledge and skills and broad focus on global welfare (http://www.astd.org/About/Mission–and–Vision):
Mission – Empower professionals to develop knowledge & skills successfully. Vision – Create a world that works better.
HRD thus moved beyond training and development to encompass an array of needs for preparing, recruiting, developing, supporting, and terminating employees and professionals within organizations of all kinds, both profit and nonprofit. HRD shares some of these foci with a sister field, Human Resources Management (HRM). HRD engaged with other disciplines and practitioners that framed learning in terms of productivity and performance roles and needs. Scholars of HRD developed a focused research agenda, concentrating on what practitioners would need across a career that was highly likely to include work—initially in personnel and training functions, moving later to executive coaching, consultation, and organization development. In organization development, many of the humanistic concerns of AE again find expression, but with focus on human systems, not individuals. The professional organization for organization development, Organization Development Network [ODN], also offers a straightforward, uplifting vision (http://www.odnetwork.org/): Organization Development is a field central to creating effective and healthy human systems in an inclusive world community.
Marsick and Watkins (1990) moved beyond a sole focus on structured training when they examined the role of informal and incidental learning in HRD. Based on the ASTD competency studies, they estimated that much learning at work—as much as 70–80%—must be informal and incidental; and yet the roles and competencies envisioned had all centered on the formal educational and training functions. Their further examination of informal and incidental learning within whole systems led Watkins (1989) to describe HRD as “the field of study and practice responsible for fostering a long–term, work–related learning capacity at the individual, group, and organizational level of organizations” (p. 427).
Watkins (1989), working from an organization development perspective of the field, sought to emphasize the development of individual and organizational capacity to learn as a central, over–arching function of human resource development essential to ensuring the long–term viability of the enterprise. This stance led Watkins and Marsick to explore how organizations could facilitate the ubiquitous learning required to enable continuous learning and improvement. Their research led to the idea that, to sustain competitiveness and to learn continuously, organizations had to become “learning organizations”—to create a learning culture (Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). As with the earlier focus of Dooley and Swanson on workplace, job–related and vocational training, this position again moves HRD beyond the traditional concerns of adult education primarily for individual learners, and additionally focuses on organizations as a context and locus of learning—learning in other words both by the organization and by its members—and stresses the culture and infrastructure that is supportive of that learning.
Overlap and Disparity between the Fields of AE and HRD
While AE and HRD have grown in different directions—based on their historical roots, purposes, stakeholder beliefs and interests, knowledge and skill base—they clearly also overlap.
Overlap between AE and HRD
AE's roots grow out of the tension between individual growth and socio–economic advancement in ways that pit the field against that of HRD because the latter originates in organizations that are often cast as “the enemy” of the people. Indeed, as Habermas (Finlayson, 2005) explains, there is a tension that can never be resolved between “the system, ” that is core to the essence of organizations, and the “life–world,” or the holistic experiences of people from which life's meaning is constructed. Both AE and HRD seek learning that advances the ability of individuals to improve and progress, but HRD links individual growth to the organization's needs, and, as such, intensifies this tension for adult educators working in HRD. Tensions exist for adult educators working in other systems, too, but the nature of the confrontation differs. One area of overlap in the two fields’ roots is a common interest in training and development—which serves the purpose of individual growth (through both humanistic and behavioral or performance lenses) while also benefitting society (progressive lens) and organizations (social psychology and economic lenses).
Both fields also share roots in some of the knowledge and skill bases that inform them. Despite differences, both rest on helping adults learn. Adult learning theory has thus been one of several influences on the development and practice of both AE and HRD, especially in the way both have embraced Malcolm Knowles’ elaboration of andragogy—so much so that two HRD scholars, Swanson and Holton, co–authored a posthumous edition of Knowles’ The Adult Learner (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2011). The Academy of Human Resource Development offers an annual outstanding dissertation award named after Knowles. Knowles's practical advice about how adults learn differently than children helped workplace trainers design courses that met practical needs captured in behavioral objectives.
Both fields increasingly share, as well, a growing interest in constructivism propelled by the shift from industrial–era manufacturing to knowledge work. Factories spurred humanist interests in protecting workers who labored long hours for little pay under sub–human conditions. The human relations focus of much of early organization development work was a response to such conditions.
Knowledge work, by contrast, has seen a fall in labor union strength and a concomitant rise in better pay and working conditions for many, though not all. Power dynamics preoccupy AE as a field more than HRD, yet learning theory in both fields accepts the idea that meaning and knowledge are co–created. This constructivist view opens the door to a greater focus on participatory decision making and knowledge management in HRD, which AE also favors, in order for systems to maximally leverage everyone's contributions to improved productivity at work. Employees who are more highly educated have values, training, skills and goals more similar to those embraced by independent professionals who often decide for themselves what, when, and how to perform because their work requires a greater degree of judgment and customization in regard to the people, tasks, and situation at hand. Understanding how these individuals make decisions, and how they reason about their work, enables workplace educators to design learning opportunities more appropriate to employees’ work and individual capacities.
Knowles based his views, in part, on the discipline of adult development psychology, which is also reflected in workplace learning. Adult development has roots in individual growth, but several prominent scholars in this field (e.g., Kegan & Lahey, 2009; McGuire & Rhodes, 2009; Torbert, 2004) have interpreted maturation in terms of a focus on the interaction of the individual and his/her environment—as did Kurt Lewin (1936) who developed an heuristic for learning or behavior change as a result of the interaction of learners and their phenomenological context: “B = f (P, E)” [Behavior is a Function of the interaction between a Person and his/her Environment].
Another area in which adult education and human resource development strongly correlate is in the broader international and national visions of the field. For example, in 1972, UNESCO called on us in, “Learning to Be: the World of Education Today and Tomorrow” (Faure, 1972), to view learning and education as lifelong and life–wide. In recent years, UNESCO's Task Force on Education for the Twenty–first Century has updated its assessment of the basis of education throughout life, concluding that it encompasses “learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be” (www.unesco.org/delors). In a parallel vein, Yang (2004) notes that National HRD approaches call for a continuous learning system across the life span for the development of the nation's human capital—its manpower development. Federal funding in the U.S. has focused on outlays for literacy, job training, and manpower development of youth, the unemployed, veterans, etc. (Yang, 2004).
Disparity between AE and HRD
Some differences between AE and HRD continue, which is not surprising given their different backgrounds, purposes, and stakeholder interests.
As noted, HRD is highly influenced by economic interests and theories of human performance. While focused on how adults learn, HRD has always, and necessarily, been shaped by the goals and needs of the organization as much as—or usually more than—those of the individual. People at work learn because they have a contract with the organization to meet its goals. This contract has been variously interpreted, in part because of industry–wide economic and marketplace needs, and in part by the founding beliefs and cultures of any given organization.
Adult education, by contrast, has continued to focus primarily on the individual—against the backdrop of larger societal concerns. Some adult educators do concern themselves with work–related knowledge and skills; but others focus their attention on unpaid or volunteer work interests, hobbies and life interests, continuing education, and struggles for improvement in societies where powerful forces often make it difficult to gain access to opportunities, resources, education, livelihoods, and fulfillment—no matter one's race, gender, social or economic status, and country of origin.
Both AE and HRD have opened themselves to the influences of today's global society. However, HRD typically examines globalization in instrumental terms: how can organizational staff best be prepared so that global conditions can be harnessed, leveraged, managed, and used for productivity and profit? Adult education's concerns for human growth and development in the global organizational context are often reflected in a growing study and understanding of diversity and its values for a healthy workforce—as well as with other broad societal concerns.
AE has kept up with some of the more instrumental facets of globalization, but historically, its concern for all members of society, and development of their fully–rounded human potential, has often led to a post–modern emphasis on exclusion/inclusion, power dynamics, and the dark side of powerful societal forces (Merriam, Courtenay, & Cervero, 2006; Sheared & Sissel, 2001). Magnified by globalization, these concerns work to orient AE predominantly toward overcoming the societal mechanisms that favor the haves at the expense of the have–nots. Adult education has always been concerned with those at the margins and often the oppressed; in the last decade, this emphasis has intensified.
Clarifying the relationship between AE and HRD
Yang (2004) identified four stances in the literature vis–à–vis the relationship between these two areas of study and practice. In the first, there is no relationship between the two entities; they are simply different fields. In the second, HRD is a sub–set of adult education. This position emanates primarily from the view that adult education encompasses any planned instruction of adults in any context. The third view grows out of Yang's interpretation of national HRD perspectives that conceptualize AE as a sub–set of HRD. This argument sees HRD as the field focused on lifelong learning across the lifespan—and thus adult education is but one facet of this multi–tiered system. Yang's final literature stance is similar to that of Rocco and Smith (2006)– that the two fields are separate, but with some overlapping theories and contexts—and thus, there are potential synergies that can grow out of embracing this relationship.
Our own view is similar to this last in that, within both disciplines, we see overlapping interests, theories, and fields of practice. This may be because we, ourselves, work from both adult education and organization development paradigms. We believe that learning and change are the fundamental focus of both fields—and that in both, a driving force is the intention to empower people and systems to expand their capacities and horizons in ways that benefit individuals and the systems of which they are a part. The underlying belief is that these enhancements will exert a constructive influence on society as a whole.
Ours is a liberal–humanist–progressive view primarily growing out of the thinking of Dewey (1938, Lewin (1948, Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978), Mezirow (1991), and Schön (1983). Our work has more in common with adult education than with vocational education; yet we also embrace a whole–system learning and change perspective that has more in common with the disciplines of organizational behavior and psychology than AE's roots in philosophy and sociology.
We also wonder about the future of AE and HRD as linked fields of study and practice. Given that many HRD academic programs reside within and alongside adult education programs, the joint evolution of theories and models may have been inevitable. However, more and more adult education programs have disappeared as separate entities (Milton, Watkins, Studdard, & Burch, 2003) while adult development and learning have grown as specialized interests within many different practice areas, for example, continuing education and patient education in the health sciences, or professional development of teachers and school leaders. Federal funding for adult education research and practice has diminished; and many human resource development programs have moved to academic homes in educational leadership or business. It is possible that the organizational behavior and economics theories now more common in HRD than AE will drive a greater separation between the two fields. Surviving programs in AE may continue to draw more heavily on psychological connections to adult development and learning theory and to sociological theories of power and influence, again increasing a philosophical and disciplinary divide.
Conclusion
What leads some scholars of AE to routinely argue that HRD is not part of AE? And, vice–versa? We conclude with three ways of looking at this relationship: through the lens of the complex context of practice, the metaphor of the big tent, and questions associated with philosophical differences, e.g., a focus on the disenfranchised learner, the disempowered and marginalized in AE vs. the professional elite and the management classes in HRD.
Complex Context of Practice
A colleague and Watkins were trying to envision an ideal Ph. D. program in AE/HRD, and realized that their ideal programs were targeted to such different people that it was extremely difficult to find common ground. In today's postmodern world, context matters a great deal to how learners understand, make meaning from their experiences, and act in environments that are themselves differentially constrained or resourced. This often leads to great differences in how educators facilitate learning despite the fact that they might be working from common theory bases—often combined with ideas taken from other disciplines and practices that seem to bear on the situation at hand. It was not that Watkins and her colleague saw the core discipline requirements differently—but rather that how each planned to deliver the program would thus be impacted by the learner's context and the skills required to teach in that context. One approach favored distance education, and the other proposed a blended approach with longer times in residence requiring time off from work, additional funding, etc. What each may take for granted about the needs of learners—from non–profit literacy workers to for–profit human resource developers—is that each needs an understanding of how context affects requisite capabilities and preferences. Situational factors shape how people learn and practice. They might also take for granted the nature of the systems in which those learners must function, or whether and how these systems change. How education takes place when the learning is offered in the jungle with hewn logs as classroom seats vs. the high technology–enabled corporate training setting requires application of theory that accounts for these differences. Both contexts require substantial adaptive capacity and unique pedagogical skills.
Ultimately, the contextual influences on the two fields are so complex and multidisciplinary in practice that arguments about differences that are so important to scholars may truly seem—or operationally be— specious to practitioners. When facing a challenging AE/HRD task, what is often needed is multidisciplinary collaboration drawing on what many fields have to offer, conceptually and practically. For a person in a position charged with providing safety training to everyone at his/her site, the philosophy behind the training program may feel less important than logistical issues of cost, scale, speed, and complexity. However, whether one is providing literacy training, corporate leadership development, or training in environmental advocacy, a good grasp of how individuals learn, how to design an effective learning event, and how the system or context evolves and impacts the learner are critical—and hence, both AE and HRD fields share some common ground. Likewise, as AE would point out, practitioners cannot ignore power dynamics and societal influences that shape learners in any context and that can either facilitate or constrain their agency, identity, and ability to act in ways consistent with what theory advocates.
Metaphor of the Big Tent
It is compelling—and as Welton (2010) pointed out, perhaps naïve—to look back to a time when AE had a large enough tent to encompass adult educators in whatever context they worked—not only in HRD, but also in higher education, museums, libraries, and many others settings in which adults learn. Today, HRD has a large tent, encompassing a vast array of roles, drawing on theories of learning, performance, organizational behavior, and beyond. Large tents are effective in sheltering many different interests; but to do so, the groups within the tent need to be able to see and value both their commonalties and each other's unique views. These capabilities are much needed today, in fact, because so many of the problems that AE and HRD practitioners face are complex and unsolvable without collaboration and integration of diverse perspectives.
When we first came into this academic field, the same debate posed in this article was actively argued. Is HRD part of adult education? In fact, the authors of this article met at a Commission of Professors of Adult Education conference where Jack Mezirow and Leonard Nadler debated whether or not HRD was a legitimate part of the field of adult education; and we have been writing together ever since in the conviction that the two practice areas are logically intertwined. Our writing spans both fields and we show up in handbooks of both adult education and human resource development. For us, theories from both fields have enriched our thinking; and we think theories from each synergistically enrich practice as well. Yet arguments about this question do—and will—persist. And, the former sense of inclusion in the large tent that existed early on in AE is no longer present or as strong as it was in the field's early days. In fact, though we both came into a field of adult education that included HRD, increasingly we find ourselves in the field of HRD with interests that bridge to AE. We no longer believe, as we once did, that HRD is on the margins of AE (Bierema, Cseh, Ellinger, Ruona, and Watkins, 2001).
Philosophical Differences
The argument that “HRD is not AE“ is not, we suspect, about the nature of the work or our shared theories, but about the stereotypes and associations some have with HRD as a tool of management [See Cunningham (1993) on preparing workers to “sleep with the enemy”] and with corporate hiring practices that leave many under and unemployed. There is an increasing gap between the haves and the have–nots in the U. S.—making us now among the worst among developed countries on many social indicators (Weissmann, 2013). Given this gap—and the identification of AE with the vast numbers of people disenfranchised by personal and corporate greed, globalization, and government, and non–governmental organization economic policies that favor the rich—it is perhaps not surprising that the role of HRD in helping to ensure and magnify corporate profits through improved worker performance will continue to distress many adult educators. We agree this is a social context that demands stringent critique—although we also think the issues are much larger than our two academic fields encompass. We know human resource developers are often the very people opposing practices that dehumanize people or threaten livelihoods in their organizations. We do not agree with Hatcher and Bowles (2006) who propose that critical theory is the philosophical bridge that will blend AE and HRD and address these nagging issues. If AE and HRD are to come together, let it be to serve practice, with both groups drawing on and generating the theories that help illuminate the problems individuals and human systems face, rather than one group adopting theory dominant in the literature of the other.
Perhaps problems of inclusion and exclusion persist because there is a root cause that cannot be, or at least has not yet been, resolved that lies in the beliefs that some scholars of AE and of HRD embrace. Beyond the theoretical and historical underpinnings of both fields is this much more fundamental gap—that we are aligned along a continuum between different sides of an enormous and enduring struggle between, essentially, “the System” and “the Life–world.” It is not that this tension does not exist, but does it have to split adult educators onto each side of the AE/HRD fence? Or can scholars on both sides, as do practitioners who help adults learn, work more closely together to face the challenges of our troubled world? We hope answers will be found and solutions put in place because—like Knowles’ aspiration in the earlier days of the growth of the field of adult education—we conclude that now, perhaps more than ever:
“Our fate rests with the intelligence, skill, and good will of those who are now the citizen–rulers. The instrument by which their abilities as citizen–rulers can be improved is adult education. This is our problem. This is our challenge.” (Knowles, 1950, p. 10)