Dominance, Power, Resistance, and Context: How Critical HRD is Conceptualized and Engaged

Abstract: Through a semi-structured series of interviews with nine critical HRD scholars (with varying backgrounds and focus areas at varying stages of their career); this qualitative study examines how these leading critical HRD scholars perceive their work, including ideas of what makes critical HRD actually ‘critical,’ as well as critical HRD’s historical and contemporary progression. We also explore critical HRD’s impact within the greater whole of the field of HRD, and discuss congruences and tensions within the field while focusing two research questions: (RQ1) how is critical HRD conceptualized within our contemporary sociopolitical landscape, and (RQ2) how is the theory and practice of critical HRD engaged? Findings include information related to critical HRD scholars’ focus on identity and difference; power, dominance, and the idea of resistance; and societal and global context. Further findings are troubled by how critical HRD is actualized both within the field and within the academy, with some participants inquiring if “critical HRD even exists” outside the academy. This paper uncovers deep divides between what HRD practitioners hope to achieve and the actual implementation of critical HRD practices. Teaching and scholarship as practices of engagement are discussed, as are our participants interactions with these modalities, and limitations and implications for future work.

Keywords: critical HRD, theory and practice, teaching and scholarship