sustaining critically reflective practitioners: competing with the dominant discourse

International Journal of Training and Development 10:1ISSN 1360-3736

© 2006 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.

30

International Journal of Training and Development

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USAIJTDInternational Journal of Training and Development1360-3736Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20052005

10

13040Articles

Sustaining critically reflective

practitionersInternational Journal of Training and Development

r

Aileen Corley, Senior Lecturer in HRM, Human Resource Management Group, Liverpool JohnMoores University, UK. Email: [email protected]. Elaine Eades, Program Director HRM, TheUniversity of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool, UK. Email: [email protected]

Sustaining critically reflective practitioners:

competing with the dominant discourse

Aileen Corley and Elaine Eades

This article argues that discourse analysis can be utilized inconjunction with other forms of analysis to develop a morecritical teaching and research agenda for Human ResourceDevelopment (HRD); in particular this article suggests thatthe introduction of a discourse analysis perspective can sup-port and facilitate the development of critically reflectivepractitioners. The article highlights the tensions inherentwithin competing definitions of HRD and calls attention to thepower of dominant discourse and argues that HRD needs tobecome more critical, opening up alternative discourses inorder to support learning and critically reflective practice.

Introduction

Critically reflecting on practice is a central feature of critical perspectives on manage-ment education (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Willmott, 1994; Reynolds, 1998). Theseperspectives are underpinned by an emancipatory agenda and offer a vision of a fairerand more just society. However, the language of critical education challenges theperformative language of New Higher Education (NHE), (Winter, 1991) and competeswith other discourses within management and management learning (Fairclough andHardy, 1997).

Within this article we highlight competing discourses which exist within HumanResource Development (HRD): performance and learning. We discuss the dominanceof a performance discourse and problematise the concept that communities of practice(Wenger 2000: 236) can develop: ‘a common language that allows people to commu-nicate and negotiate meanings across boundaries’.

Sustaining critically reflective practitioners

31

© 2006 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Human resource development

In its relatively short-lived history as a field of study in the UK, it seems that HumanResource Development (HRD) has become more, rather than less, difficult to pindown. Indeed the ‘holographic’ metaphor ascribed by Keenoy and Anthony (1992)in a derogatory sense to Human Resource Management was happily co-opted byMcGoldrick

et al

. (2001, p. 350) to enable ‘the reconciliation of intrinsic confusions andthe contradictions of conceptual, theoretical and empirical identities of HRD to beunderstood’. With its ‘complex interdisciplinary base, developed differentially acrosscountries, workplaces and in academia (Harrison & Kessels, 2004, p. 84), the field couldbe seen to be steeped in confusion. This ‘disorderly history’ (Gold

et al

., 2003), com-bined with the unwillingness or inability of academics and practitioners to agree to adefinition can, depending on one’s point of view, be viewed as a sign of the field’spotential strength or weakness. For Lee (2001, pp. 327–41), the ‘refusal to define’ wasjustified on philosophical, theoretical, professional and practical grounds. For Kessels(2001, p. 389) to attempt specific definitions of HRD is to ‘establish boundaries andexclude – it is useless and stops progression’. For McLean and McLean (2001) a global,and ambiguous definition is necessary. For Gold

et al

. (2003), the lack of a tangibledefinition delays the ‘professionalizing’ of HRD, while Elliott and Turnbull (2003)regard the pursuit of professionalization of HRD by defining, and creating barriers to,the field as a diversion.

In the USA, where the field has a longer history, and a stronger economics influence,the inclusion of ‘improving performance’ to definitions is more likely than in the UK.In the UK, as in this article, support has developed for the view of HRD as concernedwith understanding and enhancing individual and organizational learning. Socialconstructionist perspectives (Holman

et al

., 1997) have informed the debates andincreased attention has been drawn to the social and conversational aspects of learning(Pavlica

et al

., 1998). The idea that learning can be ‘conceived as encounter with newdiscourse: an engagement with new discursive resources and practices’ (Rigg &Trehan, 2004, p. 392) provides support for those who argue that HRD is concernedwith learning, and draws attention to the language or discursive resources managerscan use.

With regard to the perceived purpose of HRD, different discourses exist, with‘performance’ and ‘learning’ orientations as the two main alternatives. The‘learning’ discourse is based on building individual capacities and creating anenvironment or culture where learning can be facilitated and supported. The‘performance’ discourse relates to unleashing expertise and potential for the pur-pose of improving individual capabilities, leading to improved performance for theorganization or system. Harrison and Kessels argue that the knowledge economy‘calls not for an opposition but an integration of the performance-learning perspec-tives’ (2004, p. 87).

This article examines the extent to which the discourses of learning and performancecan coexist.

• Can a program that aims to develop critically reflective practitioners support thequestioning of the performance-learning discourse?

• Can practitioners learn to operate effectively and utilize both discourses?

These questions have surfaced from our reflections of practice; we are writing frompractice to theory (Pedler, 2001) in order to learn how we might improve practice. Inthis sense we are acting as ‘practical authors’ (Shotter, 1993). We are attempting topractice what we preach by critically reflecting on our practice and our espousedvalues, engaging in reflexive dialogical practice (Cunliffe, 2002).

Research history

This article draws on data generated for doctoral research; the initial focus of theresearch was to explore and enhance participants’ ability to develop accounts of

32



‘added value’ as they experienced master’s level education. The data has been gener-ated over a four-year period and a case study program has provided the ‘close-up’(Pritchard & Trowler, 2003) data for this article.

Close-up research arises from the concerns and daily practice of practitioners. A‘concern’ which brought us together as ‘researcher–participants’ was the need toredesign and defend a ‘top-up’ master’s program, an MA in Strategic HumanResources (HR). This pragmatic need provided an opportunity and created a spacewhere we could reflect on, attempt to articulate and share our expectations regard-ing master’s education. During the research we have on various occasions taken therole of: total participants, researcher–participants and total researchers (Gans, 1968).We have been influenced by the ideas of critical management theorists andarguments advocating a critical approach to management education (Alvesson &Willmott, 1992; Reynolds, 1998; Willmott, 1994). In particular Michael Reynolds’assertion that:

The aim of management education [. . .] should not be to fit people into institutions as theycurrently exist, but to encourage them in questioning and confronting the social and political forceswhich provide the context of their work, and in questioning claims of (common sense) or (the waythings should be done) (Reynolds, 1998, p. 198).

As key members of the program team we believed that the above statement repre-sented an ideal and a series of interventions were planned and evolved to achieve thisideal. These interventions required the program team to continuously question andenable questioning of their own practice, striving to make explicit implicit academicknowledge in an attempt to develop a shared language and facilitate the developmentof shared understandings (Corley & Eades, 2004).

Close-up research ‘appreciates the complex, culturally and historically specific char-acter of human practice as it is lived out . . .’ (Pritchard & Trowler, 2003, p. xv). Thecase study program which acted as the initial ‘concern’ for the research had a programteam of three, us and a third colleague who has now retired. Issues have continued toevolve and we no longer teach in the same institution; we have ‘lived out’ the expe-rience of attempting to maintain and develop our practice within new ‘social learningsystems and communities of practice’ (Wenger, 2000). These experiences have requiredthat we ‘publicly perform’ (Buchanan & Boddy, 1992), utilizing the performativediscourse of New Higher Education (NHE) (Winter, 1991). We have engaged in ‘publicperformance: following the rational and legitimating script’ while ‘backstaging: inter-vening in political and cultural systems [. . .] managing meaning’ (Buchanan & Boddy,1992, p. 27). These experiences have brought into sharp focus the problematic natureof sustaining shared understandings and language within a ‘community of practice’.In particular we have become more sensitized to the problematic nature of sharing alanguage and of the social and political forces that sustain and protect dominantperformative discourses.

Dominant discourses

Trowler (2001) critiques NHE discourse and cautiously argues that the impact of thisdiscourse on organizational practices is mitigated as it is read, that academics are not‘captured’ by this discourse. This view is supported by Gewirtz

et al

. (1995, cited byMorley, 2003). Gewirtz

et al

. (1995) have named the process of educationalists negoti-ating two or more sets of values and cultures as ‘bilingualism’, arguing that differentdiscourses are invoked in appropriate contexts to represent different values and pri-orities. However, Morley (2003) cautions that ‘performance and ventriloquism’ cancreate dissonance and alienation.

Wenger (2000, p. 236) describes discourses as: ‘A critical boundary object [. . .] acommon language that allows people to communicate and negotiate meanings acrossboundaries’. This suggests that ‘communities of practice’ can develop shared under-standings and a shared language. However, can a ‘community’ sustain differentdiscourses?


33


Contu and Willmott (2000, p. 273) suggest that Wenger ignores the power relation-ships inherent in organizations. They argue that:

in ‘communities of practice and social learning systems’ we encounter an unacknowledged shiftor slippage from an earlier representation of learning as praxis fashioned within a discourse ofcritique to a formulation of learning as technology conceived within a discourse of regulation andperformance.

This would suggest that a ‘community’ could unknowingly be influenced by thedominant performative discourse at the expense of the espoused learning discourse.The ‘delicate flower’ of learning loses out when competing with performative rivalssuch as ‘models of good practice’ that can be more readily packaged into sets ofprescriptions and programs. Can we sustain this ‘delicate flower’? Can introducingcourse participants to critical perspectives help?

Reflective accounts of the challenges involved in implementing a critical curriculum(Hagen

et al

., 2003; Rigg & Trehan, 2004) have provided additional insight into thecontradictions and tensions involved when engaging with a critical curriculum. Thisarticle contributes our reflections on these tensions, in particular the difficultiesinvolved in extending and sustaining a critical approach to education when thedominant discourse appears unchallenged and unchallengeable.

This article is the outcome of us practising what we preach, reflecting on ourexperiences and ‘sensemaking’ (Weick, 1995). We have produced this article by explor-ing each other’s material and questioning each other’s interpretations. This accounthas been co-generated by us and questions some of our initial assumptions andpractices.

Research context – the case-study program

The MA in Strategic HR was designed to offer a vehicle for the continuing professionaldevelopment of HRD and HR practitioners. The program was a ‘top-up’ masters andentrants to the program held a relevant postgraduate diploma and had experience atmanagement level. These senior practitioners attended part-time and the majority tooka year to complete the qualification. The focus was on a process radical pedagogy withsome elements of a content radical pedagogy (Reynolds, 1997).

Radical content was introduced during the induction to the program, in particularideas from social constructionist perspectives on learning (Sambrook & Stewart, 1998;Stewart, 1999) which challenged more dominant individual performance perspectives.We emphasized the concept of the critically reflective practitioner (Reynolds, 1998) andfour characteristics of critical reflection were discussed: (1) concerned with questioningassumptions; (2) focus is social rather than individual; (3) pays particular attention tothe analysis of power relations; and (4) concerned with emancipation. The extent towhich practitioners embraced these characteristics and the extent to which they con-tinued to access ‘radical content’ varied depending on the topic of their dissertation,the perceived availability and accessibility of critical material, and their personalvalues and interests. This will be discussed further in the final section.

Participative learning methods, compatible with a content radical pedagogy, wereemphasized throughout the program and action-learning sets were utilized to supportthe dissertation stage. Participants were required to complete three assessments: aconsultancy report, a research proposal and a dissertation. The first two were smallerpieces of work designed as preparation for the final dissertation. All the assessmentswere work-based, requiring the course participants to critically engage with and applytheory to work problems or issues. Participants were also required to produce reflec-tive learning accounts after they had submitted an assessment. These accounts weremarked as a ‘pass’ or ‘not yet competent’ in order to minimize the tendency forparticipants to produce ‘pleasing’ accounts. The intention was to support the devel-opment of critical reflection by providing an opportunity for reflective dialogue as we(academics and participants) proceeded on the master’s journey, striving to becomecritically reflective practitioners.

34



Critically reflective practice

The data presented below is taken from the final ‘cathartic’ individual interview. At thisstage of the master’s journey participants had completed their dissertation and wereprovided with a final opportunity to talk about and ‘make sense’ of their experienceson the master’s program, prior to completing a final written reflective account. The‘interview’ was optional and was not assessed. The final written reflective account wasproduced within a week of the individual interview. Conversations were tape-recordedand later transcribed; participants were provided with copies of the tape recording andthe transcript. A follow-up contact was made to ensure that participants were com-fortable with the accuracy of the transcript and that they confirm consent for their datato be utilized for doctoral research and potential publication. We have changed thenames of individuals and their employing organization to provide anonymity.

We have utilized the four characteristics of critical reflection: concerned with ques-tioning assumptions; focus is social rather than individual; pays particular attentionto the analysis of power relations; concerned with emancipation as a heuristic deviceto illuminate our research questions:

• Can learning to be critically reflective practitioners support the questioning of theperformance-learning perspective?


Two cases are presented here; course participants who have evidenced characteristicsof critical reflection but with different outcomes. They have been given thepseudonyms Amy and Beth.

Amy’s journey

Amy achieved a distinction in her dissertation and we would consider that she evi-denced many of the characteristics of a critically reflective practitioner. However,Amy’s journey was not a comfortable one as illustrated by this account. She speaks ofpersonal learning, but also disenchantment and finally disengagement with theemploying organization. This is how Amy ‘made sense’ of her master’s journey.

Amy refers to a critical incident during one of the action learning sets when herquestioning of the organization was reprimanded by another member of her set, asenior colleague from the same organization.

Concerned with questioning assumptions

Amy: The incident in the action learning set. What it showed to me was there is a massive dividebetween the two cultures of the ‘organization’ and the support staff and not everybody will takethis view, but some prominent people will take the view that support staff are second-class almostand that any critical questioning particularly with support staff is viewed as criticism. The indi-vidual involved said ‘you are either with us or against us and the critical questioning says you areagainst us’. I don’t see that as being what feedback and questioning is about, I don’t see it ascriticism but as growing and developing and if we don’t start to do that then we retain thatarrogance as an organization, this then stops us from moving on and progressing meeting people’sneeds, which is what we espouse we are trying to do. For me the two things have been closelyconnected, it has given me a real live example of perhaps some of the attitudes within the organi-zation and that is why it was said ‘you are with us or against us, you question us but you don’tappear to toe the party line and to support the organization without questioning, then you areagainst us’. It was quite alarming really in some ways, the whole thing around the interaction fromthe action learning set. It’s given me a greater feeling of unsettlement and the relationship with theorganization is coming toward the end of its life cycle.

Amy reported that she had difficulty sustaining her questioning in work, she feltunable to engage in learning conversations at work. However, she expressed her beliefthat questioning was helpful in enabling people to see the ‘bigger picture’.

Focus is social

Amy: Most people I have come across do not consider the wider options and this course hasencouraged me to do even more of that, or not think that is the wrong thing to do. When you are


35


in that environment all the time where nobody else seems to be doing it you sometimes doubtwhether it is you who is being over sensitive or over critical or over analytical even, am I thinkingabout it too much? People in their little boxes doing only their little things, if you don’t get thatconnection and you don’t get people thinking in those broad terms in a shared vision [. . .] it doesnot consider the bigger picture. I think it has reaffirmed that by doing that is the right thing to doand it has encouraged me to carry on doing that more. To try and take action with some of thethings I come up with.

Amy became very aware of the value that powerful others placed on knowledge andthe dominance of a performance discourse at the expense of learning.

Power

Amy: This is par for the course in ‘this organization’, in one respect they want us to study but don’tmake good use of the results of the studies. It is classic because it’s what I have looked at in myDissertation, it is the task of giving somebody a development opportunity but not valuing theprocess or what that could bring to the organization. Once the funding has been given, thatdevelopment opportunity has got the tick in the box they don’t look at it again.

Amy identified the need for change and while expressing her desire to bring aboutchange in her own organization she felt unable to do so given her perceptions of theorganizations: unwillingness to question power differentials or taken-for-grantedassumptions; reluctance to engage in learning conversations and acceptance of thedominant performance discourse.

Emancipatory

Amy: In some ways it has made me feel undervalued where I am now because it has made mewant to do more but this is not possible were I am now, does that make sense?

Amy: If the organization’s values are in reality so different from your own and you see how peopleshould be treated and developed particularly, there comes a time when you need to be looking tomoving on and I feel I am at that stage now. I have known this for some time but the course hasreaffirmed that since and it has given me the confidence to see that you do not have to be tied tothe apron strings of this organization; you have skills to offer to another organization if it comesto that.

We suggest that Amy recognized the conflict between the performance and the learn-ing discourse, but found little support within her organization, or her action learningset, to question this discourse. However, she continued to question the discourse andpersevered with her questioning at set meetings. By the end of her master’s journeyAmy felt unable to integrate both perspectives within that organization. She has sinceleft the organization and has secured alternative employment.

Beth’s journey

Beth achieved a good pass in her dissertation and we would consider that she alsoevidenced many of the characteristics of a critically reflective practitioner. Beth’s jour-ney was a more comfortable one than Amy’s, as illustrated by this account. She speaksof personal learning and recognition from her employing organization. This is howBeth ‘made sense’ of her master’s journey.

Beth refers to opportunities which arose because she had informed people about herinterest in the topic and her master’s dissertation. She explains how the programprovided her with the knowledge to question some of the organization’s assumptions.

Concerned with questioning assumptions

Beth: I was reading about the new strategy for the ‘organization’ and I have been asked to commentto the head of the ‘organization’ about it as my role as Chair. I feel honored to have that opportunityand read through it. I am looking and questioning some of his data about how you get staff onboard, it’s not quite there, the words are but at the back of it; my research has told me thatperformance targets in the ‘organization’ are clearly causing us a problem. This is an opportunityto comment on that because the philosophy coming through is that we should have these targets,it is a good thing, but the stress it is causing is having a knock on effect on the morale within the‘organization’.

36



Unlike Amy, Beth found support for her questioning within the organization.

Focus is social

Beth: I have always been a confident person but I feel even more confident now, also withdebating things; last week I was debating something with one of our ‘directors’. We got on tothe subject of ‘my dissertation’, I discussed my research with him. I felt that he respected mesaying ‘I did not realize you were doing this’ and there was an acceptance of me from him aswell. We talked for over half an hour, it was amazing really, going on, he was sharing hisresearch that he had read and I discussed mine with him and I felt very confident to debate it. Ihave also found that in meetings with our director, I will say ‘I know you are getting excitedabout the statistics but, the response rates were this’, like a caution sitting on his shoulder withall this. I would never have done that before and going to the subgroup of the organizationwhich I go to now, I articulate better with the stats and the details, I seem to understand thingsbetter or look at it in a different way. I conceptualize and look at the bigger picture now and mylittle bit, I look at it globally, I feel very different and hopefully it will stride me on to mypromotion in my new role.

Beth recognized the conflict between the performative and learning discourses, butaccepted that she needed to work within the performative discourse.

Power

Beth: It is very difficult in the ‘organization’ as you are a mere mortal and it is making sure youare lobbying and you have a lobbying voice and the position that I have been given Chair of ‘thesubgroup’ is quite a useful link. I get more information from that source. Nationally, they ask meto feed back on it. I think that is all I can keep doing and I certainly will as I can send back a writtenpiece that I am preparing to say what I think is wrong with the strategy. It is good, some of theethos is really there, some of the stuff I would say about leadership, dignity everything is there butit is how they want to do it. We want a ‘top organization’; you have got to hit this target to improveworking lives. I think they should not have put the targets like that, they are good in themselvesbut be realistic twelve, eighteen months to achieve some of these things are not realistic and wehave not got the staff or money to do this and I think it is those things that go back to the basics.. . . We can only keep on lobbying.

Beth enhanced her ability to influence more effectively within the organization byestablishing opportunities to question taken-for-granted assumptions within learningconversations. She accepted the power of the dominant discourse and many of herrecommendations had already been implemented in the organization.

Emancipatory

Beth: I have been having discussions with the Director and he has asked me about being hisassistant or Deputy Director, which is what I have been doing for years, but never had the formalrecognition. He has asked me to write the job description.

We suggest that, like Amy, Beth recognized the conflict between the performance andthe learning discourse within her organization. She demonstrated the ability to ques-tion this discourse and found support for her questioning within the organization.However, unlike Amy, she was able to accept and work within the dominant perfor-mance discourse. Beth has since been promoted within the organization.

Discussion

We have utilized the four characteristics of critical reflection as a heuristic device toilluminate our research questions:

• Can learning to be critically reflective practitioners support the questioning of theperformance-learning perspective?


The extent to which practitioners embraced these characteristics and the extent towhich they continued to access ‘radical content’ varied depending on: the topic of theirdissertation, the perceived availability and accessibility of critical material and their


37


personal values and interests; the latter being the most important factor in influencingtheir choices.

We suggest that both participants evidenced, to varying extents, the characteristicsof critically reflective practitioners and demonstrated the ability to question the per-formance-learning discourse. Amy received little support for this questioning andexperienced conflict with colleagues and lost the sense of community. Brookfield (1994)explores this ‘sense of lost innocence’ and other potentially negative consequencesof introducing critical thinking into the education of professionals. However, Amy’sjourney also provides some evidence of personal transformation; the course, it wouldseem, acted as a catalyst bringing to the fore tensions and contradictions she wasalready aware of.

Amy: I have known this for some time but the course has reaffirmed that since and it has givenme the confidence to see that you do not have to be tied to the apron strings of this organization;you have skills to offer to another organization if it comes to that.

Beth appeared to question the performance discourse, engaging in conversations,about her research, with powerful others. However, unlike Amy, Beth accepted thedominant performance discourse and in doing so found a way where she could staywithin and contribute to the organization.

Beth: It is very difficult in the ‘organization’ as you are a mere mortal and it is making sure youare lobbying and you have a lobbying voice and the position that I have been given, Chair of ‘thesubgroup’ is quite a useful link. I get more information from that source. Nationally, they ask meto feed back on it.

Reynolds’ (1998, p. 192) has provided descriptions which broadly illustrate the differ-ences between ways of reflecting: technical, consensual and critical.

•

Technical

�

using knowledge instrumentally in order to control the environment;

�

context as the focus of action;

�

knowledge as dispassionate, objective, value-free; and

�

finding the most effective and efficient solutions to material and socialproblems.

•

Consensual

�

identifying the values and assumptions underlying action;

�

context as cause or consequence;

�

developing shared norms and common values;

�

alignment-seeking goodness of fit between individuals and predominatinginstitutional values and beliefs; and

�

shared commitment to common purpose.•

Critical

�

questioning taken-for-granted, both about practice and its social and institu-tional context;

�

identifying and questioning both purposes, and conflicts of power andinterest; and

�

relating the experience of work to wider social, political and culturalprocesses with the prospect of changing them.

We would argue that the above descriptions could be viewed as a journey andwe would suggest that Amy has travelled further than Beth. Beth questioned theperformance-learning discourse, but chose to operate within the dominant perfor-mance discourse. Her dissertation recommendations focused on ‘alignment-seeking,goodness of fit between individuals and predominating institutional values andbeliefs’.

Amy’s inability to sustain questioning of the dominant performance discourseresulted in Amy leaving the organization. Rigg and Trehan (2004, p. 62) caution that:

there is no inevitable flow between individual transformatory learning and critical practice at anorganisational or societal level [. . .] critical action learning is not without risks for participants, inthat dissonance provoked could be excessively disruptive.

38



Competing with the dominant discourse

Critical discourse advocates an emancipatory agenda, but what can we do to facili-tate the flow of learning between the individual, their employing organization andsociety. As educators we believe that the dominant position of the performancediscourse needs to be questioned and alternatives brought into view. However, aswe have discussed above, it is not that easy to develop ‘a common language thatallows people to communicate and negotiate meanings across boundaries’ (Wenger,2000, p. 236).

Presenting a more critical view of discourse, Fairclough (2003, pp. 8–9) argues thatwe need to distinguish between construction and construal; ‘we may textually con-strue (represent, imagine, etc.) the social world in particular ways, but whether ourrepresentations or construals have the effect of changing its construction dependsupon various contextual factors including the way social reality already is, who isconstruing it and so forth.’

This article was prompted by our encounter and struggle with the dominant per-formance discourse of education. We have been able to access critical literature thathelped our ‘sensemaking’ and within our different institutions we have found vary-ing degrees of support for our conversations. As educators, perhaps, we have morespace and freedom to challenge the dominant discourse; we can speak of ‘bilin-gualism’ (Gewirtz

et al

., 1995) and attempt to interest other colleagues in a criticalagenda.

However, critical literature can be difficult to access and seem divorced from prac-tice. If critical perspectives are to make a difference, then we need to increase theperceived relevance and accessibility of critical literature. We also need to sensitizeparticipants to the social and political nature of discursive practices. Potter andWetherell (1987) cited by Trowler (2001) emphasize that discursive practices ‘do notjust describe things, they do things’ and the things they do have important implica-tions individually (in terms of identity), socially (in terms of social construction) andpolitically (in terms of the distribution of power).

Harrison and Kessels (2004, p. 87) argue that the knowledge economy ‘calls not foran opposition but an integration of the performance-learning perspectives’. We haveargued that this integration is difficult to achieve and the dominant discourse canappear unchallengeable. Introducing course participants to critical perspectives canhelp by increasing their awareness and supporting them in developing new languageresources.

Intended contribution and relevance to debates on a critical turn in HRD

This article supports those who advocate a critical and a discourse perspective of HRDand organizations. Moreover, if we conceive learning as an encounter with new dis-course, then we need to question the extent to which new discourses can emerge ifdominant discourses remain unquestioned or appear to be unquestionable, e.g. publicpolicy discourses.

If discourse is viewed as a power resource, and if HRD is to take a critical turn, thenfurther debate is needed, drawing attention to dominant discourses. Dominant dis-courses have power to limit options for thinking and doing and high-order languageresources are required to articulate alternatives. HRD literature can open up alternativediscourses and these can be used to support the education of HR and HRD practitio-ners. Enabling access to alternative discourses can facilitate the development of criticalreflection by providing a necessary discursive resource that can be used to challengemore dominant discourses and unitary worldviews. HRD has as a central role andresponsibility in supporting critical perspectives in order to ensure the ‘delicate flower’of learning does not lose out when competing with performative rivals such as ‘modelsof good practice’.


39


References

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds) (1992),

Critical Management Studies

(London: Sage).Brookfield, S. (1994), ‘Tales from the dark side: a phenomenography of adult critical reflection’,

International Journal of Lifelong Education

,

13

, 3, 203–16.Buchanan, D. and Boddy, D. (1992),

The Expertise of the Change Agent: Public Performance andBackstage Activity

(London: Prentice Hall).Contu, A. and Willmott, H. (2000), ‘Comment on Wenger and Yanow: knowing in practice: a

“Delicate Flower” in the organizational learning field’,

Organization

,

7

, 2, 269–76.Corley, A. and Eades, E. (2004), ‘Becoming critically reflective practitioners: academics’ and

students’ reflections on the issues involved’,

Human Resource Development International

,

7

, 1,137–44.

Cunliffe, A. (2002), ‘Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning’,

Management Learning

,

33

, 1, 35–61.Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (2003), ‘Reconciling autonomy and community: the paradoxical role

of HRD’,


,

6

, 4, 457–74.Fairclough, N. (2003),

Analysing Discourse Textual Analysis for Social Research

(London: Routledge).Fairclough, N. and Hardy, G. (1997), Management learning as discourse, in Burgoyne, J. and

Reynolds, M. (eds),

Management Learning: integrating perspectives in theory and practice

(London:Sage).

Gans, H. J. (1968), ‘The Participant-Observer as Human Being: Observations on the PersonalAspects of Field Work’, in H. S. Becker (ed.),

Institutions and the Person: Papers Presented toEverett C. Hughes

(Chicago, IL: Aldine), pp. 300–17.Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. and Brown, R. (1995),

Markets, Choice and Equity in Education

(Buckingham,Open University Press).

Gold, J., Rodgers, H. and Smith, V. (2003), ‘What is the future for the Human ResourceDevelopment professional? A UK perspective’,


,

6

, 4, 437–56.Hagen, R., Miller, S. and Johnson M. (2003), ‘The “disruptive consequences” of introducing a

critical management perspective onto an MBA programme’,

Management Learning

,

34

, 2, 241–57.

Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004),

Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy: AnOrganisational View

(Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan).Holman, D., Pavlica, K. and Thorpe, R. (1997), ‘Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning

in management education’,

Management Learning

,

28

, 2, 135–48.Keenoy, T. and Anthony, P. (1992), ‘HRM: Metaphor, Meaning and Morality’, in P.

Blyton and P. Turnbull (eds),

Reassessing Human Resources Management

(London: Sage),pp. 233–55.

Kessels, J. (2001), ‘Perspectives on people interviewed by Jean Woodall’,

Human ResourceDevelopment International

,

4

, 3, 383–90.Lee, M. (2001), ‘A refusal to define HRD’,


,

4

, 3, 327–41.McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2001), ‘Theorizing Human Resource Development’,


,

4

, 3, 343–56.McLean, G. N. and McLean, L. (2001), ‘If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define

it in an international context?’


,

4, 3, 313–26.Morley, L. (2003), Quality and Power in Higher Education (Buckingham: Open University).Pavlica, K., Holman, D. and Thorpe, R. (1998), ‘The manager as practical author of learning’,

Career Development International, 3, 7, 300–7.Pedler, M. (2001), ‘Writing from practice’, Human Resource Development International, 4, 3, 295–

98.Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987), Discourse and Social Psychology (London: Sage).Pritchard, C. and Trowler, P. (2003), Realizing Qualitative Research into Higher Education

(Aldershot: Ashgate).Reynolds, M. (1997), ‘Learning styles: a critique’, Management Learning, 28, 2, 115–33.Reynolds, M. (1998), ‘Reflection and critical reflection in management learning’, Management

Learning, 29, 2, 183–200.Rigg, C. and Trehan, K. (2004), ‘Reflections on working with critical action learning’, Action

Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 2, 149–65.Sambrook, S. and Stewart, J. (1998), ‘HRD as Discursive Construction’, Paper presented at the

Lancaster-Leeds Conference on Emergent Fields in Management – Connecting Learning andCritique, July.

Shotter, J. (1993), Conversational Realities (London: Sage).Stewart, J. (1999), Employee Development Practice (London: Financial Times Management).

40 International Journal of Training and Development © 2006 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Trowler, P. (2001), ‘Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new highereducation discourse in the UK’, Organization, 8, 2, 184–201.

Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Wenger, E. (2000), ‘Communities of practice and social learning systems’, Organization, 7, 2, 225–

46.Willmott, H. (1994), ‘Management education: provocations to a debate’, Management Learning,

25, 1, 105–36.Winter, R. (1991), ‘Looking out on a bolder landscape’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 18

October, 17.

sustaining critically reflective practitioners: competing with the dominant discourse

Documents