Completion Report: Dr. Aileen Lawless
25th May 2014
Research Honoraria awarded: 2012
Research proposal: stream 2
Original title: Evaluating the ‘impact’ of a masters educational programme: a HR(D) practitioners
perspective
New title: Exploring the ‘impact’ of Critical Human Resource Development: educator and practitioner
perspectives
Introduction
This report will focus on the research outputs achieved as a result of the UFHRD Research Honoraria. This
focus will enable the reviewers to judge the success of the research and to understand how it evolved and how
I plan to sustain the research.
The research focused on evaluating the continued ‘impact’ of part time educational programmes from the
perspective of practitioners. This built on previous research which explored how student practitioners made
sense of the learning that occurred during, and immediately after, a Masters programme (Lawless et al. 2012).
The purpose of the research was not to establish a cause and effect relationship but to illuminate how these
practitioners ‘talked-about impact’; impact being defined as a: ‘process of investigation leading to new insights
effectively shared’ (England, Council et al. 2009:7). The research has contributed to, and builds on, conceptual
understandings of the ‘impact’ of Critical HRD education from an educator and a practitioner perspective. This
co-produced perspective is currently underrepresented in the literature and it is this feature which makes this
research distinctive.
The part time educational programmes which were the focus for the research are informed by critical
management education (CME) pedagogy, critical action leaning (CAL) and the ideals of Critical HRD. These
ideals are persuasive and, arguably, timely (Sambrook 2011). There is an emerging literature which illuminates
how critical action learning (CAL) can enable CME pedagogy (Rigg and Trehan 2004; Lawless and McQue
2008). However, there is a dearth of empirical research which evaluates the sustainability and transferability of
CME and CAL (Trehan and Rigg 2011) or the ‘impact’ of HRD initiatives beyond the classroom (Holden and
Griggs 2011). This research has contributed to the identified gap and the research outputs have included
Doctoral level student practitioners and Masters level student practitioners.
It has been argued that Higher Education is a site of HRD practice, and can shape HRD practice in other work
contexts,(Stewart and Harte 2009). This has lead to a growing interest, and call for, further research into the
relationship between HRD educational programmes and HRD practice, (Kuchinke 2001a; Kuchinke 2001b;
Sambrook and Stewart 2010). The research outputs, and continuing research, have contributed to such a
critique and have:



Identified barriers to, and opportunities for, transfer and significance beyond the specifics of an
educational programme
Explored the relationship between an educational ‘community’, the work ‘community’ and the wider HRD
‘community’
Highlighted the implications for the practice of Critical HRD and the relationship with at-home
ethnographic research.
The research has focused on how learners actively created meaning and talked about the political and social
aspects of undertaking research. The outputs draw attention to the, sometimes competing, requirements for
practitioners to remain employed and employable while seeking to fulfil the expectations of Doctoral or Masters
level education. In particular education which is inspired by the ideals of Critical HRD.
Research Outputs:
Book Chapter:
A.Lawless with C.Roberts & E.Eades (Accepted 2014) ‘At-home ethnography: is it just too hard?’ in O Jones, J
Van Maanen and F Worthington (eds), Doing and Writing Ethnography: practical challenges in qualitative
fieldwork, Emerald
Conference Presentations:
A. Lawless with R. Mendonca (2013) ‘Reflections on using at-home ethnography – handle with care!’ Critical
Management Studies (CMS) Conference, July, Manchester
A.Lawless with R.Holden & J.Bogh (2013) ‘Challenges and Opportunities in Evaluating a Masters Educational
Programme: a discourse perspective’ British Academy of Management (BAM) Conference, September,
Liverpool.
Planned outputs:
A.Lawless with R.Holden V.Griggs & J. Rae (2014) ‘Striving to Practice What We Preach: Academics reflecting
on teaching reflective practice’ UFHRD Conference, June, Edinburgh.
References
Holden, R. and V. Griggs (2011). "Not more learning logs! A research based perspective on teaching reflective
learning within HR professional education." Human Resource Development International 14(4): 483-491
Kuchinke, K. (2001a). "Feedback seeking in university human resource development education in the US, UK
and Singapore." Human Resource Development International 4(1): 107-126.
Kuchinke, K. (2001b). "HRD university education: an international research agenda." Human Resource
Development International 4(2): 253-261.
Lawless, A. and L. McQue (2008). "Becoming a community of critically reflective HR Practitioners: challenges
and opportunities within an MA partnership programme." Journal of European Industrial Training 32(5):
323-335.
Lawless, A., Sambrook, S. and Stewart, J. (2012) Critical HRD: enabling alternative subject positions within an
MA HRD ‘community’. Human Resource Development International, 15(3) 31-336
2
Rigg, C. and K. Trehan (2004). "Reflections on working with critical action learning." Action Learning: Research
and Practice 1(2): 149-165.
Sambrook, S. (2011). What's so Critical about Human Resource Development?
Sambrook, S. and J. Stewart (2010). "Teaching, learning and assessing HRD: Findings from a BMAF/UFHRD
research project
" Journal of European Industrial training
34(8/9): 710-734.
Stewart, J. and V. Harte (2009). Higher Education as a site of Human Resource Development a European
perspective
Instuite for Enterprise Leeds Metropolitian University. 2011.
Trehan, K. and C. Rigg (2011). "Theorising critical HRD: a paradox of intricacy and discrepancy." Journal of
European Industrial Training 35(3): 276-290.
Appendices:
1. Book Chapter: A.Lawless with C.Roberts & E.Eades (Accepted 2014) ‘At-home ethnography: is it just
too hard?’ in O Jones, J Van Maanen and F Worthington (eds), Doing and Writing Ethnography:
practical challenges in qualitative fieldwork, Emerald
2. Conference Presentation: A. Lawless with R. Mendonca (2013) ‘Reflections on using at-home
ethnography – handle with care!’ Critical Management Studies (CMS) Conference, July, Manchester
3. Conference Presentation: A.Lawless with R.Holden & J.Bogh (2013) ‘Challenges and Opportunities in
Evaluating a Masters Educational Programme: a discourse perspective’ British Academy of
Management (BAM) Conference, September, Liverpool.
4. Conference presentation: A.Lawless with R.Holden V.Griggs & J. Rae (2014) ‘Striving to Practice
What We Preach: Academics reflecting on teaching reflective practice’ UFHRD Conference, June,
Edinburgh.
3
Appendix 1:
At-home ethnography: is it just too hard?
Aileen Lawless: Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University a.lawless @ljmu.ac.uk
Chloe Roberts: Liverpool University, Chloe.Roberts@liverpool.ac.uk
Elaine Eades: University of Liverpool Management School e.eades @liverpool.ac.uk
Introduction
This chapter explores the complexities of a particular type of insider research, at-home ethnography, within a
British Higher Education (HE) context and has been co-produced by the authors drawing upon our experiences
of working and researching within and on HE. We focus on a tale provided by one of the authors whom we refer
to as ‘the insider’; she was, and continues to be, employed as a Human Resources (HR) professional within HE
and her employer sponsored the research which was completed in part fulfilment of a Masters level
professional qualification; a qualification which was inspired by the ideal of Critical Human Resource
Development (CHRD). The other authors are employed as academics within HE, they have worked as
managers and HR professionals; currently they teach on management and HR programmes and are involved in
the supervision of professional qualifications at Masters and Doctorate level, we will refer to these authors as
‘the supervisors’. This chapter has been informed by on-going reflections and dialogue with each other as we
question whether at-home ethnography, despite its ‘major advantages’, Alvesson (2009:19) is just too hard. We
draw attention to the ethical and political challenges that can arise in the field and illustrate how these are
heightened when researching one’s own organization, in particular when researching a HE organization.
The concept of ‘at-home ethnography’ is attributed to Alvesson (2009), it has also been termed ‘selfethnography’ (Alvesson, 2003) and has similarities to ‘endogeneous research’ Maruyama (1981) and ‘insider
research’ (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). A distinctive, and potentially appealing, feature of this approach to
research is that the researcher utilizes her or his position in an organization of which she or he is part: ‘to draw
attention to one’s own cultural context, what goes on around oneself rather than putting oneself and one’s
experiences in the centre’ (Alvesson, 2003:175), as in auto-ethnographic research. At-home ethnography is
therefore distinctive from auto-ethnography (Ellis & Bochner, 2000) in two ways. Firstly, in the sense that athome ethnographers conduct research in an organization they actually work for, as either voluntary or paid
employees. Secondly, in the sense that it is the life world of the organization, not one’s own personal
experiences of organizational life, as in auto-ethnography, which is the focus of analysis. Justification for
researching social and organizational practice in an organization we are employed by is, according to Alvesson,
(2009), that there is nothing inherently unusual or unethical about utilizing one’s position as an employee to
research one’s fellow employees. Indeed, a number of organizational ethnographies have been conducted by
researchers who gained access to their research setting as paid employees (Burawoy, 1979; Kamata, 1982;
Watson, 1982); and were therefore perhaps at-home ethnographies, at least in part, if not at the outset then
certainly by the end of the research process. However, the literature says very little about the dilemmas faced
by the insider researcher and the ethical and political challenges involved in putting the concept of at-home
ethnography into practice. This chapter seeks to address this current gap in the research methods literature and
highlights how these challenges are heightened within a HE context. In doing so we highlight the relationship
between the aspirations of CHRD and at-home ethnographic research.
4
Appendix 2:
Reflections on using at-home ethnography – handle with care!
Roger Mendonca Liverpool John Moores University.
Aileen Lawless Liverpool John Moores University;
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the challenges and opportunities that face a first-time Doctoral researcher
attempting to conduct an at-home ethnography within a programme which is inspired by the ideals of Critical
Human Resource Development (CHRD). By making these explicit, the intention is to explore how both the
student and their supervisor can make the experience as pain-free, productive and enjoyable as possible. It is
hoped that this might encourage other first-time researchers to consider undertaking at-home ethnography.
The first named author is both a senior manager in a public sector organisation and a first year doctoral student
attempting to conduct an at-home ethnography for his first piece of research. The other author is his
supervisor, attempting to successfully guide the student through the pitfalls and challenges inherent in the
approach.
This paper explores the relationship between an educational ‘community’ inspired by the ideals of Critical
Human Resource Development (Lawless et al. 20112), the work ‘community’ and the wider research
‘community’. At the heart of the paper is a simple question - why would anyone choose to take on the
challenges of an at-home ethnography for their first major piece of research?
Challenges considered within the paper will include ethical considerations such as how a researcher who is
also a senior member of an organisation manages the power dynamic their role in the hierarchy creates; how
existing relationships with colleagues are maintained, how pre-conceptions about other members of the
organisation can be put to one side, and how the researcher manages the conscious, or sub-conscious,
pressure to screen out findings that might place the organisation, colleagues or themselves in what may be
perceived as a poor light (Alvesson, 2003). Also considered will be practical issues such as how the researcher
can collect data at the same time as undertaking their day job, especially in areas of the business where they
would not normally be granted access because of their position – i.e. the ‘water-cooler’ conversations, and how
findings can be presented that may challenge prevailing notions of leadership and management within the
organisation without falling foul of internal politics.
The paper will also explore how to make the most of the unique opportunities that arise as a result of
undertaking an at-home ethnography from a senior position within an organisation. Chief amongst these
include access to people and documentation, the ‘inside’ knowledge of which the researcher is already aware.
Alongside this, there are many potential practical benefits for the student as a researcher – such as the
opportunity to develop their ability to be reflexive about their work.
References:
Alvesson, M 2003. Methodology for close up studies: Struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education,
46, 167-193.
Lawless, A., Sambrook, S. and Stewart, J. (2012) Critical HRD: enabling alternative subject positions within an
MA HRD ‘community’. Human Resource Development International, 15(3) 31-336
5
Appendix 3:
Challenges and Opportunities in Evaluating a Masters Educational Programme: a discourse perspective
Aileen Lawless, Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University
Rick Holden Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University
Jason Bogh Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University
Developmental paper
The call for this track suggests that we consider: ‘whether our own learning activities, and by inference all
aspects of knowledge exchange, teaching, education, assessment and instruction make a difference to those
that are engaged with them’ bld not in original. This developmental paper responds to the challenge and in
doing so provides insight into how we can research the ‘difference’ that Masters level education can make to
practitioners beyond the duration of the programme. The research aim is to identify barriers to and opportunities
for transfer and significance beyond the specifics of the educational programme.
An MA in Personnel and Development provides the context for the paper. This part time Masters educational
programme was informed by a critical management education pedagogy and critical action leaning. The ideals
of critical management education are persuasive and some would argue, given the recent financial crisis, timely
(Sambrook, 2011). In addition, there is an emerging literature which illuminates how action learning can enable
deep and effective learning (Johnson and Spicer, 2006) and how critical action learning can enable critical
management education (Lawless and McQue, 2008). However, there remains a dearth of empirical research
which evaluates the sustainability and transferability of critical management education (Trehan and Rigg, 2011)
or indeed traditional education (Holden and Griggs, 2011) beyond the classroom. This paper addresses the
identified gap and explores a future research agenda.
Dominant notions of evaluation, based on chain reaction models and claims of cause and effect, can limit our
understanding. The purpose of this evaluation research is not to establish a cause and effect relationship but to
illuminate how practitioners ‘talk-about’ the difference the Masters programme made to them and their practice.
The conceptual framework for the research is based on the concept of discourse deployed in four ways. First,
taking a ‘communities of practice’ perspective ‘talk’ is seen as essential to the process of participating in a
community and becoming a member of that community. Second, learning is conceptualised as: ‘…the identity
making projects of participants in communities of practice ‘ (Lave, 1996: 157). A discourse perspective
highlights how the self is talked about, how it is theorized in discourse and the discursive functions served by
alternative interpretations. Third, critical management education, content and process, is conceived as
introducing an alternative discourse, which challenges and potentially enables alternative conceptions of self.
The ontological and epistemological premises regarding the role of language in the social construction of the
world have been informed by social constructionist discourse analysis in particular critical discursive psychology
(Edley, 2001, Potter and Wetherell, 1987) and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough and Hardy, 1997,
Fairclough, 2003). Phillips and Jorgensen (2002) argue that both approaches share the starting point that our
ways of talking do not neutrally reflect our world, identities and social relations but, rather, play an active role in
creating and changing them. In addition, both approaches support a critical research agenda by enabling the
investigation and analysis of power relations in society, thereby opening up possibilities for social change. The
research questions that discourse analysts focus on are broadly related to construction and function (Potter and
Wetherell, 1987). Questions focus on how discourse is put together and what is gained by this construction.
Therefore statements say something about norms of expression, ways of producing effects, in particular identity
work and legitimacy. Therefore accounts are interpreted in terms of what they accomplish rather than what they
mirror; as action rather than in terms of true/false (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000).
6
Students who completed the MA had undertaken research into work based problems and had produced
recommendations to implement individual, practitioner and organisational change. These students had received
support from an action learning set of fellow students and a tutor facilitator. They had also submitted a final
reflective learning account discussing how they planned to sustain their learning. The evaluation study explored
the learning which occurred when the Masters programme was complete; learning being conceived as an
encounter with new discursive resources and practices. The research focused on how learners actively created
meaning and talk about the political and social aspects of implementing dissertation recommendations.
Accounts were not judged as right or wrong but provided an opportunity to explore if the learning from critical
action learning can be sustained and transferred to an employing organisation. This paper reports on the
challenges faced but also the opportunities which arose during the evaluation process.
Ethical approval was sought for the proposed research and when approval was granted an invitation and a
participant briefing sheet was sent to perspective informants inviting them to attend some follow up set
meetings; to discuss how they had transferred their learning to their employing organisation. The response rate
was disappointing and attempts at reaching an agreed date for a small set meeting were extremely difficult. The
design of the evaluation was modified to focus on individual interviews. In total 10 respondents were
interviewed. The majority of the participants had completed the MA within the previous six months. The
participant information sheet contained thee key framing questions: Who benefited from your MA research?
What, if anything, changed? What learning can we draw from this and what action can we take?
Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A comparison was then made of the ‘talk’ which emerged during the
interviews and the ‘talk’ which emerged within the reflective learning account produced at the end of the
Masters journey. The basic theoretical thrust being that talk fulfils many functions and has varying effects.
Statements were therefore interpreted as saying something about norms for expression and attention was given
to the effects produced. The process of analysis involved searching for patterns in the data by exploring
variability and consistency within the different accounts which have been produced by participants at various
times.
This developmental paper explores the challenges and opportunities of undertaking evaluation research when
an educational programme is complete and in doing so addresses the following research questions:
1) Can a discourse and learning approach to evaluation compete with dominant models of evaluation?
2) Can the ideals of critical action learning and critical management pedagogy be transferred to an
employing organisation?
This paper will be further developed prior to discussion and presentation at the conference by undertaking fuller
analysis of the interviews and reporting key findings. Feedback on the proposed approach to evaluation is
welcomed as is discussion with others who are interested in evaluating the ‘difference’ education can make.
References
Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, Sage,
London.
Edley, N. (2001) In Discourse as Data(Eds, Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J.) Sage, London.
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: textual analysis for social research, Routledge, London.
Fairclough, N. and Hardy, G. (1997) In Management Learning: integrating perspectives in theory and
practice(Eds, Burgoyne, J. and Reynolds, M.) Sage, London, pp. 144-160.
Holden, R. and Griggs, V. (2011) Human Resource Development International, 14, 483-491
Johnson, C. and Spicer, D. P. (2006) Education + Training, 48, 39 - 54.
Lave, J. (1996) Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149-164.
Lawless, A. and McQue, L. (2008) Journal of European Industrial Training, 32, 323-335.
Phillips, L. and Jorgensen, M. W. (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Sage, London.
7
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: beyond attitudes and behaviour, Sage,
London.
Sambrook, S. (2011).
Trehan, K. and Rigg, C. (2011) Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 276-290.
8
Appendix 4:
Striving to Practice What We Preach: Academics reflecting on teaching reflective practice
Aileen Lawless, Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University
Rick Holden Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University
Vivienne Griggs, Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University
Jan Rae, London South Bank University
Abstract
That reflection is part of the HRD academics’ continuing professional development is a powerful rhetoric. But to
what extent are we guilty of hypocrisy? Inspired by the title and theme of the conference ‘HRD: Reflecting upon
the Past, Shaping the Future’ this paper seeks to make a critically reflective statement on our own practice as
HRD academics teaching and researching reflective practice. Researching ‘practising what we preach’, in the
context of reflective practice, raises difficult questions but offers the potential for valuable insight into the HRD
academics’ professional practice.
The idea of looking back to make sense of learning and to plan for future/sustainable learning is a central notion
in HRD which is articulated via theories of reflective practice. Reflection is now enshrined in most professional
and postgraduate management programmes. Anderson (2003), for example, argues that critical reflection is a
‘hallmark’ of Masters level management education, whilst authors such as Gray (2007) and Reynolds (1998)
see a management curriculum embracing reflection as indicative of a more critical curriculum, challenging the
more traditional, functionalist orientation, with an emphasis on the transmission of knowledge. However,
Lawless & McQue (2008) argue that a majority of critical literature is addressed to an academic audience and
support calls for further empirical research.
It is this concern and research opportunity which has brought us together as a research team. Our teaching and
research interests are aligned in that we teach and research reflective practice at a variety of levels, from
undergraduate to Doctoral, including Human Resource (HR) students at masters level. Since 2012 we have
sought to pursue an agenda addressing the impact of our efforts to teach reflective practice and the transfer of
critical reflection from the classroom to the workplace. This working paper surfaces some of our taken-forgranted assumptions about teaching and researching reflective practice within the context of an HR educational
programme. It offers us the opportunity to explore the extent to which we do indeed practice what we preach
and share these considerations within a wider HRD community of practice.
The paper is positioned within our current understanding of both the theory of reflection / reflexivity, its teaching
within the HR/HRD curriculum and its impact upon HR/HRD practice. Reflection has been defined as the
process of observing how we do research and reflexivity as the process of self-reflection based on questioning
how research is done (Hibbert et al 2010). Reflexivity can enable the exploration of uncomfortable truths (Bell
and Bryman , 2007) and in doing so develop greater reciprocity generating research which is of mutual benefit
to participants and the researcher(s). The principle of reciprocity has guided our research process. Key issues
which we have considered are our responsibilities to our participants and ourselves recognizing that knowledge
is affected by our personal beliefs, values and assumptions. We are aware that reflective practice and the
distinction between reflection and reflexivity continue to be contested. Bell & Thorpe (2013: 105) highlight that
despite: ‘elaborate theorising, there is relatively little published research in which reflexivity, or even reflection
appears to be practiced to any significant extent’. The working paper will respond to this challenge and is a
9
considered development of research already undertaken. However, in this paper we turn the critical lens on us
as educators, researchers and scholarly practitioners as we explore the following questions:
1. To what extent do we practise what we preach?
2. What insights can we offer regarding the process of critical refection?
The paper will draw on data generated by the researchers during our recent and ongoing research
collaboration. Material will include our reflective accounts, e mail exchanges and summaries of meetings as we
attempt to capture and share reflections of the collaborative research process. This material will be jointly
analysed to identify key themes as the basis for a set of conclusions of interest to an audience of HRD
academics committed to scholarly practitioner research.
References
Anderson, L.M., Critical reflection: the hallmark of masters education, Education in a Changing Environment, ,
Conference Proceedings, 17-18 September, 2003,
Available from: <www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/int_03.rtf> [Accessed 30/04/2013]
Bell, E. and Bryman , A. (2007) ‘The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis’, British
Journal of Management, 18(1): 63-77.
Bell, E., and Thorpe, R. (2013) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about
Management Research, London, Sage
Gray, D.E. (2007) Facilitating Management Learning – Developing Critical Reflection through Reflective Tools,
Management Learning, 38 (5)
Hibbert, P., Coupland, C. and MacIntosh, R. (2010) ‘Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational
research processes’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 5(1): 47-62.
Lawless, A. and McQue L. (2008) Becoming a community of critically reflective HR practitioners: challenges
and opportunities within an MA partnership programme, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(5): 323335
Reynolds, M. (1998) Reflection and critical reflection in management learning, Management Learning, 29 (2),
183-100
10