Bridging the Gap between Human Resource Development and Adult Education: Part Two, the Critical Turn
Saved in:
| Title: | Bridging the Gap between Human Resource Development and Adult Education: Part Two, the Critical Turn |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Hatcher, Tim, Bowles, Tuere |
| Source: | New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development. Sum 2006 20(3):5-18. |
| Availability: | Florida International University College of Education. 11200 SW 8th Street, ZEB 361A, Miami, FL 33199. Tel: 305-348-6151; Fax: 305-348-1515; e-mail: horizons@fiu.edu; Web site: http://education.fiu.edu/newhorizons |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Physical Description: | |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2006 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Education Level: | Adult Education |
| Descriptors: | Scholarship, Adult Education, Human Capital, Human Resources, Labor Force Development, Culturally Relevant Education, Alignment (Education), Critical Theory, Educational Opportunities, Performance Factors, Unified Studies Curriculum, Educational Practices |
| ISSN: | 1939-4225 |
| Abstract: | Human resource development (HRD) as a scholarly endeavor and as a practice is often criticized in the adult education (AE) literature and by AE scholars as manipulative and oppressive and, through training and other interventions, controlling workers for strictly economic ends (Baptiste, 2001; Cunningham, 2004; Schied, 2001; Welton, 1995). The reasons for this disapproving perspective are numerous and include HRD's primary conceptual foundations as being performative and based on human capital theory that tends to situate humans within the rubric of expendable resources. Additional support for this critique comes from an assumption that HRD as a whole is embedded within a rational/functional paradigm that tends to support "any means to profit" over democratic treatment of people in the workplace. Similarly, although less vocal and antagonistic, HRD scholars have been critical of AE's "academic" and "theoretical" elitism versus the pragmatic and socially responsive practice of AE. [For part 1, see EJ983776.] |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 53 |
| Entry Date: | 2012 |
| Accession Number: | EJ983779 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Human resource development (HRD) as a scholarly endeavor and as a practice is often criticized in the adult education (AE) literature and by AE scholars as manipulative and oppressive and, through training and other interventions, controlling workers for strictly economic ends (Baptiste, 2001; Cunningham, 2004; Schied, 2001; Welton, 1995). The reasons for this disapproving perspective are numerous and include HRD's primary conceptual foundations as being performative and based on human capital theory that tends to situate humans within the rubric of expendable resources. Additional support for this critique comes from an assumption that HRD as a whole is embedded within a rational/functional paradigm that tends to support "any means to profit" over democratic treatment of people in the workplace. Similarly, although less vocal and antagonistic, HRD scholars have been critical of AE's "academic" and "theoretical" elitism versus the pragmatic and socially responsive practice of AE. [For part 1, see EJ983776.] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1939-4225 |
