The University Forum for HRD Research Honorarium

An Evaluation

For and on behalf of the UFHRD Research CommitteeRick HoldenLiverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Context / Background

The UFHRD’s mission statement (http://www.ufhrd.co.uk/wordpress/home/) reflects its view that research is central to the advancement of HRD, i.e. “to create, develop and inform leading–edge HRD theories and practices by promoting professionally-focused qualifications, co-operative research initiatives, consultancy interventions”. The Honorarium, introduced in 2002-03, represents a strategic initiative to contribute to this mission. In 2013 the UFHRD Council requested its Research Committee officers to undertake a formal evaluation of the Honorarium.

1.2 Aim and Objectives

The aim of this report, therefore, is to record the findings of this exercise. Its objectives are to:

- to position Honorarium supported research within a wider perspective of HRD research- to present the findings of the research as regards the perceived benefits of the Honorarium

and in relation to its impact- to draw conclusions and thus provide the Committee and Council with an evidence base

upon which to consider the future of the Honorarium

1.3 Acknowledgements

A formal note of thanks must be recorded to all those who responded to the request to complete a questionnaire and in particular to those who participated in the follow –up telephone interviews.

Section 2: HRD and HRD Research

Described on its own web site (www.ufhrd.co.uk) as a relatively young organisation with old roots the UFHRD, perhaps unsurprisingly, mirrors much of the nature of HRD itself. As with discussion about the origins of HRD (see, for example, Alagaraja and Dooley, 2003) its current position as a field of research and practice is contested. Stewart and Sambrook (2012), for example, ask where does training and development end and HRD begin or where does HRD end and management begin? Kuchinke (2001) argues HRD is not an academic discipline yet Stewart and Sambrook suggest that in the UK at least it is term which has been taken up more comfortably in academia than in organisational practice. There is the University Forum for HRD, whose membership is principally academics and there is the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development whose membership is primarily practicing professionals working in a range of people management functions. The relationship between the discipline, the field, the subject, and research, is inextricably interrelated. For HRD to survive, develop and mature it must ultimately demonstrate added value to a range of stakeholders. Short, Bing and Kehrhahn (2003) ask ‘Will HRD survive?’ and identify five challenges: responding to multiple stakeholders; measuring HRD impact and utility; orienting toward the future; focusing on problems and outcomes of HRD practice and achieving professional recognition. The contribution of research is fundamental to all five challenges.

If research is fundamental to the status of HRD a necessary exercise is some form of assessment as to the health and impact of what is undertaken by way of HRD research. However, whilst necessary this is far from straightforward. What are the criteria; what are the measures to use? The UK’s Research Assessment Exercise (renamed the Research Excellence Framework for 2014), conducted every six or seven years, is an obvious starting point. The RAE/REF works by taking submissions from universities within a set of units of assessment (67 in 2008 but reduced to 36 for 2014). Understandably these are fairly broad ‘umbrellas’; with each unit covering a range of named ‘fields’ or ‘areas’ . Potential HRD research might be submitted into one of two units: Business and Management or Education. However any insight generated by examination of the deliberations of the RAE/REF panels is limited. In neither of the above units is there a HRD a named ‘field’. The nearest we get is ‘Management Education and Development’ and ‘Knowledge and Learning’.

This may be taken as an indicator that HRD research has yet to reach a baseline level of impact. This warrants further investigation in relation to the workings and criteria adopted in the development and planning stages of the RAE/REF (see, for example, REF2014: Decisions on assessing research impact (2011). The one paragraph assessment in relation to Management Education and Development concludes that the

field continues to lack a theoretical basis, with a consequence that research fails to build upon previous work. Studies also varied in the rigour and the use of methodologies in the analysis. Many of the weaker outputs relied on a case method and failed to make contributions to either theory or practice.

This is not without value. However, in the absence of a clear, focused statement, pertinent to HRD, emanating from such an exercise we are left with the more informal judgements of panel members,

outside of any formal reporting, as to the status of HRD research. Hence the comment noted above that HRD needs to ‘up its game’ from Professor Richard Thorpe, RAE Panel Member for the Business and Management unit of assessment.

More fundamentally Stewart (2007) takes issue with the workings of the RAE in relation to a new or emerging subject area of the likes of HRD and particularly with the ‘group think’ on behalf of Deans and heads of research as regards the decision making on submissions to the RAE. Stewart (2007) describes this as a tendency to prefer submissions which focus only on journal articles (ignoring books, chapters in books, reports etc) and only journals in particular journal ranking lists. The issue is complex but put simply it means that research written up in the journal Human Resource Development International (now in its seventeenth volume and arguably the top journal in the field) is in danger of being ignored because it does not feature in the ranked journal listings or receives a very low ranking because of its relative newness. Stewart (2007, p 494) concludes that the RAE “should not be allowed to distort or minimise the value and quality of the great majority of research currently being produced and published on HRD”.

If we eschew the RAE/REF where else can we look for insight as to the state and status of HRD research? One effort of note which seeks to provide a degree of research rigour to an assessment of contribution is that from Jeung et al, (2011). Adopting a citation and content analysis the authors seek to identify how HRD has contributed to the knowledge base across social science disciplines during the past two decades. Their findings, they argue, indicate that HRD research “has contributed to the overall knowledge base of social science” (p102). They conclude that the theme of training / learning transfer and evaluation has been the most valuable within the field of HRD and across other disciplines “indicating the practicality and importunate of this issue across overall social sciences” (p103). Importantly they suggest that their research helps understand the status of HRD research and the “unique contributions” that it is making.

In the absence of other, similar research, a reliance is placed on self assessment. In other words, the views and considerations of those who are themselves HRD research active and champions of HRD. Stewart’s indictment of the RAE is a good example; at the same time as highlighting certain biases in the existing system of research assessment he clearly feels much HRD research is both high quality and of real value. Indeed in the same year Stewart (2005) published a viewpoint article in the Journal of European Industrial Training which concluded that the subject (HRD) is healthy. His argument for such a conclusion was twofold. First, in terms of the quantity of research being produced, although no specific quantitative measure is suggested, and secondly in terms of acting as a driver of change within organisations and in relation to management and work.

Relatedly, for example, Poell (2007) reports on a SWOT analysis by ‘five leading scholars in the field’. What is interesting about this ‘assessment’ is that it highlights a diversity in research perspectives vis HRD; contrasting, for example, those seeking more critical approaches in HRD with those arguing for a more pragmatic, practice focus. Poell debates whether this diversity can be viewed as a strength; particularly in a context, as has been noted already, where HRD needs to secure a distinctive identity in order contribute fully to the improvement of organisational practice. There is little to suggest this self assessment debate has waned. In the opening paragraph of Sadler-Smith’s (2014) article discussing a design science approach as a potential enabler of problem-focused and solution-led

HRD he highlights a perspective that HRD research is barely ‘scratching the surface’ (e.g. Ardichvili, 2012). He also notes a forthcoming article from Kucjinke that ‘laments the shortage of high impact research’ and the paucity of influential new theories in the area. Apparently Kuchinke makes a plea for HRD to ‘sharpen its toolkit (cf the words of Thorpe, above) and develop into a field where the problems of practice are studied’ (Sadler Smith, 2014). As Sadler-Smith poignantly observes “The nub issue of relevance and impact in HRD research is a hardy perennial”.

In sum, therefore, the resultant picture is somewhat problematic. Whilst changes to the procedures of the formal research assessment exercise will operate in 2014 there is little suggestion that this will provide a more authoritative statement on the state and status of HRD research. At the same time whilst there is nothing intrinsically problematic with self –assessment a reliance on personal views, does rather limit and constrain the claims being made. Of course this is entirely understandable and as noted already is a result of the very nature and newness of HRD. The value though of any exercise which seeks to provide some insight into the state and status of HRD and which is empirically based is to be welcomed.

Section 3: Methodology

Three sources of data have been drawn upon to produce the evaluation report:

- documentary data; annual reports to Council; the Honorarium data base etc- a questionnaire to past Honorarium holders- four follow up telephone interviews drawn from those responding to the questionnaire

In relation to the questionnaire lead or co-leads of projects were targeted. Where leads had been awarded more than one Honorarium they were asked to complete a questionnaire for each award. It was considered important to ensure a link between respondent and the particular project they had been engaged upon. In other words, the questionnaire was designed to generate insight on award holders’ perceptions on the benefits and impact of a particular piece of HRD research that had been enabled and supported by the Honorarium. Whilst not a focus of the questionnaire there was opportunity through the ‘further comment’ components of the questionnaire and the final open question to raise issues concerning the management and administration of the Honorarium.

A questionnaire was issued to 37 individuals and 31 responded. Four respondents completed more than one questionnaire and hence the summary of findings which follows is based on 40 completed questionnaires.

Following the transfer of the responses into an excel spreadsheet and an initial ‘reading’ of the data, four follow-up interviews were arranged. The purpose here was to construct a small number of case studies to capture more detailed illustration of the perceived significance and impact of the Honorarium and related, for example, to the maturity of the researcher, institutional context, nature of project etc. To a greater or lesser extent comment on both the future of the Honorarium and its management / administration was also a part of these interviews.

Section 4: Findings

The summary of findings is presented under two three broad themes:

- the management and administration of the Honorarium- Honorarium research and researchers: who were the successful award holders and what was

the nature of the research supported - A series of impact factors: the findings here address tangible outcomes of the project (e.g.

journal article), perceived benefits and related impact factors such as the sustainability of the research and impact in relation to the Forum’s mission.

4.1 The UFHRD Honorarium: processes and procedures

An Honorarium was first offered in 2002-3. Since 2006-7 it has been offered annually. It is a modest affair, normally offering up to three grants of £1000 apiece. From time to time additional funds have been made available; for example through a collaboration with the HE Academy’s HRD Special Interest Group. Honorarium awards can be made to individuals or teams, in institutions that are full members of the UFHRD. Whilst an awareness of and interest in the Honorarium has developed over the years it remains unclear how extensive this is beyond a relatively small circle of UFHRD activists.

A competitive bidding process operates. A Call for Proposals is issued (see Appendix 1) and which outlines the application procedure to be followed. The wording of the Call has changed little since its use for the first Honorarium. An Important addition in latter years has been the inclusion of examples of projects completed in previous years. The ‘steer’ provided by the Forum to interested applicants is as follows:

“Proposals could address practice, issues, tensions and/or problems in relation to:

- the theory / conceptual understanding of HRD

- the practice of HRD

- the teaching and learning of HRD”

Minimal data is available on the level of competition year on year. Interest appears to have been low in the initial years (AGM Minutes, 2005). Since, 2007-8 the Honorarium has never been under-subscribed although the level of demand has not hugely exceeded the available resource.

Applications are received by a nominated member of the Research Committee. He or she then seeks the assistance of two or three other members of the Research Committee together with the Research Chair to form a panel to view the proposals and make recommendations on awards. The submissions are ‘blind’ reviewed.

It is normally expected that successful applicants complete their research and deliver the proposed outcomes within one year of the award being made. The award is not made until the project is complete and a report, prepared for the Research Committee, approved. This report, or a summary thereof, is normally placed on the web site.

In latter years a rather more systematic process of administration has been developed. All successful applicants are recorded on a spreadsheet. This is available to the Treasurer to assists financial planning etc. Lead researchers are contacted part way through the year to query progress. Award holders not completing by the due date are contacted to query expected completion. No definitive policy exists to deal with non completions beyond a reasonable time. Whilst non completion means no payment of research monies nonetheless it is not the best use of the resource made available to support research.

A complete data base of reports completed with Forum funding is not available. Latterly all successfully completed projects are lodged on the web site.

4.2 Honorarium supported research

Over the years a total of 39 honoraria have been awarded. Excluding those awarded in 2014 the number of non completions is seven. Thus completions number 32.

Research Focus

Using the guidelines contained in the Honorarium specification the three categories of research are represented as follows by Honorarium projects awarded between 2002 and 2014:

Table 1

Theory / Conceptual Underpinning

Towards the further development of HRD as an academic discipline

Systematic content analysis of theoretical and methodological underpinnings in the European and US HRD lit

Are Practice and Academia in HRD Disconnected

Discourse in HRD

The Practice of HRD

Cultural dislocation and globalisation of call centre services

Examining HRD in 2 welsh NHS Trusts

Understanding public sector change in N Ireland

Investigating leadership training across business sectors

Entrepreneurial workplace learning

Developing and retaining graduates

Management Development in trade unions

Female expatriates and HRD cross cultural adjustment

Dual relationships as hot practice in coaching and mentoring

From student to entrepreneur; towards a model of graduate career making

Evaluating management development using narrative data

Coaching in an academic setting

National HRD

An evaluation of a leadership and management development programme

The Teaching and Learning of HRD

Social learning: a study of critically reflective practice in HRD

Investigating students' perceptions of DBA doctoral supervision

Evaluation of Doctoral Education processes

Evaluation of innovative experience-based pedagogy in professionally accredited HRD curricula

Initial professional development

Practice what we preach ? Critical examination of learning and teaching within a professional training and development curriculum

Teaching learning and assessment in HRD

PhD supervisory relationships

Evaluating the impact of a Masters HRD programme

Not another learning log; teaching reflective learning in HRD

Competing within the dominant discourse: discursive spaces within a public sector Masters community

Role of work based and experiential focused qualification in development of professional identity of HR/HRD practitioners

Promoting workplace learning partnerships between management and unions

The teaching and transfer of reflective learning

Consideration of project titles reveals much overlap but minimal outright repetition. It is difficult to detect any sense that work is building on what has been done previously. A detailed examination of the project goals and outcomes, year on year, may produce insight into the extent to which there is any coherence or pattern to the development of research supported by the Honorarium over its lifetime but this was beyond the scope of this exercise.

The Researchers

The Forum has a membership of 57 institutions; which comprises 47 full members and 10 associate members. This has grown slowly but steadily over the years since the Forum’s inception. Twenty one (45%) of the 47 full members have received an Honorarium. Interestingly, although the membership outside of the UK is small, only one award has been given to an institution outside of the UK. . Six individuals / institutions have received more than one award.

Whilst the majority of successful projects are collaborations between two or more researchers the absence of collaboration across institutions is marked. Only two projects, at the time of application, reflect cross institutional collaboration, one of these being between a full member and an associate member.

Drawing on questionnaire data Figure 1 provides some measure of the experience of the researcher at the time of their Honorarium bid.

V experienced This was the first0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 1: Applicant's research experience at time of Honorarium Bid

There is a close link between this profile and some of the main perceived benefits of the Honorarium.

4.3 Impact

Perceived Benefits

Respondents to the questionnaire were asked to rate (5 = very important) a number of different possible benefits of the

Finan

cial su

pport for t

he rese

arch

An ince

ntive / d

river

to ge

t rese

arch underw

ay

Recogn

ition from pee

rs

Recogn

ition from em

ploying i

nstitu

tion3.23.43.63.8

44.2

Figure 2: Perceived Benefits of the Research Honorarium

Honorarium. The mean scores are recorded in Figure 2. That the incentive effect was rated a little more important than Financial Support is worthy of note; perhaps a factor linked to the relative newness to research of many of the Honorarium award holders. Respondents noted in their comments points such as:

It got me started thinking about conducting research

Self esteem and confidence building through the award as it provides some recognition of the worthiness of the research project

Important for a new researcher to get the recognition and symbolic support

The bursary was an important driver to begin the research for an in-experienced researcher.

Additional insight is provided by the case study data in Appendix 2. Case 1, for example, provides an account which reveals the importance of the Honorarium and the associated project in building a research active academic career.

A number of respondents noted the relatively modest total resource available. It is perhaps no surprise that the overwhelming majority of completed projects are small scale with a qualitative methodological base; many drawing on interview data. Hence the value of the award was seen as particularly helpful in relation to transcription costs. Reference to Case 3 (Appendix 2), for example,

indicates that the research “could not and would not” have been possible without the availability of monies to cover transcription costs.

Outputs

Respondents were asked to identify the sorts of outputs they considered were directly attributable to the research undertaken with the support of their Honorarium. Figure 3 indicates the findings here.

Journal Articles Book Chapters Conference Papers

Reports 0

10203040506070

Figure 3: Outputs directly attributable to Honorarium

Whilst Conference Papers are the predominant output there is a strong indication that many of these are subsequently turned into journal articles. Perhaps surprisingly book chapters as a vehicle for output from a completed Honorarium supported project hardly figure.

The data presented in Figure 3 is not the full picture. Most of the research projects classed under Teaching and Learning in HRD have produced teaching and learning related outputs. From six of the projects resources have been lodged in the UFHRD’s Teaching & Learning Bank. Case 3 provides a good example. From the research addressing workplace learning a teaching resource has been produced to aid HRD tutors in investigating with their students the efficacy of management and union learning partnerships.

The Substitution Effect

Whilst 40 journal articles appears a strong testimony to the Honorarium producing tangible research outcomes it is important to question the extent to which any substitution effect operated. If the research supported by the Honorarium would have taken place anyway then a reduced impact might be argued. Respondents were asked “How likely is it that the research would have taken place without the Honorarium”. The evidence here suggests this factor cannot be ignored but overall its

Very Likely Very Unlikely0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 4: The substitution effect

significance is relatively small (Figure 4). Pertinent comments included:

My institution also matched the funding.

I would say that I would have done something on the issue but certainly not on the same scale

I had already undertaken some aspects of the research, and was intending to develop further. However, without support the work would have moved more slowly and would have been more difficult in terms of (a) justification within own institution vis-à-vis other demands and (b) resources (primarily travel costs and funding for conference to disseminate).

The Springboard Effect

Looking forward from the project supported by the Honorarium respondents were asked the extent to which they felt this research had acted as some sort of ‘springboard’ to further HRD research, whether funded or unfunded. Figure 5 illustrates the picture here. This suggests a broadly positive

To a large extent

No further research

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 5: The 'Springboard' Effect

impact in terms of progressing and furthering a HRD research agenda. Respondent comments usefully illustrated the nature of this ‘springboard’ effect:

The project raised additional issues and these were taken up and investigated further by other colleagues

I received further funding from my own institution to extend the research into a second and third phase

The Forum bid itself was viewed as a 'pilot' / pump primer; something to help progress a broader research agenda

The Honorarium is also identified as important in building further research partnerships:

I’ve now teamed up with another colleague in another institution and we are discussing the potential to further the research

Presentation of the research has led to discussions with lecturers at other universities with an interest in the same area…..this ultimately led to a collaborative project

Case study data (Appendix 2) provides useful further insight on this ‘springboard’ factor. In case 2, for example, the interviewee uses the term ‘generative’ to describe how the first project undertaken with UFHRD support helped lay the foundations for an emerging HRD research / teaching and learning community to develop. In case 4 the interviewee identifies the Honorarium as playing an important role in helping him bring others into HRD research and thus helping to develop and sustain an HRD research agenda. An important aspect of this ‘springboard effect’ appears to be enhanced researcher capability. The comment below provides an interesting example of how the Honorarium has helped build a more research oriented approach to consultancy practice:

We have developed a greater understanding of what we are doing and we have developed a more critical perspective to this work as a result of ….this has fed back into work with clients

Ultimately enhanced researcher capability can assist in securing further research funding.

It gave me the experience and confidence to continue research into teaching HRD (with successful journal articles and book chapters) and successfully apply for several other external grants e.g. from the HEA

In cases 1 and 4 the value of some sort of ‘track record’ is regarded as vital in pursuing funding from what is generally recognised to be an increasingly resource scarce environment as regards research.

Research assessment exercises

During the ten plus years the Honorarium has operated two national research exercises have taken place; with a third due to report later in 2014. Respondents were asked if research supported by the Honorarium had featured in such exercises. For example, one or more of the 40 journal articles, noted above, might have been part of an institution’s submission. On the face of it the findings

Significant contri-bution

Has not featured N/A0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 6: Impact within research assessement exercises

indicated in Figure 6 suggest Honorarium project outputs do not figure strongly. Comments provide a little more insight and tend to highlight the ambiguity and ‘politics’ surrounding the research assessment exercise:

Featured as small part in relation to Research Environment

Submitted into the previous REA but not 2014 REF. This was a ‘strategic decision’ to submit only those with an average rating of 3.75.

XXX (institution name) did not submit. Work was considered under Education and was close at 2.5 star rating by internal reviewers

The journal articles generated by the Honorarium were a 4* and a 2*. However because my other articles were a 3* journal article and a 1* book chapter the submission will not be included

Work in production will be aimed at the next exercise

We have different system but a journal article appeared in IJHRM so that was good

The case study data (Appendix 2) help illustrate the tensions and dilemmas HRD researchers can find themselves embroiled within in relation to any national research assessment exercise. In case 2 a paper resulting from Honorarium supported research, working on ABS rankings (used by many institutions for RAE/REF purposes) is published in a 1* ranked journal. Recourse to an independent reviewer indicates this should be rated a 3*paper, warranting submission. However, not all HRD researchers may be able to influence practice in this way. The environment in case 4 suggests the pressure to publish in ABS ranked 3* or 4* journals is hard to resist, generating a tension between loyalty to UFHRD associated journals and institutional career interests.

Contribution to the mission of UFHRD

As noted in the introductory section of this paper the mission of the UFHRD is “to create, develop and inform leading edge HRD theory and practice” through in part, “co-operative research initiatives

and consultancy interventions”. Respondents were asked to what extent they felt the Honorarium contributed to this mission. Findings are presented in Figure 7 and indicate, largely, a very positive

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 7: Contribution to Mission of UFHRD

Significant Irrelevant

view. Comments here are also of interest. A number of respondents highlighted the symbolic impact of the Honorarium:

It offers an important symbolic affirmative message. It can make a difference in the work prioritisation process of HRD academics

The Award has a very important symbolic role as well as practical; role to play in promoting research in the field of HRD

This theme is reflected upon in somewhat greater depth in the case studies (Appendix 2). The following is drawn from Case 2:

The researcher probably speaks for many institutions when she notes a research environment where obtaining funds is increasingly prioritised by universities yet where any funding is increasingly scarce. In such a context the UFHRD’s Research Honorarium is seen as a small but vital resource. The researcher argues that successfully obtaining small amounts of money does signify to the organisation that you are alert to funding opportunities and that your work is recognised by a broader constituency.

Other comments from the questionnaire returns reinforced themes already addressed above e.g. value for those new to HRD research and as a effective ‘pump priming’ initiative.

Whilst most comments were positive and supportive of the Honorarium a number did raise concerns and questions. For example in relation to the size of the fund:

£1000 is nice but it doesn’t go very far

and also in relation to its overall positioning within the world of HRD and related research:

It doesn’t have a) the presence (status) and b) the recognition that it should

It needs to be seen as helping to win serious research monies

It is important and could have more impact. It needs to get beyond the inner coterie of the Forum….and generate more resource.

Such points will be returned to in the Discussion which follows.

Section 5: Discussion and Conclusions

At first blush it is hard to find a criteria by which the Honorarium would not be judged successful. Whilst there are non completions the Honorarium can be judged as an initiative which delivers. A set of, in the main, very positive responses characterise award holders views of the benefits associated with the Honorarium. The case study data reinforces the findings from the questionnaire and usefully illustrates such perceived benefits in more detail.

Its role as an incentive or driver to commence and, importantly, complete a piece of research appears of real value to the community of award holders; together with the very practical benefit of enabling a piece of research to be given more prominence in a complex busy schedule. Of some note is its impact in kick starting HRD research and in bringing in and helping to develop new researcher capability within HRD. The Honorarium also contributes to researcher capability beyond the new researcher; helping to build a research ‘track record’. There appears to be a substantial impact, though difficult to quantify, beyond the specifics and lifetime of any one, inevitably somewhat small scale, project. The Honorarium does help to both extend the opportunities to engage in HRD research and , critically, sustain such activity and interest.

However, this is not the complete picture. It was argued at the outset of the paper that any evaluation of the Forum’s Honorarium offers insight beyond the benefits for individual award holders. It must be viewed with a wider lens. What is its impact as a strategic tool to help the Forum achieve its mission? Is HRD research measurably better, different, more significant, that without the Honorarium? We must seek some sort of a perspective on its impact on HRD research and HRD more broadly.

A number of the respondents, though none in a harshly derogatory sense, noted the small scale of the Honorarium. Even in its best year (supported by funding from the HE Academy) funding totalled little over £15,000. Over the lifetime of the Honorarium funding totals less than £60,000. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Honorarium and the research supported by the Honorarium is more akin to a cottage industry than a player of some significance in the wider context of social science related research. This is both a strength – enabling an appropriate ‘first project’ for the new researcher – but also a weakness in terms of scale and also lack of any ‘grand plan’ to which the small scale effort might be contributing. A lack of collaborative work (across institutions) is also highlighted.

Looking externally, there continues to be, at best, a somewhat ambiguous relationship with the national exercises of research assessment. Honorarium research has not been absent from the RAE and it is not absent from the current REF. The Unit 36 Panel comments following the 2008 exercise identified a lack of theory building in relation to the Management Education and Development ‘field’ and in such a context it is appropriate to note that only four of the Honorarium projects over its lifetime have been thus focussed. Whilst there remains considerable mistrust of the national research exercise the findings from this research can hardly be said to be indicative of any shift in positioning vis the assessments of 2001 and 2008, and it is speculated, of REF 2014. All of this suggests a much more equivocal conclusion needs to be drawn as regards the impact beyond the individual project or the individual Honorarium award holder and in relation to the advancement of HRD research.

One respondent’s comment stands out as helpful in trying to make sense overall of the impact and positioning of the UFHRD’s Research Honorarium.

The Honorarium represents a rare case of funding that is exclusively for HRD related research

This comment seems to have resonance with key aspects of the context in which the UFHRD and the Honorarium operate within. The Honorarium is owned and used by the HRD academic community. Whilst this might be viewed as overly exclusive it nonetheless provides the opportunity for the Honorarium to help build the status of HRD research and help shape the identity of HRD in doing so. There is sufficient evidence from the evaluation of the Honorarium to conclude it is doing this, not as a game changer, not in any dramatic way, but in a way that it more than simply marginal. It does make a difference. It does add value to the HRD research effort. More depth research in relation to the topics of study and in particular to the development of a research agenda post Honorarium may help to substantiate and explore the nature of such a case.

It is difficult to see how the Honorarium could do more, or be more ambitious, without a greater resource base on which to draw. It is beyond the scope of this report to make specific recommendations in relation to the Honorarium and how best it might change and develop. This is for the leadership of the Forum to consider. However, this research suggests a number of areas for consideration. Is there a way that the Honorarium could have greater impact on collaborative research, both between member universities and in relation to university – practitioner partnerships, thus mitigating to an extent some of the weaknesses of an abundance of small scale efforts? Also, might such research be better ‘steered’ in the sense of making a contribution to an agreed HRD research agenda; one that was constructed for medium – long term impact. The Honorarium does have a positive effect on HRD research beyond the lifetime of the Honorarium supported project. Whilst the exact nature of this remains a little unclear it is appropriate to ask ‘to what extent might the Honorarium be geared, formally and specifically, towards winning bigger research contracts ?’ Finally, is there a case for an Honorarium funded exercise which would seek to extend the efforts of the research reported upon in this paper? In other words, a Forum funded but independent, assessment of the status and health of HRD research, not so much to circumvent any reliance on RAE/REF type exercises, but rather to provide a firmer basis for a fairer hearing within such.

References

Alagaraja, M. and Dooley, L.M. (2003), “Origins and historical influences on Human Resource Development: a global perspective”, Human Resource Development Review, 2: 1

Jeung, C., Yoon, H.J., Park, S. and Jo S.J. (2011), The contributions of Human Resource Development research across disciplines: a citation and content analysis, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22: 1

Kuchinke, K.P. (2001), “Why HRD is not an academic discipline”, Human Resource Development International, 4: 3

Poell, R.F. (2007), “The future of HRD research: a SWOT analysis by five leading scholars in the field”, Human Resource Development International, 10: 1

RAE2008 UOA 36 subject overview report, (2008) “Research Assessment Exercise, 2008”, available at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/

REF2014 (2011) “Decisions on assessing research impact”, available at: http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011-01/

Sadler-Smith, E. (2014), (in publication) “HRD Research and design science: recasting interventions as artefacts”, Human Resource Development International

Short, D.C., Bing, J.W. and Kehrhahn, M.J. (2003), “Will Human Resource Development survive ?” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14: 3

Stewart, J. (2005), “The current state and status of HRD research”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 12: 1

Stewart, J. (2007), “The UK research assessment exercise”, Human Resource Development International, 8: 4

Stewart, J. and Sambrook, S. (2012), “The historical development of Human Resource Development in the United Kingdom”, Human Resource Development Review, 11: 4

Thorpe, R. (2009) “Reflection on RAE 2008”, Paper presented to UFHRD Seminar: HRD Research Post RAE: Where to Now? Northumbria University, January, 2009

Appendix 1

University Forum for Human Resource Development

2014

A Call for Research Proposals

The University Forum for Human Resource Development invites applications for one of its Research Honoraria. The Honoraria exist to contribute to the mission of the UFHRD which is to create, develop and inform leading edge HRD theory and practices through professionally focused qualifications, co-operative research initiatives and consultancy interventions. Illustrative recent Honorarium projects are noted at the end of this document but more generally proposals could address practice, issues, tensions and/or problems in relation to

the theory / conceptual understanding of HRD

the practice of HRD

the teaching and learning of HRD

In this, the 2014 round of funding it is anticipated that up to three awards will be made. Whilst each award is normally capped at a maximum of £1000, modest exceptions to this will be considered. Honorarium awards can be made to individuals, or teams, in institutions that are full members of the UFHRD. Lecturers, researchers and postgraduates are all encouraged to apply, although in the case

of the latter, proposals will not be accepted which simply seek financial assistance to complete Masters or PhD work. An important goal of the Honorarium is to help broaden participation in HRD research activity. Normally, therefore, the applicant should not be the holder of an ongoing Honorarium. The Honorarium should enable commencement (or completion) of work that might not otherwise be possible to be undertaken and which contributes to promoting HRD as a field of study and professional practice. The award will be paid on satisfactory submission of agreed outputs (see also below). If required, assistance will be provided by UFHRD for placing any published outputs.

Timescale

The closing date for applications is 3 January, 2014. All applications will be reviewed by a panel drawn from the Forum Council. Awards will be made by the end of January. Ideally, outputs should be delivered by the end of December 2014.

Application Procedure

Applications should:

Indicate the goals of the research Explain the value the proposal has for research in HRD Outline any methodology/methods involved Provide an outline work programme, Propose realistic outputs to be achieved (for example, dissemination seminar; conference

paper; journal article etc). Indicate the researchers who will be involved in the work and what qualifies them to do it

Submissions should be a maximum of two pages (excluding short cvs) and should be emailed as a word attachment to Dr Rick Holden at Liverpool Business School (Liverpool John Moores University) R.J.Holden@ljmu.ac.uk

Any enquiries relating to the Honorarium should also be directed to Rick Holden.

Illustrative recent Honorarium projects

Exploring HRD in the Context of Third Sector Partnerships for Public Service Delivery Discourses in HRD: continuities and contradictions Leadership training across business sectors Developing a stakeholder approach to the evaluation of doctoral training Practice what we preach ? A critical examination on learning and teaching

within a professionally accredited training and development curriculum

Evaluating HRD interventions: a discursive approach ‘Not another learning log!’: the teaching of reflective learning Exploring the value of HRD in trade unions Evaluation of the role and contribution of the employer in undergraduate work based

learning National HRD: the potential utility of a governance perspective Exploring the Diverse Development Issues of Female Expatriates

Appendix 2

Case 1

An investigation of the role of a work based and experiential focused qualification in the development of professional identity of HR and HRD practitioners

The researcher applied for a UFHRD Honorarium shortly after completing her PhD. Wanting to continue with research as part of her academic career development but somewhat uncertain as to how to do so, the Honorarium provided a vehicle to help facilitate this. “The bursary was an important driver to begin the research for an in-experienced researcher”. She was introduced to the Honorarium by a more UFHRD active colleague with whom she shared an office. Indeed the bid was a joint one and she drew on her colleague’s experience who had made research bids previously, in writing the proposal. Nonetheless the experience of writing this first bid, substantively different form anything undertaken for or during her PhD, is considered invaluable in relation to developing a research capability which has subsequently grown and matured.

Two distinct benefits are identified by the researcher. Firstly in relation to the specific project undertaken with Forum monies. Here the financial support to assist with transcription costs was regarded as very important. Secondly the value of the Honorarium is seen as playing a key role in helping the researcher to build a research active academic career. The award of the Honorarium enabled the applicants to bid to their own institution for funding to extend the research into a second and third phase. In this sense the UFHRD Honorarium was used successfully to leverage additional research resources and sustain a research agenda. The enhanced research capability and credibility was also important in the researcher’s subsequent move to a new institution in date . Research appeared to be higher up the agenda at this university and A had to present her research plans as part of the application. Hence the developing research capability, boosted significantly by the UFHRD Research Honorarium, provided an important personal resource upon which she could draw.

Since completing the research funded by the Honorarium the researcher has successfully bid for further research related external funding.

Case 2

Practice what we preach ? Critical examination of learning and teaching within a professional training and development curriculum

An evaluation of Doctoral education processes

The researcher in Case 2 has made two successful applications for a UFHRD Research Honorarium; in 2008-9 and again in 2010-11.

Recently promoted to Reader in HRD the researcher describes her involvement with the UFHRD as fundamental in developing a HRD related academic / research career. The positioning of the Honorarium and the two awards within this is seen as “influential”. UFHRD Honorarium funding is not the only research funds the researcher has succeeded in procuring; indeed it represents only a small proportion of total funding obtained over recent years. Nonetheless the two successful applications have helped to give legitimacy to a professional development pathway with HRD research and HRD teaching and learning as the focus. The two awards ensured that two HRD research projects were completed which otherwise might never have seen the light of day.

Importantly the nature of the first project is seen as helping ‘lay the foundations’ for work that others in the HRD community at the university are now engaged. From just two at the time of the first application the community now numbers six. This first project is described as “generative…other colleagues have developed things well beyond where I could have taken them”. The nature of this sustained activity is both in the teaching of HRD and further research. It remains somewhat unclear if the second project will have the same ‘generative’ impact. With the benefit of hindsight, the researcher considers the project was possibly over ambitious and not completed in the way that was initially expected. This said, her recent appointment to Director of the university’s DBA programme has raised the prospect of some aspects of the research outcomes being developed.

The researcher probably speaks for many institutions when she notes a research environment where obtaining funds is increasingly prioritised by universities yet where any funding is increasingly scarce. In such a context the UFHRD’s Research Honorarium is seen as a small but vital resource. The researcher argues that successfully obtaining small amounts of money does signify to the organisation that you are alert to funding opportunities and that your work is recognised by a broader constituency. She notes that in her university all funding successes are celebrated, however small, and that something of the nature of the UFHRD Research Honorarium is particularly important symbol of success at departmental level.

Case 3 provides an interesting perspective on the research assessment debate and tensions therein. One of the outcomes from the first project was published in the Journal of European Industrial Training, ranked by as a 1* journal. However, the researcher’s university used an external academic to review the work provisionally nominated for inclusion in the assessment exercise. This external rated the article at 3*. A small testimony perhaps to the quality of outcomes from the UFHRD Research Honorarium and which could go unrecognised by a reliance on journal rankings for RAE/REF purposes

Case 3

Promoting workplace learning partnerships between management and unions

The Researcher in this case describes himself as relatively experienced the successful Honorarium bid was his third successful bid within HE. He had written bids in his previous role within the TUC. As part of the Research Group at the university he had prior knowledge of the Forum although he had not regarded himself, or his research interests (more oriented towards employee relations) as sitting entirely comfortably with those of the UFHRD. The 2011-12 Call for Proposals had made some additional monies available for awards for research projects specifically addressing the teaching and learning of HRD. This provided the researcher with linking HRD with his ongoing, more established, research interests.

Of note is the fact that the award of £2000 was used principally to cover transcription costs. Researcher describes the prospect of funding to enable transcription costs to be met as extremely important. The research could not and would not have been possible without this. In an environment where funding for such qualitative work is very scarce the Honorarium represented a small but most welcome opportunity. Previous successful research bids had been large enough to buy out time.

Beyond the report and teaching and learning resource for the UFHRD the research has resulted in one published journal article (and a further paper is in review). It is anticipated that at least one of these articles will feature in the next REF. Also of note is the resource for the UFHRD Teaching & Learning Bank – a tutor guide for….and which was awarded runner-up (Teaching & Learning Prize) at the UFHRD Conference 2013. The research and its various outputs are viewed as making an important contribution to the researcher’s university Research Group and which overall is viewed as ‘punching above its weight’. Whilst the Researcher will continue with his employee / workplace relations focus which he sees as ‘cutting across HRD and HRM’, he is hoping to develop some of the implications of the (UFHRD supported) research into the areas of coaching, mentoring and cpd. In this way there would be a clear link from the Honorarium supported research work into future and ongoing research.

Case 4

Developing and retaining graduates

Understanding public sector change in Northern Ireland

Exploring HRD in the context of 3rd sector partnerships for public service delivery

Reflecting on three successful applications for Forum research monies this researcher identifies two distinct benefits which have accrued from the Honoraria. Firstly getting something going, getting something formalised, that otherwise might have remained an intention, an aspiration or something that was dabbled with rather informally. In this respect, and given also that it is relatively modest financial resource, the Honorarium is seen as having particular value for small scale qualitative work where the costs of transcription can be met through the Honorarium funding. “It just gives legitimacy….you get a cost code and a budget.”

The second benefit is how the Honorarium has been used within the Department to help boost the status and credibility of HRD research. Of real significance, argues the researcher, is how he has used it to bring others into HRD research. “J wasn’t research active at all and wouldn’t have been research active if we hadn’t been able to put some money against her doing this”. As regards another colleague: “H was out of the research game and this brought him back…”. In this respect, therefore, the researcher in Case 4 has acted as an informal mentor to such colleagues and where the existence of the Honorarium has been critical as a catalyst to bring this about.

Additionally, the researcher points to his own developing research capability and where the honoraria have been important in helping to build this. Applications for other, more substantive, research monies are enhanced by being able to demonstrate ‘something of a track record’. Noting how difficult the HRD research environment is in current times “anything at all that you can use to help” is most welcome.

Whilst the third project is nearing completion the first two are complete in the sense of a report for UFDHRD and receipt of award monies. However, in both cases research is ongoing. This is most notable in two respects: one the search for additional data two or three years after the original research…what has changed? And, secondly with ongoing efforts to develop further papers for publication. The researcher describes this as the ‘slow burner’ impact of the Honorarium.

A notable success deriving directly from one of the Honorarium supported projects was Best Paper at the Academy of Management Conference 2012. Efforts are continuing to get this paper into a 3* or 4* journal. However this scenario reveals the tensions created by the RAE/REF system of research assessment for HRD researchers. The researcher works in an institution where there is clear pressure to publish in ABS ranked 3* or 4* journals and thus not to ‘waste’ a potentially high quality paper on lower ranked journal outlets. The dilemma for Honorarium award winners in such universities is this: Is the loyalty to the UFHRD and journals most closely associated with the Forum or to the institution and career interests within such ?