{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02745762711864407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013559322033898305, 'mean_word_length': 5.212631578947368, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Theorizing and practicing HRD: extending the dialogue over the roles of scholarship and practice in the field

In the field of human resource development (HRD), the relationship between theory and practice is seen as important, yet often difficult and contested. Typically, the issue is framed as an uneasy or even tenuous link between, on the one hand, the scholarly research and academic theories and, on the other hand, the needs and desires of practising HRD professionals, managers and executives faced with day-to-day pressures, problems and opportunities. Often, so it has been asserted in recent articles in this journal, practitioners do not find the answers to their problems in the journals and conference presentations, and this creates doubts about the relevance of theories for practice and distances practitioners from the academic community, and vice versa (Graham and Kormanik 2004; Berger et al. 2004). The tensions between theory and practice are not confined to HRD, but appear endemic in the management and organizational sciences. Tranfield and Denyer (2004) declared the closer link between theory and practice as the ‘grand challenge’ and ‘critical mission’ for management research in the twenty-first century; Marcus et al. (1993) addressed the issue in strategic management, Beyer (1992) in organization science and Rynes et al. (2003) in organizational behavior. However, the field of HRD appears to seek particular proximity between theory and practice with a balance between the two a declared goal of, for example the Academy of HRD (AHRD) whose vision is to ‘lead the profession through research’. Several plenary presentations and sometimes passionate debate at the March 2004 AHRD annual conference in Austin, Texas prompted me to suggest that the discussion over the relationship between HRD theory and practice and, by extension, the needs and expectations of scholars and practitioners, should receive closer attention as one of the core areas of concern in our field. Behind the easy allegations (e.g., ‘I wish these academics would write about things that we as practitioners can use on the job!’ or ‘I wish these practitioners would actually read and implement our painstakingly obtained research findings!’), there hides a number of issues of intriguing complexity. A process of dialogue and sharing of ideas about the relationship between theory and practice might do much to understand the presently perceived divide between scholars and practitioners, to move the field towards greater clarity about the boundaries and connections between the theory and practice and to a stance of appreciation of the disparate yet connected roles of theory and practice and the contributions of theoreticians and practitioners. On the following pages, I will outline three dimensions related to the topic that seem particularly interesting and relevant. The list is by no means exhaustive, nor HRDI 7:4 (2004), pp. 535–539