A key attribute of reflective practice is its capacity for ongoing purposeful learning in relation to changing and demanding professional work. The teaching of reflective learning techniques in management education is intended to promote deep-level learning and the application of critical thinking to oneself, personal experience and the work environment. However, we lack empirical evidence that the teaching of reflective learning leads to enhanced reflective practice in professional work. This study provides an examination of reflection in work post formal education. It reports on interviews with eighteen Human Resource professionals. Reflection does not get 'left behind' on completion of formal teaching but there is not an even or simple process of transfer to a work context. Likewise, there was not a slavish adherence to reflective techniques but rather some evidence that students were able to translate their learning into something meaningful for their practice.

The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

We examine how students made sense of the learning that occurred within a curriculum that challenged 'traditional' human resource development (HRD), a curriculum informed by critical content and critical process. We draw attention to the identity work undertaken by students who were introduced to critical HRD and examine how this discourse enabled alternative 'subject positions'. Drawing on an ethnographic research study informed by a discourse perspective on learning and identity, we explore how students reflected and made sense of their learning and identify eight subject positions: academic practitioner, frustrated practitioner researcher, deep thinking performer, politically aware and active, powerful boundary worker, personally empowered, emancipatory practitioner and personally empowered but disengaged. Drawing on these findings, we question whether the introduction of critical approaches to HRD afforded or prevented articulation and interchange between this educational programme and the students' employing organizations, highlighting the implications for HRD research and practice.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to discuss how a discourse approach to theorising human resource development (HRD) can open a "discursive space" to challenge dominant discourses within the field; enabling a more critical discourse to emerge. Design/methodology/approach -Discusses two approaches to discourse analysis, a "practice" and a "critical" approach, and illuminates how both approaches can contribute to theorising HRD. Findings -The notion of what constitutes HRD is being constantly renegotiated both in theory and in practice. While contemporary HRD discourses are many and there is fluidity in the field a dominant discourse can be identified. The authors argue that a focus on the discourses which construct and constitute HRD need to consider both the "practice" and "the order of discourse" enabling the emergence of alternative discourses within the field. Research limitations/implications -Due to word restrictions an empirical example has not been included. However, future work will address this limitation. Practical implications -The two approaches to discourse analysis discussed provide a useful framework; enabling an analysis of the dominant and competing discourses within the field of HRD. Originality/value -Discourse analysis is rarely discussed in business settings despite the evidence that applied discourse analysis focuses on questions that are of relevance to the field. This paper contributes to a perceived gap and demonstrates how discourse analysis can contribute to researching alternative notions of HRD in order to encourage a variety of conceptual developments.

No abstract

Reflection and reflective practice are much discussed aspects of professional education. This paper conveys our efforts to problematise teaching reflective practice in Human Resources (HR) education. The research, on which the paper is based, engages with stakeholders involved in the professional learning and education of reflective practice in three UK universities to provide a critical understanding of the complexities involved. Our research surfaces a level of conceptual ambiguity which creates an uneven landscape in terms of the teaching of reflective practice. Workplace cultures which do not support reflective practice, a focus on performance review and disparate stakeholder views highlight competing discourses of performance based reflection and critical management reflection and suggest a fundamental dissonance between a perspective that reflection in professional work warrants a critical character, and one which is based on a relatively simple 'acquisition of knowledge' model of continuous professional development. The analysis helps assess the teaching challenge within HR professional learning. Similar intricacies may affect teaching in other professions and consequently this article offers a contribution of relevance and interest to others involved in teaching reflective practice.

The idea for this special issue was shaped via numerous conversations, where we shared our passion for, and belief in, action learning. As 'comrades in adversity' we questioned each other on the various approaches we had adapted, and surfaced a shared view that Revans' classic principles (RCP) were just that, principles; not a how-to list. However, it also emerged that we shared a belief (based on experience), that action learning worked best when thoughtfully adapted to 'fit' the context and the learners involved. The term 'adaptive action learning' captured our imagination and stimulated a debate which resonates with definitional debates in our field. For example, in a seminal article Pedler, Burgoyne, and Brook (2005) ask the question, 'what has action learning learned to become?' They suggest that adaptations in action learning can be viewed either as dilutions of RCP or as evolutions, with each new iteration constituting a fresh interpretation; a contextsensitive newly-minted performance. Indeed, as action learning has spread globally, a variety of practices have emerged. This has resulted in action learning being viewed as an 'ethos' which informs a variety of approaches (Brook, Pedler, and Burgoyne 2012). Bourner and Rospigliosi (2019) contribute to our understanding of this 'ethos'. They examine Revans' early life and identify seven underpinning 'values' and eight 'guiding beliefs' that have found their way into action learning practice. To what extent are these values and guiding beliefs relevant to action learning practitioners today? In what ways, if any, have they been adapted? Adaptations in action learning are not new. For example, Lawless (2008) argues that adaptations of action learning within Higher Education (HE) are an evolution, rather than a dilution of RCP. Sanyal (2019) advocates a central role for effective facilitation and questions Revans' views on the facilitator's role within HE programmes. However, a cautionary tale is provided by Milano, Lawless, and Eades (2015), as they reflect on 'learning lost' during a HE programme, when core values of action learning were put under performative pressures. Brook and Pedler (2020) remind us that action learning is a voluntary activity and suggest that variety in practice is influenced by personal and professional preferences; they agree that action learning can be interpreted in variety of ways, but assert that it is only 'properly practised' by those who understand and embrace its core values. However, who decides what is 'proper practice'? Is it the Editors of this or other journals; reviewers; readers; contributors, or the participants in action learning interventions? Papers in this special issue: We are delighted with the response to this special issue and have selected four refereed papers and two accounts of practice. All papers reveal 'thoughtful adaptations' of Revans' work and illustrate an 'ethos' of action learning. Hannah Wilson and colleagues: Develop a framework / model of: 'integrated action learning'. They adopt the lens of socio...

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the central role of critical reflection for practitioners.Design/methodology/approachThis joint paper is informed by a practitioner and an academic perspective and is an output from ongoing research. An MA in Strategic HR provides the initial focus. This partnership programme is informed by action learning ethos and method and the emancipatory potential of critical reflection. The paper illustrates how students talk about becoming critically reflective, and in doing so it explores the opportunities and challenges involved.FindingsIt is argued that in order for critical reflection to realise its potential of emancipatory change, pedagogy needs to be underpinned by critical process and critical content. However, it is unfortunate that a majority of critical literature appears to be addressed to an academic audience. The paper also highlights the need to support learning conversations beyond the original set.Originality/valueThe paper highlights the need for development initiatives to support the questioning of taken‐for‐granted assumptions. This draws attention to the necessity of supporting an emerging community of critically reflective practitioners by ensuring an open dialogue about values and practice.