Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory

8/13/2019 Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory

1/35

http://hrd.sagepub.com/ Develo pment R eview

Human Resource

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534484312461634

October 2012 2013 12: 53 originally published online 17Human Resource Development Review

Robert M. YawsonA Myth or Reality?Resource Development

Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory in Human

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Human Resource Development Review Additional services and information for

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.refs.htmlCitations:

at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on May 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.ahrd.org/http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.refs.htmlhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ahrd.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53http://hrd.sagepub.com/


2/35

What is This?

- Oct 17, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 8, 2013Version of Record>>

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/1534484312461634.full.pdfhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.full.pdfhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.full.pdfhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/1534484312461634.full.pdfhttp://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.full.pdf


3/35

Human Resource Development Review12(1) 53 85

2012 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1534484312461634

hrd.sagepub.com

461634HRD12110.1177/1534484312461634H

man ResourceDevelopment ReviewYawson012

1University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:Robert M. Yawson, Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, College ofEducation and Human Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street SE,Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.Email: [email protected]

Systems Theory andThinking as a Foundational

Theory in Human ResourceDevelopmentA Myth orReality?

Robert M. Yawson 1

AbstractThis study reviews systems theory and thinking (ST&T) as a foundational discipline ortheory in human resource development (HRD) research and practice. Using systematicevidence review (SER) of the literature and mapping analysis of HRD curricula acrosssome leading U.S. universities, disconnect between theory and practice of ST&T isdiscussed. The use of SER of the literature in HRD research is an important aspectof this study. The study recommended the incorporation of more ST&T courses intothe HRD undergraduate and graduate curricula. Recommendations of how systemsthinking can become more relevant to HRD research and practice are offered.

Keywordscurricula, systems dynamics, complexity theory, systems thinking, learning, epistemology

The Importance of Systems Theory in Practice

There seems to be a broad agreement in the field of human resource development(HRD) that systems theory and thinking (ST&T) is a crucial component of theresearch and practice in HRD (e.g., Ardichvili, 2008; Hartshorn, 1989; Iles & Yolles,2003; Lee, 2003; McLagan, 1989; Swanson, 2001; Swanson & Holton III, 2008).Practice as used in this study encompasses scholarly practice (research and teaching)

Foundations and Philosophy of HRD

http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/


4/35

54 Human Resource Development Review 12(1)

and practice in terms of working with organizations. However, the apparent lack ofapplications of systems thinking by HRD practitioners, professionals, researchers, andstudents raises the question why a theory generally accepted as a foundational theory

is not seen in practice and in learning as it should.Iles and Yolles (2003) have attributed the apparent lack of applications of ST&T inHRD practice and research to the several limitations of current HRD as a field of studydue to its over reliance on simple systems model of inputoutput transformation.Jayanti (2011) has also contended that linear epistemology is the dominant episte-mology in the field of HRD and as such undergirds a majority of HRD models (p.101) and argues further that these models have served HRD well but can no longer bethe dominant epistemology.

In an editorial in Human Resource Development Review , Yorks and Nicolaides

(2006) made an important observation that much HRD theory and research treat orga-nizational systems as complicated linear systems instead of nonlinear dynamic, inter-dependent systems. If ST&T is generally acknowledged as a foundational discipline ortheory in HRD then it is quite paradoxical to have linear epistemology as the dominantepistemology. This paradox may be due to how HRD professionals view ST&T. GeneL. Roth as president of the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD)acknowledged that systems theory has been proposed as a logical starting point forexamining HRD (Roth, 2004). Roth (2004), however, contended that like the field ofHRD, lack of consensus regarding the boundaries of ST&T might also influence how

HRD professionals may use ST&T in research and practice based on the competingcontentions that reside in the literature on the parameters of ST&T. For example, HRDhas several formulas such as analysis, diagnosis, intervention development, imple-mentation, and evaluation (ADDIE); learning models; action research; plannedchange; field theory; performance improvement; and learning organization models,for addressing individual and organization change, but has little to show on how thediscipline addresses the intricacies of power, politics, and culture in organizations(Bierema & Eraut, 2004).

Vakili, Izadi, and Moteabbed (2007), in discussing the understanding of barriers to

ST&T, indicated that researchers and professionals who articulate the concept do notseem to apply it in practice and decision-making. In any field of practice, formaltheoretical explorations are much more likely to be attended to if their relevance to,and implications for, practice are clearly established (Brookfield, 1992, p. 85). A

persuasive argument can thus be made that for ST&T to be accepted as a foundationaltheory in HRD, its relevance and application in HRD practice must be unambiguous.As Brookfield (1992) clearly articulated:

In a field of practice formal theoretical elaborations gain credibility (or come to

be seen as irrelevant) through a process by which practitioners judge the accu-racy and validity of these elaborations in a range of practical contexts. To pro- pose formal theoretical insights without exploring their connections to practice

http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/


5/35

Yawson 55

effectively renders them closed to the majority . . . working across the variedcontexts in the field (p. 86)

The issue of relevance in practice of ST&T as a foundational theory in HRD istherefore critically important. Raelin (2007) stated that we may not realize that one oftheorys main purposes is to inform practice, nor may we be aware that theory losesmuch of its vitality if uninformed by reflection on practice (p. 495), what Raelin(2007) referred to as epistemology of practice .

The questions arising are: Has ST&T had an impact on how HRD is studied and practiced? Have the contributions to scholarly research in ST&T in HRD any wayshaped the way HRD has evolved and continues to evolve as discipline, in bothresearch and practice? Why the disconnect between theory and practice of ST&T in

HRD if it is seen as one of the foundational theories or disciplines? Are future HRD professionals being adequately trained to understand the importance and role of ST&Tin the research and practice of HRD? Finally, is ST&T as a foundational theory inHRD a myth or reality? This article attempts to answer these questions and also set thetone for future research.

The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze the disconnect between the theoryand practice of ST&T in HRD. An attempt is also made to understand whether ST&Tas a foundational discipline or theory in HRD is a myth or reality? Recommendationsof how systems thinking can become more relevant to HRD research and practice are

offered.The study follows a logical expository approach including the following:

A narrative review of the literature on ST&T to place it in the realm as a dis-cipline of study on its own (Sterman, 2000).

Systematic evidence review (SER) of ST&T in HRD literature is con-ducted to understand the epistemology of ST&T in HRD to ascertain why itis generally accepted as a foundational theory.

The study then identifies and offers explanations of the reasons for discon-

nect between theory and practice. The study maps and analyzes courses offered in several of the leading HRDdepartments in U.S. universities to critique whether the course offerings arethe true reflections of how researchers and professionals articulate the con-cept; and also to answer the question as to whether future HRD professionalsare being adequately trained to understand the importance and role of ST&Tin the research and practice of HRD.

In a way this study is also motivated by Kuchinkes (2007) admonition that HRD

should be encouraged to become increasingly self-critical by investigating and dis-cussing to a greater extent the aims and means, explicit and implicit, of the curricu-lum (p. 123) and this study attempts to do just that.



6/35


Systems, Systems Theory, and Systems Thinking

Systems theory has been variously defined in the literature. It is however, important

that before systems theory is discussed the word systems is defined. It is one of themost loosely used words both in everyday discourse and in academic literatures. It isdefined as a group of interacting components that conserves some identifiable set ofrelations with the sum of their components plus their relationships (i.e., the systemitself), conserving some identifiable set of relationships to other entities (includingother systems) (Straussfogel & Schilling, 2009, p. 151). All occurrences are intercon-nections of relationships among component parts of a system.

Systems Theory Systems theory, also referred to as general systems theory or systemics, is the theoryunderlying the study of systems. Systems theory has a very long history, but as thecore theory underlying an academic discipline, its foundation is generally accreditedto Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an Austrian-born biologist with his development ofGeneral Systems Theory (GST). It is important to note that systems theory does notrepresent just a single theory, but a set of constructs that coevolved with a set ofrelated intellectual streams concerned with the nature and characteristics of systems(Straussfogel & Schilling, 2009). These include information and game theory, cyber-

netics and chaos theory, theory of autopoiesis, complexity theory, and dynamic sys-tems theory (Straussfogel & Schilling, 2009). It is a trans- and interdisciplinary theorythat underlies studies of complex systems in nature, society, organizations, and sci-ence. Systems theory is therefore a theoretical framework by which elements that actin concert to produce some result are studied. Principia Cibernetica Web definessystems theory as the transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenom-ena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence. Itinvestigates both the principles common to all complex entities, and the (usuallymathematical) models which can be used to describe them (Heylighen, 2000, web-

page). Systems theory can be classified into three broad categories. Hard systems : This is the category of systems theory that uses simulations, andtakes a narrow view at the conversion of inputs into outputs for attainment of particu-lar goals and objectives (Engel, 1997) based on the use of computers and the tech-niques of operation research. A typical example that is still used currently by mostinternational development agencies is that of the logical framework analysis approach,which was popularized in the 1970s (Morgan, 2005). It is also the predominant sys-tems approach in HRD scholarship (Iles & Yolles, 2003). Hard systems are valuablefor problems that can reasonably be quantified. The most important drawback of its

use is that it is not applicable to important concepts such as culture, politics, and opin-ions that cannot be easily quantified.Soft systems : In contrast to hard systems, soft systems approach is used for systems

that cannot easily be quantified (Checkland & Scholes, 1990). It has found very useful



7/35

Yawson 57

applications in cases involving people with various and conflicting frames of refer-ence. It is used for understanding motivations, opinions, and interactions, and takesaccount of both qualitative and quantitative dimensions of problem situations

(Checkland & Scholes, 1990). Dynamic systems : It is the systems approach for understanding the design of complex social systems. Dynamic systems incorporate critical systems inquiry with softsystem methodologies (Bnthy, 1996). Dynamic systems as evolutionary systems areopen and complex systems, with inherent nature of changing or evolving with time(Bnthy, 2000). Dynamic systems include chaos, complexity, and cybernetics.

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is predicated on the principles of systems theory in that the con-stituent parts of a system will exhibit different behavior and properties when it isviewed in isolation from the whole. To understand a system, is therefore to study thesystems relationships that exist between the various parts that work in concert todetermine the behavior of the system. The primary concern of systems thinking is,therefore, how the whole is seen and its fit and relationship to its environment. Asecondary emphasis is placed on the component parts of the system.

Dimensions of systems thinking : Four dimensions of systems thinking have beendescribed (Ossimitz, 2000; Raymond, 2003; Sterman, 2000):

Thinking in models and interrelated structures using Causal Loop Diagramsto transfer the gained knowledge to real situations.

Dynamic thinking that mostly uses behavior over time graphs to anticipatefuture behavior of systems with delays, oscillations, and feedback loops.

Integrated thinking using stock and flows to consider complex linkages asopposed to linear thinking, where one cause is thought to have only one effect.

Systems actionsuccessful acting in complex situations by finding rightleverage points for action, using systems archetypes.

Features of systems thinking : The characteristics, features, and properties of anysystem emanate from the multitude of interrelationships that exist between the compo-nent parts. Little about the whole system can be inferred from studying the workingsof individual elements. The focus is on the behavior of the inseparable whole.

Complex SystemsOne important aspect of a systems research is the complexity of systems. A complex

system is defined as a system which is made up of interconnected parts that exhibitconcerted properties as a whole which are different from the properties exhibited bythe individual constituent parts when acting alone. A complex system is either a dis-organized or organized complexity.



8/35


Yorks and Nicolaides (2006) in discussing the notion of centrality of ST&T to HRDtheory, made a clear distinction between systems that are complicated and those thatare complex. Complicated systems may appear complex but can be deconstructed

and usually function in a linear way; complex systems may seem simple but aredynamic, ever interacting as they evolve in a nonlinear way (Yorks & Nicolaides,2006, p. 145). Systems with huge number of parts are mostly disorganized whereasorganized complexity normally has limited components and a subject system thatexhibit emergent properties.

There are different types of complex systems: chaos theory and its offshoots complexity theory and complex adaptive systems (CAS) are underlined by the features ofsystems theory, although they may represent a new and distinct generation of thought.These theories maintain that relationships in complex systems, like organizations, are

non-linear, made up of interconnections and branching choices that produce unintendedconsequences and render the universe unpredictable (Tetenbaum, 1998, p. 21).Complexity theory posits that some events, given our knowledge and technology, areunknowable until they occur, and may indeed be unknowable in advance (Schneider& Somers, 2006, p. 354). Complexity theory includes three interrelated elements thatare not accounted for in GST. These are nonlinear dynamics, in which structures arecharacterized by high states of energy exchange with the environment and extremeinstability (Hickman, 2010); chaos theory which is nonlinear, deterministic (rather than

probabilistic), sensitive to initial conditions, and continuous irregularity in the behavior

of the system (Taleb, 2007); and adaptation and evolution, in which an ability to modifyor change is evidenced through a process of interdependent self-organization amongindividuals or subsystems (Schneider & Somers, 2006).

Chaotic systems (random behavior) : Chaos theory is one of the most misconstruedareas in systems theory. This may probably be that the word chaos is a misnomersince it connotes disorder. Chaos systems theory is the theory underlying understand-ing the behavior of systems that exist between rigid regularity and randomness basedon pure chance (Ditto & Munakata, 1995; Levy, 1994). For any systems to be describedas a chaotic system, it must be nonlinear, deterministic (rather than probabilistic),

sensitive to initial conditions, and continuous irregularity in the behavior of the system(Ditto & Munakata, 1995; Levy, 1994; Taleb, 2007; Williams, 1997).Complex adaptive systems (CAS) : CAS are special cases of complex systems. The

diverse and multiple interconnected elements confer the complexity. The ability toevolve, transform, and learn from experience confers the adaptive nature in such sys-tems. There are several examples that can be listed for CAS, including the stock mar-ket, manufacturing businesses, and any human social group or group-based endeavorin a cultural and social system, among several others including biological systems.There are several tools to study complex systems and these tools for learning about

complexity must also facilitate the process of systems thinking and policy design(Sterman, 2001, p. 22).Cybernetics : Like the broader systems theory itself, cybernetics has various defini-

tions. Converging the various definitions, it can be described as the study of how



9/35

Yawson 59

information, communication, feedback, and control specifically functions within andoutside a system (Heylighen, Joslyn, & Turchin, 2000). Major emphasis of the field ofcybernetics has focused on describing the heterogeneity of interacting parts of a sys-

tem such as complexity, mutuality, complementarity, evolvability, constructivity, andreflexivity (Heylighen et al., 2000; Ruona, 2008).The foregoing illuminates the broadness of ST&T and its emerging branches of study.

This offers the opportunity for HRD scholars and practitioners to create the theoreticaldiscourse that provides guidance for thoughtful practice . . . in the service of enrichingthe connection between theory and practice (Yorks & Nicolaides, 2006, p. 147).

SER of ST&T in HRD Literature

The purpose of this SER is to address the question whether ST&T is a foundationaltheory or discipline in HRD. Since this is the first time SER is being specifically usedin any of the mainstream HRD publications, a detailed review of its use is given.

There is a wide array of approaches to literature review and research synthesis.Research synthesis is an umbrella term for the collection of approaches for summariz-ing, integrating and, in some cases, cumulating the findings of different studies on a

particular topic or a specific research question (Davies, 2000). This broad rangeincludes narrative reviews, integrative reviews, realist synthesis, vote-countingreviews, meta-analyses, best evidence synthesis, meta-ethnography and SER (Davies,

2000; Davies, 2003; Gasteen, 2010; Petticrew, 2001). The simplest form of researchsynthesis is the traditional qualitative literature review, often referred to as the narra-tive review (Davies, 2003).

Traditional reviews offer a summary of a number of different studies and some-times draw conclusions about a particular intervention or policy (Boaz, Ashby, &Young, 2002). Narrative reviews are almost always selective, if not arbitrary, in thatthey do not involve a systematic, rigorous, and exhaustive search of all the relevantliterature (Davies, 2000). In most instances, traditional/narrative reviews are opportu-nistic since they review only the literature that is readily available to the reviewer

(Davies, 2000). Most narrative literature reviews deal with a broad range of issuesrelated to a given topic rather than addressing a particular issue and usually examinethe results of only a small part of the research evidence, and take the claims of authorsat face value (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997; EPPI, 2010). Narrative reviews, pri-marily based on the experience and subjective judgment of the author(s)often expertin the areaare the traditional approach to reviews of any body of knowledge(Goodwin & Geddes, 2004, p. 249).

Another major limitation of narrative reviews is that they are almost always selec-tive in that they do not involve a systematic, rigorous and exhaustive search of all the

relevant literature using electronic and print media as well as hand-searching and waysof identifying the grey literature (Davies, 2003). Narrative reviews seldom give fulldetails of the processes and mechanics by which the reviewed literature has been iden-tified and synthesized (Davies, 2003). It is also often not easy to determine how the



10/35


conclusions were derived from the review (Davies, 2003; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart,2003). This lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine the selection bias and

publication bias of narrative reviews (Davies, 2003; Thomas & Harden, 2003; Wright,

Brand, Dunn, & Spindler, 2007).SERs are different from narrative reviews in that they attempt to deal with all of thelimitations of narrative reviews (Cook et al., 1997; Thomas & Harden, 2003). SERshave developed in response to an increasing need for policymakers, researchers, andeducation practitioners to have access to the latest research evidence when makingdecisions (Harden & Thomas, 2005). SERs are a rigorous and transparent form of lit-erature review (ODI, 2012) and they incorporate the strengths of integrative reviews,vote-counting reviews, meta-analyses, best evidence synthesis, and meta-ethnography.It has been described as the most reliable and comprehensive statement about what

works if it is done well and with full integrity (van der Knaap, Leeuw, Bogaerts, & Nijssen, 2008, p. 49). SERs include identifying, gathering, synthesizing, and assessingall available evidence, quantitative, and/or qualitative, in order to generate a robust,empirically derived answer to a specific research question (ODI, 2012).

Key features of an SER or a systematic research synthesis are as follows (Dixon-Woods, 2006; EPPI, 2010; Hemingway & Brereton, 2009):

Explicit and transparent methods/protocol are used It follows a standard set of stages

It is accountable, replicable and updateable Prespecified, highly focused question Explicit methods for searching Explicit methods for appraisal Explicit methods for synthesis of studies

The purpose of conducting systematic reviews is to use precise process to find as muchas possible of the research relevant to the particular research questions, and be able toreliably collect every relevant information that exist on the subject of study (EPPI,

2010). SER as an approach incorporates integrated literature reviews as have beendescribed by Callahan (2010) and Torraco (2005). SER, which has primarily been usedin medical intervention research, follows standard stages as mentioned earlier, and can

be replicated to obtain the same results. To the best of my knowledge this is the firstattempt at its use in any HRD research, although it has been used in some qualitativestudies in other social science research (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). It must, however,

be noted here that the full complement of SER as used in medical intervention research(e.g., CRD 2009; Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Pope, Mays,& Popay, 2007; Thomas & Harden, 2008) may not all be applicable to HRD research

but can be adapted to suit the needs of HRD and may also serve as alternative literaturereview and synthesis framework that can be used in HRD research depending on theobjectives of the particular study. This article attempts to adapt the medical guidelinesto the needs of HRD researchers. There are a number of issues where HRD research



11/35

Yawson 61

differs from medical research. In particular, HRD research has relatively little empiri-cal research compared with the large quantities of research available on medical issues,and research methods used by HRD are mostly different from those used by medical

researchers. Important steps in SER such as the peer review of the research protocol before the start of the study itself was not followed.The overall approach to the SER for this study is adapted from the guidelines in the

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (Higgins & Green, 2009); and guidelinesfor systematic reviews in the social sciences (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Answeringthe main research question involved synthesizing quantitative and qualitative evi-dence. The following steps were followed: search for materials, screen studies, extractdata, summarize data, perform analyses, and write up results.

Search for MaterialsFor the initial search for materials, literature synthesis was done using text mining(process of analyzing text to extract information that is useful for particular purposes;Witten, 2004, p. 137) to extract technical intelligence (the ability to act on technicalinformation exibly to understand meansend relations and specific subject affor-dances, pertinent to the study of interest, and complemented by suitable tacit knowl-edge of the researcher; Porter, Schoeneck, Frey, Hicks, & Libaers, 2007) from ST&Tin HRD research literature. An extensive ST&T in HRD query was applied to the

Social Science Citation Index/Arts & Humanities Citation Index (SSCI/A&HCI) databases. A variety of terms and phrases were used in the search for materials includingsystems thinking/systems theory/systems foundations/chaos theory/complex systems/social systems theory. Each of these keywords and phrases was searched in combina-tion with the search item human resource.

Cross-referencing and searching of the references of some key articles also occurredto obtain lists for other related studies. In addition to the citation indexes, an expansivesearch covering several disparate electronic databases, including, Business SourcePremier, EconLit, Academic Search Premier, Google scholar, Education Full Text, and

ERIC (Access via CSA), were also queried. Handsearching of four of the key journalsin the field of HRD was done. The journals are Advances in Human Resource Development, Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development International , and Human Resource Development Quarterly . Handsearching involvesscanning the content of journals, using the journals own search tool. In 2007, the AHRDtheory committee compiled a Theory Development in Human Resource Development

Bibliography , which listed 332 articles (AHRD, 2007); and this bibliography was alsoincluded in the initial search. This expansive search resulted in 1,535 articles.

Prioritization and Selection of Literature (Screen Studies)For the prioritization of materials, the initial searches of all materials were uploadedinto Mendeley Citation Software and screened in terms of their relevance to HRD



12/35


using abstract reviews and then the 453 most pertinent articles were identified. Inorder to simplify the evidence collection process, each identified source was evaluatedusing explicit criteria, to include and exclude studies. These criteria were adapted

from Yawson and Kuzma (2010), Pope et al. (2007), and CRDs guidance for under-taking reviews, and included: the quality of the sourcepeer review journal publica-tion, edited conference proceedings, report from recognized research centers anduniversities; the approach to the primary research and the methodology used; studyspecificity of how the study is situated within HRDST&T studies that are notrelated to research and practice of HRD are excluded; the level to which the sourcediscussed the broader research question on why ST&T is generally accepted as afoundational theory in HRD. This resulted in a total of 163 articles.

Extraction, Summarization, and Analyses of DataThe 163 selected articles were exported to an EPPI-Reviewer 4.0 : software forresearch synthesis (Thomas, Brunton, & Graziosi, 2010). The articles were eitherimported directly from the search engine or first saved in Refworks/Zotero beforeexporting to EPPI-Reviewer that was used to help import data on articles and other

publications into a database for easy access and manipulation. Using the followingkey phrases: theory building, underlying theory, foundational theory, career develop-ment, organizational development, training and development, performance improve-

ment, and HRD, 38 articles were selected for the evidence review. Out of these 38articles, 34 are purely theoretical/conceptual, three of the articles are studies reportingST&T practice, and only one (McGuire & Cseh, 2006) of the articles is actually basedon empirical research to contend that ST&T is a foundational theory of HRD. Table 1is the result of SER and a separate list of references has been provided for SER.

There were however, several articles in allied fields such as organizational and behavioral studies with empirical research in ST&T which were excluded, for example Houchin and MacLean (2005) and McKelvey (1999). Other data including themost cited papers, authors with most papers, location of authors, etc. were provided by

the software but are of no relevance to the objectives of this article and are thereforenot discussed.

Evidence Review From the review it is clear that ST&T is seen as crucial component of epistemologyof practice and research in the field of HRD. The major disagreement is about whichdisciplines constitute the foundational disciplines of HRD. Kuchinke (2001) arguesthat HRD is derived from five disciplines in the physical and social sciences (namely

economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and political science). The main proponents of systems theory as the foundational theory also agree that there are otherdisciplines that are important to the research and practice of HRD (Holton, 1999; Iles& Yolles, 2003; Passmore, 1997; Swanson, 1999a; Swanson & Holton, 2001; Torraco,



13/35
http://hrd.sagepub.com/


14/35


15/35


16/35

66

S t u d y

T y p e o f r e s e a r c h

C o n t r

i b u t

i o n t o t h e r e s e a r c

h q u e s t i o n

2 4 .

S w a n s o n

( 1 9 9 5 )

C o n c e p t u a

l

T h e s e v e r a

l p a p e r s b y

S w a n s o n

h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e d i s c

i p l i n e o f

H R D r e

l i e s o n t h r e e c o r e

t h e o r i e s i n o r

d e r t o u n d e r s t a n

d , e x p l a i n a n

d c a r r y o u t i t s p r o c e s s a n d r o

l e s . T

h e y i n c l u

d e

p s y c

h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y , e c

o n o m

i c t h e o r y , a

n d s y s t e m s t h e o r y . H

e u s e s a m e t a p

h o r o f t h r e e -

l e g g e d

s t o o

l a s a v i s u a

l p o r t r a y a l o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o

f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l

f o u n

d a t i o n o f

H R D .

2 5 .

S w a n s o n

( 1 9 9 9 )

2 6 .

S w a n s o n

( 2 0 0 0 )

2 7 .

S w a n s o n

( 2 0 0 4 )

2 8 .

S w a n s o n

( 2 0 0 1 )

2 9 .

S w a n s o n

( 2 0 0 7 )

3 0 .

S w a n s o n

( 2 0 0 8 )

3 1 .

U p t o n a n

d

E g a n ( 2 0 1 0 )

C o n c e p t u a

l

I n m a k

i n g a c a s e

f o r

T h r e e

A p p r o a c h e s t o

M u l t i l e v e l T

h e o r y

B u i l d i n g , t h e p a p e r a s s e r t e

d

t h a t a l t

h o u g

h H R D l i t e r a t u r e p r o v

i d e s m u c

h s u p p o r t

f o r t

h e n o t i o n t h a t s y s t e m s o r l a y e r e d

p e r s p e c t

i v e s o

f H R D a r e

e s s e n t

i a l , e

x i s t

i n g

l i t e r a t u r e a n d

f r a m e w o r

k s h a v e

f a i l e d t o r e

f l e c t t h

i s

s e e m

i n g l y e n

d u r i n g p e r s p e c t

i v e .

3 2 .

W a n g a n

d

H o l t o n

( 2 0 0 5 )

C o n c e p t u a

l

I n r e v i e w

i n g

N e o c l a s s

i c a l a n d

I n s t

i t u t i o n a

l E c o n o m

i c s a s

F o u n

d a t i o n s

f o r

H u m a n

R e s o u r c e

D e v e l o p m e n t T

h e o r y , t

h e p a p e r s t a t e

d e m p h a t

i c a l l y t h a t e c o n o m

i c s , t

o g e t

h e r w

i t h s y s t e m s

t h e o r y a n

d p s y c

h o l o g y , a r e a m o n g t h e c o r e

f o u n

d a t i o n s

f o r t

h e f i e l d o f

h u m a n r e s o u r c e

d e v e

l o p m e n t .

3 3 .

W a n g a n

d

W a n g

( 2 0 0 5 )

S T & T p r a c t i c e

A t t e m p t

i n g t o a d

d r e s s t h e c r

i t i c a

l b a r r i e r s a n

d p r o m o t e t h e o r y

b u i l d i n g

i n M & E

, t h e p a p e r

p r o p o s e d a s y s t e m s a p p r o a c

h b a s e

d o n a n a n a l y s i s o f

H R D i n t e r v e n t i o n s .

T a

b l e 1

. ( c o n

t i n u e

d )

( c o n t i n u e

d )



17/35

67

S t u d y

T y p e o f r e s e a r c h

C o n t r

i b u t

i o n t o t h e r e s e a r c

h q u e s t i o n

3 4 .

W a n g , D

o u ,

a n d L i

( 2 0 0 2 )


T h e p a p e r d e f

i n e s r e t u r n o n

i n v e s t m e n t (

R O I ) c o n c e p t e x p l

i c i t l y

f o r H

R D i n t e r v e n t i o n s ,

c o n s t r u c t a

f r a m e w o r k a s t h e t h e o r e t i c a l

f o u n

d a t i o n f o r a s y s t e m s a p p r o a c

h , a n

d d i s c u s s

o p e r a t

i o n a

l i z i n g t h e a p p r o a c

h . A p p l

i c a t i o n s c e n a r

i o s w e r e p r e s e n t e

d t o

d e m o n s t r a t e t h e u t

i l i t y

o f t h e s y s t e m s a p p r o a c h t o

R O I m e a s u r e m e n t i n t h e

H R D f i e l d

.

3 5 .

W e i n

b e r g e r

( 1 9 9 8 )

C o n c e p t u a

l

T h e p a p e r r e v

i e w e d s e v e r a

l U . S . d

e f i n i t i o n s o

f H R D a n d

e x a m

i n e d t h e i r u n

d e r l y

i n g t h e o r i e s .

A c k n o w

l e d g i n g

H R D a s

i n t e r d

i s c i p l i n a r y

i n n a t u r e a n d t h a t m a n y

f i e l d s o

f s t u

d y i n f o r m

H R D

t h e o r y a n

d p r a c t i c e , t h e p a p e r i

d e n t

i f i e d t h e p r

i m a r y

i n f l u e n c i n g

f o r c e s a s p s y c

h o l o g y w

i t h a

l e a r n i n g e m p h a s

i s , s y

s t e m

s , e c o n o m

i c s , a

n d p e r f o r m a n c e .

3 6 .

Y a n g

( 2 0 0 4 )

C o n c e p t u a

l

I n c o n t e n

d i n g t h a t a d u l t l e a r n

i n g t h e o r y p r o v

i d e s a

f o u n d a t

i o n

f o r H

R D , t

h e p a p e r a s s e r t e d t h a t

t h e

f i e l d o f

H R D h a s b e e n v i e w e d a s

b e i n g s u p p o r t e d

b y t h r e e t h e o r e t i c a l

f o u n

d a t i o n s n a m e l y ,

e c o n o m

i c , p

s y c h o l o g

i c a l , a

n d s y s t e m t h e o r i e s .

3 7 .

Y o r k s a n

d

N i c o l a i d e s

( 2 0 0 6 )

.


T h e e d

i t o r i a

l m e n t i o n s t h a t , t

h e r e a r e s e v e r a

l s t r e a m s o r s t r a n d s t

h a t a r e o f t e n p a r t o f t h e

c o n v e r s a t i o n ,

i n c l u

d i n g c

h a o s t h e o r y , d

i s s i p a t

i v e s t r u c t u r e t h e o r y , a

n d t h e t h e o r y o f c o m p l e x

a d a p t i v e s y s t e m s . T

h e e p

i s t e m

i c a s s u m p t

i o n s u n

d e r l y i n g e a c h o f t h e s e s t r a n d s a n d h o w t h e y

d i f f e r i s i m p o r t a n t f o r u n d e r s t a n

d i n g t h e p o t e n t

i a l c o n

t r i b u t

i o n o f c o m p l e x

i t y t h e o r y t o

H R D

p r a c t i c e .

T h e

i m p l

i c a t i o n s o

f t h e s e

d i f f e r e n t a s s u m p t i o n s

f o r t r a n s

l a t i n g t h e s e t h e m e s i n t o

H R D

p r a c t i c e c a

l l s f o r t

h o u g h t f u

l s c h o l a r s h

i p . T

h e p a p e r c o n t e n

d s t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f

s y s t e m s

i s

c e n t r a

l t o

H R D t h e o r y .

3 8 .

Y o o n a n

d

K u c h i n k e

( 2 0 0 5 )

C o n c e p t u a

l

A l t h o u g h t h

i s a r t i c

l e d i d n o t e x p l

i c i t l y

d e s c r i b e d

S T & T a s a

f o u n

d a t i o n t h e o r y o r

d i s c i p l i n e o f

H R D

, i t m a d e a c l e a r c a s e

f o r h o w

S T & T i s t h e

l e n s e s t h r o u g

h w

h i c h t o a n a l y z e o r g a n

i z a t i o n s .

I t s t a t e d t h a t c l e a r

l y u n d e r s t a n

d i n g t h e

i m p l

i c a t i o n s o

f o p e n s y s t e m s , c o m p l e x

i t y t h e o r y ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a

l m e t a p

h o r s , a n

d t e c h n o

l o g i e s ,

h u m a n p e r f o r m a n c e t e c h n o

l o g y p r o f e s s i o n a

l s h a v e

u s e f u l

f r a m e w o r

k s t o a n a l y z e o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n

d a p p r o a c

h s o

l u t i o n s .

T a

b l e 1

. ( c o n

t i n u e

d )



18/35


1997). Swanson (1999b, pp. 2-3) developed a three-legged theoretical foundationsconsisting of psychology, economics, and systems theories. Although McLean (1999)disagrees with Swansons three-legged foundational theory, he considers HRD as hav-

ing many varied disciplines as its foundation including ST&T as key component.Jacobs (1989), a strong proponent of a unifying theory for HRD, argues that such aunifying theory should be based on systems theory. Of the 13 respondents who com-

pleted the final round of the Delphi study by McGuire and Cseh (2006) identifiedadult learning, systems theory, and psychology as the three main disciplinary founda-tions of HRD. Ardichvili (2008) in reviewing the panel discussion on theory buildingin HRD at the European HRD conference in Lille, France, in May 2008 proposedthat the Vygotskian cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), with its grounding insystems theory, and its emphasis on interlocking systems of human activities, . . . is

ideally suited to research in HRD (p. 543). The systematic review identified severalother HRD scholars who have articulated the importance of systems theory inresearch, practice as reported in Table 1.

There is a dearth of HRD literature on the reasons for the gap between theory and practice of ST&T in HRD. However, general research to practice gap within HRD issubstantially discussed. For example, Iles and Yolles (2003) have argued that HRDsemphasis on consensus and participation, its narrow view of effectiveness, its inabil-ity to address issues of power, politics and culture, its ethnocentrism and cultural bias(p. 29 ) are evidence of the gap between theory and practice. Several literature have

also pointed to the gap between HRD scholarship and practice (e.g., Kuchinke, 2004;Short, 2006; Short, Keefer, & Stone, 2009) with Kuchinke (2004) contending thatmost HRD research are conducted in a positivistic framework, without addressing orfully capturing the complex, the intangibles, and the vexing problems faced by practi-tioners and thus creating a gap between research and practice.

From the SER only one study has empirically proven that ST&T is a foundationaldiscipline or theory in HRD, but the overall evidence from the systematic review indi-cates that ST&T is generally seen as a foundational discipline or an underlying theoryof HRD. If ST&T is a foundational theory, then one important question is whether

future HRD professionals are being adequately trained to understand the importanceand role of ST&T in the research and practice of HRD? The following section of thisarticle attempts to address this question.

Mapping of Course Offeringsin Leading HRD DepartmentsHRD graduate-level course offerings within 33 identified universities were mappedto identify the level of ST&T teaching and learning in various HRD curricula. The

selected universities are all universities which were part of the Academy of HumanResource Developments Program Excellence Network (PEN) as of November2010. These academic programs are committed to strengthening HRD academic

programs and promoting excellence in teaching HRD. The PEN provides a forum



19/35

Yawson 69

for its members to explore, learn, and work together to shape the future direction ofHRD education (AHRD, 2009). Out of the 33 universities mapped only theDepartment of Human Development and Family Science, Ohio State University,

Ohio, USA, appears to have a full course of study in General Systems Theory (8,804credits) and the University of Minnesota has a 1-credit course on Systems Foundations of HRD.

A compelling argument and critique of this mapping exercise may be made thatreviewing the course titles may not indicate the degree to which ST&T is integratedinto the curriculum. This is a valid critique and an empirical study, which is outside thescope of this study, is required to fully substantiate the conclusion drawn from themapping exercise. It is also important to note that considering the breadth, boundaries,and parameters of ST&T, it may be expected that a full course of study will not be

embedded in another course without the mention of ST&T or its emergent theories andapplications such as complexity theory and CAS in their description.This circumstantial result from the mapping analysis is however, consistent with

existing literature. In a study by Kuchinke (2002) in which the content areas coveredin core or required curricula of graduate HRD programs in 55 universities were ranked,ST&T as content area was not in the 33 areas listed. It may likely be that aspects ofST&T are embedded in some of the programs and courses but are not seen as stand-alone courses. Most of the programs have foundations of HRD where it is likely thatsome level of systems theory is discussed, but not to any detail that can translate into

practice, such as ST&T courses that exists in some Public Policy Schools andEngineering Departments, for example Richardson (2012).Quite surprisingly, the Academic Standards Committee of the AHRD in dis-

cussing curriculum as one of the seven core areas of the standards failed to mentionsystems theory or even any of its main applications. The Committee listed the CoreTheory in HRD through which the curriculum should provide an understanding of

perspectives that form the context for human resource development (AHRD, 2008 p. 2) and made no mention of systems theory as part of the topics that needed to becovered. The Committee is however, made up of some of the leading and finest

scholars in the field of HRD who have clearly articulated the importance of systemstheory in the research, theory, and practice of HRD. A persuasive argument can bemade that the topics selected may inevitably include the discussion of systems the-ory and that it is embedded in them, just as psychology, anthropology, or economicsfor instance were not listed as topics to be covered. The flaw in this argument is thatunlike the other disciplinary foundations of HRD, ST&T is not an established fieldof study in most undergraduate education programs and therefore the likelihood ofmost of the graduate students in HRD coming into the program with knowledge ofST&T is low. This in itself is one of the main reasons why there is disconnect

between theory and practice. Unlike the other disciplinary foundations, most univer-sities and faculty have not fully recognized systems theory as field that requiresseparate curricula. Because of that, HRD students have no access to any such coursesin other departments to compensate for lack of it in their own academic programs.



20/35


Research on university HRD education indicates that despite the increasingdemands of HRD practice and the broadening of the knowledge domains and skillsets required of successful HRD professionals, university departments appear to be

slow to reform their curricula (Kuchinke, 2007, p. 112) and full incorporation ofST&T could be cited as a typical example. The onus is therefore on HRD faculty tomake conscious effort to get ST&T and its emerging applications into the curricula

by working with colleagues in other disciplines.The lack of ST&T in the HRD curricula gives credence to the perception that sys-

tems theory in HRD has just been reduced to aphorisms and students are not wellequipped for the use of ST&T in HRD practice.

Discussions, Implications, and RecommendationsThe evidence gathered from the systematic review of the literature clearly answersthe main research question. Systems theory as foundational theory in HRD is

broadly accepted, however, its relevance and use in the practice of HRD remains amyth. Why is there such a disconnection between theory, research, and practice?This study can at least point to one likely barrier militating against the use of ST&Tin HRD practice: the mapping exercise of some of the leading universities withHRD programs indicates the low level of incorporation of systems theory as core

part of the curricula.

Most of the discussions on systems theory gathered from the systematic reviewseem to be definitional and little is said about implication for practice and only oneof the studies is empirical. The existing HRD literature does not appear to move

beyond broad discussion of systems theory and into specifics. It is also clear thatHRD research has been restricted to only one aspect of ST&Thard systems think-ing. HRD uses a linear epistemology to generate input-process-output typemodels, such as ADDIE. This in itself is a barrier militating against the full use ofST&T in HRD practice. As Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, and Schley (2010)have contended: we are at the end of the industrial age and the reality in practice for

the 21st century is nonlinear systems thinking. Consequently, the HRD professionallooking for recommendations on how to implement or use systems theory in theirwork receives no guidance from the HRD literature and may have to look else-where. Similarly, any person interested in case studies or research that describehow ST&T has been applied or implemented in organizations will find very littlehelp from the HRD literature. This observation is aptly substantiated by Yorks and

Nicolaides (2006) in their editorial in HRDR where they concluded that there is theneed to build a particular stream of serious scholarship (p. 147). Having said this,I must hasten to add that ST&T has in several ways directed the way HRD has

evolved as a discipline or field of study. Apart from the broad recognition of sys-tems theory as a foundational theory in HRD, the concepts of ST&T have been usedto situate the never ending debate and search for the definition of HRD. Roth



21/35

Yawson 71

(2004), for example, has contended that ST&T might be the best approach forunderstanding HRD, its boundaries, and those things that seem to have the stron-gest connections to it (p. 14). Daley and Jeris (2004) have also concluded that the

ST&T concept of relationships between systems and subsystems is how the rela-tionship between continuing professional education (CPE), HRD, and workforcedevelopment should be seen. The concept of organizational learning and learningorganizations that forms substantial part of HRD scholarship and research havedirect lineage from ST&T. These types of contributions to scholarly research inST&T in HRD have therefore shaped the way HRD has evolved and continues toevolve as discipline especially with regards to it boundaries.

So what are the practical implications of ST&T for HRD? It is obvious that, manyfeatures of ST&T such as order, control, growth, synergy, emergence, identity, struc-

ture, equifinality, multifinality, information, planning, prediction, feedback, adapta-tion, stabilityare part of the human and organizational development process, andthese are what is needed to be articulated and used in practice. The lack of articulationof these practical applications, in the scholarly literature, teaching, and research may,wrongly or rightly, lend credence to commentators who have argued that much of theHRD literature is based on fads and gimmicks without any conceptual foundation(Garavan, Heraty, & Barnicle, 1999, p. 172).

Another challenge to the use of ST&T in HRD practice is that it is very intellectu-ally demanding in its application. It requires multi-disciplinary approaches. And by

its very nature, it needs to take a wide range of trends, actors, events and patterns. Itrequires more investment in a wider range of staff skills, a different organizationalstructure, and a different set of values and perspectives (Morgan, 2005).

Although Swanson (2001), for example, strongly favors the use of system theoryand tools, this has not been very well addressed in HRD. Despite developments inapproaches and methodologies, the predominant systems models in use in HRDremain rooted in rather simple input-transformation-output systems models (Iles& Yolles, 2003). The broad agreement that ST&T provides a sound theoretical foun-dation for HRD owes much to the work of Swanson, who has undoubtedly done

more than most to underpin the concept of systems foundations of HRD.Paradoxically, there is a tendency within the ST&T in HRD literature of presentinghis concepts as a series of clichd aphorisms without any deeper articulation of itsimportance to research and practice, a trend he may be guilty himself. For example,Swanson (2007) stated that chaos theory, an important aspect of systems theory, isimportant to HRD as it provides the perspective that an organization must stay suc-cessful amidst the chaos that it faces. However, direct discussion of the ideas thatcomprise chaos theory and how they are beneficial to the HRD professional in prac-tice were not included. Most ST&T approaches often articulated in the HRD litera-

ture generally involve a linear process of ADDIE that may have limitations inaddressing organization complexity, power and interpersonal dynamics, and organi-zation culture (Bierema & Eraut, 2004). The challenge facing us all is how to move



22/35


past slogans about accelerating learning and systems thinking to useful tools thathelp us understand complexity, design better operating policies, and guide effectivechange (Sterman, 2001, p. 10).

One branch of systems thinkingsystems dynamics is a method to enhancelearning in complex systems and it can be a powerful field of study that can havesignificant practical application in ST&T in HRD. Systems dynamics modeling andsimulation could be used as an effective tool for any formulation and understandingof issues of relevance in HRD practice. Systems models give the chance for experi-mentation and reflection and thus can facilitate the complete understanding of thecomplex environment in which HRD professionals operate (Yawson, 2010). The realadvantage of systems dynamics in HRD practice may lie in the creation of feedbackloops to facilitate learning (Grieves, 2010). If therefore HRD practitioners could

learn how to understand their own systems dynamics, then they could understand thecomplex relationships and underlying properties of their own systems (Grieves,2010, p. 161). There is superficial plausibility in the proposition that HRD profes-sionals should become more knowledgeable in ST&T application in practice. It istherefore important that HRD professionals learn about interrelationships throughfeedback loops that illustrate causality, which will enhance more reflection on the

processes of HRD practice, and in particular time delays it takes to effect organiza-tional change.

Another observation from the lack of practical application of ST&T by HRD

professionals is the inertia within HRD academic research to clearly lay out the practical implications. This inertia is borne out of what Jayanti (2011) described asoverreliance on a linear epistemology that has several limitations, including a ten-dency to privilege particular Western cultural and masculine worldviews, short-termmeasures, and effects close to the organization (p. 101). While, in contrast, consul-tants make a living from selling of systems theory applications by focusing oncreating a commercially attractive template and presenting it to clients (Grieves,2010, p. 160).

The nature of dynamic complexity of challenges HRD professionals have to deal

with in the 21st century lends itself to a whole new paradigm of approach to howfuture HRD professionals are trained (Senge et al., 2010). Senge et al. (2010) contendthat we are at the end of the industrial age and a new revolution is emerging out of theindustrial bubble and the people leading this revolution like HRD professionalsmust demonstrate mastery of three core areas that undergird organizational learning:learning how to see the larger systems , understanding the importance of collaboratingacross boundaries that previously divided them from others within and outside theirorganizations(p. 44), and moving away from reactive problem solving mode to cre-ating futures they truly desire (p. 44).

The usefulness of linear epistemology and the hard systems approach in address-ing tame problems is not in contention. The contention is that linear epistemologycannot be the dominant epistemology of practice and that dynamic complexity of



23/35

Yawson 73

challenges confronted by HRD professionals in their daily research and practicerequires a nonlinear epistemology of practice (Jayanti, 2011), rather than reductive orlinear thinking or processes of normal science. As the findings of SER indicated,

there is no doubt that ST&T is seen and recognized as a foundational theory of HRD.The myth is its lack of use in HRD research and practice for a theory recognize as afoundational theory and also necessary for 21st-century HRD practice. The foregoingand the mapping analysis lead to a recommendation for the incorporation of moreST&T courses into the HRD undergraduate and graduate curricula. These coursesshould be designed to help prepare future HRD professionals to effectively operateand be competitive in the nonlinear dynamical world of the 21st century. The follow-ing courses could be of interest:

Introduction to systems theory and thinking : a 3-credit course to serve under-graduate students both within and outside HRD cohort. Systems thinking and theory in HRD : a 3-credit graduate-level course Systems dynamicstheory and practice : a 3-credit graduate-level course Advanced systems theory and thinking in HRD : an advanced course for doc-

toral students and masters students, interested in research careers; with any ofthe two earlier listed graduate courses being a prerequisite.

The scope of this study and space limitations will not allow for the content of these

proposed courses to be detailed here. It must also be acknowledged that incorporatingall these into the HRD curriculum may seem an overkill; on the contrary it will under-score the interdisciplinary nature of HRD and attract students from other disciplinesto take more HRD courses.

Another recommendation worth considering is the creation of formal collabora-tion between AHRD and the Systems Dynamics Society and/or the InternationalSociety for the Systems Sciencestwo of the main organizations in the field ofST&T. The collaboration can take different shapes including research partnership

between members and joint conferences. The basis for this recommendation is that

disciplinarity is no longer the overriding scheme for knowledge creation and organi-zation (Mehta, 2002) especially for an interdisciplinary field, such as HRD and sys-tems sciences. Knowledge creation is now transdisciplinary, more reflexive,nonlinear, complex, and hybridized (Yawson, 2009), making such interdisciplinarycollaboration extremely important. The social robustness and inclusivity of HRDcurriculum will determine the value of knowledge and how ST&T in HRD can be of

practical value.Another important recommendation is the commissioning of study to critically

review the curriculum of HRD schools to determine the level of ST&T and its emer-

gent applications; and how it can in reality contribute to research, teaching, and prac-tice of HRD. This is a practical way to place HRD in the forefront of producing21st-century professionals in leading adaptive change.



24/35


Conclusion and Limitations of Study

ST&T as a foundational theory in HRD is not in doubt and it is required for HRD

research and practice. It, however, remains a myth due to lack of epistemology of practice, although it is broadly agreed that it is one of the main foundations of HRD.The disconnect between practice and theory which is making it more of a myth thanreality can be traced to several factors such as lack of ST&T curriculum in most HRDdepartments, the dominance of linear epistemology in most HRD models, and lack ofscholarly and empirical research articulating the implications of ST&T in HRD prac-tice. There is, therefore, the need to re-conceptualize HRD in the context of the risein the substance of complexity theories and fully acknowledge that there is a paralleloutlook and conversation that needs to take place within the field (Iles & Yolles, 2003;

Yorks & Nicolaides, 2006).Mapping analysis of course offerings of 33 of top HRD departments in U.S. univer-sities; the previous studies by Kuchinke where ST&T did not rank in the first 33 con-tent areas of HRD curriculum; and the failure of the Academic Standards Committeeof AHRD to acknowledge ST&T or even any of its main applications when discussingcurriculum as one of the seven core areas of the standards in HRD, are all evidence tothe myth of ST&T in HRD. To improve the ability of HRD professionals being pro-duced by the universities to learn about and manage complex systems, there is theneed to incorporate into the curricula courses that will equip them with the tools

capable of capturing the feedback processes, stocks and flows, time delays, and othersources of dynamic complexity (Sterman, 2001, p. 17).One important aspect of this study is the introduction of SER as a research method-

ology in HRD. Although the full complement of SER as used mostly in medical inter-vention research was not used; the adaptation of the overall process in an HRD researchmay serve as an important research approach. It is a research approach that can berefined and used in HRD research and scholarship to complement or serve as alterna-tive to integrated literature reviews and an obvious departure from the traditional nar-rative reviews. As it is done in the medical field the AHRD can set up a committee

(Special Interest Group) on SER.

Limitations of Study This study comes with some limitations. First of all, the systematic review wasrestricted to English language journals that are found in the main databases. Articlesthat do not cite the search terms in English, and journals that are not included in themain databases, were omitted from the analysis. In addition, the search in the maindatabases was not exhaustive, since it excluded books that are not online and unpub-

lished conference proceedings with exception of those published in special editions of journals. Another limitation is to do with the scope of mapping analysis. All theschools selected are U.S. based. It may be very possible that although some of thecourses do not mention systems theory in the labels, the content of the course maycontain substantial lessons on ST&T.



25/35

75

A p p e n d i x

L i s t o f

M e m

b e r s o f

A H R D

- P E N a n d

C o u r s e s o n

S y s t e m s

T h e o r y a n

d T h i n k i n g

N a m e o f u n i v e r s

i t y

C o l l e g e /

d e p a r t m e n t

W e b p a g e

S t a n

d - a l o n e c o u r s e o n

S T & T

B a r r y

U n i v e r s i t y

S c h o o l

o f E d u c a t

i o n

h t t p :

/ / w w w .

b a r r y . e

d u / o l l /

N o n e

B o w

l i n g G r e e n

S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y

S c h o o l

o f E d u c a t

i o n a

l F o u n d a t

i o n s ,

L e a d e r s h i p a n

d P o l i c y

h t t p :

/ / w w w t e s t . b

g s u . e d u / c o

l l e g e s

/ e d h d /

e f l p / l e a d e r s h

i p / p a g e 5

6 6 4 1

. h t m l

N o n e

C o l o r a d o

S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y

C o l

l e g e o f A p p

l i e d H u m a n

S c i e n c e s

h t t p :

/ / w w w . s o e . c a

h s . c o

l o s t a t e . e d u /

G r a

d u a t e /

N o n e

D r e x e

l U n i v e r s

i t y

C e n t r e

f o r G r a

d u a t e

S t u d

i e s / S c h o o

l

o f E d u c a t i o n

h t t p :

/ / g o o

d w i n

. d r e x e

l . e d u / s o e / a c a d e m

i c_

g r a d

_ h r d

_ c u r r . p

h p

N o n e

F l o r

i d a

I n t e r n a t i o n a

l

U n i v e r s i t y

D e p a r t m e n t o f

L e a d e r s h

i p a n

d

P r o f e s s i o n a

l S t u

d i e s

h t t p :

/ / e d u c a t i o n .

f i u . e

d u / a c a

d e m i c

_

p r o g r a m s . h t m

# l p s

N o n e

G e o r g e W a s

h i n g t o n

U n i v e r s i t y

G r a

d u a t e S c

h o o l

o f E d u c a t i o n a n

d

H u m a n

R e s o u r c e

D e v e l o p m e n t

h t t p :

/ / g s e

h d . g w

u . e d u /

H O L

N o n e

I n d i a n a S t a t e

U n i v e r s

i t y

C o l

l e g e o f T e c h n o

l o g y , H

u m a n

R e s o u r c e D e v e l o p m e n t f o r

H i g h e r

E d u c a t

i o n a n d

I n d u s t r y

h t t p :

/ / t e c

h n o l o g y . i n d s t a t e . e d u / h r

d /

N o n e

N o r t h

C a r o l

i n a

S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n

h t t p :

/ / c e d . n

c s u . e d u /

l p a h e /

N o n e

N o r t h e a s t e r n

I l l i n o i s

U n i v e r s i t y

H u m a n

R e s o u r c e

D e v e l o p m e n t ,

G r a

d u a t e P r o g r a m

h t t p :

/ / w w w . n e

i u . e

d u / ~ h r d / g p r o g o v .

h t m

# T o p

% 2 0 o f

% 2 0 P a g e

N o n e

O h i o

S t a t e U n i v e r s

i t y

H u m a n

D e v e l o p m e n t a n d

F a m

i l y

S c i e n c e

G r a d u a t e

S t u d

i e s

h t t p :

/ / h d f s g r a

d . o s u . e d u /

1 1 0 9 5 . c f m

G e n e r a l s y s t e m s t h e o r y

( 8 , 8

0 4 c r e d

i t s )

O k l a h o m a

S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y

S c h o o l

o f E d u c a t

i o n a

l S t u

d i e s

h t t p :

/ / e d u c a t i o n . o k s t a t e . e d u /

i n d e x . p h p /

g r a d u a t e - s

t u d i e s - p

h d

N o n e

P e n n s y

l v a n i a S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n

h t t p :

/ / w w w . e d . p

s u . e

d u / e d u c /

w o r

k f o r c e - e

d / m a s t e r s

/ h u m a n - r e s o u r c e -

d e v e l o p m e n t - o r g a n

i z a t i o n -

d e v e l o p m e n t -

m a s t e r s

N o n e

( c o n t i n u e

d )



26/35

76


i t y

C o l l e g e /

d e p a r t m e n t

W e b p a g e

S t a n


S T & T

P e n n s y

l v a n i a S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y - H

a r r i s

b u r g

S c h o o l

o f B e h a v i o r a

l S c i e n c e s a n

d

E d u c a t

i o n

h t t p :

/ / h b g

. p s u . e

d u / d e p a r t m e n t s / b s e

d /

t r d e v / c u r r

i c u l u m . h

t m

N o n e

P i t t s

b u r g S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y


T e c h n o

l o g y

M a n a g e m e n t ,

H u m a n

R e s o u r c e


h t t p :

/ / w w w . p i t t s t a t e . e

d u / o f f i c e /

r e g i s t r a r

/ c a t a l o g /

2 0 0 9

- 2 0 1 1 /

T e c h n o

l o g y a n

d W o r

k f o r c e

L e a r n

i n g C o u r s e s . h

t m

N o n e

T e x a s A

& M

U n i v e r i s t y

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n a n

d H u m a n


/ D e p a r t m e n t o

f

E d u c a t

i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n

d

H u m a n

R e s o u r c e


h t t p :

/ / e a h r . t a m u . e d u /

N o n e

T o w s o n U n i v e r s

i t y

C o l

l e g e o f L

i b e r a l

A r t s

h t t p :

/ / g r a

d . t o w s o n . e d u / p r o g r a m / m a s t e r /

h u r

d - h r d g

- m s / i n d e x . a s

p

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

A r k a n s a s

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n a n

d H e a

l t h

P r o f e s s i o n s

h t t p :

/ / c o e

h p . u

a r k . e d u /

9 3 0 9

. p h p

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

C o n n e c t i c u t

N e a g

S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n

h t t p :

/ / w w w . g r a d . u

c o n n . e

d u / f i e l d s

_ d i s c

.

h t m

l # e d u c a t

i o n

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

G e o r g

i a

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n ,

L i f e l o n g

E d u c a t

i o n , A

d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n

d

P o l i c y

h t t p :

/ / a r c

h i v e . c o

e . u g a . e

d u / l e a p / a d u l t e

d /

h r o

d / m e d . h

t m l

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

H o u s t o n


H u m a n

D e v e l o p m e n t a n

d C o n s u m e r

S c i e n c e s

h t t p :

/ / w w w . t e c h . u

h . e d u /

P r o g r a m s /

H u m a n

_ R e s o u r c e s

/ M S_ i n

_ H R D /

C o u r s e_

S e q u e n c e

/

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

I l l i n o i s a t

U r b a n a - C

h a m p a

i g n

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n ,

H u m a n

R e s o u r c e E

d u c a t i o n

h t t p :

/ / e d u c a t i o n .

i l l i n o

i s . e d u /

h r e / p r o g r a m s /

m a s t e r s . h

t m

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

L o u i s v

i l l e

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n a n

d H u m a n


h t t p :

/ / l o u

i s v i l l e

. e d u / e d u c a t i o n / d e g r e e s /

m s -

h r e .

h t m

l

N o n e

A p p e n

d i x

( c o n

t i n u e

d )

( c o n t i n u e

d )



27/35

77


i t y

C o l l e g e /

d e p a r t m e n t

W e b p a g e

S t a n


S T & T

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

M i n n e s o t a

C o l

l e g e o f E

d u c a t i o n

+ H u m a n


h t t p :

/ / w w w . c e

h d . u

m n . e d u / o l p d / g r a

d -

p r o g r a m s / H

R D /

H R D 5 1 0 4 s y s t e m s

f o u n

d a t i o n s o f

H R D ( 1 c r

)

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

N e v a d a

L a s V e g a s

E d u c a t

i o n a l

L e a d e r s h

i p

h t t p :

/ / e d u c a t i o n . u n

l v . e d u / e d

l / p r o g r a m s .

h t m

l

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

N o r t h

T e x a s

C o l

l e g e o f I n

f o r m a t

i o n ,

D e p a r t m e n t

o f L e a r n i n g

T e c h n o

l o g i e s

h t t p :

/ / l t . u n t . e

d u / c o u r s e s . h

t m l

N o n e

U n i v e r s

i t y o f

S o u t

h e r n

M i s s i s s i p p i


E c o n o m

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alex-rivera
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory

Documents