For the past several years, we have debated the difference between traditional HRD practitioners and HRD scholar-practitioners; yet, we have failed to reach a consensus. This debate will continue until we examine and resolve three issues. First, we will never be able to distinguish between these groups until we discover why these groups behave the way they do. Second, research will continue to be avoided by traditional HRD practitioners until they understand that it is a fundamental process of all HRD activity. Once they understand this, they will embrace research as a tool to improve their organizations and enhance their credibility. Third, this debate will continue until the HRD academic community understands that they contribute to the problem by advocating that research is a mysterious and complex activity that only academically trained people can participate in and understand. In addition, the HRD academic community reinforces this belief by using symbols and language, qualitative jargon and statistics, to prevent dialogue that enables others to fully understand and appreciate the benefits of research, thus avoiding research altogether. Many in the HRD academic community also view research as an end in itself rather than embracing research as a process for making informed decisions within organizations.
Differences Between Traditional HRD Practitioners and HRD Scholar-Practitioners
The differences between traditional HRD practitioners and HRD scholarpractitioners may be found in the assumptions and beliefs that these different groups hold about HRD. In other words, what is each group' s respective philosophy of HRD, and how does it affect their behaviors and actions?
Many traditional HRD practitioners spend much of their time conducting workshops, seminars, meetings, and conferences and designing classroombased training events. Consequently, many view training as an end in itself. Management reinforces this belief when it does not use HRD as a strategic tool