WEIRD and Beyond: Sample Diversity and Reporting Practices in Empirical Human Resource Development Research

Building on concerns about the overreliance on Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) populations in social science research, this study examines who empirical human resource development (HRD) studies published in journals of the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) investigate and how research samples and their contexts are reported, using a 2016–2025 census of 326 empirical articles (338 sample units) in Human Resource Development Quarterly and Human Resource Development International , the two AHRD-affiliated journals that carry empirical research. Using a framework that spans individual, organizational, and sociogeographical contexts, the analysis revealed persistent concentration in particular research populations within this AHRD-affiliated corpus. Managerial perspective samples (68.0%) dominated, white-collar samples (75.4%) far outnumbered blue-collar samples (1.8%), disabilities (0.9%) and sexual orientation (1.5%) were rarely reported, and large-scale organizations (48.2%) outnumbered small and medium-sized enterprises (8.3%). Studies drawing on WEIRD-country data (55.0%) and single-country designs (82.8%) dominated, and cultural context was often merely identified by geographic location (31.7%) rather than linked to findings. A latent class analysis identifies four bias configurations, led by a Western Managerial class (54.1%) and a Non-Western Large Corporate-Managerial class (15.4%), revealing considerable large-firm and managerial concentration even in non-Western studies. Although sampling methods were reported in 95.0% of studies, convenience and purposive sampling accounted for 73.4%, and 87.6% of all analyzed sample units omitted two or more key contextual variables. These findings suggest that concerns about research sample diversity extend beyond the WEIRD distinction to occupational and organizational contexts, while limited contextual reporting further constrains the interpretation and transferability of findings. By examining both sample diversity and reporting practices, this study highlights broader challenges for developing inclusive and contextually grounded knowledge in HRD and other applied social sciences.