Altering the paradigm for theory building and research in human resource development

Abstract Organizational life is messy, complex, and characterized by multiple causes and effects. It consists also of routine operations in which predictable cause‐and‐effect relationships prevail. What paradigms (unified perspectives that underlie practice, theory building, and research) are correct for studying organizational life, especially human resource development? Many theorists in HRD and other areas are reevaluating the ways in which they explain phenomena. In effect, the paradigms are shifting. Victoria Marsick explains for HRD professionals the traditional paradigm—logical positivism (better known as behaviorism or stimulus‐response theory)—and alternative paradigms, especially naturalistic inquiry (often illustrated by systems thinking, cybernetics, and the organization described as the brain center). She poses the ultimate question: What is more important for HRD—rigor or relevance? Marsick suggests a focus for HRD on paradigms that place a higher value on the effective interpretation of multiple realities, self‐organizing systems for learning that are linked to performance, and the interconnectivity of a learning, working community. Reality is an evolving plan, despite researchers' programmed attempts at predicting and controlling it.