Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on a Forum for HRD initiative to proactively engage with HRD practitioners to develop “new commons” in the research‐practice nexus. Researchers joined a community of UK university HRD practitioners, negotiated a research project mapping the terrain of HRD practice, explored how research informed these are and identified future practice relevant HRD research.

The research process is described as grounded in relationship building and collaboration. Researchers utilized qualitative research methods to develop small‐scale empirical research and explore HRD practice in four case study universities and the UK Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Findings are presented in the following themes: organizational approaches to HRD; underpinning philosophies and interventions as research informed and contracting and evaluating external providers and identifies opportunities to develop new commons between theory and practice via collaborative partnerships between the Forum for HRD and UK university HRD practitioners.

Future empirical research which is practice relevant is necessary in the area of evaluation of non‐accredited HRD interventions, the challenges of developing leadership and management in UK HE and the HRD research‐practice nexus.

The paper has valuable implications for bridging the space between HRD research and practice; it surfaces the practitioners' “lack of voice” within the profession and field of HRD and the lack of opportunities for the development of individual HRD practitioners.

The link between practice and theory within universities should be more developed, as HRD academics, a theoretical resource, are also “clients” of a University's HRD approach in practice. The research highlights how the reverse is the case, with the link between theory and practice under developed.

SEPTEMBER is the month when, Summer being irrevocably over, our minds turn to library activities for the winter. At the time of writing the international situation is however so uncertain that few have the power to concentrate on schemes or on any work other than that of the moment. There is an immediate placidity which may be deceptive, and this is superficial even so far as libraries are concerned. In almost every town members of library staffs are pledged to the hilt to various forms of national service—A.R.P. being the main occupation of senior men and Territorial and other military services occupying the younger. We know of librarians who have been ear‐marked as food‐controllers, fuel controllers, zone controllers of communication centres and one, grimly enough, is to be registrar of civilian deaths. Then every town is doing something to preserve its library treasures, we hope. In this connexion the valuable little ninepenny pamphlet issued by the British Museum on libraries and museums in war should be studied. In most libraries the destruction of the stock would not be disastrous in any extreme way. We do not deny that it would be rather costly in labour and time to build it up again. There would, however, be great loss if all the Local Collections were to disappear and if the accession books and catalogues were destroyed.