Importance and Key Contribution
Humans Resource Development (HRD) shares similarities with many new and emerging sub-disciplines in business and management research. Some of these sub-disciplines include public relations, event management, hospitality and tourism and some aspects of marketing. Similarities include relatively low status afforded to academic research in these sub-disciplines when compared to longer established disciplines and sub-disciplines such as economics, finance, accounting, strategic management and organisation behaviour/analysis. To some extent, the sub-discipline of ethics and associated subjects such as corporate social responsibility and sustainable development are closer to HRD and similar subjects than to economics for example. The contribution of this paper is to provide an evidence based investigation of the academic standing of research in HRD through an empirical analysis of submission of HRD related research in the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF 2014). Its importance lies in the relevance and implications of the analysis to subjects and sub-disciplines similar to HRD, and an exploration of implications for individual academics, subject based academic networks, journal publishers and editors and managers of university schools of business and management, especially those responsible for research strategy and activities. While focused on a single sub-discipline and a single country, the paper will be of wider discipline and geographic relevance and interest, given the growing world market for management education.
Theoretical Base
There is no single theoretical position underpinning the paper. The key concepts of relevance are first associated with the notion of peer review, the impact of research evaluations on academic careers, the significance of journal ranking lists and the role of ‘group think’ in managerial decision making in higher education.
Research Questions
The research project aimed to address a number of questions as detailed below. Most were fully answered by the available data published on the REF 2014 website. Addressing the final question turned out to be difficult because of promised cooperation from a key informant not being met. As indicated above, the questions refer exclusively to UK academic research. Unit of Assessment and UoA 19 refer to nomenclature used by and in the REF 2014 process.
o How many universities submitting to the Business and Management Unit of Assessment (UoA 19) included HRD related outputs;
o How many HRD researchers in total were submitted;
o How many HRD related outputs in total were submitted;
o What was the breakdown in types of outputs (e.g. % books, book chapters, journal articles);
o Which were the most common outlets for HRD related outputs (e.g. journal titles).
o How many HRD impact case studies were submitted;
o What was the nature and focus of the case studies;
o What are the perceptions of REF UoA 19 sub-panel members regarding the state and status of HRD in the 2014 REF.?
The paper will provide an account of the methods used to answer these questions. This will include justifications of the meanings used to define ‘HRD’, ‘outputs’ and ‘HRD related outputs’. The process of accessing and interrogating the REF 2014 database (REF 2014 a, Results & Submissions, Unit of Analysis 19 - Business & Management Studies; REF 2014 b, Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 16-26; REF 2014 c, Sub-panel 19 collated minutes) will also be described and justified, as well as that of making allocation decisions on the relevance of outputs to the various categories constructed prior to the data analysis.
Findings (if relevant)
There is not space in this abstract to provide the full range of findings. However, they provide a comprehensive explanation of the REF 2014 process and its application in schools of business and management in UK universities. They also include summary answers in the form of descriptive statistics to the research questions regarding HRD related material included as part of submissions from UK universities to the REF 2014 Business and Management Unit of Assessment. These answers where relevant are compared to the full and total results of submissions to that unit (Pidd and Broadbent, 2015). For example, 101 universities submitted to the Unit of which 90 (90%) included HRD related research. There was a total of 12,202 outputs submitted of which 538 (4.4%) were HRD related. These actual numbers and proportions may be considered disappointing or encouraging depending on a prior expectations and comparisons with other disciplines and subjects. The same applies to the analysis of use of HRD specialist journals; for example, over 30% of HRD related outputs were in the ‘other’ category of journal disciplines as defined by their title, and 3% of HRD related outputs were published in journals with the term HRD in their title. Again, these results can be perceived as disappointing or encouraging. A key factor influencing that perception is the role of journal ranking lists in influencing decisions of academics in placing their research. The key list in the UK is the Chartered Association of Business Schools’ Combined Journal Guide. The role of this list among other factors influencing decision making by individual academics and academic managers is explored in the discussion of the findings.
Implications
Implications for various stakeholders are explored in the paper. These stakeholders are early career researchers, research mentors, research managers, heads of schools of business and management and journal editors and publishers. Implications include targeting publication locations for personal research, advising on and guiding academic careers, preparation and decisions making related to national research evaluation exercises, the utility of journal ranking lists and influencing the composition and rankings applied in such lists. Recommendations for future research will also be included.
References
Pidd M & Broadbent J (2015) Business and Management Studies in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework British Journal of Management, Vol. 26, 569–581
REF (2014 a) Results & Submissions, Unit of Analysis 19 - Business & Management Studies http://results.ref.ac.uk/Results/ByUoa/19 (last accessed 18 October 2015)
REF (2014 b) Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 16-26 http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/expanel/member/Main%20Panel%20C%20overview%20report.pdf (last accessed 18 October 2015)
REF (2014 c) Sub-panel 19 collated minutes
